- "We Are Struggling:" Air Cargo Performance Slumps Across Major European Air Ports
The German ZEW headline number on Tuesday crashed to -44.1 versus -28.5 expectations and -24.5 last. The indicator measures economic sentiment shows the Germany economy could be teetering on the edge of a manufacturing recession.
The most recent escalation in trade disputes between the US and China, the risk of a full-blown trade war and competitive devaluations, has put extreme pressure on the European economy, that is visible in declining freight performance at major airport cargo hubs.
Data from the Airports Council International (ACI) reports freight performance at Europe’s airports in 1H19 has been faltering, with only 30% of the top ten cargo gateways reporting YoY growth, reported JOC.
In 1H19, Madrid, Barcelona, and London were the only airports to record YoY growth. Frankfurt, the top air cargo hub in Europe, registered a drop of -2.5% YoY.
ACI said cargo gateways at airports across Europe, on an overall basis, recorded a -3.5% fall in 1H19.
Olivier Jankovec, director-general of ACI Europe, said European air freight data experienced significant deterioration in June, indicates that the rest of the summer through early fall could remain in decline.
“The slump in freight traffic is where it really bites at the moment,” he said.
“And it is not getting any better, with June registering a drop of 7.1%, the worst monthly performance in more than seven years.”
Air France-KLM freight data from July show freight markets continued to slump. Transported tonnage for the Franco-Dutch carrier declined 6% YoY last month.
Denmark’s DSV reported a drop of 5% YoY in 1H9 of its air freight segment, mainly due to recessionary conditions in the European auto sector.
The German economy is in decline, and that is also damaging Italy, France, Poland, and Spain.
Europe’s automobile industry plunged 8% in sales in June, the ninth monthly decline in the last ten months.
“The fact that the air freight market is down 5% year to date is worrying,” said Jens Bjørn Andersen, CEO of DSV.
“We are struggling to figure out what is driving this negative volume in air freight apart from automotive. You speak to one customer and he tells you one thing, but speak to another and he tells you almost the opposite. I think that some of the emergency shipments that we saw a year ago have gone and their supply chains are being managed more efficiently now.”
Growth rates in air freight cargo prices have remained depressed across all major global shipping routes this year. The most significant declines can be seen in Frankfurt to South East Asia, -28% YTD; Hong Kong to North America, -23.5% YTD; and Hong Kong to North America, -23.5% YTD.
International Air Transport Association (IATA) reported global air freight volumes in 1H19 fell for the eighth consecutive month. Demand, measured in freight ton-kilometers, dropped 4.8% in June YoY.
“Global trade continues to suffer as trade tensions — particularly between the US and China — deepen. As a result, air cargo markets continue to contract,” said Alexandre de Juniac, IATA director general and CEO.
European air freight data suggests that the probability of an economic recovery in Europe in 2H19 is low. What could be around the bend is a recession that starts, or has already stared in Germany.
- Bulldog Britain Hears Master's Voice
Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
Since Boris Johnson took over as Britain’s new prime minister three weeks ago he has been holding intensive phone calls with US President Donald Trump, according to media reports. There is a buzz that the much-vaunted “special relationship” between the US and Britain is finding new ardor.
But this supposed special alliance is never about equals, despite pretensions. It’s all about Britain doing the bidding of its master in Washington. So when the pair are patting each other’s backs that means potential trouble for the rest of the world from abuse of power by Washington and its enabling British lackey.
The intensity of renewed alignment between Washington and London saw Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton visit the UK capital this week. During two days, Bolton had a flurry of meetings with top figures in Johnson’s hardline Brexit cabinet. It was reportedly the most senior American delegation to Britain since Johnson took over in 10 Downing Street on July 23.
Last week, Dominic Raab, the new British foreign secretary, was in Washington where he was greeted at the White House by Trump. Raab subsequently gushed to media about how “effusive” the American president was towards Britain’s plans under Johnson to quit the European Union on October 31 without a departure deal. The so-called “hard Brexit” option.
Johnson is expected to have his first meeting as British PM with Trump later this month during the G7 summit to be held in Biarritz, France.
Trump has gone out of his way to compliment Johnson as Britain’s new leader, in particular praising his harder line towards the EU over separation terms. The American president had a fraught relationship with former PM Theresa May, and was often scathing about her proposed “soft Brexit” from the EU involving a transition customs and trade deal with the European bloc.
Trump’s contempt for the EU is in line with Boris Johnson’s and that of his hard Brexit cabinet. Johnson’s Downing Street office and acolytes like Dominic Raab and Brexit planner Michael Gove are gunning for an abrupt exit in which Britain will not have any transitional trading relations with the EU. It will instead be moving to World Trade Organization rules as a sole trading nation.
That’s partly why Johnson and his government are assiduously courting the Trump administration. London needs to find favor with the White House in order to avail of a US-British trade deal as a substitute for the EU, which has up to now been Britain’s biggest market for imports and exports.
With several predictions of economic turmoil facing Britain in the event of a hard Brexit, Johnson is desperately relying on Trump to throw a trade life-line to the UK. That acute reliance on Washington by Britain makes Johnson an even more pliable British leader to American demands.
Already the American master is calling the tune for London’s merry dancing. When foreign secretary Dominic Raab was summoned to the White House last week, the two main topics on the president’s agenda were “trade” and “security”. That coupling suggests a quid quo pro is being furnished. Then the British diplomat had meetings with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. Their discussions were said to revolve around Iran and Hong Kong.
This week in London, Bolton underscored the linkage between post-Brexit trade talks with Britain and international security issues. But the American side is intensifying its “price” for Britain to avail of a US trade deal. Bolton forcefully let it be known that the White House wants Britain to take a much tougher line in the Persian Gulf towards Iran and also towards China, in accordance with US demands.
That tougher line outlined by Bolton is thought to involve Britain deploying more naval forces along with the US in a maritime show of strength towards Iran. Former British foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt, who was ousted by Johnson, had pushed for a European naval mission for commercial shipping security in the Gulf. Now, however, Johnson’s cabinet is throwing their naval lot in with the Americans. And Bolton is upping the ante for Britain to show more muscle. It is understood that Bolton is seeking for Britain to break with the EU line on supporting the international nuclear accord with Iran. If Britain walks away from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as the Trump administration seems to be demanding, then that will undermine Europe’s position of supporting the JCPOA, and will embolden Washington’s “maximum pressure” policy towards Tehran. That, in turn, dangerously escalates tensions towards a military confrontation.
Another “price” being extracted from Britain by Washington in return for a post-Brexit trade deal is for London to join US sanctions on China’s telecoms firm Huawei. The Trump administration is demanding that the Johnson government cancel plans to partner with Huawei in setting up advanced telecoms infrastructure across Britain. Washington claims its objection to Chinese involvement in Britain and Europe is motivated by “national security” concerns.
Washington also wants Britain to take a more critical position towards China over the weeks-long Hong Kong protests. Beijing has already decried “interference” in its internal affairs by Washington and London. Relations are thus set to become even more torrid.
What this all means is that Britain is set to pander even more than usual to Washington’s imperious foreign policy. The Anglo-American axis has been responsible for numerous criminal wars in the Middle East and countless other subterfuges. Washington and London have worked together to escalate hostility and tensions towards Russia.
With the unscrupulous Johnson as prime minister and Britain’s post-Brexit desperation for American economic favors, the British bulldog will not merely be attentively hearing its master’s voice. It will be snapping and yapping to please too. That’s a bad sign for international relations and peace.
- Who Inflicts The Most Gun Violence In America? The US Government And Its Police Force
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“It is often the case that police shootings, incidents where law enforcement officers pull the trigger on civilians, are left out of the conversation on gun violence. But a police officer shooting a civilian counts as gun violence. Every time an officer uses a gun against an innocent or an unarmed person contributes to the culture of gun violence in this country.” – Journalist Celisa Calacal
Yes, gun violence is a problem in America, although violent crime generally remains at an all-time low.
Yes, mass shootings are a problem in America, although while they are getting deadlier, they are not getting more frequent.
Yes, mentally ill individuals embarking on mass shooting sprees are a problem in America.
However, tighter gun control laws and so-called “intelligent” background checks fail to protect the public from the most egregious perpetrator of gun violence in America: the U.S. government.
Consider that five years after police shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old man in Ferguson, Missouri, there has been no relief from the government’s gun violence.
Here’s what we’ve learned about the government’s gun violence since Ferguson, according to The Washington Post: If you’re a black American, you’ve got a greater chance of being shot by police. If you’re an unarmed black man, you’re four times more likely to be killed by police than an unarmed white man. Most people killed by police are young men. Since 2015, police have shot and killed an average of 3 people per day. More than 2,500 police departments have shot and killed at least one person since 2015. And while the vast majority of people shot and killed by police are armed, their weapons ranged from guns to knives to toyguns.
Clearly, the U.S. government is not making America any safer.
Indeed, the government’s gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—poses a greater threat to the safety and security of the nation than any mass shooter.
According to journalist Matt Agorist, “mass shootings … have claimed the lives of 339 people since 2015… [D]uring this same time frame, police in America have claimed the lives of 4,355 citizens.”
That’s 1200% more people killed by police than mass shooters since 2015.
For example, in Texas, a police officer sent to do a welfare check on a 30-year-old woman seen lying on the grass near a shopping center, took aim at the woman’s dog as it ran towards him barking, fired multiple times, and killed the woman instead.
In Chicago, a SWAT team—wearing “army fatigues with black cloth covering their faces and wearing goggles,” armed with automatic rifles, and throwing flash-bang grenades—crashed through the doors of a suburban home and proceeded to storm into bedrooms, holding the children of the household at gunpoint. One child, 13-year-old Amir, was “accidentally” shot in the knee by police while sitting on his bed.
In St. Louis, Missouri, a SWAT team on a mission to deliver an administrative warrant carried out a no-knock raid that ended with police kicking in the homeowner’s front door, and shooting and killing her dog—all over an unpaid gas bill. Taxpayers will have to find $750,000 to settle the lawsuit arising over the cops’ overzealous tactics.
In South Carolina, a 62-year-old homeowner was shot four times through his front door by police who were investigating a medical-assist alarm call that originated from a cell phone inside the home. Dick Tench, believing his house was being broken into, was standing in the foyer of his home armed with a handgun when police, peering through the front door, fired several shots through the door, hitting Tench in the pelvis and the aortic artery. Tench survived, but the bullet lodged in his pelvis will stay there for life.
In Kansas, a SWAT team, attempting to carry out a routine search warrant (the suspect had already been arrested), showed up at a residence around dinnertime, dressed in tactical gear with weapons drawn, and hurled a flash-bang grenade into the house past the 68-year-old woman who was in the process of opening the door to them and in the general direction of a 2-year-old child.
These are just a few recent examples among hundreds this year alone.
Curiously enough, in the midst of the finger-pointing over the latest round of mass shootings, Americans have been so focused on debating who or what is responsible for gun violence—the guns, the gun owners, the Second Amendment, the politicians, or our violent culture—that they have overlooked the fact that the systemic violence being perpetrated by agents of the government has done more collective harm to the American people and their liberties than any single act of terror or mass shooting.
Violence has become our government’s calling card, starting at the top and trickling down, from the more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by heavily armed, black-garbed commandos and the increasingly rapid militarization of local police forces across the country to the drone killings used to target insurgents.
The government even exports violence worldwide, with one of this country’s most profitable exports being weapons. Indeed, the United States, the world’s largest exporter of arms, has been selling violence to the world for too long now. Controlling more than 50 percent of the global weaponry market, the U.S. has sold or donated weapons to at least 96 countries in the past five years, including the Middle East. The U.S. also provides countries such as Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Iraq with grants and loans through the Foreign Military Financing program to purchase military weapons.
At the same time that the U.S. is equipping nearly half the world with deadly weapons, profiting to the tune of $36.2 billion, its leaders have also been lecturing American citizens on the dangers of gun violence and working to enact measures that would make it more difficult for Americans to acquire certain weapons.
Talk about an absurd double standard.
If we’re truly going to get serious about gun violence, why not start by scaling back the American police state’s weapons of war?
I’ll tell you why: because the government has no intention of scaling back on its weapons.
In fact, all the while gun critics continue to clamor for bans on military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets, the U.S. military is passing them out to domestic police forces.
Under the auspices of a military “recycling” program, which allows local police agencies to acquire military-grade weaponry and equipment, more than $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been transferred from the Defense Department to domestic police agencies since 1990. Included among these “gifts” are tank-like, 20-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, tactical gear, and assault rifles.
There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines.
While Americans have to jump through an increasing number of hoops in order to own a gun, the government is arming its own civilian employees to the hilt with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment, authorizing them to make arrests, and training them in military tactics.
Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles and LP gas cannons are the Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, IRS, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities.
Seriously, why do IRS agents need AR-15 rifles?
For that matter, why do police need armored personnel carriers with gun ports, compact submachine guns with 30-round magazines, precision battlefield sniper rifles, and military-grade assault-style rifles and carbines?
Short answer: they don’t.
In the hands of government agents, whether they are members of the military, law enforcement or some other government agency, these weapons have become routine parts of America’s day-to-day life, a byproduct of the rapid militarization of law enforcement over the past several decades.
Over the course of 30 years, police officers in jack boots holding assault rifles have become fairly common in small town communities across the country. As investigative journalists Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz reveal, “Many police, including beat cops, now routinely carry assault rifles. Combined with body armor and other apparel, many officers look more and more like combat troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Does this sound like a country under martial law?
You want to talk about gun violence? While it still technically remains legal for the average citizen to own a firearm in America, possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, treated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at and killed by police.
You don’t even have to have a gun or a look-alike gun, such as a BB gun, in your possession to be singled out and killed by police.
There are countless incidents that happen every day in which Americans are shot, stripped, searched, choked, beaten and tasered by police for little more than daring to frown, smile, question, or challenge an order.
Growing numbers of unarmed people are being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.
With alarming regularity, unarmed men, women, children and even pets are being gunned down by twitchy, hyper-sensitive, easily-spooked police officers who shoot first and ask questions later, and all the government does is shrug, and promise to do better, all the while the cops are granted qualified immunity.
Killed for standing in a “shooting stance.” In California, police opened fire on and killed a mentally challenged—unarmed—black man within minutes of arriving on the scene, allegedly because he removed a vape smoking device from his pocket and took a “shooting stance.”
Killed for holding a cell phone. Police in Arizona shot a man who was running away from U.S. Marshals after he refused to drop an object that turned out to be a cellphone. Similarly, police in Sacramento fired 20 shots at an unarmed, 22-year-old black man who was standing in his grandparents’ backyard after mistaking his cellphone for a gun.
Killed for carrying a baseball bat. Responding to a domestic disturbance call, Chicago police shot and killed 19-year-old college student Quintonio LeGrier who had reportedly been experiencing mental health problems and was carrying a baseball bat around the apartment where he and his father lived.
Killed for opening the front door. Bettie Jones, who lived on the floor below LeGrier, was also fatally shot—this time, accidentally—when she attempted to open the front door for police.
Killed for running towards police with a metal spoon. In Alabama, police shot and killed a 50-year-old man who reportedly charged a police officer while holding “a large metal spoon in a threatening manner.”
Killed for running while holding a tree branch. Georgia police shot and killed a 47-year-old man wearing only shorts and tennis shoes who, when first encountered, was sitting in the woods against a tree, only to start running towards police holding a stick in an “aggressive manner.”
Killed for crawling around naked. Atlanta police shot and killed an unarmed man who was reported to have been “acting deranged, knocking on doors, crawling around on the ground naked.” Police fired two shots at the man after he reportedly started running towards them.
Killed for wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey. Donnell Thompson, a mentally disabled 27-year-old described as gentle and shy, was shot and killed after police—searching for a carjacking suspect reportedly wearing similar clothing—encountered him lying motionless in a neighborhood yard. Police “only” opened fire with an M4 rifle after Thompson first failed to respond to their flash bang grenades and then started running after being hit by foam bullets.
Killed for driving while deaf. In North Carolina, a state trooper shot and killed 29-year-old Daniel K. Harris—who was deaf—after Harris initially failed to pull over during a traffic stop.
Killed for being homeless. Los Angeles police shot an unarmed homeless man after he failed to stop riding his bicycle and then proceeded to run from police.
Killed for brandishing a shoehorn. John Wrana, a 95-year-old World War II veteran, lived in an assisted living center, used a walker to get around, and was shot and killed by police who mistook the shoehorn in his hand for a 2-foot-long machete and fired multiple beanbag rounds from a shotgun at close range.
Killed for having your car break down on the road. Terence Crutcher, unarmed and black, was shot and killed by Oklahoma police after his car broke down on the side of the road. Crutcher was shot in the back while walking towards his car with his hands up.
Killed for holding a garden hose. California police were ordered to pay $6.5 million after they opened fire on a man holding a garden hose, believing it to be a gun. Douglas Zerby was shot 12 times and pronounced dead on the scene.
Killed for calling 911. Justine Damond, a 40-year-old yoga instructor, was shot and killed by Minneapolis police, allegedly because they were startled by a loud noise in the vicinity just as she approached their patrol car. Damond, clad in pajamas, had called 911 to report a possible assault in her neighborhood.
Killed for looking for a parking spot. Richard Ferretti, a 52-year-old chef, was shot and killed by Philadelphia police who had been alerted to investigate a purple Dodge Caravan that was driving “suspiciously” through the neighborhood.
Shot seven times for peeing outdoors. Eighteen-year-old Keivon Young was shot seven times by police from behind while urinating outdoors. Young was just zipping up his pants when he heard a commotion behind him and then found himself struck by a hail of bullets from two undercover cops. Allegedly officers mistook Young—5’4,” 135 lbs., and guilty of nothing more than taking a leak outdoors—for a 6’ tall, 200 lb. murder suspect whom they later apprehended. Young was charged with felony resisting arrest and two counts of assaulting a peace officer.
This is what passes for policing in America today, folks, and it’s only getting worse.
In every one of these scenarios, police could have resorted to less lethal tactics.
They could have acted with reason and calculation instead of reacting with a killer instinct.
They could have attempted to de-escalate and defuse whatever perceived “threat” caused them to fear for their lives enough to react with lethal force.
That police instead chose to fatally resolve these encounters by using their guns on fellow citizens speaks volumes about what is wrong with policing in America today, where police officers are being dressed in the trappings of war, drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon “every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making.”
Remember, to a hammer, all the world looks like a nail.
Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, “we the people” are not just getting hammered.
We’re getting killed, execution-style.
Violence begets violence: until we start addressing the U.S. government’s part in creating, cultivating and abetting a culture of violence, we will continue to be a nation plagued by violence in our homes, in our schools, on our streets and in our affairs of state, both foreign and domestic.
- Petition Calls For Joe Rogan To Moderate The 2020 Presidential Debate
A petition that began nearly three months ago urges the Commission on Presidential Debates to elect comedian and podcast superstar Joe Rogan as one of the moderators for the upcoming presidential debates in 2020, has gained massive amounts of signatures on Monday and Tuesday.
As of Tuesday evening, the petition, called “Get Joe Rogan to Moderate the 2020 Presidential Debate,” has more than 85,000 signatures, with a goal of 150,000.
The petition explains Rogan has interviewed both progressive and conservative politicians, such as Andrew Yang (D), Tulsi Gabbard (D), Kyle Kulinski (D), Gary Johnson (L), Benjamin Shapiro (R), and Candace Owens (R), have all recently appeared on “The Joe Rogan Experience” program.
“Joe Rogan has an audience containing viewers from all areas of the political spectrum. Joe Rogan is not registered under any political party and is well-known for having civil, productive, and interesting, conversations about political issues without partisan bias,” the petition said.
Bernie Sanders (I) made headlines last week when he was on Rogan’s show discussing free healthcare, free college, and open access to classified government documents about aliens.
.@joerogan took the L from #PeakBernie
Joe: How is that legal?
Bernie: JOE IT IS LEGAL BECAUSE THEY MAKE THE LAWS! pic.twitter.com/ZxEG8roqER— Hijo del Cuervo ✪ (@OdelGauri) August 7, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Dozens of comments on the “News & discussion” tab of the petition’s Change.Org page, said the current debate structure is broken and outdated. Some said Rogan would talk about the real issues rather than letting cable news networks and their corporate sponsors dictate the topics and questions. Here are some of the comments:
“I believe Joe Rogan would be an impartial, yet highly enlightened choice to moderate the debates. He would see through the lies and get down to the REAL issues in the debate,” one commenter said.
“Joe Rogan is a very good interviewer, so naturally would be a good moderator.. He is very un-biased and really can sit and listen to two opposing sides with an open mind. Not unfairly coming into the interview with his mind already made up and his opinions set in stone. In other words Joe will really listen to what people have to say (with no political agenda in mind) and agree with the morally right people and when he agrees with a policy or an idea its cause he truly believes in it and not cause the Democrat party supports it or visa versa .. joe rogan is an overall good person at heart and Intelegiant and he is closer to the people than any of these news anchors or even politicians, so I think he naturally fits in this moderator position if he even wants to do it , which there is a strong chance he does not lol ..,” another said.
“Joe Rogan is fair, unbiased, direct and would ask the relevant questions most Americans want real answers to, minus all the fluff and bi-partisanship many past moderators have subscribed to. He resonates much closer to “the voice of the people” than any interviewer I have seen. Go Joe! We need ya buddy!” a commenter said.
With lots of interest sparking up in the last several days, the petition has about 56% of signatures needed by 7 pm est. Tuesday.
While over 85,000 signatures are only a small majority of Americans, the petition could spread like wildfire around the internet and achieve the 150,000 goal in the coming days, if not weeks.
This is one of the first movements where we’ve seen a grassroots effort to boot corporate media whores out of hosting presidential debates and have someone from the outside who might want to discuss the real issues that plague the bottom 90% of Americans.
Here are some topics Rogan could talk about: the wealth inequality gap, 50% of Americans don’t have $500 in their bank accounts, the housing affordability crisis, abolishing the Federal Reserve, endless wars in the Middle East, the national debt, and possibly how to stop the rise of the military-industrial complex.
- Becoming The "Gray Man"
Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,
The “gray man” survival concept isn’t new in preppers’ circles, but it’s also something a lot of questions are asked about. Becoming a “gray man” essentially means strategically not drawing attention to yourself to avoid conflict.
Being a “gray man” is easier said than done. Since it’s impossible to predict what the future will hold, especially the future of survivalism, we can only speculate how to best achieve “gray man” status. That said, it is a skill that can be practiced now though, before the SHTF. Blending in, laying low, recognizing dangers, and situational awareness all play a role in this concept. Going unnoticed can keep you out of harm’s way.
It’s been said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So if you can avoid conflict or any need for self-defense, you’ll have an added advantage when the SHTF. This is one skill that actually costs nothing. All it takes is some rational thought and heightened awareness.
HOW TO BE A “GRAY MAN”
The first step is to observe others. Start to notice things like attire and how people speak to each other. Observe how people interact with each other and begin to recognize their mannerisms and inclinations. This requires you to first has some decent situational awareness skill – which is also free. After you’ve observed others, your goal is to fit in and avoid creating a stimulus (something that can be embedded in someone else’s memory and creates an impression). Be like those around you. If you stick out, you could become a target. Be remarkably unremarkable and unmemorable.
You want to be as invisible as possible, so while keeping with the general tone of attire others are wearing, you’ll want to make sure you wear muted colors, avoid prints (yes, even camouflage), and don’t accessorize. Avoid any military-style clothing. That makes a statement and ensures you will not appear invisible to others. Hide any distinguishable markings such as a birthmark or tattoos. These will make you easily identifiable.
You also want to appear non-threatening and make sure your demeanor matches your attire. Don’t go all out and cover your face with a bandanna under a hood. That will suggest that you’re up to no good. Instead, wear a baseball cap and give off the “vibes” of someone who is not doing anything at all except existing. Be boring, but walk as though you have a purpose.
Minimize interactions with all people, especially those you do not know. Once the SHTF, you’ll have more enemies than friends especially if your friends have failed to effectively prepare for the bad times.
Most importantly, you will want to learn to think like a “gray man.” Changing the way we think is difficult, and impossible for some. But if you want a chance at avoiding as many altercations as possible in dire situations, you’ll need to make the attempt. Watch the video below for some great advice:
Learning to be a “gray man” could save your life. Blending in while being forgettable and not leaving an impression on anyone will allow you to go about your business with very limited altercations. This is one skill that is ranked up there with situational awareness.
Both situational awareness and being a “gray man” are essential to a proper prepping mentality. Both are free, and in addition to this article, I suggest you read as much as you can about both and begin to use them in your everyday life as practice.
Gray Man: Camouflage for Crowds, Cities, and Civil Crisis
The Gray Man is the forgettable face, the ghost guy, the hidden human. Implementing the concepts is more than looking less tactical, less hostile, or less threatening. It is the willful abandonment of anything and everything that defines oneself as different. Using his unique “S” word conceptual approach featured in Appear to Vanish, camouflage and concealment expert Matthew Dermody discusses the concepts, tactics, and mindset necessary to assimilate into any urban environment. From the safety-conscious international traveler to the SERE contingencies of the deep cover foreign operative, GRAY MAN is the definitive urban concealment resource.
- USPS Reports First Drop In Package Volume In Nearly A Decade
The US Postal Service (USPS) is in a dangerous death spiral as it could run out of cash by the mid-2020s. The postmaster general warned in May that unless significant reforms are made to the quasigovernmental agency, it could soon collapse.
A new report from The Wall Street Journal suggests that the downfall of the USPS could be more imminent than thought. Package delivery volume declined in 2Q19 for the first time since 2009. The cause of the drop is due to Amazon, United Parcel Service, and FedEx increasingly delivering online packages to homes.
The USPS has experienced diminishing revenues for years even though they deliver packages to at least a million new addresses per year. The increased competition, largely from private shippers, has made the marketplace more competitive, leading to lower shipping rates that have financially stressed USPS.
The Journal said USPS delivered 3.2% fewer packages for the quarter ended June 30.
Postmaster General Megan Brennan said Friday that other delivery players are convincing shippers to switch to their networks, noting that they’re “aggressively pricing their products and services in order to fill their networks and grow package density.”
Brennan added, “That said, we are constantly adapting our competitive posture to counter emerging developments.”
The USPS will likely notice higher package volume declines through 2020. FedEx plans on shifting 2 million of its daily packages that are diverted to USPS for “last-mile delivery” into its Ground network next year.
Overall for 2Q, USPS posted a modest drop in revenue to $17.09 billion. It lost money on first-class mail, marketing mail, and periodicals.
Total operating expenses fell by 4.3% to $19.3 billion for the quarter.
The total loss for the period was $2.26 billion, compared with $1.49 billion a year earlier.
USPS has avoided collapse by defaulting on $48 billion in mandated payments over the past several years, Brennan said at a recent hearing called by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Brennan has called for legislative and regulatory changes to correct USPS’ busted business model, where its largest and most profitable business of first-class mail remains in a slump.
“We anticipate that given our ongoing liquidity concerns, and without legislative action and regulatory reform, we may not be able to pay all legally required obligations and also invest in much-needed capital expenditures in 2019 and future years that are necessary to ensure our ability to fulfill our primary mission,” USPS said Friday.
Early indications show that the USPS is headed for a credit crunch sometime in the early 2020s. The one question that we have: Could the government let the USPS fail in a push towards privatization?
- China Factory Output Weakest In 17 Years, Everything Missed
With currency turmoil and social unrest, China’s economic assault tonight was supposed be the great equalizer – confirming that a few trillion here or there and everything looks awesome and happy, and not a tiny bit angry (and that the Americans are not to blame for everything).
Ahead of today’s data, broadly speaking, macro data globally has been weak, but in China, recent credit growth numbers slumped and steel production slowed, suggesting graver concerns. And so here it is…
-
China Industrial Production BIG MISS +4.8% (+6.0% exp, +6.3% prior)
-
China Retail Sales BIG MISS +7.6% (+8.6% exp, +9.8% prior)
-
China Fixed Asset Investment MISS +5.7% (+5.8% exp, +5.8% prior)
-
China Property Investment MISS +10.6% (+10.9% prior)
-
China Surveyed Jobless Rate MISS +5.3% (+6.0% exp, +6.3% prior)
Now all that is left is to figure out if bad news is good news, or not…
Source: Bloomberg
It might seem that President Trump is ‘winning’ this race for now.
Some notables include:
-
Car sales weighed on retail
-
Jobless rise is significant
-
And Factory Output slowed to its weakest since 2002.
Source: Bloomberg
The struggling autos sector seems to be the main brake on the Chinese economy:
-
Auto manufacturing (by industry) down 4.4% y/y
-
Motor vehicles (by product) down 11.5% y/y
-
and for retail, car sales dropped 2.6% y/y
(The principle of “housing is for living in, not for speculation” was mentioned at the politburo meeting again last month.)
Finally, for a few minutes/seconds the world spiked after China set the yuan fix slightly stronger; we are not so impressed, nor is the yuan or US equity futures…
And stocks and bond yields tumbling…
Source: Bloomberg
So with inflation spiking, currency crashing, social-unrest; will the PBOC flood the nation with cash to ensure happiness at October’s CCP Anniversary?
It’s just that the sugar high from the injection is getting shorter…
Source: Bloomberg
Chen Yuan, former deputy governor of PBOC warned that “the trade war is evolving into a financial war and a currency war.”
And the yuan is getting weaker since this data…
Source: Bloomberg
Zhaopeng Xing, markets economist at ANZ Bank China:
“The pretty weak data will offset the risk-on sentiment from tariff delays. Data today also show the PBOC needs to ease, such as through targeted RRR cuts or a policy rate cut. With the yuan exchange rate stable at around the 7 per dollar level, the window for easing is open.”
As goes China, so goes the world.
-
- Escobar: How Tehran Fits Into Russia-China Strategy
Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,
Complex doesn’t even begin to describe the positioning of Iran-Russia in the geopolitical chessboard. What’s clear in our current, volatile moment is that they’re partners, as I previously reported. Although not strategic partners, as in the Russia-China tie-up, Russia-China-Iran remain the crucial triad in the ongoing, multi-layered, long-term Eurasia integration process.
A few days after our Asia Times report, an article – based on “senior sources close to the Iranian regime” and crammed with fear-mongering, baseless accusations of corruption and outright ignorance about key military issues – claimed that Russia would turn the Iranian ports of Bandar Abbas and Chabahar into forward military bases complete with submarines, Spetsnaz special forces and Su-57 fighter jets, thus applying a “stranglehold” to the Persian Gulf.
For starters, “senior sources close to the Iranian regime” would never reveal such sensitive national-security details, much less to Anglo-American foreign media. In my own case, even though I have made several visits to Iran while consistently reporting on Iran for Asia Times, and even though authorities at myriad levels know where I’m coming from, I have not managed to get answers from Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps generals to 16 detailed questions I sent nearly a month ago. According to my interlocutors, these are deemed “too sensitive” and, yes, a matter of national security.
Predictably, the report was fully debunked. One of my top Tehran sources, asked about its veracity, was blunt: “Absolutely not.” After all, Iran’s constitution decisively forbids foreign troops stationed on national soil. The Majlis – Iranian parliament – would never approve such a move barring an extreme case, as in the follow-up to a US military attack.
As for Russia-Iran military cooperation, the upcoming joint military exercises in the “northern part of the Indian Ocean,” including the Strait of Hormuz, are a first-ever such occasion, made possible only by a special agreement.
Analyst Gennady Nechaev is closer to reality when he notes that in the event of growing Russia-Iran cooperation, the possibility would be open for “permanent basing of the Russian Navy in one of the Iranian ports with the provision of an airfield nearby – the same type of arrangement as Tartus and Hmeimim on the Mediterranean coast of Syria.” To get there, though, would be a long and winding road.
And that brings us to Chabahar, which poses an interesting question. Chabahar is a deep sea port, on the Gulf of Oman and the key plank in India’s mini-Silk Road vision. India invested a lot in Chabahar, to have it connected by highway to Afghanistan and Central Asia and in the future by rail to the Caucasus. All that so India may bypass Pakistan as far as trade routes are concerned.
Chabahar, though, may also become an important node of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative. India and China – as well as Russia – are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Iran, sooner or later, will also become a full SCO member. Only then the possibility “might” – and the emphasis is on “might” – open for the Russian or Chinese navy occasionally to dock at Chabahar, but still not to use it as a forward military base.
Got oil, will travel
On Iran, the Russia-China strategic partnership is working in parallel. China’s priority is energy supplies – and Beijing works the chessboard accordingly. The Chinese ambassador to the United Arab Emirates just issued a trial balloon, mentioning that Beijing might consider escorting oil tankers across the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. That could happen independently or – the dangling carrot – as part of Washington’s Operation Sentinel, which for the moment has managed to find only one “coalition of the willing” member: the UK.
What’s actually happening right now in the Persian Gulf is way more entertaining. As I confirmed with energy traders in Doha late last month, demand for oil right now is higher than in 2018. And in consequence Iran continues to sell most of its oil.
A tanker leaves Iran with transponder off; the oil is transferred to another tanker on the high seas; and then it is relabeled.
According to a trader, “If you take two to three million barrels a day off the market by sanctions on Venezuela and Iran, plus the OPEC cutbacks, you would have to see a higher price.”
There is no higher price. Brent crude remains near a seven-month low, around US$60 a barrel. This means that Iran continues to sell, mostly to China. That trial balloon floated in the UAE might well be China camouflaging its continued purchase of Iranian oil.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has been proving again and again his diplomatic mastery, running rings around the Donald Trump administration. But all major decisions in Iran come from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. That also applies to Tehran’s position in relation to multi-level forms of support from the Russia-China strategic partnership.
What the past few months have made crystal clear is how Russia-China’s magnetic pull is attracting key Eurasia players Iran, Turkey and Pakistan. And make no mistake: As much as Tehran may be extremely proud of its political independence, it is reassuring to know that Iran is, and will continue to be, a definitive red line for Russia-China.
- China Mocks Trump Tariff Delay As Proof He Is Losing The Trade War
On Tuesday Trump pulled off another signature twitter shock, when just after noon, the President bowed to pressure from U.S. businesses, the stock market and concerns over the economic fallout of his trade war with China, delaying the imposition of new tariffs until December on a majority of consume goods including cell phones, laptop computers, video game consoles, certain toys, computer monitors, footwear, clothing, textiles, kitchen utensils, cookware, some watches, musical instruments, paper clips, children’s chairs, bouncers, some sporting goods, fishing tackle, combs, brushes, cigarette lighters and pipes, vacuum flasks and diapers. As we said earlier, it is almost as if Trump realized that a surge in prices of consumer goods which would inevitably have taken place had the tariffs kicked in on Sept 1…
… would have ruined any plans the Fed may have to cut rates further, just as Trump demanded.
US delaying tariffs on products which would send inflation soaring
Trump figured out he won’t get rate cuts if prices surge
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 13, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Tuesday’s move to hit the pause button in his fight with China came as senior officials on both sides had their first phone conversation since Trump threatened the tariffs at the beginning of this month. It also cheered markets that had been growing increasingly concerned over the impact of trade tensions on a slowing global economy, and in response, stocks halted a steep two-day slide.
There were some question how Trump picked the list of goods he did to delay tariffs on. According to Axios, “the list of goods from China that won’t be subject to a 10% tariff until Dec. 15 is made up of “products where 75% or more of the 2018 U.S. imports of that product were from China,” according to an email sent to trade groups from the U.S. Trade Representative Office. And while the significance of the 75% cutoff is unclear, it is likely the threshold level for substitute goods beyond which the USTR finds that the risk of an inflationary spike is too high.
So what happens next?
According to Standard Chartered’s Steven Englander, the US will now expect China to reciprocate by buying US agricultural products in the coming weeks. That may very well not happen.But while it is unclear if the lack of a reciprocal “olive branch” would be a dealbreaker for Trump, what is likely is that any widespread shift in sentiment that Trump retreated and waved a white flag of surrender, could very quickly undo the tariff delay as the last thing Trump wants, is to be seen as weak and ineffectual, or his trade war strategy as inefficient, not by his base, and certainly not by his opponent, China.
And yet, in the first reactions to Trump’s announced tariff delay, this is precisely how China is describing today’s event.
As the state-owned, nationalist tabloid Global Times “explains” to the Chinese population, “Chinese experts said the sudden postponing of impending tariffs showed that the maximum pressure tactics of the US are losing their bite when it comes to China.”
As the Chinese tabloid further notes, “these measures are set to greatly reduce the weight of US tariffs, as electronics goods alone account for about $130 billion” and adds that according to “Chinese experts reached by the Global Times on Tuesday night the latest development showed the US maximum pressure tactic is not working on China, but they said it could pave the way for trade talks scheduled for September. However, they were cautious about the potential for any flip-flopping.”
“The US has realized that its maximum pressure strategy to force China back to the negotiating table has not worked as expected. Washington knows that only through talks can the two sides reach a deal,” Wang Jun, chief economist at Zhongyuan Bank, told the Global Times on Tuesday.
The quoted “expert” also said he doubted (correctly) whether the decision would stand, given Washington’s flip-flop approach in trade negotiations: “Trump is looking for a way out. It also shows that both China and the US are highly dependent on each other, and the practice of imposing tariffs does not necessarily bring China to its knees,” said Liang Qi, a professor from Nankai University.
Liang then added that “we also can see that imposing tariffs may harm the interests of the US, making it hard for Trump’s re-election”, suggesting that not only is the tariff delay a tacit ceasefire offer, if not outright surrender, it is also a political gambit that hands over all the leverage to China, which now will have the upper hand to determine the fate of Trump’s re-election depending on how it proceeds with trade negotiations.
Bai Ming, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation said that the tariff increase delay shows the US is not willing to cut off the two countries’ negotiation channels when talks are on the verge of failure.
But Bai warned that it might also be a stalling tactic as the US has found that its extreme pressure on China has not generated the results it had hoped for.
And so, with the Global Times repeating no less than three times that the US tactic of “extreme (or maximum) pressure” has failed, the implication is simple: Trump’s trade war strategy has led him to a dead end, and the result is that China now has the upper hand.
That could be a problem, because even if the Global Times is right in its assessment of the balance of power, all that would take for Trump to change his mind is to be perceived as failing – or worse, weak – in his campaign against China. And that’s precisely what the top power echelon in Beijing is now telegraphing to the population via the state-owned media.
Which leads us to believe that with Navarro still firmly in control of the trade war strategy, it is only a matter of days if not hours, before Trump once again flip flops, just as he did after the G-20 summit where the two nations allegedly reached a “ceasefire” only for it to crash and burn just weeks later.
And so, unless China buys a lot of US agri products in the coming weeks, and we don’t see any specific reason why Xi would want to “bend the knee” to a president Trump who is according to the Chinese media losing the trade war, we fully expect today’s relief rally to reverse quickly as Trump realizes that delay or no delay, a deal with China is simply impossible, as the “trade war” is not about trade at all, but an ever escalating conflict of two civilizations, one which may be resolved on the battlefield, either literally or metaphorically, but will never be decided on a piece of paper.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...