Oct 15

Today’s News 15th October 2022

  • 'The Post-Cold War Era Is Over': White House National Security Advisor
    ‘The Post-Cold War Era Is Over’: White House National Security Advisor

    Authored by Andrew Thornebrooke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    The international order has entered a new epoch and the United States will need to vigorously defend its way of life from encroaching authoritarianism from China and Russia, according to a senior U.S. official.

    White House national security advisor Jake Sullivan speaks at a press conference in the James Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, on Aug. 17, 2021. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    How the United States acts over the course of the next decade will make or break its efforts to preserve a liberal international order against the autocratic advances of China’s communist regime, said White House national security advisor Jake Sullivan.

    “We’re in the early years of a decisive decade,” Sullivan said at an event hosted by the Center for a New American Security and the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington.

    “The terms of our competition with the People’s Republic of China will be set. The window of opportunity to deal with shared challenges like climate change will narrow drastically even as the intensity of those challenges grows.”

    Sullivan delivered the remarks hours after the unveiling of the Biden administration’s national security strategy, which designated communist China as the greatest challenge facing the United States.

    “The PRC’s assertiveness at home and abroad is advancing an illiberal vision across economic, political, security, and technological realms in competition with the west,” Sullivan said, using the acronym for the regime’s official name.

    “It is the only competitor with the intent to reshape the international order and the growing capacity to do it.”

    Sullivan said that the world had left the post-Cold War era, often associated with the rise of globalization, international cooperation, and a general lack of military conflict between great powers.

    Now, he said, a new era of geopolitical competition has arisen, tied closely to the push by China and Russia towards a multipolar world order. In this burgeoning era, autocratic nations would seek to rewrite the rules of the international system according to their whims, he said.

    “The world’s major autocracies believe that the democratic world is in decline,” Sullivan said.

    “They seek to advance a very different vision, where might makes right and technological and economic coercion squeezes anyone who steps out of line.”

    To that end, Sullivan said that the authoritarian philosophies of Chinese communist leader Xi Jinping and Russian leader Vladimir Putin contained a “fundamental fragility” that could be overcome by a united “free, open, and prosperous international order.”

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 23:40

  • These Are The Best (And Most Expensive) Universities In America
    These Are The Best (And Most Expensive) Universities In America

    The United States is home to many world-class universities like Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, which boast innovative research programs, famous alumni, prestigious awards, and students and faculty from all over the world.

    But which schools are actually the best ones in America?

    This ranking by Visual Capitalist’s Avery Koop and Bhabna Banerjee, using data from U.S. News & World Report, ranks America’s 50 best universities from the Ivy League to public institutions. Additionally, this visual shows the average tuition and acceptance rate of each school.

    The Methodology

    Here’s a look at how different categories are scored in the ranking. It is worth noting that U.S. News relies on each university’s independent reporting of data and information and does not standardize or corroborate the reported information themselves.

    How categories are weighted:

    • Graduation & Retention Rates = 22%

    • Undergraduate Academic Reputation = 20%

    • Faculty Resources = 20%

    • Financial Resources per Student = 10%

    • Graduation Rate Performance = 8%

    • Student Selectivity for Fall Entering Class = 7%

    • Social Mobility = 5%

    • Graduate Indebtedness = 5%

    • Average Alumni Giving Rate = 3%

    The Top Schools

    Ivy League universities are often assumed to be the top schools in America, but in reality, only four of the eight make the top 10.

    Here’s a closer look:

     

    One of the Ivies, Columbia University, actually dropped 16 spots from last year’s ranking due to a scandal involving misreported statistics by the university, which was exposed by one of its own professors. There have been critiques of the U.S. News & World Report ranking since, as it doesn’t provide a uniform set of standards for the universities, but lets them determine how they score their categories themselves.

     

    Among the top 10 schools admittance is very competitive, and none of the acceptance rates surpass the 7% mark. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Stanford University, and Caltech are among the most difficult universities to get into, with only 4% of applicants receiving that exciting acceptance letter. On the flip side, the universities of Illinois and Wisconsin, for example, accept 60% of all applicants.

    Types of Universities

    A few more things to know—there are eight private schools in the U.S. that have earned the distinction of “Ivy League,” due to their history and prestige. A number of schools are also classified as land-grant universities—built on land which was essentially given to them by the U.S. government. This was in an effort to provide higher education to lacking communities across the country, and there is at least one in every state.

    These are the U.S.’ eight Ivy League Institutions:

    • Princeton University

    • Yale University

    • Columbia University

    • Brown University

    • Harvard University

    • Cornell University

    • Dartmouth University

    • University of Pennsylvania

    Beyond these prestigious academies, there are many high caliber institutions like The Ohio State University and the University of Wisconsin—both of which are land-grant universities.

    Among the top 50, there are another four land-grant universities:

    • University of Florida

    • University of Georgia

    • University of Illinois

    • Cornell University

    There is ripe controversy, however, surrounding land-grant universities, as, in many cases, the U.S. government funded these institutions through expropriated indigenous land.

    The Cost of an American Education

    U.S. college tuition is famous for being unaffordable. Combining all the federal and private loans in the country, the total student debt comes out to $1.75 trillion and the average borrower owes $28,950.

    Here’s a look at how tuition breaks down on average:

    The most expensive school in America is Columbia University, with the cost of admission coming out to a whopping $65,524, with some estimates showing even higher rates for the 2022/2023 academic year. The least expensive among the top 50 is the University of Florida at $6,380 for in-state tuition—more than 10x cheaper than Columbia.

    But many Americans may soon see their college loans forgiven. The Biden administration’s initiative to cancel student debt will roll out any day now and will be available on federal loans for select qualifying individuals. It has the potential to provide 40 million people with as much as $20,000 in debt forgiveness.

    And given that American universities make up eight of the 10 best universities in the world, perhaps the price tag will be worth it.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 23:20

  • Domestic Left-Wing Extremist Groups More Dangerous Than 'MAGA Republicans': Experts
    Domestic Left-Wing Extremist Groups More Dangerous Than ‘MAGA Republicans’: Experts

    Authored by Scott Wheeler via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    National security analysts, scholars, and a federal indictment reveal that threats from left-wing extremist groups in the United States are more dangerous than right-wing and “MAGA Republican” groups recently cited by the Biden administration as “threats to democracy.”

    An Antifa extremist pushes a burning recycling bin at Trump supporters during a free speech rally in Berkeley, Calif., on April 15, 2017. (Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)

    According to the U.S. government, some of the left-wing groups are being funded by Russian influence operations to “sow discord, spread pro-Russian propaganda, and interfere in elections within the United States.”

    On July 29, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the indictment of a Russian national for working on behalf of the Russian government to sow discord in the United States.

    “From at least December 2014 until March 2022, Aleksandr Viktorovich Ionov, a resident of Moscow, together with at least three Russian officials, engaged in a years-long foreign malign influence campaign targeting the United States” the indictment alleged.

    A DOJ press release stated, “Ionov—working under the supervision of the FSB [Russia’s Federal Security Services] and with the Russian government’s support—recruited political groups within the United States, including U.S. Political Group 1 in Florida, U.S. Political Group 2 in Georgia, and U.S. Political Group 3 in California, and exercised direction or control over them on behalf of the FSB.”

    Russia Supports Left-wing Groups

    Ionov’s activities were not in support of right-wing groups, the operation was allegedly funding left-wing groups that promoted socialism, defunding police, and California secession, according to multiple reports.

    In August, the Tampa Bay Times reported that “Political Group 1” named in the indictment is the African People’s Socialist Party (APSP) of St Petersburg, Florida. On the group’s website, its chairman, Omali Yeshitela, is quoted as saying “we need a revolution” and promotes calls for reparations for slavery. On July 29, the same day the indictment for Ionov was unsealed, it was raided by the FBI, according to the APSP. When contacted for comment, a spokesman for the APSP said it was unlikely that the group would be able to answer questions from The Epoch Times based on advice from counsel.

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution identified “Political Group 2” in a July 29 article as the Atlanta-based Black Hammer Party. On May 31, 2020, the group’s website featured a statement by Ionov responding to the death of George Floyd that stated:

    “Justice for George Floyd and all Colonized people (aka “people of color”), who have died at the hands of White Power Colonial terrorism (aka america’s racist police system).”

    The group states it exists to “take the land back for all colonized people worldwide … Currently, our physical and intellectual labor is being coerced to build for the capitalist white colonial state, but it can be redirected to a noble cause.” The Black Hammer Party could not be reached for comment.

    The Sacramento Bee identified “Political Group 3” as Yes California, an organization formed to promote California secession from the United States. Louis Marinelli, the founder of the organization, had worked in Russia teaching English. According to some news sources, Marinelli may once have held conservative views, however, the Yes California Twitter feed was critical of President Donald Trump and suggested that his “reactionary” policies were helping to drive the California secession movement. Marinelli could not be reached for comment.

    President Joe Biden delivers a primetime speech at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia on Sept. 1, 2022. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

    Politicizing Domestic Threats

    Critics have accused the Biden administration of using the levers of the federal government to attack his political opposition by prioritizing what he calls threats to democracy and domestic tranquility. Biden’s list of targets has included Trump supporters, “election deniers,” and “white supremacists.”

    In early September, bathed in a red-lit backdrop and flanked by two U.S. Marines, Biden told the nation, “There is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.”

    Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has made groups and individuals that Biden considers a threat a priority for investigation. The DHS refused to be interviewed for this report but provided a “Summary of Terrorism Threat to the United States” which was published in the June National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin.

    The bulletin stated: “The continued proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding current events could reinforce existing personal grievances or ideologies, and in combination with other factors, could inspire individuals to mobilize to violence.”

    Many of the domestic threats listed in the bulletin were identifying those who question the administration’s policies:

    “Some domestic violent extremists have expressed grievances related to their perception that the U.S. government is unwilling or unable to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.”

    “Given a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court case about abortion rights, individuals who advocate both for and against abortion have, on public forums, encouraged violence, including against government, religious, and reproductive healthcare personnel and facilities, as well as those with opposing ideologies.”

    The bulletin also predicts, “As the United States enters mid-term election season this year, we assess that calls for violence by domestic violent extremists directed at democratic institutions, political candidates, party offices, election events, and election workers will likely increase.”

    While the DHS and the Biden administration say they are expecting violence from right-wing groups, others say there is a more pressing threat from the left.

    Academic Report Fears Leftists

    In the summer of 2020, Rutgers University’s Miller Center for Community Protection and Resilience issued a report (pdf) that found evidence that left-wing groups pose a considerable threat:

    “Anarcho-socialist militias which explicitly glorify Martyr narratives, classic authoritarian narratives, and revolutionary narratives are now formally organizing—and are growing.”

    The Miller Center cited leftist groups such as the Youth Liberation Front, John Brown Gun Club, Redneck Revolt, and the Socialist Rifle Association, among others, which claim 10,000 to 40,000 members on social media accounts.

    The Miller Center report says these groups use social media to promote violence: “Extreme anarcho-socialist fringe online forums on Reddit use memes calling for the death of police and memes for stockpiling munitions to promote violent revolution.”

    The report cites the example of Willem Van Spronsen who was shot and killed during a shootout with police in July 2019. Van Spronsen was fire-bombing an Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Washington state. Multiple news reports state that Van Spronsen was a member of Antifa and the John Brown Gun Club.

    According to the global nonprofit organization Counter Extremism Project (CEP), many of these groups operate “under the wide umbrella of Antifa” which is made up of individual cells and “the leaders of these cells remain autonomous,” states CEP’s reporting.

    John Farmer, Director of the Miller Center, in an email response to questions from The Epoch Times, stated that he does not see a serious national security threat from either the right or left. “Quite frankly, I don’t view either the so-called ‘anarcho-socialist extremists’ or the ‘white nationalist extremists’ as a serious threat to national security,” Farmer stated.

    However, extremists on both sides do pose problems, according to Farmer: “Each in their own way is a threat to public order; each, for different reasons, seeks to destabilize our institutions and overthrow the established norms of democracy. Each has proven violent, even murderous, in differing contexts.”

    What Political Attacks Mean

    J. Michael Waller, a national security and intelligence expert at the Center for Security Policy, told The Epoch Times that the Biden administration is “trying to frighten the public” by labeling Trump supporters as threats to democracy: “They are trying to create a political, psychological, and legal pretext for cracking down on groups and larger movements that they can connect through guilt by association.”

    Waller compares this sort of labeling to the so-called “red scare” period during the Cold War.

    “If you apply subjective definitions to words, and you make the words mean what you want them to mean, and you recklessly apply those words to your opponent, you are creating a 21st-century red scare.” Waller says he sees a disturbing pattern in Biden’s words.

    “You label someone you don’t like with an inflammatory term that objectively does not apply, which gives you the public support you need to amass more power to create more bureaucracy. You then have the legal grounds to go after what amounts to political opponents.”

    “Look at the way they throw around the word ‘fascists,” Waller said. “They are not even using the objective definition of fascist.”

    Why Trump Supporters

    Emily Finley, author of “The Ideology of Democratism,” told The Epoch Times that the Biden administration is laying the groundwork to “normalize the idea that MAGA Republicans are extremists,” adding that “the larger philosophical impetus” behind Biden’s Philadelphia speech is to segregate and “marginalize” MAGA Republicans.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 23:00

  • These Are The World's Best Bars In 2022
    These Are The World’s Best Bars In 2022

    Barcelona has been named the new world capital of cocktails, with the famed Paradiso bar taking the top spot in ‘The World’s 50 Best Bars 2022’ by William Reed.

    As Statista’s Anna Fleck details below, the roundup is based on the votes of more than 600 industry experts from around the world, from bartenders and cocktail connoisseurs to consultants and drinks reviewers. This year marks the first since the list was created in 2009 that a bar from outside of New York or London has come out on top.

    Infographic: The World’s Best Bars in 2022 | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Paradiso, which ranked third place in 2021, is a Mediterranean-style bar located in the trendy Born neighborhood of Barcelona.

    The Catalan capital can also boast two other bars in the top 10: Sips, which jumped from 37th place to third, and Two Schmucks, which has risen from 11th to 7th place.

    Altogether, four Spanish venues have made it into the world’s top 50, with Salmon Guru, located in Madrid, in 15th place.

    In addition to Spain’s three bars, two Latin American countries have also scored highly, with Licorería Limantour, in Mexico City, ranking fourth, and Alchemical, in Cartagena (Colombia), tenth.

    Mexico is a firm favorite when it comes to bars, with four establishments making it into the top 50 in the country’s capital.

    Other Latin American countries that curry favor with experts globally are Argentina, with three bars in Buenos Aires, and Peru, with one in Lima.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 22:40

  • Pipelines Vs. USA
    Pipelines Vs. USA

    Authored by Scott Ritter via ConsortiumNews.com,

    Intent, motive, and means: People serving life sentences in U.S. prisons have been convicted on weaker grounds than the circumstantial evidence against Washington for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines…

    Circumstantial evidence, just like direct proof, can be used to prove the elements of a crime, the existence or completion of certain acts and the intent or mental state of a defendant. Generally speaking, a prosecutor, to obtain a conviction, needs to show beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed a certain act and that the defendant acted with specific intent.

    Nord Stream 1 is a multi-national project operated by Swiss-based Nord Stream AG intended to supply some 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Russian natural gas annually to Europe by directly transporting it from Russia, through twin 1,224 kilometer-long pipelines laid beneath the Baltic Sea, to a German hub, from which the gas would be distributed to other European consumers.

    The first of the twin pipelines was completed in June 2011 and began supplying gas in November 2011. The second was completed in April 2012 and began supplying gas in October 2012. Gazprom, the Russian gas giant, owns 51 percent interest in the Nord Stream 1 pipeline project.

    Nord Stream 2 is a near clone of the Nord Stream 1 project, consisting of twin 1,220-kilometer pipelines laid beneath the Baltic Sea connecting Russia to Germany. Started in 2018, it was completed in September 2021. Like Nord Stream 1, the Nord Stream 2 is designed to deliver approximately 55 bcm of natural gas from Russia to Europe through Germany. Nord Stream 2, like Nord Stream 1, is operated by a multinational company in which Gazprom has 51 percent ownership.

    Unlike Nord Stream 1, Nord Stream 2 was never allowed to begin supplying gas.

    Nord Stream 2 area map. (Berria Egunkaria, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

    The Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines are anathema to U.S. national security policy, which for decades has been sour on the degree to which Russian natural gas dominates the European energy market. This animus was perhaps best captured by a column published in the German newspaper DieWelt in July 2019.

    The piece, co-authored by Richard Grenell, Carla Sands, Gordon Sondland (respectively, the U.S. ambassadors to Germany, Denmark and the European Union), was entitled “Europe must retain control of its energy security” and made the argument that the “Nord Stream 2 pipeline will drastically increase Russia’s energy leverage over the EU,” noting that “[s]uch a scenario is dangerous for the bloc and the West as a whole.”

    Observing that “a dozen European countries rely on Russia for more than 75 percent of their natural gas needs,” the ambassadors concluded “This makes United States allies and partners vulnerable to having their gas shut off at Moscow’s whim.”

    Moreover, the ambassadors claimed,

    “European Union reliance on Russian gas presents risks for Europe and the West as a whole and makes U.S. allies less secure. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline will heighten Europe’s susceptibility to Russia’s energy blackmail tactics. Europe must retain control of its energy security.”

    The ambassadors also wove in some critical geopolitical context as well, declaring

    “Make no mistake: Nord Stream 2 will bring more than just Russian gas. Russian leverage and influence will also flow under the Baltic Sea and into Europe, and the pipeline will enable Moscow to further undermine Ukrainian sovereignty and stability.”

    Russia’s “weaponization” of energy against Europe was the topic of a “debate” that Gary Peach and I carried out in December 2018 on the pages of Energy Intelligence, which monitors issues pertaining to global energy security. Gary, one of EI’s senior writers, covers Russian energy.

    Gazprom headquarters in the Lakhta Center skyscraper in Saint Petersburg, Russia, February 2021. (CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

    I argued that “Russia has never sought to use its status as a major supplier of energy to Europe as a vehicle of policy influence,” noting that:

    “[t]he weaponization of Russian energy comes in the form of sanctions imposed against Moscow and the pursuit of policies designed to curtail development of Russia’s energy sector. It is far easier to make a case that the U.S. and Europe pose a threat to Russian energy security rather than vice versa.”

    Gary, on the other hand, noted that

    “Gazprom’s supply contracts exhibit the underlying economic threat from Moscow: The pricing formula is roughly the same for all countries, but those countries in Russia’s good graces receive an arbitrary ‘discount.’” He concluded that “when Gazprom is the only conceivable gas supplier, it has shamelessly abused the monopoly.”

    In December 2019 the administration of President Donald Trump imposed sanctions in a desperate last-second bid to prevent the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from being completed.

    These sanctions were waived by the administration of President Joe Biden in May 2021 in an effort to be seen as repairing relations with Germany that had been severely frayed during the Trump administration. However, upon completion, Nord Stream 2 was prevented from operating by objections raised by German regulators regarding licensing issues, which were not expected to be resolved until mid-2022.

    In the lead up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration devised a plan to punish Russia by imposing severe economic sanctions which would target the Russian energy sector, including measures designed to halt the delivery of gas from Russia to Germany via the Nord Stream pipelines.

    One of the issues confronting U.S. policy makers was finding the right mix of sanctions that would succeed in harming Russia without destroying the European economy in the process. Policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic, however, recognized that meaningful sanctions which targeted Russian energy contained collateral risk to the European economy which could not be avoided. 

    One of the mechanisms that U.S. and E.U. policy makers were hoping would alleviate the economic consequences of sanctioning Russian energy was to increase the supply of U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG) to Europe. Since 2016 the amount of LNG supplied by the U.S. to Europe has increased, with more than 21 bcm delivered in 2021.

    Deck of the LNG tanker Energy Atlantic in Port Arthur, Texas, 2016. (U.S. Coast Guard, Dustin R. Williams)

    But 21 bcm couldn’t begin to offset the quantity of natural gas being shipped by Russia to Europe in case of any large-scale disruption of Russian energy supplies brought on by the imposition of economic sanctions that targeted the Russian energy sector.

    After the Russian invasion of Ukraine — and the realization that the energy disruption to Europe was going to be far greater than had been anticipated — Biden made good on his promise to increase the supply of U.S. LNG to Europe. But the quantities still fell far short of demand, and at prices that were, literally, bankrupting all of Europe.

    The Victims

    With Germany blocking the operation of Nord Stream 2 and sanctions precluding the repair of the Nord Stream 1, the German population began bearing the brunt of the sanctions on Russian energy.

    Despite their government’s insistence that it would remain resolute in confronting what it perceived as Russian aggression against Ukraine, the German people had other plans. By Sept. 26 they began taking to the streets in large numbers to demand that their government open the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and provide the German people and economy with the energy needed to survive.

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

    The Crime

    On Sept. 26, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline reported a massive drop in pressure. The next day, the Nord Stream 1 pipeline reported the same. A Danish fighter jet, flying over the pipeline route, reported seeing a one-kilometer diameter disturbance in the water off the island of Bornholm, directly over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, created by the massive release of natural gas underwater. (Danish authorities have estimated that between the two pipelines the total amount of methane released into the atmosphere was around 500,000 metric tons.)

    Locations of the explosions caused by the Nord Stream attacks on Sept. 26. (Lampel, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

    The incident took place in the exclusive economic zone of Sweden, and the Swedish Security Service took the lead in investigating what had happened. (Curiously, Russia was not invited to participate, despite having a vested economic and security interest in the matter.)

    “After completing the crime scene investigation,” the Swedes reported, “the Swedish Security Service can conclude that there have been detonations at Nord Stream 1 and 2 in the Swedish economic zone,” noting that the blasts had caused “extensive damage” to the lines.

    The Swedes also declared that they had retrieved some materials from the incident site, which were being analyzed to determine who was responsible. This evidence, the Swedes stated, “strengthened the suspicions of gross sabotage.”

    While all parties involved with the Nord Stream pipeline “sabotage” concur that the cause was manmade, no nation outside Russia has named a suspect. (Russian President Vladimir Putin has attributed the attack, which Russia has labeled an act of “international terrorism,” on the “Anglo-Saxons” — the British and Americans.)

    Biden dismissed the Russian claims. The pipeline attack “was a deliberate act of sabotage and the Russians are pumping out disinformation and lies,” the U.S. president said. “At the appropriate moment, when things calm down, we’re going to be sending divers down to find out exactly what happened. We don’t know that yet exactly.”

    But we do know. Biden told us himself. So did Secretary of State Antony Blinken. So did the U.S. Navy. Between the three, we have incontrovertible evidence of intent, motive and means — more than enough needed to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    Intent

    Speaking to reporters on Feb. 7, Biden declared “If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”

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

    When a journalist asked how Biden could do such a thing, given that Germany was in control of the project, Biden retorted: “I promise you: We will be able to do it.”

    No prosecutor has ever had a more concise statement of intent — a veritable confession before the event — than this. Joe Biden should be taken at his word.

    Motive

    When asked by reporters on Oct. 3 to comment on the Nord Stream pipeline attacks, Blinken responded in part by noting that the attack was “a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs.”

    Blinken further declared that the U.S. would work to alleviate the “consequences” of the pipeline attack on Europe, alluding to the provision of U.S. LNG at exorbitant profit margins for U.S. suppliers — another “opportunity.”

    Secretary of State Antony Blinken. (State Department, Freddie Everett)

    Prosecutors often speak of cui bono, a Latin phrase that means “who benefits,” when seeking to import motive for a crime committed, under the presumption that there is a high probability that those responsible for a specific crime are the ones who stand to gain from it.

    Blinken. Tremendous opportunity.

    Cui Bono.

    Means

    In early June, in support of a major NATO exercise known as BALTOPS (Baltic Operations) 2022, the U.S. Navy employed the latest advancements in unmanned underwater vehicle, or UUV, mine hunting technology to be tested in operational scenarios.

    According to the U.S. Navy, it was able to evaluate “emerging mine hunting UUV technology,” focusing on “UUV navigation, teaming operations, and improvements in acoustic communications all while collecting critical environmental data sets to advance the automatic target recognition algorithms for mine detection.”

    One of the UUV’s used by the U.S. Navy is the Seafox.

    Crewmembers aboard a German mine hunter lower a Seafox marine drone into the water on Oct. 26, 2018, during NATO drills in the North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea. (NATO/WO FRAN C.Valverde)

    In September, specialized U.S. Navy helicopters — the MH-60R, capable of employing the Seafox UUV — were tracked flying off the Danish island of Bornholm, directly over the segments of the Nordstream 1 and 2 pipelines that were later damaged in the sabotage incidents.

    To quote TASS,

    “On November 6, 2015, the NATO Seafox mine disposal unmanned underwater vehicle was found during the scheduled visual inspection of the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline. It lay in space between gas pipelines, clearly near one of strings. NATO said the underwater mine disposal vehicle was lost during exercises. Such NATO exercises when the combat explosive device turned out to be exactly under our gas pipeline. The explosive device was deactivated by Swedish Armed Forces at that time.”

    Italian explosive ordnance disposal team operates a UUV, unmanned underwater vehicle, in NATO exercises in September in Portugal. (NATO)

    Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt

    The burden that exists to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt “is fully satisfied and entirely convinced to a moral certainty that the evidence presented proves the guilt of the defendant.”  In the matter of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 attacks, this burden has been met when it comes to assigning blame to the United States.

    Biden all but confessed the crime beforehand, and his secretary of state, Blinken, crowed about the “tremendous opportunity” that was created by the attack. Not only did the U.S. Navy actively rehearse the crime in June 2022, using the same weapon that had been previously discovered next to the pipeline, but employed the very means needed to use this weapon on the day of the attack, at the location of the attack.

    Guilty as Charged

    U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks on banning Russian energy imports on March 8. (White House, Carlos Fyfe)

    The problem is, outside of Russia, no one is charging the United States. Journalists run away from the evidence, citing “uncertainty.” Europe, afraid to wake up to the reality that its most important “ally” has committed an act of war against its critical energy infrastructure, condemning millions of Europeans to suffer the depravations of cold, hunger and unemployment —all the while gouging Europe with profit margins from the sale of LNG that redefine the notion of “windfall” — remains silent.

    There is no doubt in any thinking person’s brain as to who is responsible for the attacks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. The circumstantial case is overwhelming and fully capable of winning a conviction in any U.S. court of law.

    But no one will bring the case, at least not at this moment.

    Shame on American journalism for ignoring this flagrant attack on Europe.

    Shame on Europe for not having the courage to publicly name their attacker.

    But most of all, shame on the administration of Joe Biden, who has lowered the U.S. to the same standard of those it hunted down and killed for so many years — a simple international terrorist, and a state sponsor of terrorism.

    *  *  *

    Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 22:20

  • India Expected To Overtake China As World's Most Populous Country This Year
    India Expected To Overtake China As World’s Most Populous Country This Year

    Humankind is now double the size it was in 1973.

    Of course, that growth has been far from uniform, and the ranking of the world’s most populous countries continues to evolve.

    Using the latest data available from the United Nations, Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley looks at which countries have the largest share of the planet’s eight billion people.

    The Top 10 Most Populous Countries

    Here are the countries shown above, including how much they’ve grown over the past 50 years:

    The numbers above highlight the extreme variance in growth for these world’s most populous countries. While Germany has grown by just 6% over the past 50 years, Pakistan and Nigeria have nearly quadrupled their populations.

    Half a century ago, there were only six countries with populations of over 100 million. Today, there are 15 countries past that mark, with Vietnam positioned to hit that milestone next.

    The Top 20 Most Populous Countries

    Things get even more interesting when we examine the top 20 most populous countries over the same time period.

    Looking back 50 years ago, Nigeria was the lone African nation in the top 20. Today, it is joined by Ethiopia, Egypt, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – all of which have experienced staggering population growth.

    African nations are expected to lead population growth over the next few decades. By 2100, one quarter of the world’s people are expected to be African.

    Europe is the flip side of this equation. Back in 1973, there were six European countries in this top list. Today, only Russia and Germany remain, with the latter country soon to fall out of the top 20 ranking.

    Ukraine, which was shrinking, is expected to fall to at least 41st place due to the turmoil surrounding the Russian invasion of the country. Since the invasion began in February 2022, nearly 14 million border crossings have been recorded from Ukraine to other countries.

    How Big Will Populations Get?

    Once India becomes the world’s largest country, it will likely remain so for many decades in the future, peaking in the 2060s (unless there are substantial changes in projected growth rates). India’s peak population will stand at around 1.7 billion people.

    The world’s population is expected to peak later, around the 2080s. Humanity’s peak population is expected to be about 10.5 billon.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 22:00

  • Kaiser Permanente Sued For Wrongful Death After California Husband’s Remdesivir Treatment Fails
    Kaiser Permanente Sued For Wrongful Death After California Husband’s Remdesivir Treatment Fails

    Authored by Juliette Fairley via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Before Rodney Briones’ physicians at Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center in California treated him with Remdesivir, they allegedly did not disclose the risks to him or to his wife, Christina, and did not obtain informed consent, according to a complaint filed by the Briones family.

    A vial of Gilead Sciences’ remdesivir in Belgium in a file image. (Dirk Vaem/Belga/AFP via Getty Images)

    The couple had gone to the managed care consortium for help after Rodney developed COVID-19 symptoms and tested positive twice for SARS-CoV-2.

    A five-day course of treatment with the controversial drug and other allegedly contraindicated, high-risk medications allegedly led to kidney failure for the 50-year-old Briones, who was subsequently placed on a ventilator. During this time, Kaiser Riverside reportedly refused to allow the man’s wife or family to see him. He died on Sept. 12.

    “My husband was murdered because of government [expletive],” Christina Briones told The Epoch Times. “I never thought this could happen.”

    Kaiser Permanente and Gilead Sciences, the maker of Remdesivir, did not respond to requests for comment.

    The grieving wife sued Kaiser in Riverside Superior Court alleging the wrongful death of her husband due to hospital protocol that included administering Remdesvir, which, according to the lawsuit, is a failed Ebola drug that was found to be terminally toxic to the kidneys. The drug was pulled from an Ebola study because more than 53 percent of Remdesivir recipients died, the lawsuit states.

    “The Kaiser Riverside physician did not disclose the availability of highly effective Safe Multi-Drug Early Treatment (SMDET) to Rodney when both Rodney and a reasonable patient in Rodney’s position would have wanted the disclosure,” wrote the Briones family attorney Matthew Tyson in the Sept. 7 complaint. “This was constructive fraud.”

    The Briones family seeks survivor action general damages as well as wrongful death general and special damages.

    “We pioneered Remdesivir wrongful death litigation using a constructive fraud theory, and we filed the very first Remdesivir wrongful death lawsuit in the country, back in June, for Evangeline Ortega,” said Tyson, who is working with Attorney Brian Garrie on multiple Remdesivir lawsuits.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 21:40

  • China Conducting 'Race-Baiting' Social Media Campaigns To Polarize Americans: Former CIA Officer
    China Conducting ‘Race-Baiting’ Social Media Campaigns To Polarize Americans: Former CIA Officer

    Authored by Andrew Thornebrooke and Kevin Hogan via The Epoch Times,

    China’s communist regime is using social media to weaponize racial enmity in the United States, according to a former intelligence officer.

    A protester is holding a “defund the police” sign at a Black Lives Matter protest in Manhattan on July 13, 2020. (Chung I Ho/The Epoch Times)

    The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is actively working to erode trust in the U.S. political system and to increase political polarization among Americans by inflaming racial tensions on social media, according to Nicholas Eftimiades, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank.

    “China works a lot now … attempting to divide the United States,” Eftimiades said during a Sep. 30 interview with NTD, a sister media outlet of The Epoch Times.

    “Race baiting is a tactic that we’ve seen starting to evolve from China in the United States. This goes back to the riots in 2020.”

    Race-baiting refers to the encouragement or coaxing of racism or anger about racial issues for political gain.

    Eftimiades, who previously worked in the Central Intelligence Agency, State Department, Diplomatic Security Service, and Defense Intelligence Agency, said that the CCP maintained several organizations that carried out overseas information operations and could promote such campaigns.

    Among these, he said, were the CCP’s propagandistic United Front work department, the intelligence-focused Ministry of State Security, and the People’s Liberation Army, all of which have conducted covert influence operations in foreign countries.

    Often, Eftimiades said, CCP social media campaigns were short-lived because they were found out by security professionals employed by the social media companies.

    Some, however, could fester and grow within insular echo chambers online, where readers often only see content designed for them based on proprietary algorithms.

    “You can question how effective some of these are because they don’t have time to build up a massive following before they’re taken down,” Eftimiades said.

    “So, you typically look for echo chambers. You look for that type of race-based politics that China’s trying to divide and conquer [with] in the United States.”

    CCP Now Targeting Americans Domestically

    Eftimiades’s comments follow an announcement by Meta Platforms that it had dismantled a China-based misinformation campaign ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

    The purpose of the campaign appeared to be to inflame tensions and increase polarization among Americans on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

    Eftimiades said that this phenomenon presented an evolution in CCP information tactics, as the regime previously focused on swaying opinions about Americans abroad rather than interfering with its people internally.

    “I’d say it’s the first time we’ve seen a lot of attacks in the U.S.,” Eftimiades said. “It’s a concept of divide and conquer internally.”

    “In the United States we have our issues with racism and they’re exploiting those differences as of late,” Eftimiades said.

    The comments echo similar remarks made by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who now hosts a program for the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank.

    “The worst lie they [the CCP] tell is that America is somehow a racist country,” Pompeo said in the first episode of the show. “[But] that is the exact opposite of the truth.”

    “America is the only country in the world founded on the idea that all humans are treated and created equally.”

    Pompeo’s remarks in turn followed a propaganda push by the Chinese state-run media CCTV, which claimed that racism was “an unhealable wound” in the United States.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 21:00

  • Judge Throws Out Fed Law Against Guns With Serial Numbers Removed
    Judge Throws Out Fed Law Against Guns With Serial Numbers Removed

    In a move that already has gun-control enthusiasts clutching their pearls, a judge on Wednesday ruled that a federal law barring possession of a gun with a removed serial number is unconstitutional.

    Taking his cue from the guiding precedent of the Supreme Court’s landmark June gun ruling that found Americans have a constitutionally-protected right to carry a handgun in public, U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin said the serial-number-removal law was inconsistent with the country’s “historical tradition of firearms regulation.” 

    Wednesday’s ruling in U.S. v Price sprang from a criminal case in which a man named Randy Price was charged with possessing a firearm with its serial number removed. The law that was struck down made it a crime to either transport such a gun across state lines, or simply possess such a gun if it had ever crossed a state line.  

    Judge Goodwin, a President Clinton nominee, noted that “serial numbers were not broadly required for all firearms manufactured and imported in the United States until the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968,” and the ban on possessing a firearm with a removed serial number didn’t come about until 1990. 

    Given that, he found the law barring the removal of serial numbers fails the test established by June’s Supreme Court case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen. Specifically, to justify a firearm regulation, the Supreme Court said “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” 

    Though the Bruen test is only a few months old, it’s already animated several rulings against gun laws, including:

    Before some of you start cheerfully obliterating your serial numbers, note that the federal government is likely to appeal the ruling, which means the Fourth Circuit may have a say in it…but maybe not the final say. 

    Until then, take in a few of the reactions:

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

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

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

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

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 20:40

  • Moderna CEO Confirms New mRNA 'Injection' To Repair Heart Muscles After Heart Attack
    Moderna CEO Confirms New mRNA ‘Injection’ To Repair Heart Muscles After Heart Attack

    Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    The CEO of Moderna announced his company has a program that involves injecting messenger RNA (mRNA) into people’s hearts following a heart attack.

    “We are now in a super exciting program where we inject mRNA in people’s hearts after a heart attack to grow back new blood vessels and re-vascularize the heart,” Stephane Bancel, the CEO, told Sky News in a recent interview.

    Stephane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, during a tour of the Moderna facility in Norwood, Mass. on May 12, 2021. (Nancy Lane/The Boston Herald via AP)

    Bancel did not elaborate on the nature of the program. His company produced one of the world’s most-used mRNA vaccines for COVID-19—as did pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

    When the reporter suggested that there is an “irony” within the COVID-19 pandemic that it allowed companies like Moderna to “develop these other areas because of the revenues that came through the door,” Bancel agreed. “You’re 100 percent right,” he said.

    In August, Moderna reported second-quarter 2022 revenue of $4.7 billion, up $300 million from the second quarter of 2021. For the first half of this year, its total revenue stood at $10.8 billion, or a growth from $6.3 billion in the same period last year.

    The company attributed the significant spike in its revenue growth to the rise in sales of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

    Before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) handed down emergency use authorizations for the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines in 2020, no mRNA products received full FDA approval within the United States.

    Research

    Meanwhile, an Australian government agency last month granted $1.1 million to target three major cardiovascular diseases using mRNA technology, with officials claiming that mRNA-based therapies will reduce inflammation in connection to three major heart diseases including atherosclerosis, pulmonary hypertension, and abdominal aortic aneurysm.

    “The mRNA-based targeted strategies that we are investigating can stop the progression of inflammation, providing the opportunities of preventing cardiovascular disease events like heart attack, stroke, and heart failure without the unwanted side effects,” one researcher, Baker Institute’s head of molecular imaging and theranostics Xiaowei Wang, said in a statement after the grant.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 20:20

  • Musk Demands Pentagon Foot Starlink-Ukraine Bill After Being Told To 'F**k Off'
    Musk Demands Pentagon Foot Starlink-Ukraine Bill After Being Told To ‘F**k Off’

    Elon Musk’s SpaceX has been generous in providing free Starlink satellite internet terminals for Ukraine’s military to boost communication channels as the war enters its eighth month. 

    Musk recently tweeted the Ukrainian “operation has cost SpaceX $80 million and will exceed $100 million by the end of the year.”

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

    But those charitable donations of more than 20,000 Starlink terminals (and counting…) have just come to an abrupt end. CNN obtained a new letter that SpaceX sent the Pentagon, warning about the need for funding to maintain the service in the war-torn country, which costs upwards of $20 million per month (and most of it has been footed by SpaceX). 

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

    The letter continued with the need for the Pentagon to take over Starlink’s expenses. In the next 12 months, Starlink forecasted the service would cost upwards of $400 million. 

    “We are not in a position to further donate terminals to Ukraine, or fund the existing terminals for an indefinite period of time,” SpaceX’s director of government sales wrote in the letter. 

    Musk on Friday confirmed the letter as he responded to a Kyiv Post journalist on Twitter, saying he only followed the advice of a Ukrainian diplomat who told him to “F*** off.” 

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

    Musk also said: “Starlink is still losing money … goal is “not to go bankrupt.” 

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

    The letter comes after reports of widespread Starlink outages across Ukraine. The Financial Times reported that Ukrainian troops had experienced issues with their terminals. 

    CNN said, “sources familiar with the outages said they suddenly affected the entire frontline as it stood on September 30.” Starlink has been the primary communication link on the battlefield since Russia bombed the country’s infrastructure. 

    SpaceX’s request for funding or it would stop providing free access comes after Musk tweeteed about a controversial peace plan. 

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

    Starlink is essential to the Ukrainian military, and one would suspect that the Pentagon would pick up the tab if US’ proxy war against Russia wants to be successful.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 20:11

  • US-Saudi Relationship 'Likely Unrecoverable': Expert
    US-Saudi Relationship ‘Likely Unrecoverable’: Expert

    The head of the American Enterprise Institute says US-Saudi relations are “likely unrecoverable,” after the White House ‘personalized’ last week’s OPEC+ decision to cut production, according to an expert cited by Bloomberg.

    “They’ve once again personalized the problem, which will lead to another humiliating climbdown when they need something from Saudi Arabia,” said Kori Schake, director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, of the US position. “They’d have been smarter to have pointed out that Saudi Arabia frequently refuses US requests to use oil as a policy tool, when the Saudi economy is wholly reliant on it and has an overriding interest in price stability.”

    “The relationship is likely unrecoverable,” Schake added.

    The analysis comes after dueling statements from Washington and Riyadh in recent days over the OPEC+ cut, which underscores how bad the deteriorating relationship has been between the two countries which are now accusing each other of acting in bad faith.

    Saudi Arabia said the cuts were an attempt to ease market volatility, and lectured that relations with the US must be built on trust. A White House statement on Thursday sneered at Saudi Arabia’s attempt to “spin or deflect,” and Secretary of State Antony Blinken echoed Biden’s warnings that the decision would have “consequences.”

    The remarkably public contretemps reflects brewing impatience within the White House now that it has little to show for Biden’s outreach to the Saudis — which he was compelled to make as gasoline prices soared over the summer, despite his campaign promise to treat Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as a “pariah.” -Bloomberg

    One Saudi official said there’s a serious sense of grievance that the US abandoned the Kingdom during periods of low oil prices, only to turn around and expect help now that it wants to keep prices from rising ahead of next month’s midterm elections.

    Another Gulf official insisted that the oil production cut is more about balancing supply and demand – and serving their own economies while trying to minimize international harm.

    Current and former officials on both sides insist that Washington and Riyadh ‘fundamentally misunderstand each other,’ with one saying that there was dismay over the White House’s angry response – suggesting that the Biden administration should have instead taken the high road.

    As such, the only hope for restoring relations is the fact that neither side wants to sever security and energy ties – as the two countries have a long history of intelligence-sharing. The Saudis also house what US officials say are a ‘significant number’ of Patriot anti-missile interceptors sent to Saudi Arabia in May.

    Despite some calls in Congress to curb Saudi purchases of US weapons, the administration is pushing back against any restrictions on arms sales to the kingdom, said Scott Modell, managing director of Rapidan Energy Group. However dissatisfied the Saudis may be with delays in delivery of US weapons or assistance due to the war in Ukraine, “they have to grin and bear it” because there’s no substitute for the US when it comes to defense and security, he said.

    For now, though, talk in the US is of punishment, not rapprochement. Officials say Biden is weighing his options for how best to respond. -Bloomberg

    Getting litigious

    One option the US is considering to punish Saudi Arabia is a bill known as NOPEC – which would enable the US to sue OPEC producers for energy market manipulation. We suppose this only counts in directions that benefit the US – which plans to drain the US strategic reserves by at least 165 million barrels of crude through November to combat rising prices. Bloomberg notes that Biden could release more reserves to try and drive prices down even more.

    And what about arms sales?

    “For us at this moment to have a longstanding partner like Saudi Arabia help Russia fund their war of aggression against Ukraine was a very bitter disappointment and a big surprise,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) in a Friday statement to CNN. “I think you’ll see both the administration and the Senate take action, and one of the most likely actions is to stop any future arms sales.”

    The report notes that Saudi Arabia’s military is 75% composed of US equipment, which includes fighter jets, according to senior Brookings fellow Bruce Riedel.

    If the US does end arms sales, it would mark a ‘whipsaw in policy’ for the Biden administration – which has generally loosened restrictions despite its rhetoric against the Kingdom.

    “I can’t imagine a greater humiliation — both in terms of his domestic political standing, and his efforts on unity in the international arena on Ukraine and Russia — than what MBS did” to Biden, said Carnegie Endowment for International Peace senior fellow Aaron David Miller. “At a minimum, he didn’t really care what the impact was for Joe Biden.”

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 20:00

  • Macleod: The Great Global Unwind Begins
    Macleod: The Great Global Unwind Begins

    Authored by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

    There is a growing feeling in markets that a financial crisis of some sort is now on the cards. \

    Credit Suisse’s very public struggles to refinance itself is proving to be a wake-up call for markets, alerting investors to the parlous state of global banking.

    This article identifies the principal elements leading us into a global financial crisis.

    Behind it all is the threat from a new trend of rising interest rates, and the natural desire of commercial banks everywhere to reduce their exposure to falling financial asset values both on their balance sheets and held as loan collateral.

    And there are specific problems areas, which we can identify:

    • It should be noted that the phenomenal growth of OTC derivatives and regulated futures has been against a background of generally declining interest rates since the mid-eighties. That trend is now reversing, so we must expect the $600 trillion of global OTC derivatives and a further $100 trillion of futures to contract as banks reduce their derivative exposure. In the last two weeks, we have seen the consequences for the gilt market in London, warning us of other problem areas to come.

    • Commercial banks are over-leveraged, with notable weak spots in the Eurozone, Japan, and the UK. It will be something of a miracle if banks in these jurisdictions manage to survive contracting bank credit and derivative blow-ups. If they are not prevented, even the better capitalised American banks might not be safe.

    • Central banks are mandated to rescue the financial system in troubled times. However, we find that the ECB and its entire euro system of national central banks, the Bank of Japan, and the US Fed are all deeply in negative equity and in no condition to underwrite the financial system in this rising interest rate environment. 

    The Credit Suisse wake-up call

    In the last fortnight, it has become obvious that Credit Suisse, one of Switzerland’s two major banking institutions, faces a radical restructuring. That’s probably a polite way of saying the bank needs rescuing.

    In the hierarchy of Swiss banking, Credit Suisse used to be regarded as very conservative. The tables have now turned. Banks make bad decisions, and these can afflict any bank. Credit Suisse has perhaps been a little unfortunate, with the blow-up of Archegos, and Greensill Capital being very public errors. But surely the most egregious sin from a reputational point of view was a spying scandal, where the bank spied on its own employees. All the regulatory fines, universally regarded as a cost of business by bank executives, were weathered. But it was the spying scandal which forced the bank’s highly regarded CEO, Tidjane Thiam, to resign.

    We must wish Credit Suisse’s hapless employees well in a period of high uncertainty for them. But this bank, one of thirty global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) is not alone in its difficulties. The only G-SIBs whose share capitalisation is greater than their balance sheet equity are North American: the two major Canadian banks, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan. The full list is shown in Table 1 below, ranked by price to book in the second to last column. [The French Bank, Groupe BPCE’s shares are unlisted so omitted from the table]

    Before a sharp rally in the share price last week, Credit Suisse’s price to book stood at 24%, and Deutsche Bank’s stood at an equally lowly 23.5%. And as can be seen from the table, seventeen out of twenty-nine G-SIBs have price-to-book ratios of under 50%.

    Normally, the opportunity to buy shares at book value or less is seen by value investors as a strategy for identifying undervalued investments. But when a whole sector is afflicted this way, the message is different. In the market valuations for these banks, their share prices signal a significant risk of failure, which is particularly acute in the European and UK majors, and to a similar but lesser extent in the three Japanese G-SIBs.

    As a whole, G-SIBs have been valued in markets for the likelihood of systemic failure for some time. Despite what the markets have been signalling, these banks have survived, though as we have seen in the case of Deutsche Bank it has been a bumpy road for some. Regulations to improve balance sheet liquidity, mainly in the form of Basel 3, have been introduced in phases since the Lehman failure, and still price-to-book discounts have not recovered materially.

    These depressed market valuations have made it impossible for the weaker G-SIBs to consider increasing their Tier 1 equity bases because of the dilutive effect on existing shareholders. Seeming to believe that their shares are undervalued, some banks have even been buying in discounted shares, reducing their capital and increasing balance sheet leverage even more. There is little doubt that in a very low interest rate environment some bankers reckoned this was the right thing to do.

    But that has now changed. With interest rates now rising rapidly, over-leveraged balance sheets need to be urgently wound down to protect shareholders. And even bankers who have been so captured by the regulators that they regard their shareholders as a secondary priority will realise that their confrères in other banks will be selling down financial assets, liquidating financial collateral where possible, and withdrawing loan and overdraft facilities from non-financial businesses when they can. 

    It is all very well to complacently think that complying with Basel 3 liquidity provisions is a job well done. But if you ignore balance sheet leverage for your shareholders at a time of rising prices and therefore interest rates, they will almost certainly be wiped out. There can be no doubt that the change from an environment where price-to-book discounts are an irritation to bank executives to really mattering is bound up in a new, rising interest rate environment.

    Rising interest rates are also a sea-change for derivatives, and particularly for the banks exposed to them. Interest rates swaps, of which the Bank for International Settlements reckoned there were $8.8 trillion equivalent in June 2021, have been deployed by pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds and banks lending fixed-rate mortgages. They are turning out to be a financial instrument of mass destruction.

    An interest rate swap is an arrangement between two counterparties who agree to exchange payments on a defined notional amount for a fixed time period. The notional amount is not exchanged, but interest rates on it are, one being at a predefined fixed rate such as a spread over a government bond yield with a maturity matching the duration of the swap agreement, while the other floats based on LIBOR or a similar yardstick.

    Swaps can be agreed for fixed terms of up to fifteen years. When the yield curve is positive, a pension fund, for example, can obtain a decent income uplift by taking the fixed interest leg and paying the floating rate. And because the deal is based on notional capital, which is never put up, swaps can be leveraged significantly. The other party will be active in wholesale money markets, securing a small spread over floating rate payments received from the pension fund. Both counterparties expect to benefit from the deal, because their calculations of the net present values of the cash flows, which involves a degree of judgement, will not be too dissimilar when the deal is agreed.

    The risk to the pension fund comes from rising bond yields. Despite the rise in bond yields, it still takes the fixed rate agreed at the outset, yet it is committed to paying a higher floating rate. In the UK, 3-month sterling LIBOR rose from 0.107% on 1 December 2021, to 3.94% yesterday. In a five-year swap, the fixed rate taken by the pension fund would be based on the 5-year gilt yield, which on 1 December last was 0.65%. With a spread of perhaps 0.25% over that, the pension fund would be taking 0.9% and paying 0.107%, for a turn of 0.793%. Today, the pension fund would still be taking 0.9%, but paying out 3.94%. With rising interest rates, even without leverage it is a disaster for the pension fund. But this is not the only trap they have fallen into.

    In the UK, pension fund exposure to repurchase agreements (repos) led to margin calls and a sudden liquidation of gilt collateral less a fortnight ago. A number of specialist firms offered liability driven investment schemes (LDIs), targeted at final salary pension schemes. Using repos, LDI schemes were able to use low funding rates to finance long gilt positions, geared by up to seven times. When LDIs blew up due to falling collateral values, the gilt market collapsed as pension funds became forced sellers, and the Bank of England dramatically reversed its stillborn quantitative tightening policy. That saga has further to run, and the problem is not restricted to UK pension funds, as we shall see. A fuller description of how these repo schemes blew up is described later in this article.

    The LDI episode is a warning of the consequences of a change in interest rate trends for derivatives in the widest sense. We should not forget that the evolution of derivatives has been in large measure due to the post-1980 trend of declining interest rates. With commodity, producer, and consumer prices now all rising fuelled by currency debasement, that trend has now come to an end. And with collateral values falling instead of rising, it is not just a case of dealers adjusting their outlook. There are bound to be more detonations in the $600 trillion OTC global derivatives market.

    Central to these derivatives are banks and shadow banks. Credit Suisse has been a market maker in credit default swaps, leveraged loans, and other derivative-based activities. The bank deals in a wide range of swaps, interest rate and foreign exchange options, forex forwards and futures.[i] The replacement values of its OTC derivatives are shown in the 2021 accounts at CHF125.6 billion, which reduces with netting agreements to CHF25.6 billion. Small beer, it might seem. But the notional amounts, being the principal amounts upon which these derivative replacement values are based are far, far larger. The leverage between replacement values and notional amounts means that the bank’s exposure to rising interest rates could rapidly drive it into insolvency.

    At this juncture, we cannot know if this is at the root of the bank’s troubles. And this article is not intended to be a criticism of Credit Suisse relative to its peers. The problems the bank faces are reflected in the entire G-SIB system with other banks having far larger derivative exposures. The point is that as a whole, participants in the derivatives market are unprepared for the conditions which led to its phenomenal growth at $600 trillion equivalent, which is now being reversed by a change in the primary trend for interest rates.

    Central bank balance sheets and bailing commercial banks

    In the event of commercial banking failures, it is generally expected that central banks will ensure depositors are protected, and that the financial system’s survival is guaranteed. But given the sheer size of derivative markets and the likely consequences of counterparty failures, it will be an enormous task requiring global cooperation and the abandonment of the bail-in procedures agreed by G20 member nations in the wake of the Lehman crisis. There will be no question but that failing banks must continue to trade with their bond holders’ funds remaining intact. If not, then all bank bonds are likely to collapse in value because in a bail-in bond holders will prefer the sanctity of deposits guaranteed by the state. And any attempt to limit deposit protection to smaller depositors would be disastrous.

    Because the Great Unwind is so sudden, it promises to become a far larger crisis than anything seen before. Unfortunately, due to quantitative easing the central banks themselves also have bond losses to contend with, wiping out the values of their balance sheet equity many times over. That a currency-issuing central bank has net liabilities on its balance sheet would not normally matter, because it can always expand credit to finance itself. But we are now envisaging central banks with substantial and growing net liabilities being required to guarantee entire commercial banking networks. 

    The burden of bail outs will undoubtedly lead to new rounds of currency debasement directly and indirectly, as vain attempts are made to support financial asset values and prevent an economic catastrophe. Accelerating currency debasement by the issuing authorities will almost certainly undermine public faith in fiat currencies, leading to their entire collapse, unless a way can be found to stabilise them.

    The euro system has specific problems

    In theory, recapitalising a central bank is a simple matter. The bank makes a loan to its shareholder, typically the government, which instead of a balancing deposit it books as equity in its liabilities. But when a central bank is not answerable to any government, that route cannot be taken.

    This is a problem for the ECB, whose shareholders are the national central banks of the member states. Unfortunately, they are also in need of recapitalisation. Table 2 below summarises the likely losses suffered this year so far on their bond holdings under the assumptions in the notes.

    Other than the four national central banks for which bond prices are unavailable, we can see that all NCBs and the ECB itself have been entrapped by rising bond yields. Even the mighty Bundesbank appears to have losses on its bonds forty-four times its shareholders’ capital since 1 January. Bearing in mind that the Eurozone’s consumer price index is now rising at about 10% and considerably higher in some member states, 5-year maturity government bond yields between 2% (Germany) and 4% (Italy) can be expected to rise considerably from here. No amount of mollification, that central banks can never go bust, will cover up this problem.

    Imagine the legislative hurdles. The Bundesbank, let’s say, presents a case to the Bundestag to pass enabling legislation to permit it to recapitalise itself and to subscribe to more capital in the ECB on the basis of its share of the ECB’s equity to restore it to solvency. One can imagine finance ministers being persuaded that there is no alternative to the proposal, but then it will be noticed that the Bundesbank is owed over €1.2 trillion through the TARGET2 system. Surely, it will almost certainly be argued, if those liabilities were paid to the Bundesbank, there would be no need for it to recapitalise itself.

    If only it were so simple. But clearly, it is not in the Bundesbank’s interest to involve ignorant politicians in monetary affairs. The public debate would risk spiralling out of control, with possibly fatal consequences for the entire euro system. So, what is happening with TARGET2?

    TARGET2 imbalances are deteriorating again…

    Figure 1 shows that TARGET2 imbalances are increasing again, notably for Germany’s Bundesbank, which is now owed a record €1,266,470 million, and Italy’s Banca Italia which owes €714,932 million. These are the figures for September, while all the others are for August and are yet to be updated.

    In theory, these imbalances should not exist because that was an objective behind TARGET2’s construction. And before the Lehman crisis, they were minimal as the chart shows. Since then, they have increased to a total of €1,844,815 million, with Germany owed the most, followed by Luxembourg, which in August was owed €337,315 billion. Partly, this is due to Frankfurt and Luxembourg being financial centres for international transactions through which both foreign and Eurozone investing institutions have been selling euro-denominated obligations issued by entities in Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain (the PIGS). The bank credit resulting from these transactions works through the system as follows:

    • An Italian bond is sold through a German bank in Frankfurt. On delivering the bond, the seller has recorded in his favour a credit (deposit) at the German bank. Delivery to Milan against payment occurs with the settlement going through TARGET2, the settlement system through which cross-border settlements are made via the NCBs. Accordingly, the German bank records a matching credit (asset) with the Bundesbank.

    •  The Bundesbank has a liability to the German bank. On the Bundesbank’s balance sheet, it generates a matching asset, reflecting the settlement due from the Banca d’Italia.

    • The Banca d’Italia has a liability to the Bundesbank, and a matching asset to the Italian bank acting for the buyer of the Italian bond.

    • The Italian bank has a liability to the Banca d’Italia, matching the debit on the bond buyer’s account, which is extinguishedby the buyer’s payment in settlement.

    As far as the international seller and the buyer through the Italian market are concerned, settlement has occurred. But the offsetting transfers between the Bundesbank and the Banca d’Italia have not taken place. There have been no settlements between them, and imbalances are the result. 

    The situation has been worsened by capital flight within the Eurozone, using dodgy collateral originating in the PIGS posted to the relevant national central bank by commercial banks, against cash credits made to commercial banks in the form of repurchase agreements (repos). 

    There are two reasons for these repo transactions. The first is simple capital flight within the Eurozone, where cash balances gained through repos are deployed to buy bonds and other assets lodged in Germany and Luxembourg. The payments will be in euros but are very likely to be for bonds and other investments not denominated in euros. The second is that in overseeing TARGET2, the ECB has ignored collateral standards as a means of subsidising the PIGS’ financial systems.

    With the PIGS economies on continuing life support, local bank regulators would be put in an awkward position if they had to decide whether bank loans are performing or non-performing. Because increasing quantities of these loans are undoubtedly non-performing, the solution has been to bundle them up as assets which can be used as collateral for repos through the central banks, so that they get lost in the TARGET2 system. If, say, the Banca d’Italia accepts the collateral it is no longer a concern for the local regulator.

    The true fragility of the PIGS economies is concealed in this way, the precariousness of commercial bank finances is hidden, and the ECB has achieved a political objective of protecting the PIGS’ economies from collapse.

    The recent increase in the imbalances, particularly between the Bundesbank and the Banca d’Italia are a warning that the system is breaking down. It was not an obvious problem when the long-term trend for interest rates was declining. But now that they are rising, the situation is radically different. The spread between Germany’s bond yields and those of Italy along with those of the other PIGS is increasingly being deemed by investors to be insufficient to compensate for the enhanced risks in a rising interest rate environment. The consequences could lead to a new crisis for the PIGS as their precarious state finances become undermined. Furthermore, capital flight out of Eurozone investments generally is confirmed by the collapse in the euro’s exchange rate against the US dollar.

    The Eurozone’s repo market

    From our analysis of the underlying causes of TARGET2 imbalances, we can see that repos play an important role. For the avoidance of doubt a repo is defined as a transaction agreed between parties to be reversed on pre-agreed terms at a future date. In exchange for posting collateral, a bank receives cash. The other party, in our discussion being a central bank, sees the same transaction as a reverse repo. It is a means of injecting fiat liquidity into the commercial banking system.

    Repos and reverse repos are not exclusively used between commercial banks and central banks, but they are also undertaken between banks and other financial institutions, sometimes through third parties, including automated trading systems. They can be leveraged to produce enhanced returns, and this is one of the ways in which liability driven investment (LDI) has been used by UK pension funds geared up to seven times. Presumably UK LDIs are an activity mirrored by their Eurozone equivalents, likely to be revealed as interest rates continue to rise.

    According to the last annual survey by the International Capital Market Association conducted in December 2021, at that time the size of the European repo market (including sterling, dollar, and other currencies conducted in European financial centres) stood at a record of €9,198 billion equivalent.[ii] This was based on responses from a sample of 57 institutions, including banks, so the true size of the market is somewhat larger. Measured by cash currency analysis, the euro share was 56.9% (€5,234bn).

    Obtaining euro cash through repos is cheap finance, as Figure 2 illustrates, which is of rates earlier this week.

    It allows European pension and insurance funds to finance geared bond positions through liability driven investment schemes. Which is fine, until the values of the bonds held as collateral fall, and cash calls are then made. This is what blew up the UK gilt market recently and are doing do so again this week as gilt prices fall. This is not a problem restricted to the UK and sterling markets.

    We can be sure that this situation is ringing alarm bells in the ECB’s headquarters in Frankfurt, as well as in all the major commercial banks around Europe. It has not been a concern so long as interest rates were not rising. Now that they are, with price inflation out of control there’s likely to be an increased reluctance on the part of the banks to novate repo agreements.

    There are a number of moving parts to this emerging crisis. We can summarise the calamity beginning to overwhelm the Eurozone and the euro system, as follows:

    • Rising interest rates and bond yields are set to implode European repo markets. The LDI crisis which hit London will also afflict euro-denominated bond and repo markets — possibly even before the ink in this article has long dried.

    • Collapsing repos in turn will lead to a failure of the TARGET2 system, because repos are the primary mechanism drivingTARGET2 imbalances. The spreads between German and highly indebted PIGS government bonds are bound to widen dramatically, causing a new funding crisis for ever more highly indebted PIGS on a scale far larger than seen in the past.

    • Commercial banks in the Eurozone will be forced to liquidate their assets and collateral held against loans, including repos, as rapidly as possible. This will collapse Eurozone bond markets, as we saw with the UK gilt market earlier this month. Paper held in other currencies by Eurozone banks will be liquidated as well, spreading the crisis to other markets.

    • The ECB and the euro system, which is already insolvent, is duty bound to intervene heavily to support bond markets and ensure the survival of the whole system.

    Panglossians might argue that the ECB has successfully managed financial crises in the past, and that to assume they will fail this time is unnecessarily alarmist. But the difference is in the trends for price inflation and interest rates. If the ECB is to have the slightest chance of succeeding in keeping the whole euro system and its allied commercial banking system afloat, it will be at the expense of the currency as it doubles down on suppressing interest rates. 

    The Bank of Japan is struggling to keep bond yields suppressed

    Along with the ECB, the Bank of Japan forced negative interest rates upon its financial system in an effort to maintain a targeted 2% inflation rate. And while other jurisdictions see CPI rising at 10% or more, Japan’s CPI is rising at only 3%. There are a number of identifiable reasons why this is so. But the overriding reason is that the Japanese consumer continues to place unshakeable faith in the yen. This means that in the face of higher prices, the average consumer withholds spending, increasing preferences for holding the currency.

    Even though the yen has fallen by 26% against the dollar, and dollar prices are rising at 8.5%, the growing preference for holding cash yen relative to consumer purchases in domestic markets holds. But this cannot go on for ever. While domestic market conditions remain stable, the US Fed’s more aggressive interest rate policy relative to the BOJ’s tells a different story for the yen on the foreign exchanges.

    The Bank of Japan first started quantitative easing over twenty years ago and has accumulated a mixture of government bonds (JGBs), corporate bonds, equities through ETFs, and property trusts. On 30 September, their accumulated total had a book value — as distinct from a market value — of over ¥594 trillion ($4.1 trillion). But at ¥545.5 trillion, the JGB element is 92% 0f the total.

    Since 31 December 2021, the yield on the 10-year JGB (by far the largest component) has risen from 0.17% to 0.25% today. On this basis, the bond portfolio held at that time has lost nearly ¥10 trillion, which compares with the bank’s capital of only ¥100 million. Therefore, the losses on the bond element alone are about 100,000 times greater that the bank’s slender equity.

    One can see why the BOJ has drawn a line in the sand against market reality. It insists that the 10-year JGB yield must be prevented from rising above 0.25%. Its neo-Keynesian case is that consumer inflation is subdued so the case for reducing stimulation to the economy is a marginal one. But the consequence is that the currency is collapsing. And only yesterday, the rate to the US dollar began to slide again. This is shown in Figure 3 — note that a rising number represents a weakening yen.

    Despite the mess that Japan’s Keynesian policies has created, it is difficult to see the BOJ changing course willingly. But the crisis for it will surely come if one or more of its three G-SIBs needs supporting. And it should be noted (See Table 1) that all three of them have balance sheet gearing measured by assets to shareholders equity of over twenty times, with Mizuho as much as 26 times, and they all have price to book ratios less than 50%.

    The Fed’s position

    The position of America’s Federal Reserve Board is starkly different from those of the other major central banks. True, it has substantial losses on its bond portfolio. In its Combined Quarterly Financial Report for June 30, 2022, the Fed disclosed the change in unrealised cumulative gains and losses on its Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities of $847,797 million loss (versus June 30 2021, $185,640m loss).[iii] The Fed reports these assets in its balance sheet at amortised cost, so the losses are not immediately apparent.

    But on 30 June, the five-year note was yielding 2.7% and the ten-year 2.97%. Currently, they yield 4.16% and 3.95% respectively. Even without recalculating today’s market values, it is clear that the current deficit is now considerably more than a trillion dollars. And the Fed’s capital and reserves stand at only $46.274 billion, with portfolio losses exceding 25 times that figure.

    Other than losses from rising bond yields, instead of pushing liquidity into markets it is withdrawing it through reverse repos. In this case, the Fed is swapping some of the bonds on its balance sheet for cash on pre-agreed, temporary terms. Officially, this is part of the Fed’s management of overnight interest rates. But with the reverse repo facility standing at over $2 trillion, this is far from a marginal rate setting activity. It probably has more to do with Basel 3 regulations which penalise large bank deposits relative to smaller deposits, and a lack of balance sheet capacity at the large US banks.

    Repos, as opposed to reverse repos, still take place between individual banks and their institutional customers, but it is not obvious that they pose a systemic risk, though some large pension funds may have been using them for LDI transactions, similarly to the UK pension industry.

    While highly geared compared with in the past, US G-SIBs are not nearly as much exposed to a general credit downturn as the Europeans, Japanese, and the British. Contracting bank credit will hurt them, but other G-SIBs are bound to fail first, transmitting systemic risk through counterparty relationships. Nevertheless, markets do recognise some risk, with price-to-book ratios of less than 0.9 for Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, State Street, and BONY-Mellon. JPMorgan Chase, which is the Fed’s principal policy conduit into the commercial banking system, is barely rated above book value.

    Bank of England — bad policies but some smart operators

    In the headlights of an oncoming gilt market crash, the Bank of England acted promptly to avert a crisis centred on pension fund liability driven investment involving interest rate swaps. The workings of interest rate swaps have already been described, but repos also played a role. It might be helpful to explain briefly how repos are used in the LDI context.

    A pension fund goes to a shadow bank specialising in LDI schemes, with access to the repo market. In return for a deposit of say, 20% cash, the LDI scheme provider buys the full amount of medium and long-dated gilts to be held in the LDI scheme, using them as collateral backing for a repo to secure the funding for the other 80%. The repo can be for any duration from overnight to a year.

     One year ago, when the Bank of England suppressed its bank rate at zero percent, one-month sterling LIBOR was close to 0.4% percent to borrow, while the yield on the 20-year gilt was 1.07%. Ignoring costs, a five-times leverage gave an interest rate turn of 0.63% X 5 = 3.15%, nearly three times the rate obtained by simply buying a 20-year gilt.

    Today, the yield differential has improved, leading to even higher net returns. But the problem is that the rise in yield for the 20-year gilt to 4.9% means that the price has fallen from a notional 100 par to 49.95. Since this is the collateral for the cash obtained through the repo, the pension fund faces margin calls amounting to roughly 2.5 times the original investment in the LDI scheme. And all the pension funds using LDI schemes faced calls at the same time, which crashed the gilt market. This is why the BOE had to act quickly to stabilise prices.

    Very sensibly, it has given pension funds and the LDI providers until this Friday to sort themselves out. Until then, the BOE stands prepared to buy any long-dated gilts until tomorrow (Friday, 14 October). It should remove the selling pressure from LDI-related liquidation entirely and orderly market conditions can then resume.

    This experience serves as an example of how rising bond yields can wreak havoc in repo markets, and with interest rate swaps as well. That being the case, problems are bound to arise in other currency derivative markets as bond yields continue to rise.

    Like the other major central banks, the BOE has seen a substantial deficit arise on its portfolio of gilts. But at the outset of QE, it got the Treasury to agree that as well as receiving the dividends and profits from gilts so acquired, it would also take any losses. All gilts bought under the QE programmes are held in a special purpose vehicle on the Bank’s balance sheet, guaranteed by the Treasury and therefore valued at cost.

    Conclusions

    In this article I have put to one side all the economic concerns of a downturn in the quantities of bank credit in circulation and focused on the financial consequences of a new long-term trend of rising interest rates. It should be coming clear that they threaten to undermine the entire fiat currency financial system.

    Credit Suisse’s public problems should be considered in this context. That they have not arisen before was due to the successful suppression of interest rates and bond yields, while the quantities of currency and bank credit have expanded substantially without apparent ill effects. Those ill effects are now impacting financial markets by undermining the purchasing power of all fiat currencies at an accelerating rate.

    From being completely in control of interest rates and fixed interest markets, central banks are now struggling in a losing battle to retain that control from the consequences of their earlier credit expansion. That enemy of every state, the market, has central banks on the run, uncertain as to whether their currencies should be protected (this is the Fed’s current decision and probably a dithering BOE) or a precarious financial system must be the priority (this is the ECB and BOJ’s current position).

    But one thing is clear: with CPI measures rising at a 10% clip, interest rates and bond yields will continue to rise until something breaks. So far, commercial banks are dumping financial assets to deleverage their balance sheets. The effects on listed securities are in plain sight. What is less appreciated, at least before LDI schemes threatened to collapse the UK’s gilt market, is that the $600 trillion OTC derivative market which grew on the back of a long-term trend of declining interest rates is now set to shrink as contracts go sour and banks refuse to novate them. That means that up to $600 trillion of notional credit is set to vanish, in what we might call the Great Unwind.

    This downturn in the cycle of bank credit boom and bust will prove difficult enough for the central banks to manage. But they themselves have balance sheet issues, which can only be resolved, one way or another, by the rapid expansion of base money. And that risks undermining all public credibility in fiat currencies.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 19:40

  • Wawa Calls It Quits On Its Hometown City, Shuttering Two More Philadelphia Stores Due To "Safety Challenges"
    Wawa Calls It Quits On Its Hometown City, Shuttering Two More Philadelphia Stores Due To “Safety Challenges”

    Popular convenience store Wawa is calling it quits on the crime-ridden city of Philadelphia.

    The Pennsylvania-based chain, beloved by people in Southeastern Pennsylvania and the surrounding area, doesn’t appear to see the point of staying open in a city where its stores are constantly being looted and ransacked. 

    It was reported by FOX 29 this week that the chain was shuttering stores at two of its locations in Center City due to “continued safety and security challenges and business factors.” 

    Which is a nice way to say “absolute chaos”…

    “We are very sorry we can’t be there for our friends and neighbors at these two locations, but we continue to serve the community from our other nearby stores and our commitment to the greater region remains strong. Philadelphia is our hometown and that’s something that will never change,” the chain said. 

    Locations at 12th and Market and 19th and Market in Philadelphia will both close.

    Wawa spokesperson Lori Bruce said: “Despite reducing hours and investing in additional operational measures, continued safety and security challenges and business factors have made it increasingly difficult to remain open in these two locations.”

    “These two closures do not necessarily impact or limit potential for future stores in Philadelphia County. We continue to be focused on doing everything we can to monitor and work with local authorities to address challenges impacting operations in any other stores,” she continued. 

    As FOX 29 notes, at least 4 Wawas have closed in the city since 2020 – and it looks like they may not be finished. Fox reported that “Philadelphia Councilmember Mike Driscoll suggested Wawa is reconsidering its presence in Philadelphia and could halt expansion due to crime.”

    Philadelphia’s Mayor’s office offered up a token statement to the Philadelphia Inquirer, thanking Wawa and steering clear of mentioning the obvious burgeoning crime problem that forced them out of the city. The office said: “We greatly value the investments that Wawa has made over the years in Philadelphia and are particularly proud of their close partnership on various civic pride initiatives.”

    The news comes a couple weeks after a mob of people entered a Wawa convenience store on Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia and broke out into a riot, seemingly without warning or reason.

    “We continue to be focused on doing everything we can to monitor and work with local authorities to address challenges impacting operations in any other stores,” a Wawa statement this week said. 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 19:20

  • Fauci Edited Paper By NIH-Funded Group Tied To Wuhan Lab
    Fauci Edited Paper By NIH-Funded Group Tied To Wuhan Lab

    Authored by Eva Fu via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci edited a research paper by the group that worked with a high-profile Wuhan lab to study dangerous bat virus while pushing back concerns that the facility could be the source of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Dr. Anthony Fauci, White House Chief Medical Advisor and Director of the NIAID, shows a screen grab of a campaign website for Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) while answering questions at a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on Jan. 11, 2022. (Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images)

    The paper, titled “Nipah virus dynamics in bats and implications for spillover to humans,” was funded by eight federal programs, half of which were from the NIAID that Fauci will head until this December.

    Members of the nonprofit research group EcoHealth Alliance, which became a conduit for the Wuhan Institute of Virology to conduct risky bat research using U.S. taxpayer dollars, make up over half of the roughly two dozen authors on the paper.

    Fauci edited the paper in 2020 after receiving it for review that Jan. 8, two weeks before COVID-19 brought Wuhan into a complete lockdown. Peer-reviewed scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, better known as PNAS, approved it in September that year and published it two months later.

    The extent of Fauci’s input into the paper is unclear. As a public servant of four decades, Fauci has also edited scientific papers notably on the subject of HIV. But Fauci’s editorial role, given the group’s history of ties with the Wuhan lab and the funding it received from his agency, nonetheless raised eyebrows among critics.

    Tristan Daedalus, the government affairs director for White Coat Waste Project that has been tracking the EcoHealth and Wuhan lab’s collaboration, saw in the case a “self-licking ice cream cone.”

    “First, Fauci champions dangerous animal experiments to balloon his $6 billion budget. Next, he doles it out via grants to EcoHealth and other white coats in the U.S. and abroad. He and his colleagues then personally edit and approve the experiments they funded for publication in scientific journals—then claim success because of the publication record. Finally, he renews the payouts to fuel the government gravy train,” Daedalus said in a statement to The Epoch Times. “Fauci isn’t following the science, but EcoHealth sure is following the money.”

    During the months as the virus spread to other parts of the world, Fauci made repeated efforts to promote a natural COVID-19 origin narrative while downplaying the prospect of a lab leak both privately and in public.

    Peter Daszak, a co-author of the PNAS paper and president of EcoHealth, thanked Fauci for backing a natural origin theory in an April 2020 email, according to NIH records since released through a Freedom of Information Request (pdf).

    “I just wanted to say a personal thankyou [sic] on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he wrote on April 18, 2020, a day after Fauci told reporters that all available evidence on the virus was “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

    Peter Daszak (R) and other members of the World Health Organization (WHO) team investigating the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus, arrive at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan in China’s central Hubei province on Feb. 3, 2021. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)

    “[T]he work we’ve been doing in collaboration with Chinese virologists has given us incredible insights into the risks that these viruses represent, so that we can directly help protect our nation from bat-origin coronaviruses,” he said, citing an NIH-funded multi-year project on bat coronavirus emergence in China. “From my perspective, your comments are brave, and coming from your trusted voice, will help dispel the myths being spun around the virus’ origins.”

    “Many thanks for your kind note,” Fauci wrote in reply.

    The project that Daszak cited was suspended later that year and was the subject of inquiries by both the FBI and the Department of Health and Human Services over its use of grant funding in China. In August, the NIH terminated the project funding to the Wuhan lab after twice failing to get the Chinese facility to hand over laboratory records.

    Fauci’s agency in late September again greenlit millions of funding to EcoHealth to support its research projects in Asia. One of them relates to the Nipah virus.

    Defending the grant decision on Oct. 4, he told a virtual webinar that they “can’t arbitrarily decide, ‘I just don’t want to fund it’ because people don’t like them.”

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 19:00

  • Republican Senators Warn DOJ Not To Police Speech Against Transgender Surgeries On Children
    Republican Senators Warn DOJ Not To Police Speech Against Transgender Surgeries On Children

    Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Senate Republicans are warning Attorney General Merrick Garland not to target Americans who speak against transgender surgeries on children the way his department did to parents protesting at school board meetings.

    In a letter sent on Tuesday to Garland, a group of five senators said they remain concerned that he would repeat a pattern played out in his previous handling of unruly school board protesters.

    “In your confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you promised that, under your watch, the Department of Justice would not be politicized or weaponized,” wrote Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). “You have already broken that promise more than once, and we are concerned you are poised to do so once again.”

    In October 2021, Garland issued a memo bringing together a coalition of federal and local law enforcement to address alleged “threats of violence” against teachers and school board members. In response to that memo, the FBI’s counterterrorism unit created the threat tag “EDUOFFICIALS,” and opened dozens of investigations into the activities of protesting parents.

    According to Garland, the memo was based in part on a letter sent to President Joe Biden by the National School Boards Association (NSBA), which characterized disruptions at school board meetings as “a form of domestic terrorism and hate crime.” Specifically, the NSBA urged the federal government to invoke counterterrorism laws to quell “angry mobs” of parents, who sought to hold school officials accountable for race and sex indoctrination, and for imposing harsh COVID-19 restrictions on their children.

    The senators said they had to remind Garland of his promise, because the DOJ has once again been asked to censor debate, this time, over the issue of children being put through irreversible transgender procedures.

    On Oct. 3, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and Children’s Hospital Association sent a letter (pdf) to Garland, asking the DOJ to help with alleged “threats” and “harassment” they face because of the “gender-affirming healthcare” they provide.

    “From Boston to Akron, [Ohio], to Nashville, [Tennessee], to Seattle, children’s hospitals, academic health systems, and physicians are being targeted and threatened for providing evidence-based healthcare,” the organizations wrote in language similar to that of the NSBA letter. “These attacks have not only made it difficult and dangerous for institutions and practices to provide this care, [but] they have also disrupted many other services to families seeking care.”

    “Our organizations have called on technology companies to do more to prevent this practice on digital platforms, and we now urge your office to take swift action to investigate and prosecute all organizations, individuals, and entities responsible,” the letter read.

    Censoring Speech of Critics

    The reason that the DOJ continues to get such requests is because Garland’s response to the NSBA letter set a very bad precedent, the senators argued.

    “Your actions in regard to the NSBA letter sent an inappropriate message that federal law enforcement can and will be used to aid one side of a political debate, and to either silence or chill the speech of the other,” they told Garland. “Now, in a remarkably similar fashion, medical associations have written to you asking you to again treat any speech critical of their position on a sensitive matter of public policy as a physical threat warranting a law enforcement response.”

    “We call upon you to reaffirm that you will faithfully protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans to peacefully debate this and all other policy questions, irrespective of viewpoint,” the senators continued. “The weaponization of federal law enforcement agencies like the DOJ, in order to produce preferred policy outcomes, cannot continue—our democracy depends on it.”

    The senators’ warning comes amid a growing number of pediatric health care providers embracing “gender affirmation care,” a concept rooted in progressive gender ideology.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics, a national organization of pediatric health professionals, in its latest guidelines encourages providers to adopt a “gender-affirmative care model” and offer services that are “oriented toward understanding and appreciating the youth’s gender experience.”

    In such a model, transgender identities and “diverse gender expressions” aren’t considered to be mental disorders but “normal aspects of human diversity.” The model also recognizes gender identity as something that “evolves as an interplay of biology, development, socialization, and culture.”

    Meanwhile, many health professionals who hold a different view of best standard of care for those with gender dysphoria have been pushed out of their profession, like sex researcher Dr. Kenneth Zucker.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 18:20

  • Anti-Oil Environmentalists Deface $85 Million Van Gogh Painting
    Anti-Oil Environmentalists Deface $85 Million Van Gogh Painting

    Because that’ll show’em, or make people go “green”… or something like that. Watch below as a pair of environmental activists attack a Vincent Van Gogh painting at London’s National Gallery on Friday, in but the latest in a string of similar stunts tailored to grab headlines.

    The 1888 Van Gogh work “Sunflowers” is widely considered to be priceless, but international reports say it was recently valued at $85 million. That didn’t stop climate protesters from the group Just Stop Oil from hitting it with a can of tomato soup. They then tried to glue their hands to the wall while posing under the defaced artwork.

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

    The London gallery issued a statement after the incident, saying the masterpiece was “unharmed” due to the protective glass that covers it. Galleries across Europe have had to beef up their security and protective coverings particularly over high-value and rare pieces.

    “What use is art when we face the collapse of civil society?” the activist group said in its own statement after the two were arrested.

    “The art establishment, artists and the art-loving public need to step up into Civil Resistance if they want to live in a world where humans are around to appreciate art,” the protesters said.

    Getty Images

    According to NBC, the pair was arrested:

    In the background of the video, onlookers gasped and called for security as the protesters kneeled in front of the painting and glued their hands to the wall underneath the painting.

    “What is worth more, art or life?” one of the protesters asked upon kneeling.

    “Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?” the protester continued. “The cost of living crisis is part of the cost of oil crisis. Fuel is unaffordable to millions of cold, hungry families. They can’t even afford to heat a tin of soup.”

    The group was later filmed the same day committing public acts of vandalism outside of the Metropolitan police HQ in London.

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

    One wonders where these left-wing climate activists stand on the prospect of a civilization-ending nuclear war with Russia. They were curiously quiet about Western governments pumping more and more arms into the Ukrainian proxy war, potentially leading toward direct confrontation with a nuclear armed power. 

    Meanwhile, also of note…

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

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 18:00

  • Federal Government Extends COVID-19 Public Health Emergency
    Federal Government Extends COVID-19 Public Health Emergency

    Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

    The federal government on Thursday extended its COVID-19 emergency for another 90 days despite President Joe Biden declaring the pandemic “over” weeks earlier.

    U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra confirmed the extension of the emergency in announcement posted on its website. No other details were provided.

    He said that “a public health emergency exists and has existed since January 27, 2020, nationwide,” and it will continue to remain in effect.

    The public health emergency, first declared in January 2020 and renewed every 90 days since, has dramatically changed how health services are delivered.

    The declaration enabled for the emergency authorization of COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and treatments. It also expanded Medicaid coverage to millions of people, many of whom will risk losing that coverage once the emergency ends, and it temporarily opened up telehealth access for Medicare recipients, enabling doctors to collect the same rates for those visits and encouraging health networks to adopt telehealth technology.

    Some Republicans have called on the White House to rescind the public emergency, while Biden and Democrats have asked Congress to pass more COVID-19-related spending bills.

    However, COVID-19 has largely faded from the public eye as government-reported deaths and case numbers have plummeted in recent months.

    During a September interview, Biden declared that the “pandemic is over,” which prompted White House officials to scramble to try and re-frame what the president had said.

    Immediately after he made that comment, unnamed administration officials told the Washington Post that his remark would now make it harder to push COVID-19 vaccines and booster shots. It came on the heels of approvals signed off by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on updated booster vaccine doses made by Pfizer and Moderna.

    White House adviser Anthony Fauci, claimed the president’s remark was “problematic” because, according to him people would interpret it as it’s completely over and we’re done for good, which is not the case … no doubt about that.”

    The White House has said it would provide 60 days notice before it ends the public health emergency.

    Along with suspending travel from China and other places, former President Donald Trump had declared a national COVID-19 emergency in early 2020 to free up some $50 billion in federal aid. That came weeks after reports of the virus emerged in mainland China as the first cases were being detected in the United States.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 17:40

  • Nikola Founder Trevor Milton Found Guilty Of Defrauding Investors After Jury Deliberates For Less Than A Day
    Nikola Founder Trevor Milton Found Guilty Of Defrauding Investors After Jury Deliberates For Less Than A Day

    A jury found Nikola founder Trevor Milton guilty of defrauding investors on Friday afternoon after less than a full day of deliberating. 

    Inner City Press had been following the trial and reported shortly after 4pm EST that “Trevor Milton, founder of hydrogen vehicle company Nikola has just been found guilty on 3 of 4 counts (1 of 2 securities fraud charges).”

    They live Tweeted the verdict as it happened:

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

    Short seller Hindenburg Research, whose findings led to the eventual charges against Milton, tweeted: “After deliberating for less than a day, the jury has found Nikola founder Trevor Milton guilty on 3 counts of fraud.”

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

    Recall, Milton was charged with three counts of fraud last year. Milton was charged with making false claims regarding “nearly all aspects of the business” according to the DOJ. 

    “Prosecutors say that when Milton unveiled their tractor trailer truck it had to be plugged into the wall, the headlamps were activated by remote by a staffer, and air had to be pumped in because there was a slow leak in the air lines of the truck,” a CNBC report from 2021 report continued.

    “And yes, prosecutors do say part of Milton’s conduct was video of the Nikola truck in the Super Bowl ad was not in fact of a working truck but was towed to the top of a hill. Brakes were released and it rolled downhill.”

    An SEC complaint filed last year revealed that footage of the truck “had been sped up two-to-three times” and that the video was “ultimately approved” by Milton. The DOJ complaint against Milton had alleged he “repeatedly made false and misleading statements about core aspects of Nikola’s products, technological advancements, and commercial prospects” including

    • (a) Falsely claiming that Nikola’s first semi-truck prototype, the Nikola One, could be driven under its own power, and using a misleading video to create the false impression that the Nikola One was, in fact, driving under its own power
    • (b) Falsely claiming that Nikola was producing hydrogen, that it was doing so at a cost that was four times less than the prevailing market rates, and that it had obtained electricity at costs that made hydrogen production profitable
    • (c) Falsely claiming that Nikola had significantly developed or already completed a prototype of an electric pickup truck, the Badger, and that this vehicle used primarily Nikola’s proprietary components
    • (d) Falsely claiming that Nikola had obtained “billions and billions and billions and billions” of dollars of committed truck orders
    • (e) Falsely claiming that Nikola had developed a “game-changing” battery technology and that Nikola was manufacturing and developing multiple key vehicle components “in-house”; and
    • (f) Falsely claiming that the total cost of ownership of Nikola’s trucks was 20-30 percent below that of diesel vehicles.

    The complaint said that Milton would regularly take action to try and stop declines in Nikola’s share price:

    “On days when Nikola’s stock price declined, Milton regularly attempted to direct Nikola’s senior executives to take actions to stop the price decline. Senior executives received frantic phone calls or text messages from Milton on such days in which he urged the executives to “do something.” Milton also spoke of needing to put out “good news” or some kind of announcement “to get people excited” as a way to counteract price declines or maintain support for the stock price.”

    The complaint also said that “Milton tracked the daily number of new Robinhood users who held Nikola stock” and apparently was excited that retail stockholders were buying the stock:

    The senior executive responded, in part, by expressing his amazement at how many calls he received “from retail investors today that have no clue about Nikola, other than their friends told them to buy. A lot of hype out there with retail investors,” to which Milton replied: “That’s how you build a foundation. Love it.”

    Milton pleaded not guilty and was ultimately freed on a $100 million bond before taking to trial. His bail was initially secured by two properties in Utah owned by Milton, “one worth $36 million, the other worth $4 million.”

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 17:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest