Today’s News 13th January 2022

• The Age Of Intolerance: Cancel Culture's War On Free Speech
  The Age Of Intolerance: Cancel Culture’s War On Free Speech

  Authored by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.”

  – George Carlin

  Cancel culture – political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance – has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance, policed by techno-censors, social media bullies, and government watchdogs.

  

  Everything is now fair game for censorship if it can be construed as hateful, hurtful, bigoted or offensive provided that it runs counter to the established viewpoint.

  In this way, the most controversial issues of our day—race, religion, sex, sexuality, politics, science, health, government corruption, police brutality, etc.—have become battlegrounds for those who claim to believe in freedom of speech but only when it favors the views and positions they support.

  “Free speech for me but not for thee” is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard.

  This tendency to censor, silence, delete, label as “hateful,” and demonize viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite is being embraced with a near-fanatical zealotry by a cult-like establishment that values conformity and group-think over individuality.

  For instance, are you skeptical about the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines? Do you have concerns about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election? Do you subscribe to religious beliefs that shape your views on sexuality, marriage and gender? Do you, deliberately or inadvertently, engage in misgendering (identifying a person’s gender incorrectly) or deadnaming (using the wrong pronouns or birth name for a transgender person)?

  Say yes to any of those questions and then dare to voice those views in anything louder than a whisper and you might find yourself suspended on Twitter, shut out of Facebook, and banned across various social media platforms.

  This authoritarian intolerance masquerading as tolerance, civility and love (what comedian George Carlin referred to as “fascism pretending to be manners”) is the end result of a politically correct culture that has become radicalized, institutionalized and tyrannical.

  In the past few years, for example, prominent social media voices have been censored, silenced and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram for voicing ideas that were deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.

  Most recently, Twitter suspended conservative podcaster Matt Walsh for violating its hate speech policy by sharing his views about transgendered individuals. “The greatest female Jeopardy champion of all time is a man. The top female college swimmer is a man. The first female four star admiral in the Public Health Service is a man. Men have dominated female high school track and the female MMA circuit. The patriarchy wins in the end,” Walsh tweeted on Dec. 30, 2021.

  J.K. Rowling, author of the popular Harry Potter series, has found herself denounced as transphobic and widely shunned for daring to criticize efforts by transgender activists to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender. Rowling’s essay explaining her views is a powerful, articulate, well-researched piece that not only stresses the importance of free speech and women’s rights while denouncing efforts by trans activists to demonize those who subscribe to “wrongthink,” but also recognizes that while the struggle over gender dysmorphia is real, concerns about safeguarding natal women and girls from abuse are also legitimate.

  Ironically enough, Rowling’s shunning included literal book burning. Yet as Ray Bradbury once warned, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

  Indeed, the First Amendment is going up in flames before our eyes, but those first sparks were lit long ago and have been fed by intolerance all along the political spectrum.

  Consider some of the kinds of speech being targeted for censorship or outright elimination.

  • Offensive, politically incorrect and “unsafe” speech: Political correctness has resulted in the chilling of free speech and a growing hostility to those who exercise their rights to speak freely. Where this has become painfully evident is on college campuses, which have become hotbeds of student-led censorship, trigger warnings, microaggressions, and “red light” speech policies targeting anything that might cause someone to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or offended.

  • Bullying, intimidating speech: Warning that “school bullies become tomorrow’s hate crimes defendants,” the Justice Department has led the way in urging schools to curtail bullying, going so far as to classify “teasing” as a form of “bullying,” and “rude” or “hurtful” “text messages” as “cyberbullying.”

  • Hateful speech: Hate speech—speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation—is the primary candidate for online censorship. Corporate internet giants Google, Twitter and Facebook continue to re-define what kinds of speech will be permitted online and what will be deleted.

  • Dangerous, anti-government speech: As part of its ongoing war on “extremism,” the government has partnered with the tech industry to counter online “propaganda” by terrorists hoping to recruit support or plan attacks. In this way, anyone who criticizes the government online can be considered an extremist and will have their content reported to government agencies for further investigation or deleted. In fact, the Justice Department is planning to form a new domestic terrorism unit to ferret out individuals “who seek to commit violent criminal acts in furtherance of domestic social or political goals.” What this will mean is more surveillance, more pre-crime programs, and more targeting of individuals whose speech may qualify as “dangerous.”

  The upshot of all of this editing, parsing, banning and silencing is the emergence of a new language, what George Orwell referred to as Newspeak, which places the power to control language in the hands of the totalitarian state.

  Under such a system, language becomes a weapon to change the way people think by changing the words they use.

  The end result is mind control and a sleepwalking populace.

  In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used.

  In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind lest they find themselves ostracized or placed under surveillance.

  Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

  The social shunning favored by activists and corporations borrows heavily from the mind control tactics used by authoritarian cults as a means of controlling its members. As Dr. Steven Hassan writes in Psychology Today: “By ordering members to be cut off, they can no longer participate. Information and sharing of thoughts, feelings, and experiences are stifled. Thought-stopping and use of loaded terms keep a person constrained into a black-and-white, all-or-nothing world. This controls members through fear and guilt.”

  This mind control can take many forms, but the end result is an enslaved, compliant populace incapable of challenging tyranny.

  As Rod Serling, creator of The Twilight Zone, once observed, “We’re developing a new citizenry, one that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won’t be able to think.”

  The problem as I see it is that we’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. And we’ve bought into the idea that we need the government and its corporate partners to shield us from that which is ugly or upsetting or mean. The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.

  In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive, polarized populace incapable of working through our own problems and reliant on the government to protect us from our fears.

  As Nat Hentoff, that inveterate champion of the First Amendment, once observed, “The quintessential difference between a free nation, as we profess to be, and a totalitarian state, is that here everyone, including a foe of democracy, has the right to speak his mind.”

  What this means is opening the door to more speech not less, even if that speech is offensive to some.

  Understanding that freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society, James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

  We haven’t done ourselves—or the nation—any favors by becoming so fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful or closed-minded that we’ve eliminated words, phrases and symbols from public discourse.

  We have allowed our fears—fear for our safety, fear of each other, fear of being labeled racist or hateful or prejudiced, etc.—to trump our freedom of speech and muzzle us far more effectively than any government edict could.

  Ultimately the war on free speech—and that’s exactly what it is: a war being waged by Americans against other Americans—is a war that is driven by fear.

  By bottling up dissent, we have created a pressure cooker of stifled misery and discontent that is now bubbling over and fomenting even more hate, distrust and paranoia among portions of the populace.

  By muzzling free speech, we are contributing to a growing underclass of Americans who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

  The First Amendment is a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve to release the pressure, frustration builds, anger grows, and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

  Be warned: whatever we tolerate now—whatever we turn a blind eye to—whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.

  Eventually, “we the people” will be the ones in the crosshairs.

  At some point or another, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes “hate” or “extremism, “we the people” might all be considered guilty of some thought crime or other.

  When that time comes, there may be no one left to speak out or speak up in our defense.

  After all, it’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth. Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

  We are on a fast-moving trajectory.

  In other words, whatever powers you allow the government and its corporate operatives to claim now, for the sake of the greater good or because you like or trust those in charge, will eventually be abused and used against you by tyrants of your own making.

  This is the tyranny of the majority against the minority marching in lockstep with technofascism.

  If Americans don’t vociferously defend the right of a minority of one to subscribe to, let alone voice, ideas and opinions that may be offensive, hateful, intolerant or merely different, then we’re going to soon find that we have no rights whatsoever (to speak, assemble, agree, disagree, protest, opt in, opt out, or forge our own paths as individuals).

  No matter what our numbers might be, no matter what our views might be, no matter what party we might belong to, it will not be long before “we the people” constitute a powerless minority in the eyes of a power-fueled fascist state driven to maintain its power at all costs.

  We are almost at that point now.

  Free speech is no longer free.

  On paper—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—we are technically free to speak.

  In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow.

  The steady, pervasive censorship creep that is being inflicted on us by corporate tech giants with the blessing of the powers-that-be threatens to bring about a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

  Orwell intended 1984 as a warning. Instead, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it is being used as a dystopian instruction manual for socially engineering a populace that is compliant, conformist and obedient to Big Brother.

  The police state could not ask for a better citizenry than one that carries out its own censorship, spying and policing.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 23:40

• "We Failed": Danish Newspaper Apologizes For Publishing Official COVID Narratives Without Questioning Them
  “We Failed”: Danish Newspaper Apologizes For Publishing Official COVID Narratives Without Questioning Them

  In August, Germany’s top newspaper, Bild, apologized for the outlet’s fear-driven Covid coverage – with special message to children, who were told “that they were going to murder their grandma.”

  Now, a newspaper in Denmark has publicly apologized for reporting government narratives surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic without questioning them.

  

  “We failed,” reads the article’s headline from tabloid Ekstra Bladet, which goes on to admit that “For ALMOST two years, we – the press and the population – have been almost hypnotically preoccupied with the authorities’ daily coronavirus figures. “(translated).

  Whoa https://t.co/QPMsFxnal6

  — Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) January 12, 2022

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

  Read the rest below:

  WE HAVE STARED at the oscillations of the number pendulum when it came to infected, hospitalized and died with corona. And we have been given the significance of the pendulum’s smallest movements laid out by experts, politicians and authorities, who have constantly warned us about the dormant corona monster under our beds. A monster just waiting for us to fall asleep so it can strike in the gloom and darkness of the night.

  THE CONSTANT mental alertness has worn out tremendously on all of us. That is why we – the press – must also take stock of our own efforts. And we have failed.

  WE HAVE NOT been vigilant enough at the garden gate when the authorities were required to answer what it actually meant that people are hospitalized with corona and not because of corona. Because it makes a difference. A big difference. Exactly, the official hospitalization numbers have been shown to be 27 percent higher than the actual figure for how many there are in the hospital, simply because they have corona. We only know that now.

  OF COURSE, it is first and foremost the authorities who are responsible for informing the population correctly, accurately and honestly. The figures for how many are sick and died of corona should, for obvious reasons, have been published long ago, so we got the clearest picture of the monster under the bed.

  IN ALL, the messages of the authorities and politicians to the people in this historic crisis leave much to be desired. And therefore they lie as they have ridden when parts of the population lose confidence in them.

  ANOTHER example: The vaccines are consistently referred to as our ‘superweapon’. And our hospitals are called ‘superhospitals’. Nevertheless, these super-hospitals are apparently maximally pressured, even though almost the entire population is armed with a super-weapon. Even children have been vaccinated on a huge scale, which has not been done in our neighboring countries.

  IN OTHER WORDS, there is something here that does not deserve the term ‘super’. Whether it’s the vaccines, the hospitals, or a mixture of it all, is every man’s bid. But at least the authorities’ communication to the population in no way deserves the term ‘super’. On the contrary.

  *  *  *

  Will other news outlets have the journalistic integrity to follow suit? Perhaps CNN’s ratings wouldn’t be down 90% from last year in the key 25-to-54 demographic if they simply owned up to their complicity in breathlessly spewing government propaganda.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 23:20

• China Seals People's Doors, Xi'an Residents Cry For Food
  China Seals People’s Doors, Xi’an Residents Cry For Food

  By Nicole Hao of the Epoch Times,

  The Chinese regime sealed residents’ homes in Xi’an on Jan. 8, but didn’t arrange for a reliable food supply, residents say. After being locked down for almost three weeks, they are lacking in food and on the edge of mental breakdown.

  

  The Chinese regime has claimed the COVID-19 outbreak in Xi’an has been under control since Jan. 5. However, the regime upgraded the control measures and Xi’an residents still can’t leave their homes even on Jan. 11.

  “I had never been diagnosed with COVID-19. Why did they seal my door?” Cai Jiaying (pseudonym), a resident at Rongshang Compound, Changyanbao Community, Yanta district in Xi’an, told the Chinese-language edition of The Epoch Times on Jan. 9. “Our residential compound has been locked down for 21 days. … In the beginning [of the lockdown], I consoled myself. I was disappointed days later, and then felt hopeless and despair. This morning, I went crazy.”

  Cai said that she and her husband had only bought a little food successfully in the past three weeks, and didn’t know when they could buy some more.

  “I’m worried that we won’t have anything to eat soon. We don’t dare to fill our stomachs. We go to bed after a meal at 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. every afternoon. We sleep more to save food,” Cai said. She said that the family only had a small bowl of rice, 11 pounds of wheat flour, seven cups of instant noodles, one bamboo shoot, and a little bit of meat at home. “The food can feed us for at most one week.”

  Other Xi’an residents told The Epoch Times similar stories in phone interviews.

  

  Continued Lockdown

  On Jan. 11, Xi’an authorities announced that nine communities in the city were downgraded to low-risk regions where people have few chances to contact COVID-19 patients, and 44 others still remained high-risk or medium-risk regions.

  The regime didn’t mention how many communities there were in the city, nor details of the lockdown policies in different risk regions.

  On Jan. 10, local authorities announced another standard to divide the city, called “Closed Zone,” “Controlled Zone,” and “Prevention Zone.” In general, residents in closed zones aren’t allowed to leave their homes no matter how healthy they are or how urgent their need to go out.

  The regime said that zones could be downgraded if no resident in the zone was infected with the CCP virus or had contact with COVID-19 patients in the past 14 days, and all residents tested negative within 48 hours.

  

  Livelihood in Xi’an

  Being locked down at home or in a dorm, Xi’an residents are suffering.

  “We don’t know how to obtain food [after the regime sealed our home’s door]. We only have a few cabbage leaves at home,” Xu Qianru (pseudonym), a resident at Changyanbao community in Yanta district told the Chinese-language edition of The Epoch Times on Jan. 9. “We kept on calling the residential compound’s management company, but nobody answered the phone.”

  Xu’s apartment was sealed by the management company on the evening of Jan. 8. She learned from her neighbors that all apartments in the compound were sealed. “Several thousand families in our compound are sealed at home like us … Our lives are really difficult,” Xu added.

  “We had eaten all our stock [in the past weeks during the lockdown], and we can’t buy anything. Do you [Xi’an officials] want the over ten thousand residents [in the compound] to die of starvation?” Yang Hai, a resident of Hengdacheng at Dazhai road, Yanta district, complained in a video posted on social media platforms on Jan. 8.

  The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, commonly known as novel coronavirus, is the virus that causes the disease COVID-19.

  Yang shared photos of the residential compound, which showed that the regime locked the doors of the residential unit by using iron wires and sealed the apartment doors by using paper.

  “Do you [officials] treat us, the people, like animals?” Yang criticized. “We can’t receive any materials [food] after the doors are sealed!”

  College students in Xi’an have been locked down in dorms since late December last year, and aren’t allowed to leave the building, not to mention go home even though some of their homes are in the city.

  “We have six ladies sharing one room … We stay in our twin-over-twin bunk beds for most of the time during the day,” Fu Hua (pseudonym) told the Chinese-language edition of The Epoch Times on Jan. 8. “We study different majors and have different class schedules. [Since the lockdown began,] we take online classes at the dorm, and we can’t avoid interfering with each other.”

  Fu said that she felt frustrated about the lockdown. She would even prefer to be sent to a quarantine center for 14 days if the regime would allow her to go home after the quarantine.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 23:00

• Cannabis Compounds Block COVID-19 From Entering Body, Study Finds
  Cannabis Compounds Block COVID-19 From Entering Body, Study Finds

  New research found cannabis compounds, cannabigerolic acid (CBGA) and cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), can block the ceullar entry of COVID-19 and emerging variants from infecting human cells. 

  Richard van Breemen at Oregon State’s Global Hemp Innovation Center in the College of Pharmacy and Linus Pauling Institute discovered the pair of cannabinoid acids (CBGA & CBDA) binds to the COVID-19 spike protein, blocking the critical step the virus needs to infect people. 

  

  “Our research showed the hemp compounds were equally effective against variants of SARS-CoV-2, including variant B.1.1.7, which was first detected in the United Kingdom, and variant B.1.351, first detected in South Africa,” van Breemen said.

  “Orally bioavailable and with a long history of safe human use, these cannabinoids, isolated or in hemp extracts, have the potential to prevent as well as treat infection by SARS-CoV-2.

  “CBDA and CBGA are produced by the hemp plant as precursors to CBD and CBG, which are familiar to many consumers. However, they are different from the acids and are not contained in hemp products,” he said.

  Don’t plan on rolling a joint or packing a bong full of cannabis like Cheech & Chong would, rather researchers said, “these compounds can be taken orally and have a long history of safe use in humans.” 

  “The benefit for preventing viral infection of cells must come from cannabinoid acids, which are heat sensitive and must not be smoked, or it would convert them to CBD and so forth,” van Breemen said. “So that wouldn’t work for the antiviral effect.”

  The findings were published in the Journal of Natural Products on Monday. 

  Besides cannabis, other therapeutics may help people combat the infection. Just yesterday, Project Veritas leaked military documents that show DARPA supports Ivermectin as a COVID treatment. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 22:40

• Cop Who Killed Ashli Babbitt Was Cleared Of Criminal Wrongdoing Without Interview
  Cop Who Killed Ashli Babbitt Was Cleared Of Criminal Wrongdoing Without Interview

  Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClearInvestigations,

  When U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd went on “NBC Nightly News” to tell his side of shooting and killing unarmed Jan. 6 rioter Ashli Babbitt, he made a point to note he’d been investigated by several agencies and exonerated for his actions that day.

  “There’s an investigative process [and] I was cleared by the DOJ [Department of Justice], and FBI and [the D.C.] Metropolitan Police,” he told NBC News anchor Lester Holt in August, adding that the Capitol Police also cleared him of wrongdoing and decided not to discipline or demote him for the shooting.

  

  Above, Lt. Michael Byrd, the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt, told NBC News he gave fair warning, but under penalty of perjury he refused to say anything to investigators.

  Byrd then answered a series of questions by Holt about the shooting, but what he told the friendly journalist, he likely never told investigators. That’s because he refused to answer their questions, according to several sources and documents reviewed by RealClearInvestigations.

  

  Ashli Babbitt: Her family calls the rushed Byrd investigation a “whitewash” and a “coverup” of misconduct by the officer.  Maryland MVA/Calvert County Sheriff’s Office/AP

  In fact, investigators cleared Byrd of wrongdoing in the shooting without actually interviewing him about the shooting or threatening him with punishment if he did not cooperate with their criminal investigation.

  “He didn’t provide any statement to [criminal] investigators and they didn’t push him to make a statement,” Babbitt family attorney Terry Roberts said in an RCI interview. “It’s astonishing how skimpy his investigative file is.”

  Roberts, who has spoken with the D.C. MPD detective assigned to the case, said the kid-glove treatment of Byrd raises suspicions the investigation was a “whitewash.”

  The lawyer’s account appears to be backed up by a January 2021 internal affairs report, which notes Byrd “declined to provide a statement,” D.C. MPD documents show.

  

  Terry Roberts, Babbitt family attorney:  “It’s astonishing how skimpy his investigative file is.” Roberts & Wood

  Asked about it, a D.C. MPD spokeswoman confirmed that Byrd did not cooperate with internal affairs agents or FBI agents, who jointly investigated what was one of the most high-profile officer-involved shooting cases in U.S. history.

  “MPD did not formally interview Lt. Byrd,” deputy D.C. MPD communications director Kristen Metzger said. And, “He didn’t give a statement while under the U.S. Attorney’s Office investigation.”

  

  Lt. Michael Byrd: Pistol drawn in the House chamber just before the Babbitt shooting. Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg News

  After Byrd declined to cooperate with D.C MPD Internal Affairs Division’s investigation, which was led by Det. John Hendrick, his case eventually was turned over to the USCP for a final administrative review of whether or not his actions conformed with department policies and training.

  Still, USCP concluded in August that “the officer’s conduct was lawful and within department policy.” The agency launched its administrative investigation after the criminal investigation was closed.

  In April, within four months of the shooting, Byrd was cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the Justice Department, which declined to impanel a grand jury to hear evidence in a departure from other lethal police-shooting cases involving unarmed citizens.

  

  Taking deadly aim: Byrd was cleared after refusing to answer investigators’ questions. nbcsandiego.com

  Justice ruled there “was not enough evidence” to conclude Byrd violated Babbitt’s civil rights or willfully acted recklessly in shooting her. 

  Byrd remains the commander in charge of security for the House of Representatives.

  Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department would comment on whether they pressed Byrd after he insisted on remaining silent. The D.C. police force, which shares some jurisdiction with the Capitol Police, takes the lead in internal affairs probes like this one.

  Roberts questioned how investigators could find that Byrd acted in self-defense and properly followed his training procedures, including issuing warnings before shooting Babbitt, since he refused to talk about it while the investigation was open — and his statements, unlike those made to NBC, would have been taken under penalty of perjury. “How would they know if they never interviewed him?” he said, adding that it’s not enough to say an officer did nothing wrong without showing how it reached such a finding.

  

  Troy Nehls, Texas Republican and former sheriff: “Many officers in the USCP I have spoken to believe the investigations of Lt. Boyd were dropped because of his position and other political considerations.” nehls.house.gov

  By avoiding an interrogation, he said Byrd avoided saying anything that could have been used to incriminate him, including making false statements to federal agents, which would be a felony. Remarkably, he did not formally invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, according to people familiar with his case, which makes the reluctance of authorities to lean on him or sanction him for not cooperating all the more puzzling. By law, federal agencies can use leverage short of termination, such as an unwelcome duty reassignment, to persuade employees to cooperate with investigators. Byrd was put on paid administrative leave during the investigative process.

  Byrd waited to speak publicly until after his statements could no longer be used against him in a criminal probe. The heavily promoted NBC “exclusive” told only his account of what happened with no opposing viewpoints. “I believe I showed the utmost courage on Jan. 6,” Byrd said.

  In defending his actions, Byrd told Holt things he evidently wouldn’t tell investigators, including his claim that he shot as “a last resort” and only after warning Babbitt to stop.

  However, documents uncovered by Judicial Watch reveal that eyewitnesses — including three police officers at the scene — told investigators they did not hear Byrd give Babbitt any verbal warnings prior to firing, contradicting what Byrd told NBC.

  The Babbitt family has maintained that the rushed investigation amounted to a “coverup” of misconduct by the officer. It says the federal probe was conducted under political pressure, arguing that Byrd was not put through the normal rigors of a police shooting investigation to avoid making a martyr of Babbitt, an avid Donald Trump supporter. An Air Force veteran from California, Babbitt died while wearing a Trump flag as a cape. The former president has demanded the Justice Department reinvestigate her death.

  Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas, a former sheriff, argued Babbitt’s shooting should have been presented to a federal grand jury. “This case was mishandled from the very beginning,” the Republican lawmaker told the U.S. attorney who led the probe for the Justice Department in a recent letter. In a separate letter to the Capitol Police chief, Nehls wrote: “Many officers in the USCP I have spoken to believe the investigations of Lt. Boyd were dropped because of his position and other political considerations.”

  Use-of-Force Experts Skeptical

  Some use-of-force experts are skeptical Byrd did the right thing, even after watching his largely sympathetic NBC interview.

  “The limited public information that exists raises serious questions about the propriety of Byrd’s decision to shoot, especially with regard to the assessment that Babbitt was an imminent threat,” said police consultants and criminologists Geoffrey Alpert, Jeff Noble and Seth Stoughton in a recent Lawfare article.

  “We have serious reservations about the propriety of the shooting,” they wrote.

  They said they doubted Byrd’s claims that he reasonably believed Babbitt “was posing a threat” and had the ability and intention to kill or seriously injure Byrd or other officers or lawmakers and therefore had to be stopped with lethal force. They noted that he admitted to Holt that he never actually saw Babbitt, who stood 5-foot-2 and weighed 110 pounds, brandish a weapon.

  Babbitt was shot by Byrd a year ago when she and other pro-Trump rioters breached the Capitol amid efforts to stop Congress from certifying the state results of the 2020 election of Joe Biden. They sought to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject electors from Arizona and other states, where narrow results were challenged by Trump and his lawyers over allegations of voter fraud and other election irregularities.

  Roberts and the Babbitt family are preparing to sue Byrd and the Capitol Police in a wrongful-death claim seeking at least $10 million in damages. Asked why his client chose not to go on the record and cooperate with investigators, Byrd’s attorney, Mark Schamel, declined comment. In an earlier interview, Schamel maintained the shooting was justified and that there is no basis for a civil case against his client.

  The federal investigation of the lethal shooting was marked by secrecy and other irregularities. Unlike other officers involved in fatal shootings of unarmed civilians, Byrd was long shielded from public scrutiny after shooting Babbitt as she tried to climb through a broken window of a barricaded door at the Capitol. For eight months D.C. police officials withheld Byrd’s identity, first revealed by RealClearInvestigations, and they have not released a formal review of the shooting, or the 28-year veteran’s disciplinary records. Nor did the Capitol Police hold a briefing on Babbitt’s death. Records uncovered by Judicial Watch reveal authorities ordered her body cremated two days after the shooting, without her husband’s permission.

  

  No Babbitt probe yet: Chairman Bennie Thompson, left, with Republicans Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger. AP/Scott Applewhite

  Meanwhile, the feds have thrown the book at suspected Jan. 6 rioters — publicly identifying them on a Justice Department website — and are still engaged in a national manhunt for suspects. More than 725 defendants have been charged mostly for relatively minor offenses ranging from trespassing to disorderly conduct.

  So far, the select House committee set up to investigate the Jan. 6 siege at the Capitol has not explored the most lethal violence that occurred that day. Byrd was responsible for the only shot fired during the riot – all other armed officers showed restraint, including 140 who were injured confronting rioters — and Babbitt was the only person directly killed on that day. Like the other rioters, she carried no firearm — no guns were recovered from the Capitol.

  Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., has pledged to “investigate fully the facts and circumstances of these events.” Asked if the police shooting is on the agenda for public hearings planned for this winter, or whether it will be addressed in a final report scheduled for release before November’s congressional elections, a committee spokesman declined comment. Trump and GOP leaders have accused the panel, which is composed of seven Democrats and two Republicans, of trying to damage pro-Trump Republicans ahead of the midterms by claiming they helped orchestrate an “insurrection” and continue to pose “a threat to democracy.”

  ‘Point-Blank Range’

  Unlike in a criminal investigation, there is no right to remain silent in a civil case. Wrongful-death litigation claiming negligence may hinge on whether Byrd warned Babbitt before opening fire on her.

  Roberts said Babbitt, a former military police officer who served tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, would have complied with commands to stop and peacefully surrendered had Byrd or other Capitol officers attempted to arrest her. But he said additional eyewitnesses he’s interviewed say Byrd never gave her such verbal commands. He said Babbitt wasn’t even aware that the officer was nearby because he was positioned in a doorway of a room off to the side of the Speaker’s Lobby doors. Byrd, whose mouth was covered with a surgical mask, took aim outside her field of vision and fired as her head emerged through the window. Roberts compared her shooting to an “execution.”

  “Killing her by shooting her at point-blank range was completely unnecessary,” he said.

  “This alone renders the shooting legally unjustified.”

  Roberts pointed out that Byrd had mishandled his firearm in the past. He was the subject of a previous internal investigation for leaving his loaded service pistol in a Capitol restroom. It’s not clear if he was disciplined. At the time, the lieutenant reportedly told officers he would not be punished due to his high rank, which he kept despite the incident. But in the NBC interview, he said he was “penalized” for the 2019 misstep, without elaborating. A USCP spokeswoman declined to respond to repeated requests for information about any discipline administered for his misconduct.

  Byrd could not be reached for comment, but in the NBC interview he denied receiving special treatment. “Of course not,” he said. “No way.”

  Before filing a lawsuit naming a federal agency, Roberts has to send a formal complaint for a claim for “damage, injury or death” — known as a federal form SF-95 — to USCP and wait for a response. He sent the notice in May and is still waiting for the Capitol Police to reply.

  “We have received the SF-95 from Ms. Babbitt’s family attorney,” USCP General Counsel Tad DiBiase confirmed to RCI in an email. He declined to say how the department plans to respond: “I cannot comment on that.”

  In the meantime, Roberts said he is interviewing witnesses and also building a case from documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act.

  “I am still reviewing records obtained in FOIA action and there are more coming,” he said. “I am in no rush.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 22:20

• Desperate For More Recruits, Army Offers $50,000 Signing Bonus
  Desperate For More Recruits, Army Offers $50,000 Signing Bonus

  Two years into the pandemic, and now with Department of Defense-wide vaccine mandates threatening early discharge for all troops not in compliance, the US Army is struggling to meet its enlistment quotas, especially for jobs deemed “critical” and highly skilled, for which the military typically spends a lot – sometimes millions – for training.  

  To lure new recruits, the Army is rolling out with its maximum enlistment bonus of $50,000 – to be offered on a broader scale for all “highly skilled” recruits who agree to sign a six year contract, according to the Associated Press. 

  Aside from the likelihood that many young people are surely turned off to the prospect of enduring already rigorous boot camp and training in a mask and other social distancing practices, military recruiters say they had a tough past couple years during rolling school closures and restricted campuses, due to pandemic shutdowns and distance learning.

  

  In addition, youth sporting events are typically places where recruiters are present, but these have also been sporadically halted. Recruiters say the current spike in the Omicron variant is also playing a role in keeping interested people away, and increasing numbers of 18- or 19-year-olds are opting to take a ‘gap year’ off before they decide on either college or military service. 

  “We are still living the implications of 2020 and the onset of COVID, when the school systems basically shut down,” the chief of Army Recruiting Command, Maj. Gen. Kevin Vereen, told AP. “We lost a full class of young men and women that we didn’t have contact with, face-to-face.”

  “We’re in a competitive market,” Vereen added. “How we incentivize is absolutely essential, and that is absolutely something that we know that is important to trying to get somebody to come and join the military.” Up to this point, the maximum the Army offered for the top jobs which are highly skilled has been $40,000. But not everyone qualifies for the top-tier bonuses. Among careers that can come with the big signing bonus on a six-year contract include: 

  • Signals intelligence analyst
  • Special Forces units
  • Fire control specialists overseeing advanced weapons
  • Cryptologic Linguist 
  • Human intelligence collector

  Many of the above, particularly special forces and intel-related positions, also including highly technical jobs, require special tests and successful passage of special training programs.

  Meanwhile, Secretary Austin has been purging the unvaccinated from the U.S. military.

  The Army to discharge nearly 3,000 soldiers… More than 200 Marines separated for refusing the vaccine — many over religious objections. https://t.co/iZRIFhweVx

  — Roger D. Hudson (@RogerHudsonCO) January 3, 2022

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

  The report indicates that February through May typically see the lowest numbers of the year in terms of attracting new recruits, even in pre-pandemic times. The Army being able to advertise a full $50,000 signing bonus is intended to reverse the expected tougher than normal coming season.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 22:00

• Army Special Forces To Fight in 'Realistic' Guerrilla War Exercise Across Rural North And South Carolina
  Army Special Forces To Fight in ‘Realistic’ Guerrilla War Exercise Across Rural North And South Carolina

  Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Army Special Forces candidates will fight in a “realistic” guerrilla war across counties in rural North and South Carolina later this month, with young soldiers battling seasoned “freedom fighters,” the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School said in a news release cited by local media.

  

  The training exercise is known as “Robin Sage” after Col. Jerry Michael Sage, an Office of Strategic Services (OSS) operative who was captured by the Nazis and attempted to escape more than 15 times before succeeding. The exercise has been conducted since 1974.

  It serves as a “final test for soldiers in the Special Forces Qualification Course and has been the litmus test for Soldiers striving to earn the Green Beret for more than 50 years” officials said on Facebook.

  This year, the “unconventional warfare exercise” will be held between Jan. 22 and Feb. 4 with students from the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg.

  It will see soldiers placed in an “environment of political instability characterized by armed conflict” known as “Pineland” where they will need to analyze and solve problems to meet the challenges of this “real-world” training.

  In an effort to be as realistic as possible, the exercise will include the sounds of gunfire and flares.

  However, “controls are in place to ensure there is no risk to persons or property. Residents with concerns should contact local law enforcement officials, who will immediately contact exercise control officials,” Fort Bragg officials said.

  

  The Army has also written formal notifications regarding the training exercise to the chiefs of law enforcement agencies in the affected counties and will be conducting a follow-up visit with a unit representative.

  “All civilian and non-student military participants are also briefed on procedures to follow if there is contact with law enforcement officials,” officials said.

  Students participating in the training will “only wear civilian clothes if the situation warrants, as determined by the instructors,” otherwise, they will be wearing a “distinctive brown armband” and the training areas and vehicles that are used in the exercise will also be clearly labeled.

  “Residents with concerns should contact local law enforcement officials, who will immediately contact exercise control officials. … For the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, safety is always the command’s top priority during all training events,” officials said.

  The training exercise will be conducted on private lands across the North Carolina counties of Alamance, Anson, Bladen, Brunswick, Cabarrus, Chatham, Columbus, Cumberland, Davidson, Guilford, Harnett, Hoke, Lee, Montgomery, Moore, New Hanover, Randolph, Richmond, Robeson, Rowan, Sampson, Scotland, Stanly, Union, and Wake.

  It will also take part in Chesterfield, Dillon, and Marlboro counties in South Carolina but the exact times, specific locations, and other exercise specifics are not provided.

  The advance public notice comes after a previous 2002 training exercise saw Deputy Sheriff Randall Butler fatally shoot one soldier, 1st Lt. Tallas Tomeny, and wound another, Staff Sgt. Stephen Phelps, after mistakenly believing they might be searching for robbery targets.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 21:40

• COVID Deaths Jump 40% As US Continues To See More Than 1 Million Cases A Day
  COVID Deaths Jump 40% As US Continues To See More Than 1 Million Cases A Day

  Deaths involving patients with COVID increased by 40% over the past week, according to the CDC. But as it happens, almost all of the deaths reported involve patients infected with delta, not the omicron variant which is now responsible for nearly all COVID cases.

  On average, the US reported about 1,600 cases a day last week, up from about 1,150 the week before, said CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky.

  The US has continued to report more than 1 million cases a day, according to Johns Hopkins, with a record-breaking 1.35 million reported yesterday alone.

  

  Walensky, who spoke during a White House COVID Response Team briefing, said she believes these deaths are just “left over” fatalities from the delta wave – nothing to worry about.

  Of course, there’s no way the CDC can truly know this for certain. The government’s COVID policies are mostly just grasping at straws. Though they would never admit that.

  So, why is it so hard to believe that delta alone is accounting for these deaths? Well, for one, the government believes the omicron variant accounts for 98.3% of all new cases.

  Public health officials will monitor “deaths over the next several weeks to see the impact of omicron on mortality,” Walenksy said during the briefing. “Given the sheer number of cases, we may see deaths from omicron, but I suspect the deaths we’re seeing now are still from delta.”

  Of course, while Walensky delivered the news with her characteristic alarmism, we feel it’s important to take a beat and put it all in context. See the chart below:

  

  Deaths are nowhere near the highs from last winter.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 21:20

• Fact-Checking Fauci's Testimony: "The Trouble Is That His Financials Are NOT Available"
  Fact-Checking Fauci’s Testimony: “The Trouble Is That His Financials Are NOT Available”

  By Adam Andrzejewski, Founder and CEO, OpenTheBooks.com

  Dr. Anthony Fauci was questioned under oath by U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS). It was a heated exchange regarding Fauci’s income and financial and conflict disclosures. We are proud that our investigation into Fauci’s big salary published in our column at Forbes led the discussion. Please watch the exchange here.

  Dr. Fauci was very thin skinned and acted like he has a lot to hide. For example, Fauci — on a hot mic — called the senator a “moron.”

  Consider Fauci’s comments while under oath:

  • First, Fauci said, “My financial disclosure is public knowledge and has been so for the last 37 years or so the last 35 years.”
  • Then, Fauci said, “All you have to do is ask for it. You’re so misinformed, all you have to do is ask for it. “
  • Speaking for a third time, Fauci said, “What are you talking about? My financial disclosures are public knowledge and have been so. You’re getting amazingly wrong information.”

  The trouble with Dr. Fauci is that his financials are NOT available. We’ve SUED Fauci and his agency for the information.

  We immediately answered Dr. Fauci’s misstatements on The National Desk aired by Sinclair Broadcast Group (a Fortune 500 company) and owners of 190 ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX stations across America…

  We’ve sued Dr. Fauci and his agency for his contract (amendments, changes, modifications), conflict and financial disclosures, job description, and royalty payments. 

  There is A LOT at stake: Fauci and his agency are producing up to 2,500 pages of information subject to our case. However, they are slow-walking production… Production will NOT start until February 1st!

  Furthermore, we estimate that the Fauci household annual income from federal agencies and entities is between $900,000 and $1 million per year. (Fauci’s wife is the chief bio-ethicist at National Institutes of Health!)

  We’ll know for sure once we finally get the production from the lawsuit.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 21:00

• Mad Cow Disease Case Prompts China To Halt Canadian Beef Imports
  Mad Cow Disease Case Prompts China To Halt Canadian Beef Imports

  China, South Korea, and the Philippines have suspended imports of Canadian beef following a case of mad cow disease, according to Bloomberg. 

  The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association reported Tuesday that China and the other Asian countries decided to halt beef imports after one “atypical” bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) case was discovered in an Alberta farm last month. BSE, also known as mad cow disease, is a deadly neurodegenerative disease of cattle that spreads to humans through diseased meat (though atypical BSE poses no health risk to humans). 

  

  Canadian Food Inspection Agency said the cow was euthanized on the spot, and there appears to be no evidence as of yet that atypical BSE has spread. 

  “I wouldn’t say it’s surprising, though we were hoping this wouldn’t happen,” said Dennis Laycraft, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association executive director. 

  “We’re hopeful that these will be very short in duration, but it’s a foreign regulator that you’re dealing with, in different time zones and different languages,” Laycraft said. 

  China imports approximately $170 million of Canadian beef annually, making it the third-largest global market. South Korea imports $90 million per year and the Philippines around $13 million. 

  The detection of atypical BSE is the first time in six years. In the US, BSE was detected as recently as 2018. 

  In September, several US trade groups warned about BSE cases in Brazil. For three months, China and the Philippines suspended beef imports from the South American country. 

  The Canadian beef industry could be in for a world of hurt as some of its top exporting markets impose trading bans. A supply glut may build, and beef prices may sink on the prospects there’s no timeline on when Asian markets will reopen. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 20:40

• New Year Brings New All-Time High For Shipping's Epic Traffic Jam
  New Year Brings New All-Time High For Shipping’s Epic Traffic Jam

  By Greg Miller of FreightWaves,

  America made it through Christmas without too many bare shelves, despite historic port congestion. Goods were brought in early and shoppers shopped early. Holiday sales were up 11% from 2019, pre-COVID.

  

  Consumer fears of a holiday shortage appear to have spiked in October, then pulled back as concerns lessened. 

  Google searches for the term “port congestion” were up 376% from the beginning of 2021 in the second week of October. Searches for the term “supply chain” peaked in the third week of October, up 194% from the beginning of last year. Searches for both terms then faded back to normal in November.

  

  Supply chain pressures are trending in the opposite direction of Google searches. The holiday rush may be over, but the offshore traffic jam of container ships is still getting worse, and the volume of inventory on the water (thus unavailable for sale) is still increasing.  

  As 2022 begins, import volumes remain very strong ahead of China’s Lunar New Year holiday, concerns are mounting about omicron-induced dockworker shortages at U.S. terminals, and the number of container ships waiting for berths in Southern California has — yet again — hit a new high.

  Ships waiting off SoCal triple

  A record 105 container ships were waiting for berths in Los Angeles and Long Beach on Thursday and Friday, according to data from the Marine Exchange of Southern California.

  On Thursday, only 16 were in port waters (within 40 miles of Los Angeles and Long Beach) and 89 were loitering or slow steaming outside the newly designated Safety and Air Quality Zone, which extends 150 miles to the west of the ports and 50 miles to the north and south. Ship-positioning data from MarineTraffic confirms that most of these vessels are off the Baja peninsula.

  

  There were more than three times as many container ships waiting for LA/LB berths as there were at the same time last year, 11.6 times more than on June 24 (the low point for last year), and 31% more than on Oct. 24, when online searches for the term “supply chain” peaked and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach announced a new Biden administration-backed congestion fee plan.

  Because ships vary widely in size, a more telling indicator than the number of ships is total capacity of vessels in the queue. The vessels waiting for LA/LB berths on Thursday (including container ships and general cargo ships with containers aboard) had an aggregate capacity of 815,958 twenty-foot equivalent units, according to Marine Exchange data.

  To put that in perspective, that is 6% higher than the combined imports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in the entire month of November. It is 9% higher that the capacity of ships waiting offshore at the end of November (745,305 TEUs) and 28% higher than capacity off LA/LB at the beginning of November (637,329 TEUs).

  Ships waiting off other ports

  It’s not just about LA/LB.

  In Northern California, the port of Oakland experienced heavy congestion in Q2 2021, after which queues disappeared when carriers slashed services. But services are being added back and anchorages are refilling. As of midday Friday, MarineTraffic data showed eight container ships anchored in San Francisco Bay and one more loitering in the Pacific.

  An additional four container ships were waiting for berths in Seattle/Tacoma in the Pacific Northwest. And over on the Gulf Coast, five container ships were anchored or loitering off the shores of Houston.

  

  On the East Coast, the queue off Savannah, Georgia — which at one point last year reached 30 ships, second only to LA/LB’s — was down to just two container vessels. However, queues have grown to the north. There were six ships waiting off Charleston, South Carolina, and an additional four waiting off Virginia.

  The ports of New York and New Jersey are now home to the largest queue on the East Coast. As of Friday, MarineTraffic data showed 11 container ships offshore, bringing the grand total waiting for berths along all three U.S. coastlines to 146.

  

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 20:20

• Industry 4.0: What Manufacturing Looks Like In The Digital Era
  Industry 4.0: What Manufacturing Looks Like In The Digital Era

  It might sound futuristic, but the Fourth Industrial Revolution – also known as Industry 4.0 – has already begun.

  Following the Industrial Revolution’s steam power, electrification in the 1800s, and the Digital Revolution of the late 20th century, Visual Capitalist’s Omri Wallach details below how Industry 4.0’s innovative smart technology is unlocking the next steps in automation.

  So what does the next major evolution of manufacturing look like? This graphic from ASE Global breaks down the rollout of Industry 4.0, from increased robotization to lights-out manufacturing.

  

  The Basics of Industry 4.0

  Each industrial revolution has built on what came before, incorporating new technologies and knowledge of manufacturing. Industry 4.0 has four core principles paving the way:

  1. Interconnection: Machines, devices, sensors, and people in the manufacturing process all connecting and communicating with each other.

  2. Information transparency: Comprehensive data and information being collected from all points in the manufacturing process, allowing for more informed decisions.

  3. Technical assistance: Improved technological facility of systems assisting humans in decision-making, problem-solving, and difficult or unsafe tasks.

  4. Decentralized decisions: Cyber physical systems that are able to make decisions on their own and perform tasks autonomously.

  Combining these principles is what makes the ongoing Fourth Industrial Revolution unique. Much of the underlying technology has been available for decades, including robotics and networks, but properly using them together unlocks a massive stride in manufacturing capabilities.

  Already, the market size for Industry 4.0 specific technology was estimated to be $116.1 billion in 2021. By 2028, it’s projected to grow almost three times to $337.1 billion, with core components leading the way.

  These technologies are already being rolled out in smart factories around the globe, and the most robust and up-to-date versions are being used to unlock the next evolution: lights-out manufacturing.

  What is Lights-Out Manufacturing?

  Where traditional factories and even smart factories require some direct human interaction, true lights-out factories operate completely autonomously.

  Though it might sound like a dream, lights-out factories are fully automated, 24/7 factories with no on-floor human presence. And they already exist in the modern world.

  Japanese robotics designer FANUC has been using robots to build themselves in a lights-out factory for 20 years, and even electronics company Philips uses 128 robots in a lights-out manufacturing line to produce electric razors.

  One industry that uses lights-out manufacturing extensively is semiconductor manufacturing. ASE Global, the world’s leading provider of semiconductor manufacturing services in assembly and test, used 18 completely automated factories in 2020 alone.

  Unlocking Lights-Out Factories

  Different businesses and industries will be able to utilize Industry 4.0 technologies in different capacities, and lights-out manufacturing is no different.

  Though incorporating fully autonomous factories can unlock huge potential, there are also significant challenges to first overcome.

  Which industries will implement lights-out manufacturing? New robot installations in 2019 show that the automotive, electronics, and metal and machinery sectors are unsurprisingly leading the way in Industry 4.0 implementation.

  The Industry 4.0 Snowball Rollout

  As 4.0 technology improves and costs decrease, the implementation of lights-out capabilities is expected to surge.

  A global survey of businesses for their 2025 production plans show that 17% are anticipating having completely lights-out manufacturing, while 79% of manufacturing will be human-driven but digitally-augmented to some degree.

  And like other industrial revolutions before, the technological rollout quickly creates a snowball effect that speeds its growth:

  • Demand increases for cyber physical systems and smart machines.

  • The supply of smart-capable machines with semiconductors increases.

  • Bigger and more robust networks of machines are assembled.

  • Improved capabilities further increase demand.

  Many industries are capable of benefiting from 5G, IoT, and more robust usage of data and machines in some way. The question of when your sector will see Industry 4.0 is either sooner than you think, or it has already begun.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 20:00

• Americans May Finally Be Losing Confidence In The Woke Military
  Americans May Finally Be Losing Confidence In The Woke Military

  Authored by José Niño via The Mises Institute,

  No institution is exempt from the American public’s growing distrust of the federal government. Even the military, which has traditionally enjoyed broad support from Americans of all political stripes, is now seeing its otherwise pristine image take a hit.

  

  According to a survey the Ronald Reagan Institute recently published, trust in the military has plummeted precipitously. Perpetual wars and the ongoing “woke” experimentation taking place within the military have made the public significantly jaded about the military. Ironically, the mainstream Right has grown more hostile toward it.

  Fox News host Tucker Carlson has made it part of his routine to ridicule the American military’s latest efforts to implement culturally leftist policies. Other right-wing pundits have piled on in lambasting America’s woke military, showcasing a remarkable decline in the American Right’s trust in America’s armed forces.

  Such scenarios would have been almost unheard of in the early aughts. The Bush era was a time when it was common to see conservatives donning decals and bumper stickers that read “If You Can’t Stand Behind Our Troops Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.”

  Those sentiments have completely reversed in the era of the “Great Awokening,” when virtually all entities—public and private—have been enveloped by the diversity, inclusion, and equity mania. As a result, entities like big business and the military, which the American Right usually holds in high esteem, are now the objects of ridicule and derision.

  If there is one thing the current political realignment has taught us, it is that political coalitions are not as permanent as we think. Similar trends are playing out in real time. The liberal Left is defending the intelligence community and even pushing their narratives in various regime change efforts abroad. This lies in stark contrast to the Vietnam War–era Left, which vociferously called out the intelligence community and broader military apparatus. The times sure have changed.

  Some people may lament this, but the US military has functioned as a blunt instrument for bellicose politicians and parasitic interest groups such as defense contractors. With few exceptions, the tasks the military has carried out in the past century have precious little to do with defense.

  If the Right were serious about effecting change and not assuming its predictable role as a false opposition to the Left, it would start by redirecting its attention toward state defense forces and militias. These defense bodies serve a useful function and defend a given state’s territory. State governments like Florida and Oklahoma are already moving in their own directions to reassert the power of state defense units.

  This is a more worthwhile endeavor than the present military worship. After all, we’re dealing with an American state that is openly embracing the culturally radical leftist fads such as Black Lives Matter, which will be invariably exported abroad—through soft- and hard-power means—due to the missionary nature of American foreign policy.

  Truth be told, the road to bringing about a modicum of sanity to our present system will not be linear, and it will be filled with rough patches along the way. It will ultimately require people to be willing to part ways with institutions they previously held in high esteem.

  One could make the case that the military had a legitimate function in previous periods of American history marked by more restrained governance, but those eras have long passed. Now the military is a blunt instrument used to realize the geopolitical fantasies of a parasitic foreign policy class that faces little to no consequences for its misdeeds. As if the military’s role in serving as a battering ram for a decadent ruling class weren’t enough, its becoming a laboratory for woke social experiments should make any sane person strongly reconsider their blind attachment to the armed forces.

  The military’s woke drift is as tragic farcical as it gets, but there’s always a silver lining. People are now realizing that there’s nothing special about the military. In fact, it can be just as vulnerable to the cultural blight that’s become rampant throughout the West. Plus, the military’s degradation should disabuse people of the wrongheaded idea that there will be a return to “normal.”

  To move forward and avoid falling into the proverbial kitchen of civilizational decline, sacred cows must be slaughtered. The military will be one of those golden calves that must be put out to pasture.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 19:40

• COVID's Ability-To-Infect Plunges 90% After 20 Minutes In The Air; New Study Shows
  COVID’s Ability-To-Infect Plunges 90% After 20 Minutes In The Air; New Study Shows

  One recent study found that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID and its many variants, actually isn’t as infectious as “the science” – and, more importantly, the government authorities like Dr. Anthony Fauci – would like the public to believe.

  Offering yet another example of how lingering in enclosed spaces doesn’t dramatically increase an individual’s risk of contracting COVID, Coronavirus loses 90% of its ability to infect us within 20 minutes of becoming airborne – with most of the loss occurring within the first five minutes, the world’s first simulations of how the virus survives in exhaled air suggest.

  

  Professor Jonathan Reid, director of the University of Bristol’s Aerosol Research Center and the lead author of this study, explained why lingering in poorly ventilated spaces isn’t as risky as scientists would have us believe.

  Most of this decline in viral infectiousness was gleaned from a study whose authors described it as the world’s first simulations of how the virus survives in exhaled air suggest.

  Interestingly, this means that ventilation, once thought to be the most effective way to ignore the physical distancing and mask-wearing likely to be the most effective means of preventing infection. Ventilation, though still worthwhile, is likely to have a lesser impact.

  “People have been focused on poorly ventilated spaces and thinking about airborne transmission over metres or across a room. I’m not saying that doesn’t happen, but I think still the greatest risk of exposure is when you’re close to someone,” Dr. Reid said. “When you move further away, not only is the aerosol diluted down, there’s also less infectious virus because the virus has lost infectivity [as a result of time].”

  This latest study completely contradicts previous research conducted by scientists in the US, which purported to show that particles containing the virus that causes COVID could still be found lingering in the air.

  Here’s more from the Guardian and Dr. Reid.

  Until now, our assumptions about how long the virus survives in tiny airborne droplets have been based on studies that involved spraying virus into sealed vessels called Goldberg drums, which rotate to keep the droplets airborne. Using this method, US researchers found that infectious virus could still be detected after three hours. Yet such experiments do not accurately replicate what happens when we cough or breathe. Instead, researchers from the University of Bristol developed apparatus that allowed them to generate any number of tiny, virus-containing particles and gently levitate them between two electric rings for anywhere between five seconds to 20 minutes, while tightly controlling the temperature, humidity and UV light intensity of their surroundings. “This is the first time anyone has been able to actually simulate what happens to the aerosol during the exhalation process,” Reid said.

  Here’s an illustration courtesy of the Guardian purporting to show how the experiment worked.

  

  Source: the Guardian

  Another iconoclastic finding from the study: the temperature of the air made no difference to viral infectivity, contradicting the widely held belief that viral transmission is lower at higher temperatures. This would seem to contradict the seasonality of the virus, a pattern that has held for the last two winters.

  The study hasn’t yet been peer reviewed, but we imagine scientists will be quick to scrutinize its findings – particularly the findings that contradict the research conducted by other research.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 19:20

• The Progressive Logic Of 'Build Back Better'… And Its Dangers
  The Progressive Logic Of ‘Build Back Better’… And Its Dangers

  Authored by Charles Lipson via RealClearPolitics.com,

  “Build Back Better” is far more consequential than the earlier COVID relief packages. That’s why Democrats are so angry at those who blocked its passage and so determined to push it forward.

  Why is BBB more important than the COVID legislation? Because pandemic relief was essentially a massive stimulus program, with the usual smorgasbord of treats for favored groups, but little more than that. Although BBB is also a massive stimulus, its real importance lies in the permanent entitlement programs it would launch, everything from universal pre-K and Medicare expansion to mandated paid leave from private employers.

  

  Those are major building blocks in the Democrats’ long-term plan to construct a full-fledged social-welfare state along European lines. Achieving that ambitious, transformational goal — while making irreversible changes in how America governs itself — is why the party is fighting so hard and why the left is so furious about the Senate stalemate, personified by West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, a Democrat who refuses to go along, either to pass the bill or eliminate the filibuster to pass President Biden’s non-budget initiatives.

  Enacting these massive, new entitlements is one reason the House bill is rightly called “progressive.” The second, equally important reason is that nearly all Democrats, except Manchin and his Arizona colleague Kyrsten Sinema, are willing to break the Senate’s longstanding rules and procedures to achieve their desired outcome. This determination to override traditional governing procedures and the institutions that embody them has been a hallmark of capital-P Progressivism since Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette came roaring into the Senate in 1906.

  By 1912, Theodore Roosevelt was running for president as the Progressive Party nominee. Woodrow Wilson, the man who gained the Oval Office by TR’s third-party candidacy, had embraced progressivism while a professor (and later college president) at Princeton. Wilson and progressive public intellectuals such as Herbert Croly explained their rationale far more candidly than their political descendants do. The Constitution, they rightly noted, encumbered our national government with its enumerated powers, decentralized federalism, multiple veto points for any new policies, and strong protections for private property, contracts, and minority-party rights. Progressives argued that those restraints may have been fine for the 18th and 19th centuries but not for the 20th, which needed a far more active state.

  Although 21st century progressives are uncomfortably standing in Woodrow Wilson’s shadow on account of his racial policies, their basic contention is the same: The “old” Constitution is outmoded. Its restrictions stand in the way of a more powerful, activist, centralized government.

  Creating that government is what progressive legal scholars mean when they advocate for  a “living Constitution,” which achieves desired outcomes by ignoring restraints in the “old Constitution.” They have largely succeeded. Progressives have gradually remodeled America’s government, beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. During FDR’s first term in the White House, the Supreme Court ruled that most of those programs violated the Constitution. Roosevelt found that intolerable and on the heels of his 1936 landslide reelection, threatened to expand the court and pack it with pro-New Deal justices. The blowback caused FDR to retreat, but the mere threat helped achieved his desired results. Sitting justices began approving his programs or retiring, replaced by FDR’s nominees. It proved to be an inflection point for the high court and for American government. Since then, the Supreme Court has successively loosened the old Constitutional restrictions and approved major accretions to centralized power, much of it located in Washington bureaucracies. Whether the current court, with its conservative majority, will continue to do so is one reason nominations are now so hotly contested. The fight is over fundamental issues.

  Washington’s centralized power, substantially engorged by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, is how America is governed today, less by statutes and more by executive diktat and bureaucratic rules, which are enforced and adjudicated mainly by the very agencies that promulgate them. Congress now sees its role mainly as overseeing those agencies. It’s not very good at it.

  This centralized administrative state with its expansive powers is why Washington bureaucracies presume they have the authority to require private businesses with over 100 employees to fire workers who refuse COVID vaccinations. It is why the Department of Education can demand private universities comply with a vast range of federal rules and regulations if any of their students or faculty receive federal loans or grants (as all universities do, except Hillsdale). It is why Washington bureaucrats can tell K-12 schools what kind of lunches to serve, a task once handled solely by local school boards and seized from them without any congressional debate.

  Washington money means Washington rules. Those regulations go well beyond statutory laws or constitutional protections against discrimination. They have suppressed the Constitution’s basic federal structure and gradually erased the line between “public” and “private” enterprises. This web of centralized control and bureaucratic rules has “progressively” usurped control over most aspects of American public and private life, making civil society subordinate to the administrative state.

  Expanding this centralized state and endowing it with still more cradle-to-grave programs is the main aim of Build Back Better. Achieving that won’t be easy because the Democrats didn’t run on that platform and didn’t win enough votes to enact it. Joe Biden won mainly because he wasn’t Donald Trump, because he promised to return the country to normality after four turbulent years and outlined a vague center-left agenda to do it.

  Those promises went out the window after Biden took office. The window opened wider when Democrats captured Georgia’s two Senate seats in runoff elections. Those victories in early January cost the Republicans control of the upper chamber. Since Democrats already controlled the House, just barely, they now held both branches of Congress, as well as the White House. Only the Supreme Court was beyond their grasp, and they are threatening to take it, too, by going where even Franklin Roosevelt dared not tread. Nonetheless, the Georgia victories gave the incoming Biden team an opportunity, and they seized it. They opted, in their words, to “fundamentally transform America.” What they failed to acknowledge was that Biden was in a far weaker position to do that than Roosevelt in 1936 or Johnson in 1964. Those presidents carried overwhelming majorities into the White House and Congress. Biden did not. His position was weak at the beginning and has gone downhill ever since.

  It’s not surprising, then, that the White House has such trouble passing Build Back Better. What’s seems odd is that Biden has refused to change course. He is still hellbent on passing an ambitious, left-wing agenda. The budgetary elements can pass the Senate with a simple majority under budget reconciliation rules. But that requires the support of all 50 Democrats since Republicans are united in opposition. Vice President Kamala Harris could then break the 50-50 tie and pass the gargantuan bill.

  But Joe Manchin has proved an immovable object, objecting to the legislation’s accounting tricks, the massive deficit it creates, and the fuel it pours onto an overheated economy. Since Biden won less than 30% of the West Virginia vote while losing every single county in the state, he has no leverage over the only Democrat in the state’s congressional delegation.

  Budget reconciliation rules don’t cover all of Biden’s proposals. These additional proposals could be blocked by filibuster, unless the filibuster itself were eliminated. That could be done by a simple majority vote, but it would fundamentally change the Senate by ending its traditional protections for the minority party. That’s why then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused President Trump’s demand to do it. That’s why Democratic Sens. Manchin and Sinema refuse to change the rules now, despite pressure from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

  The debate over the filibuster rule has received a lot of attention, and properly so. So has the flip-flop by Democrats who stoutly defended the rule when they were in the minority. But the real issue here is not Schumer’s blatant hypocrisy. The deeper issue — one that has largely been missed — is how the effort to overturn Senate rules and pass BBB fits so neatly into the larger sweep of progressive politics. That’s not just because Democrats want to permanently expand the social-welfare state and “fundamentally transform America.” It’s also because they are willing to smash venerable institutions and procedural safeguards to do it. The same logic applies to their effort to nationalize election laws. That, too, is probably doomed because of the filibuster. If it did pass, it’s also likely that the Supreme Court would strike it down because the Constitution specifically delegates election lawmaking to state legislatures, with national courts stepping in only to protect individual rights.

  The latest initiatives by Biden, Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi may fail, but they won’t be the progressives’ last hurrah. They’ve been winning for over eight decades and came within two Senate votes of winning this time. They’ll keep trying until voters send them a clear message that the administrative state is already too big, too intrusive, too far removed from control by citizens’ elected representatives. Its continued growth and unchecked power threatens our oldest institutions, our freedoms, and our liberty under law. The voters’ message must be unambiguous: Stop trying to fundamentally transform America. We never asked for it, we don’t want it, and we never gave you permission.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 19:00

• Retail And Hedge Funds Bought The Dip
  Retail And Hedge Funds Bought The Dip

  There was a bit of confusion earlier this week when just as JPMorgan head of global strategy, Marko Kolanovic, was telling one set of bank clients to “buy the dip” (even as his boss Jamie Dimon was predicting a dramatic and risk swoon-inducing tightening in financial conditions, expecting more than 4 rate hikes), another veteran JPMorgan advisor, Bob Michele, who is the asset management group’s fixed-income chief, said just the opposite and urged the bank’s clients to “hide in cash”, warning that the Fed put could be as much as 30% lower in the S&P: “The Fed would let the markets drop much further if their primary concern was battling inflation,” Michele said. “The strike of any put is likely to be declines of 15%–30% in equities, not 2%–3%.”

  And while Michele may well be right, it is now clear that most retail and hedge fund investors agreed with Kolanovic, and rushed to buy the dip both last week around the time of the uberhawkish FOMC Minutes, and in the days following, while institutional investors were actively selling their holdings.

  

  As Bank of America quant Jill Carey Hall wrote overnight, the bank’s clients were “net buyers of US equities the first week of 2022($0.5B), during which the S&P 500 fell 1.9%. Clients bought both ETFs and stocks.”

  

  As she further observes, retail and hedge funds clients led the buying last week even as institutional clients began the year with their biggest weekly outflows since mid-January of last year.

  

  Drilling down, the bank’s clients bought stocks across all three size segments (large/mid/small).

  

  A breakdown of total client activity by sector.

  

  What is notable, and as Goldman recently observed, is that retail clients have typically been aggressive buyers in January while other groups have been sellers. According to Hall, January has been the strongest month, on average, for US equity inflows by BofA clients, and has seen net buying in 10 of the last 14 years.

  This confirms what we reported yesterday, citing JPM quant strategist Peng Cheng, who noted that retail bought $1.07 Billion on Tuesday, the third consecutive day of greater than $1 billion buying; and in the 93rd percentile of all days. Putting this in context, Black Friday net buying was $1.6bn, which was the highest on record.

  And while retail and hedge funds were BTFD, corporations were just as busy waving it in, and according to Bank of America, buybacks by corporate clients began the year strong, above early Jan. levels for the last few years including 2019 (pre-COVID), led by Tech, Health Care and Financials.

  

  Expect more buybacks: they typically accelerate in Jan/Feb during earnings (chart below) after seasonal weakness at year-end – though Dec’21 was stronger than usual (likely pull-forward ahead of potential tax reform risk in 2022), suggesting potentially less of a pick-up.

  

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 18:40

• Capitol Security Officials Working To Identify Officers With Extremist Views
  Capitol Security Officials Working To Identify Officers With Extremist Views

  Authored by Isabel van Brugen via The Epoch Times,

  U.S. Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger and House Sergeant at Arms William Walker are working to identify and root out police officers who might pose “insider threats,” they told lawmakers on Tuesday.

  

  During a hearing before members of the House Appropriations Committee, Walker said that his office has developed an “insider threat awareness program” to identify “insider threats and employees who do lose their compass.”

  “The goal is to have police officers trained as insider threat specialists so we recognize the signs and symptoms and indicators that someone’s allegiance has changed,” Walker said during the House Appropriations subcommittee hearing.

  Walker’s plan comes a year after the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol building, which saw leaders who were in charge of the U.S. Capitol Police on that day ousted following criticism for intelligence and other failures.

  He said his office will brief the full Capitol Police Board, which oversees the department, on the plan in the coming months.

  Manger told lawmakers on Tuesday that he believes “it all begins with the hiring process.”

  Background investigations, polygraphs, and social media investigations will be crucial to ensure those with extremist views aren’t hired, Manger said.

  “After you hire someone, you do need to ensure that you have the kind of checks that are necessary to make sure that there’s not something that has changed in terms of their background,” he said during the hearing.

  “Having really good in-depth investigations to determine if an officer is involved or engaged in some kind of activity that would lead to a question about their loyalty to our mission—that’s important as well to make sure that those investigations are done thoroughly and decisive actions taken on those cases,” Manger added.

  

  U.S. Capitol Police Chief Thom Manger testifies during the Senate Rules and Administration Committee oversight hearing on Jan. 5, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Tom Williams/Pool/Getty Images)

  Experts say the shock of the events that unfolded on Jan. 6 has prompted needed changes, including better communication among Capitol Police, other law enforcement agencies, and the public.

  “It’s a sea change between this year and last year in terms of how the Capitol Police are thinking, and operating,” said Chuck Wexler, the head of the Police Executive Research Forum, an organization that focuses on professionalism in policing.

  “They’re going to be over-prepared, and willing to be criticized for being over-prepared.”

  Manger so far has focused on making major changes to the agency, which includes 1,800 sworn police officers and nearly 400 civilian employees. He’s ordered new equipment for front-line officers and officers assigned to the civil disturbance unit while expanding training sessions with the National Guard and other agencies. He’s also pushed for stronger peer support and mental health services for officers.

  The breach took place during a joint session of Congress when lawmakers met to certify electoral votes submitted by the states. The Capitol grounds and building were breached by protesters and some rioters, some of whom wanted to voice their stance against then-Vice President Mike Pence’s refusal to intervene in the certification process. Thousands of peaceful protesters remained outside.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 18:20

• Are You Ready For $4 Gas Prices This Spring? 
  Are You Ready For $4 Gas Prices This Spring? 

  Americans could be paying as high as $4 per gallon at the pump this spring due to economic recovery and strong demand before relief arrives in the second half of 2022, according to an outlook from GasBuddy.

  Patrick De Haan, GasBuddy head of petroleum analysis, said the national average could peak as high as $4.13 per gallon in June 2022.

  “While Americans are likely to see higher prices in 2022, it’s a sign that the economy continues to recover from COVID-19,” De Haan said. “The higher prices go, the stronger the economy is. No one would love to see $4 per gallon gasoline, but we’ll only get there on the back of a very strong economy, so it’s not necessarily bad news.

  “There remains higher uncertainty than in a non-COVID year, but all signs point to gas prices remaining elevated in 2022 until the high prices attract additional oil supply, which will help prices cool off as we end 2022,” he explained. 

  GasBuddy’s forecast says San Francisco and other California metro areas could see the sharpest price increases at the pump. Prices could reach as much as $5.65 per gallon.  

  The prospect for soaring prices comes as President Biden’s cunning SPR-release plan to ease the pain in Americans’ pocketbooks has backfired. The average cost for gas over the past 20 years is $2.77, which means at $3.288, the president’s price for Americans is 18% above average…

  

  The current US gas prices have never, ever been higher for this time of year… Seasonal trends suggest prices will increase through spring. 

  

  Kyle Bass was right when he said higher prices are coming despite Biden’s SPR release. He predicts prices at the pump could exceed $5. 

  Get ready for explosively higher oil. 7 years of dramatic underinvestment in hydrocarbons fueled by ignorance like this will inevitably generate $100+ crude oil and $5+ prices at the pump for years to come.We all would love to see an overnight transition to alternative energy 1/3 https://t.co/fwJkRZzgQs

  — 🇺🇸Kyle Bass🇺🇸 (@Jkylebass) November 23, 2021

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

  If GasBuddy is right and gasoline prices are set to rise through spring, this could be very problematic for the Biden administration ahead of midterms.

  The dip after the “SPR Release” plan (driven more by Omicron fears than any increase in supply) has been entirely erased and retail gas prices are set to ride the rising trend of wholesale gasoline and crude prices.

  

  What will Biden do now? Who will he blame?

  Biden’s polling numbers have already crapped the bed on rising inflation. 

  

  Republicans have taken the approach to blame the president and Democrats for high inflation eating away wages. With the SPR release a dud, what will the administration try next? 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 18:00

• Ending Fiat Money Won't Destroy The State
  Ending Fiat Money Won’t Destroy The State

  Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

  A certain meme has become popular among advocates of both gold and cryptocurrencies. This is the “Fix the money, fix the world” meme. This slogan is based on the idea that by switching to some commodity money—be it crypto or metal—and abandoning fiat currency, the world will improve greatly. 

  

  Taken in its moderate form, of course, this slogan is indisputably correct. State-controlled money is immoral, dangerous, and impoverishing. It paves the way for government theft of private wealth through the inflation tax, and thus allows the state to do more of what it does best: wage wars, kill, imprison, steal, and enrich the friends of the regime at the expense of everyone else. Privatizing the monetary system and imposing a “separation of money and state” would help limit these activities.

  But it’s also important to not overstate the benefits of taking money out of the hands of the state. The temptation to push the “fix the world” idea to utopian levels is often seen among cryptocurrency maximalists, and among some gold promoters as well.

  For example, at least one bitcoin enthusiast thinks bitcoin will bring “the end of the nation states.” And in one particularly over-the-top paragraph from another bitcoin promoter, we’re told that cryptocurrency will essentially cure every ill from poverty to corruption to environmental destruction. 

  The idea that changing to different money will somehow end theft, poverty, or even war is the sort of messianic thinking that would have given old-school Marxists a run for their money.

  Yes, we can all agree that if we “improve the money” we also “improve the world.” But removing the state’s money monopoly won’t make states fold up their tents and slink away in the night. (And, needless to say, simply changing the money won’t make bad food or poverty disappear either.)

  States existed before states took control of the money. And they’ll exist afterward—unless profound ideological changes take place as well.

  States Predate Fiat Money

  In a recent essay for mises.org titled “How Governments Seized Control of Money,” I explored the early history of the European state and the long process of how states gradually asserted control over money and the financial system. Significantly, however, we find that state power grew well before states established anything resembling true monopolies over the monetary system—or the power to create fiat money.

  That is, states long predate the money monopolies they now enjoy. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries—without the benefit of fiat currencies—states created enormous standing armies for the first time. They established mercantilist economies. Many rulers managed to assemble large bureaucracies to serve absolutist states. States were centralized to a degree that had not been seen in Western Europe since the Romans. It was a period of enormous gains in state building for princes and their agents.

  Yet these states could not “print money” nor enjoy the benefits of fiat money except in very short-lived and limited cases. Indeed, this period of immense state growth was also a period of “concurrent” and “parallel” currencies during which a wide variety of gold and silver coins—most of them foreign—competed within the borders of a single state. Many efforts by regimes to issue questionable, debased money failed because there were so many alternatives. But this didn’t stop, say, Louis XIV from hammering together a powerful state.

  So, when we ask ourselves the question, “Can states survive without fiat currency?” the answer is clearly “All experience points to yes.”

  States Can Still Tax without Fiat Money

  The existence and health of the state does not depend on fiat money or monetary inflation. Those things help a state, to be sure, but they’re not critical to the equation. Rather, what really matters is the ability to use the state’s monopoly on the means of coercion to seize resources.

  The great historian of the state Charles Tilly has noted that “no state lasts long” without the ability to engage in “extraction” or “drawing from its subject population the means of statemaking, warmaking, and protection.”1

  “Extraction,” of course, will to most modern readers mean simply “taxation.” But historically it can mean other things as well. States can extract resources by demanding tribute as a payment for the “protection” services a state allegedly provides. This might be payment made by a local government to the central government. States also often own large amounts of land and other property. This means states can extract resources directly through rents, leases, and fees. States also can grant monopolies to nominally “private” organizations which provide both tangible and intangible benefits to the state (this is a common tactic under systems like mercantilism). None of this requires fiat money or a monopoly of the production of money. This all simply requires that states have the coercive force necessary to collect taxes, rents, tribute, and other benefits.

  Some advocates of cryptocurrencies have nonetheless attempted to claim that when the financial system is decentralized through crypto networks states will somehow be unable to tax. This would work if resources took no form other than money. But that’s not the case. Since human beings are physical beings—with needs for food, water, shelter, heating, and more—the state need only concentrate on taxing and monitoring physical goods. This would certainly shift the tax burden from the financial sector to physical assets, but it wouldn’t end the ability to tax.

  Rather, if states find themselves with less access to the monetized economy, states will instead increase taxes on real estate, retail trade, fuel, and hard-to-move physical capital. These states could even require that these payments be made in the state’s preferred money, thus ensuring the continuation of state-controlled money, even if that money is a less preferred money within a competitive framework. Those who refuse to comply would see their assets confiscated at the point of a state-wielded gun.

  War Making: The Key Piece of the Puzzle

  Finally, we must remember why states need to extract all these resources to begin with. One reason, of course, is that resource extraction begets more resource extraction. Once a state has an army of tax collectors and regulators, it’s easier to expand resource extraction even more. Fortunately—from the state’s perspective—this requires only a fraction of total revenues. Moreover, many taxpayers can be counted on to enthusiastically comply. 

  An enormous portion of that revenue—virtually all of it in the days before the modern welfare state—has traditionally gone to what Tilly calls a “state’s essential minimum activities.” These are

  statemaking: attacking and checking competitors and challengers within the territory claimed by the state.

  warmaking: attacking rivals outside the territory already claimed by the state;

  protection: attacking and checking rivals of the rulers’ principal allies, whether inside or outside the state’s claimed territory.

  These activities are the “core competencies” of states, and these activities also constitute—as Rothbard noted—the most high-stakes activities for states. They are high stakes because states that fail to succeed in these activities are generally doomed states. Thus, even if states are forced to scale back their welfare states, they will fight tooth and nail before giving up any of these “minimum activities.“ 

  Historically, of course, states have been able to obtain more than enough when it comes to resource extraction for purposes of war making and ensuring the protection of the their coercive powers. A monopoly over money and fiat currency was never essential to this equation. States have proven to be quite ingenious when it comes to borrowing, threatening, and propagandizing when necessary to carry out wars—whether against foreigners or against a state’s own people. 

  Ideologically, of course, the origins of the state lie largely in the ability of state agents to promise “protection” from both foreign and domestic threats. And so long as the general public believes the state is necessary in this equation, states will continue to be able to demand tax revenues, obedience, and “unity.” If anyone doubts that such ideas are alive and well, one need only speak in favor of splitting the United States into smaller pieces. One is likely to immediately hear about how this must never be allowed to happen because China (or some other bogeyman of the day) poses too grave a threat to American “national interests.” A “strong America” is necessary, we’re told. This “strength,” of course, is funded by taxes. 

  The ideological grip states have over the public in this regard is extremely strong. Unless ideologies change in a big way, most people in the world are likely to continue to look to states to offer protection from various perceived evils. Consequently, separating the state from money won’t fundamentally change the world of geopolitics. It won’t change the fact that many states are immensely popular and regarded by the subject population as important and beneficial. Moreover, age-old sources of conflict will remain. Ethnic tensions will endure. Nationalism won’t disappear. Border disputes and fights over who “rightfully” controls some strategic strip of coastline won’t go away.

  Yes, taking the control of money out of the hands of politicians and bureaucrats is clearly a good thing, and ought to be done quickly and thoroughly. But it won’t “fix the world.” It’s only a piece of a much larger puzzle.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/12/2022 – 17:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest