Mar 16

Today’s News 16th March 2023

  • Germany's Conservative AfD Overtakes Green Party For First Time In 4 Years
    Germany’s Conservative AfD Overtakes Green Party For First Time In 4 Years

    Authored by John Cody via Remix News,

    As the Green Party’s fortunes sink, the fortunes of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party rise, with the AfD now polling ahead of the Greens for the first time since 2018 in two separate surveys.

    In a survey from YouGov, the AfD jumped to 17 percent, while the Greens were one point behind at 16 percent.

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

    In a separate Insa survey commissioned by Bild newspaper, AfD is polling at 16 percent and the Green Party at 15.5 percent.

    Polling from multiple surveys has shown that the Greens have been losing support for months while the AfD gains.

    In July last year, Insa showed that the Greens were ahead by 11 points, with the Greens at 23 percent and AfD at only 12 percent. The war in Ukraine, growing inflation, an energy crisis, and out-of-control immigration have all sunk the Green Party’s fortunes.

    The last time AfD was ahead of the Greens was in October 2018, when AfD was at 18 percent and the Greens were at 17 percent.

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

    The latest poll from Insa shows that the Left Party is also suffering following Sahra Wagenknecht’s decision to leave. The party would only score 4 percent, which would leave it ineligible to sit in parliament. The CDU also dropped one point since the last poll, while the SPD rose by 1.5 points.

    Over the last year, a number of rival political parties have stepped up calls to ban the AfD as the party grows in popularity. They have claimed that banning one of the country’s major opposition political parties is about “protecting democracy.”

    The AfD party has called for an end to sanctions on Russia, arguing they are damaging Germany more than Russia. Germany has long relied on cheap Russian energy to fuel its manufacturing base. AfD has also benefitted from its calls to secure the German border, as the country saw nearly 1.4 million migrants arrive last year, causing a serious crisis for the country.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 03/16/2023 – 02:00

  • Sergey Glazyev: "The Road To Financial Multipolarity Will Be Long & Rocky"
    Sergey Glazyev: “The Road To Financial Multipolarity Will Be Long & Rocky”

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Cradle,

    In an exclusive interview with The Cradle, Russia’s top macroeconomics strategist criticizes Moscow’s slow pace of financial reform and warns there will be no new global currency without Beijing…

    The headquarters of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) in Moscow, linked to the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) is arguably one of the most crucial nodes of the emerging multipolar world.

    That’s where I was received by Minister of Integration and Macroeconomics Sergey Glazyev – who was previously interviewed in detail by The Cradle –  for an exclusive, expanded discussion on the geoeconomics of multipolarity.

    Glazyev was joined by his top economic advisor Dmitry Mityaev, who is also the secretary of the Eurasian Economic Commission’s (EEC) science and technology council. The EAEU and EEC are formed by Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Armenia. The group is currently engaged in establishing a series of free trade agreements with nations from West Asia to Southeast Asia.

    Our conversation was unscripted, free flowing and straight to the point. I had initially proposed some talking points revolving around discussions between the EAEU and China on designing a new gold/commodities-based currency bypassing the US dollar, and how it would be realistically possible to have the EAEU, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and BRICS+ to adopt the same currency design.

    Glazyev and Mityaev were completely frank and also asked questions on the Global South. As much as extremely sensitive political issues should remain off the record, what they said about the road towards multipolarity was quite sobering – in fact realpolitik-based.

    Glazyev stressed that the EEC cannot ask for member states to adopt specific economic policies. There are indeed serious proposals on the design of a new currency, but the ultimate decision rests on the leaders of the five permanent members. That implies political will – ultimately to be engineered by Russia, which is responsible for over 80 percent of EAEU trade.

    It’s quite possible that a renewed impetus may come after the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Moscow on March 21, where he will hold in-depth strategic talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    On the war in Ukraine, Glazyev stressed that as it stands, China is profiting handsomely, as its economy has not been sanctioned – at least not yet – by US/EU and Beijing is buying Russian oil and gas at heavily discounted prices. The funds Russians are losing in terms of selling energy to the EU will have to be compensated by the proposed Power of Siberia II pipeline that will run from Russia to China, via Mongolia – but that will take a few more years.

    Glazyev sketched the possibility of a similar debate on a new currency taking place inside the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – yet the obstacles could be even stronger. Once again, that will depend on political will, in this case by Russia-China: a joint decision by Xi and Putin, with crucial input by India – and as Iran becomes a full member, also energy-rich Tehran.

    What is realistic so far is increasing bilateral trade in their own currencies, as in the Russia-China, Russia-India, Iran-India, Russia-Iran, and China-Iran cases.

    Essentially, Glazyev does not see heavily sanctioned Russia taking a leadership role in setting up a new global financial system. That may fall to China’s Global Security Initiative. The division into two blocs seems inevitable: the dollarized zone – with its inbuilt eurozone – in contrast with the Global South majority with a new financial system and new trading currency for international trade. Domestically, individual nations will keep doing business in their own national currencies.

    The road to ‘de-offshorization’

    Glazyev has always been a fierce critic of the Russian Central Bank, and he did voice his misgivings – echoing his book The Last World War. He never ceases to stress that the American rationale is to damage the Russian economy on every front, while the motives of the Russian Central Bank usually raise “serious questions.”

    He said that quite a few detailed proposals to reorient the Central Bank have been sent to Putin, but there has been no follow-up. He also evoked the extremely delicate theme of corruption involving key oligarchs who, for inscrutable reasons, have not been sidelined by the Kremlin.

    Glazyev had warned for years that it was imperative for Moscow to sell out foreign exchange assets placed in the US, Britain, France, Germany, and others which later ended up unleashing sanctions against Russia.

    These assets should have been replaced by investments in gold and other precious metals; stocks of highly liquid commodity values; in securities of the EAEU, SCO, and BRICS member states; and in the capital of international organizations with Russian participation, such as the Eurasian Development Bank, the CIS Interstate Bank, and the BRICS Development Bank.

    It seems that the Kremlin at least is now fully aware of the importance of expanding infrastructure for supporting Russian exports. That includes creating international exchange trading marketplaces for trade in Russian primary goods within Russian jurisdiction, and in rubles; and creating international sales and service networks for Russian goods with high added value.

    For Russia, says Glazyev, the key challenge ahead in monetary policy is to modernize credit. And to prevent negative impact by foreign financial sources, the key is domestic monetization –  “including expansion of long and medium-term refinancing of commercial banks against obligations of manufacturing enterprises and authorized government bodies. It is also advisable to consistently replace foreign borrowings of state- controlled banks and corporations with domestic sources of credit.”

    So the imperative way to Russia, now in effect, is “de-offshorization.” Which essentially means getting rid of a “super-critical dependence of its reproduction contours on Anglo-Saxon legal and financial institutions,” something that entails “systematic losses of the Russian financial system merely on the difference in profitability between the borrowed and the placed capital.”

    What Glazyev repeatedly emphasized is that as long as there’s no reform of the Russian Central Bank, any serious discussion about a new Global South-adopted currency faces insurmountable odds. The Chinese, heavily interlinked with the global financial system, may start having new ideas now that Xi Jinping, on the record, and unprecedentedly, has defined the US-provoked Hybrid War against China for what it is, and has named names: it’s an American operation.

    What seems to be crystal clear is that the path toward a new financial system designed essentially by Russia-China, and adopted by vast swathes of the Global South, will remain long, rocky, and extremely challenging. The discussions inside the EAEU and with the Chinese may extrapolate to the SCO and even towards BRICS+. But all will depend on political will and political capital jointly deployed by the Russia-China strategic partnership.

    That’s why Xi’s visit to Moscow next week is so crucial. The leadership of both Moscow and Beijing, in sync, now seems to be fully aware of the two-front Hybrid War deployed by Washington.

    This means their peer competitor strategic partnership – the ultimate anathema for the US-led Empire – can only prosper if they jointly deploy a complete set of measures: from instances of soft power to deepening trade and commerce in their own currencies, a basket of currencies, and a new reserve currency that is not hostage to the Bretton Woods system legitimizing western finance capitalism.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 23:40

  • Healthcare & College Costs Dominate Americans' Soaring Cost Of Living Over The Past Two Decades
    Healthcare & College Costs Dominate Americans’ Soaring Cost Of Living Over The Past Two Decades

    The Consumer Price Index (CPI) provides a steady indication of how inflation is affecting the economy. This big picture number is useful for policymakers and professionals in the financial sector, but most people experience inflation at the cash register or checkout screen.

    As Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley details below, since the start of the 21st century, U.S. consumers have seen a divergence of price movements across various categories.

    Nowhere is this better illustrated than on this chart concept thought up by AEI’s Mark J. Perry.

    It’s sometimes referred to as the “chart of the century” because it provides such a clear and impactful jump-off point to discuss a number of economic forces.

    The punchline is that many consumer goods – particularly those that were easily outsourced – saw price drops, while key “non-tradable” categories saw massive increases.

    We’ll look at both situations in more detail below.

    Race to the Top: Inflation in Healthcare and Education

    Since the beginning of this century, two types of essential categories have been marching steadily upward in price: healthcare and education.

    America has a well documented “medical inflation” issue. There are a number of reasons why costs in the healthcare sector keep rising, including rising labor costs, an aging population, better technology, and medical tourism. The pricing of pharmaceutical products and hospital services are also a major contributor to increases. As Barry Ritholtz has diplomatically stated, “market forces don’t work very well in this industry”.

    Rising medical costs have serious consequences for the U.S. population. Recent data indicates that half of Americans now carry medical debt, with the majority owing $1,000 or more.

    Also near the top of the chart are education-related categories. In the ’60s and ’70s, tuition roughly tracked with inflation, but that began to change in the mid-1980s. Since then, tuition costs have marched ever upward. Since 2000, tuition prices have increased by 178% and college textbooks have jumped 162%.

    As usual, low income students are disproportionally impacted by rising tuition. Pell Grants now cover a much smaller portion of tuition than they used to, and the majority of states have cut funding to higher education in recent years.

    Globalization: A Tale of Televisions and Toys

    Even though essentials like education and heathcare have rocketed up, it’s not all bad news. Consumers have seen the price of some goods and services drop dramatically.

    Flat screen televisions used to be a big ticket item. At the turn of the century, a flat screen TV would cost around 17% of the median income of the time ($42,148). In the early aughts though, prices began to fall quickly. Today, a new TV will cost less than 1% of the U.S. median income ($54,132).

    Similarly, cellular services and software have gotten cheaper over the past two decades as well. Toys are another prime example. Not only are most toys manufactured overseas, the value proposition has changed as children have new digital options to entertain themselves with.

    Over a long-term perspective, items like clothing and household furnishings have remained relatively flat in price, even after the most recent bout of inflation.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 23:20

  • Gun Owners Of America Aghast At Potential ATF Expansion
    Gun Owners Of America Aghast At Potential ATF Expansion

    Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    A national gun rights organization is decrying the expansion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in President Joe Biden’s $6.8 trillion budget proposal for 2024.

    President Joe Biden talks about his proposed 2024 federal budget during an event at the Finishing Trades Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on March 9, 2023. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

    “GOA is extremely concerned at the massive surge in ATF funding in recent years—doubling the size of the agency since the end of the Obama administration,” Aidan Johnston, Gun Owners of America’s director of federal affairs, wrote in an email to The Epoch Times.

    Biden’s budget proposal contains $1.9 billion for the ATF. This is a 13.6 percent increase over 2022 and half a billion dollars more than the agency’s fiscal 2020 budget.

    If passed as written, Biden’s budget would expand the ATF by 35.7 percent—an overall growth of more than 50 percent since the Obama administration.

    A researcher simulates a check done for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS, at the FBI’s criminal justice center in Bridgeport, W.Va., on Nov. 18, 2014. (Matt Stroud/AP Photo)

    According to Biden’s plan, the $1.9 billion would finance the expansion of multi-jurisdictional gun trafficking strike forces, increase firearms industry regulation, and implement the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

    The proposal also calls for $51 million for the FBI to complete implementing the enhanced background check system that is part of the Act.

    In a statement, GOA said the budget items are nothing more than incremental gun control that will make no one safer while denying law-abiding gun owners their constitutional rights.

    The organization is especially alarmed at funding for “crisis intervention programs,” so-called “Red Flag Laws.”

    GOA and other gun rights groups claim that Red Flag laws set the stage for authorities to confiscate firearms without due process. They say that language in the Act requiring due process is misleading.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 23:00

  • MS Quants: 8 Reasons Why Stocks Are Going Lower
    MS Quants: 8 Reasons Why Stocks Are Going Lower

    This morning we published a note looking at “How This (Asset) Cycle Finally Ends” in which we explained why the imminent tightening in credit conditions – beyond the near-record tightness already observed in the most recent SLOOS…

    …. resulting from small banks retrenching and conserving cash into reserve and curtailing new lending, would finally end the asset cycle and lead the US economy into a recession, but not before hammering stocks and further collapsing the velocity of money.

    A few hours later, Morgan Stanley’s QDS team of derivatives experts, reiterated the same view, writing that while authorities quickly cut off the “left tail” by providing coverage for uninsured deposits and instituting a new liquidity facility, squeezing shorts in the process, “equities should come under renewed pressure from a tightening of credit conditions and reduced velocity of money, plus the increase in volatility and shock to correlation that stresses positions.”

    They then shared a few thoughts on the recent market moves:

    1. Cross market volatility suggests equities should be lower. Biggest move in the two year yield since 1987, biggest move in 2s30s since 9/11… plenty of cross market vol but equities aren’t reacting. Over the last year the SPX P/E multiple has had a -65% correlation to rates vol, which at current levels suggests P/E should be 15x – 2 turns lower or an SPX of ~3400. The last time rate vol was this high relative to equity vol (VIX) was the Taper Tantrum. Yes the Fed is further along in their hiking cycle – and rate vol will normalize after the shocks of the last few days. But QDS would also argue that  economic/earnings growth and financial risks are higher now than they were two weeks ago.

    2. This wasn’t just a vol shock, it was a correlation shock. The change in focus from inflation and the Fed’s reaction function to concern about growth/recession and financial stability has flipped stock-bond correlation on its head, and  correlation shocks are particularly hard to deal with as traders need to run from one side of the boat to the other.

    3. Change in trend + change in correlation + change in vol is bad for many investors, but CTAs in particular given current positioning. On QDS’s model, CTAs suffered the 7th worst two-day return since 2005 on Friday and Monday, as  they were long stocks but short bonds. Wrong-way volatility typically leads to derisking – today’s reversal will be dampen the impact, but on net QDS is forecasting equity for sale bonds to buy over the coming days.

    4. Equity volatility is off sharply today, but not out of the woods as the technicals that contributed to its squeeze are still there. QDS estimates that dealers have roughly $60mm of vol to buy in a down 5% move in SPX and +5 point increase in VIX futures – the 90th %ile versus the last year. That is still only the 65th %ile since 2019 – volatility is not going to go crazy – but investors should not look at a VIX level of ~23 as an ‘all clear’.

    5. Within equities high dispersion = both risk and opportunities. Dispersion rose sharply over the last 2 days given the big moves in Financials. Those wrong way likely have to derisk on a broader basis, while opportunities also arise – companies with weak balance sheets (MSXXCCC from the MS Thematic Investment Strategy team) should now come under pressure.

    6. Selling pressure has come from both retail and institutions in the last week. The MS Futures Content team highlighted that Friday and Monday combined for the largest two-day increase in new shorts added in S&P 500 futures since March 2020 (rolls-adjusted), with an estimated $49bn of new shorts initiated. And on top of that, MarkIt data suggests 1 zScore short additions in ETFs and 2 zScore short additions in US single-names over the last week. On top of that, retail has been a small net seller of equities in the last week (<$2bn net sold), a -1.1 zScore event versus the last two years, based on QDS’s model based on public data. Some of these shorts are likely coming off today, and more could come off in the near-term – but those are short-term supports, not longer-term ones.

    7. Conflicting policy goals. Up until a week ago, the Fed was balancing between growth and inflation. Now they also have to balance financial stability risks – and while they have plenty of tools to do that, at the end of the day these goals present a conflict. Inflation and growth argue for continued rate hikes and QT, while stress argues to slow or pause. Whatever is most acute usually wins… which may be good for stocks in the near-term, but longer-term the less tightening done now likely puts the economy and the Fed between a rock and a hard place.

    8. Reduced velocity of money. The potential for a higher cost of bank capital and more expensive funding after recent events has the potential to slow the velocity of money and compound monetary liquidity / QT risks. Equities have now caught back down to the level of reserves in the system after a record gap opened up in late January, and recent TGA spend down (tax refunds) and money coming out of RRP as the system demands more reserves has helped as well. In the near-term that could continue as RRP is drained. But even if monetary liquidity doesn’t contract going forward, if the velocity of money falls then credit extension will be limited and the economy and the market should suffer.

    The above doesn’t mean the floor will fall out of equities – policymakers have limited the financial contagion channel. But the real economy channel is still a risk. QE and fiscal stimulus put excess savings in consumers pockets and funded many unprofitable businesses, which has delayed the economic reckoning. But increased cross market volatility, reduced velocity of money, and higher cost of funds should erode those buffers more quickly than before, and it seems hard to frame a bull case for stocks after the last week. Particularly after short covering and hedge monetization on today’s rally, QDS thinks the view that equities need to reprice lower as earnings deteriorate plays out from here.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 22:40

  • Chris Hedges: Ukraine's Death By Proxy
    Chris Hedges: Ukraine’s Death By Proxy

    Authored by Chris Hedges via Scheerpost.com,

    Proxy wars devour the countries they purport to defend. There will come a time when the Ukrainians will become expendable to the U.S. They will disappear, as many others before them, from U.S. national discourse and popular consciousness…

    There are many ways for a state to project power and weaken adversaries, but proxy wars are one of the most cynical. Proxy wars devour the countries they purport to defend. They entice nations or insurgents to fight for geopolitical goals that are ultimately not in their interest.

    The war in Ukraine has little to do with Ukrainian freedom and a lot to do with degrading the Russian military and weakening Russian President Vladimir Putin’s grip on power. And when Ukraine looks headed for defeat, or the war reaches a stalemate, Ukraine will be sacrificed like many other states, in what one of the founding members of the C.I.A., Miles Copeland Jr., referred to as the “Game of Nations” and “the amorality of power politics.”

    I covered proxy wars in my two decades as a foreign correspondent, including in Central America where the U.S. armed the military regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala and Contra insurgents attempting to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. I reported on the insurgency in the Punjab, a proxy war fomented by Pakistan.

    I covered the Kurds in northern Iraq, backed and then betrayed more than once by Iran and Washington. During my time in the Middle East, Iraq provided weapons and support to the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) to destabilize Iran. Belgrade, when I was in the former Yugoslavia, thought by arming Bosnian and Croatian Serbs, it could absorb Bosnia and parts of Croatia into a greater Serbia. 

    Proxy wars are notoriously hard to control, especially when the aspirations of those doing the fighting and those sending the weapons diverge. They also have a bad habit of luring sponsors of proxy wars, as happened to the U.S. in Vietnam and Israel in Lebanon, directly into the conflict.

    Proxy armies are given weaponry with little accountability, significant amounts of which end up on the black market or in the hands of warlords or terrorists. CBS News reported last year that around 30 percent of the weapons sent to Ukraine make it to the front lines, a report it chose to partially retract under heavy pressure from Kiev and Washington. The widespread diversion of donated military and medical equipment to the black market in Ukraine was also documented by U.S. journalist Lindsey Snell. Weapons in war zones are lucrative commodities. There were always large quantities for sale in the wars I covered.

    Warlords, gangsters and thugs — Ukraine has long been considered one of the most corrupt countries in Europe — are transformed by sponsor states into heroic freedom fighters. Support for those fighting these proxy wars is a celebration of our supposed national virtue, especially seductive after two decades of military fiascos in the Middle East. Joe Biden, with dismal poll numbers, intends to run for a second term as a “wartime” president who stands with Ukraine, to which the U.S. has already committed $113 billion in military, economic and humanitarian assistance.

    When Russia invaded Ukraine “[t]he whole world faced a test for the ages,” Biden said after a lightning visit to Kiev. “Europe was being tested. America was being tested. NATO was being tested. All democracies were being tested.” 

    Similar Sentiments

    I heard similar sentiments expressed to justify other proxy wars.

    “They are our brothers, these freedom fighters, and we owe them our help,” Ronald Reagan said of the Contras, who pillaged, raped and slaughtered their way through Nicaragua. “They are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance,” Reagan added. “We cannot turn away from them, for the struggle here is not right versus left, it is right versus wrong.” 

    A group of Contras rest after a firefight, Jan. 1, 1987. (Tiomono, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)

    “I want to hear him say we’re going to arm the Free Syrian Army,” John McCain said of President Donald Trump. “We’re going to dedicate ourselves to the removal of Bashar al-Assad. We’re going to have the Russians pay a price for their engagement. All players here are going to have to pay a penalty and the United States of America is going to be on the side of the people who fight for freedom.”

    Those feted as heroes of resistance, like President Volodymyr Zelensky or President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, are often problematic, especially as their egos and bank accounts inflate.  The flood of effusive encomiums directed towards proxies by their sponsors in public rarely matches what they say of them in private.

    At the Dayton peace talks, where the Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic sold out the leaders of the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Croats, he said of his proxies: “[they] are not my friends. They are not my colleagues…They are shit.”

    Dec. 14, 1995: U.S. President Bill Clinton, right, talking with Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic in Paris with onlookers Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Secretary of State Warren Christopher, General Wesley Clark.  (C.I.A., Public domain, Wikimedia Commons)

    “Dark money sloshed all around,” The Washington Post wrote after obtaining an internal report produced by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

    “Afghanistan’s largest bank liquefied into a cesspool of fraud. Travelers lugged suitcases loaded with $1 million, or more, on flights leaving Kabul. Mansions known as ‘poppy palaces’ rose from the rubble to house opium kingpins. President Hamid Karzai won reelection after cronies stuffed thousands of ballot boxes. He later admitted the C.I.A. had delivered bags of cash to his office for years, calling it ‘nothing unusual.’”

    “In public, as President Barack Obama escalated the war and Congress approved billions of additional dollars in support, the commander in chief and lawmakers promised to crack down on corruption and hold crooked Afghans accountable,” the paper reported. “In reality, U.S. officials backed off, looked away and let the thievery become more entrenched than ever, according to a trove of confidential government interviews obtained by The Washington Post.”

    Those lionized as the bulwark against barbarism when the arms are flowing to them, are forgotten once the conflicts end, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. The former proxy fighters must flee the country or suffer the vendettas of those they fought, as happened to the abandoned Hmong tribesmen in Laos and the South Vietnamese.

    The former sponsors, once lavish in military aid, ignore desperate pleas for economic and humanitarian assistance, as those displaced by war go hungry and die from lack of medical care. Afghanistan, for the second time around, is the poster child for this imperial callousness.

    U.S. soldiers with Afghans boarding a C-17 Globemaster III at Hamid Karzai International Airport on Aug. 21 after the Taliban captured Kabul. (U.S. Air Force, Brennen Lege)

    The collapse of civil society spawns sectarian violence and extremism, much of it inimical to the interests of those who fomented the proxy wars. Israel’s proxy militias in Lebanon, along with its military intervention in 1978 and 1982, were designed to dislodge the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from the country. This objective was achieved. But the removal of the PLO from Lebanon gave rise to Hezbollah, a far more militant and effective adversary, along with Syrian domination of Lebanon.

    In September 1982, over three days, the Lebanese Kataeb Party, more commonly known as the Phalanges — backed by the Israeli military — massacred between 2,000 and 3,500 Palestinian refugees and Lebanese civilians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. It led to international condemnation and political unrest inside Israel. Critics called the protracted conflict “Lebanam,” conflating the words Vietnam and Lebanon. The Israeli film Waltz with Bashir documents the depravity and wanton killing of thousands of civilians by Israel and its proxies during the war in Lebanon.

    Proxy wars, as Chalmers Johnson pointed out, engender unintended blowback. The backing of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets, which included arming groups such as those led by Osama bin Laden, gave rise to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. It also spread reactionary jihadism throughout the Muslim world, increased terrorist attacks against western targets which culminated in the attacks of 9/11 and fueled two decades of U.S.-led military fiascos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya and Yemen.

    Jan. 1, 1987: Mujahideen in Kunar, Afghanistan. (erwinlux, Flickr, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)

    Should Russia prevail in Ukraine, should Putin not be removed from power, the U.S. will have not only cemented into place a potent alliance between Russia and China, but ensured an antagonism with Russia that will come back to haunt us. The flood of billions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine, the use of U.S. intelligence to kill Russian generals and sink the battleship Moskva, the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines and the more than 2,500 U.S. sanctions targeting Russia, will not be forgotten by Moscow.  

    “In a sense, blowback is simply another way of saying that a nation reaps what it sows,” Johnson writes, “Although people usually know what they have sown, our national experience of blowback is seldom imagined in such terms because so much of what the managers of the American empire have sown has been kept secret.”

    Taliban fighters patrolling Kabul in a Humvee on Aug. 17, 2021. (Voice of America, Wikimedia Commons)

    Those supported in proxy wars, including the Ukrainians, often have little chance of victory. Sophisticated weapons such as the M1 Abrams tanks are largely useless if those operating them have not spent months and years being trained. Prior to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, the Soviet bloc provided Palestinian fighters with heavy weapons, including tanks, anti-aircraft missiles and artillery. The lack of training made those weapons ineffective against Israeli air power, artillery and mechanized units. 

    The U.S. knows time is running out for Ukraine. It knows that high-tech weapons will not be mastered in time to blunt a sustained Russian offensive. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned in January that Ukraine has “a window of opportunity here, between now and the spring.”

    “That’s not a long time,” he added.

    U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin taking questions at a press conference with Ukrainian Minister of Defense Andriy Taran, Kiev, Ukraine, Oct. 19, 2021. (DoD, Chad J. McNeeley)

    Victory, however, is not the point. The point is maximum destruction. Even if Ukraine is forced in defeat to negotiate with Russia and concede territory for peace, as well as accept status as a neutral nation, Washington will have achieved its primary goal of weakening Russia’s military capacity and isolating Putin from Europe.  

    Those who mount proxy wars are blinded by wishful illusions. There was little support for the Contras in Nicaragua or the MEK in Iran. The arming of so-called “moderate” rebels in Syria saw weapons flow into the hands of reactionary jihadists. 

    The conclusion of proxy wars usually sees the nation or group fighting on behalf of the sponsor state betrayed. In 1972, the Nixon administration provided millions of dollars in weapons and ammunition to Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq to weaken the Iraqi government, which at the time was seen as too close to the Soviet Union. No one, least of all the U.S. and Iran, which delivered the weapons to Kurdish fighters, wanted the Kurds to create a state of their own. Iraq and Iran signed the 1975 Algiers Agreement in which the two countries settled disputes along their common border. The agreement also ended military support for the Kurds.

    The Iraqi military soon launched a ruthless campaign of ethnic cleansing in northern Iraq. Thousands of Kurds, including women and children, were “disappeared” or killed. Kurdish villages were dynamited into rubble. The desperate plight of the Kurds was ignored, for, as Henry Kissinger said at the time, “covert action should not be confused with missionary work.” 

    The Islamic government in Tehran resumed military aid to the Kurds during the war between Iran and Iraq from 1980 to 1988. On March 16, 1988, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein dropped mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun, and VX on the Kurdish town of Halabja. Some 5,000 people died within minutes and up to 10,000 were injured. The Reagan administration, which supported Iraq, minimized the war crimes committed against its former Kurdish allies. 

    President Richard Nixon’s rapprochement towards China, in another example, included terminating covert assistance to Tibetan rebels. 

    U.S. President Richard Nixon and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, Feb. 25, 1972. (White House/Wikimedia Commons)

    Betrayal is the closing act in nearly all proxy wars.

    The arming of Ukraine is not missionary work. It has nothing to do with liberty or freedom. It is about weakening Russia. Take Russia out of the equation and there would be little tangible support for Ukraine.

    There are other occupied peoples, including the Palestinians, who have suffered as brutally and far longer than Ukranians. But NATO is not arming Palestinians to fight against their Israeli occupiers or holding them up as heroic freedom fighters. U.S. love of freedom does not extend to Palestinians or the people of Yemen currently being bombed with British and American weapons, or the Kurds, Yazidis and Arabs resisting Turkey, a longtime NATO member, in its occupation and drone war throughout the north and east of Syria.

    U.S. love of freedom only extends to people who serve its “national interest.”

    There will come a time when the Ukrainians, like the Kurds, will become expendable. They will disappear, as many others before them have, from our national discourse and our consciousness. They will nurse for generations their betrayal and suffering. The American empire will move on to use others, perhaps the “heroic” people of Taiwan, to further its futile quest for global hegemony.

    China is the big prize for our Dr. Strangeloves. They will pile up even more corpses and flirt with nuclear war to curtail China’s growing economic and military power. This is an old and predictable game. It leaves in its wake nations in ruins and millions of people dead and displaced. It fuels the hubris and self-delusion of the mandarins in Washington who refuse to accept the emergence of a multipolar world. If left unchecked, this “game of nations” may get us all killed.

    *  *  *

    Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for The Dallas Morning News, The Christian Science Monitor and NPR.  He is the host of show “The Chris Hedges Report.”

    Author’s Note to Readers: There is now no way left for me to continue to write a weekly column for ScheerPost and produce my weekly television show without your help. The walls are closing in, with startling rapidity, on independent journalism, with the elites, including the Democratic Party elites, clamoring for more and more censorship. Bob Scheer, who runs ScheerPost on a shoestring budget, and I will not waiver in our commitment to independent and honest journalism, and we will never put ScheerPost behind a paywall, charge a subscription for it, sell your data or accept advertising. Please, if you can, sign up at chrishedges.substack.com so I can continue to post my Monday column on ScheerPost and produce my weekly television show, “The Chris Hedges Report.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 22:20

  • Gavin Newsom Kept SVB Ties Secret While Lobbying For Bailout
    Gavin Newsom Kept SVB Ties Secret While Lobbying For Bailout

    Multimillionaire California Governor Gavin Newsom failed to disclose his ties to Silicon Valley Bank while lobbying the White House and the Treasury Department over a pending bailout, The Intercept reported on Tuesday.

    The White House “acted swiftly and decisively to protect the American economy and strengthen public confidence in our banking system,” Newsom said in a statement. What Newsom didn’t mention is that it also protected his own companies if they held over $250,000 in deposits.

    CADE, Odette, and PlumpJack, three wineries owned by Newsom, are listed as clients of SVB on the bank’s website. Newsom also maintained personal accounts at SVB for years, according to a longtime former employee of Newsom’s who handled his finances, and who requested anonymity to avoid professional reprisal.

    Newsom also failed to mention his wife’s professional ties to the bank. In 2021, SVB gave $100,000 to a charity founded by Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the California Partners Project, at the request of Newsom. SVB Capital President, John China, sits on the Board of Directors of the charity.

    On Monday, Newsom said that he had “been in touch with the highest levels of leadership at the White House and Treasury.”

    “Governor Newsom’s business and financial holdings are held and managed by a blind trust, as they have been since he was first elected governor in 2018,” said Newsom spokesman Nathan Click.

    Of note, when asked during his 2018 campaign whether he would divest from his companies which might pose an ‘ethics challenge,’ Newsom reportedly replied: “These are my babies, my life, my family. I can’t do that. I can’t sell them.”

    Instead, he announced the blind trust, which would be controlled by family friend and attorney, Shyla Hendrickson – an arrangement under which Newsom’s sister, Hillary Newsom, would retain her role as president of PlumpJack Group – a Newsom owned company which includes hotels, restaurants, wineries, bars and liquor stores.

     

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 22:00

  • US Schools Need To Teach Kids About Proxy War
    US Schools Need To Teach Kids About Proxy War

    Authored by Walt Zlotow via AntiWar.com,

    The Russo-Ukraine war has brought up a concept sorely lacking in the American vocabulary: Proxy War. Most folks are familiar with the word proxy. Ask and they might respond “Oh yes, like when I sign over my right to vote stock shares to another who votes as my proxy.” But throw in “war” after “proxy” and you’ll likely get an eye roll.

    Given how prevalent US reliance on proxy war has become in foreign policy, ignorance of proxy war has a debilitating effect on an informed electorate crucial to fostering a peaceful world.

    OK, for the uninformed, Webster advises: Proxy War. Noun. A war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved. “The end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars thru which the two sides struggled to exert their influence.”

    Image source: Ministry of Defense of Ukraine

    Today the US is involved in two devastating proxy wars that have taken over half a million lives. One is our proxy war against imagined US enemy Iran. Though the targeted enemy, not a death has occurred on Iranian soil. Over are 400,000 dead, mainly in Yemen, inflicted by neighboring Saudi Arabia since 2015. The Saudis intervened in the Yemeni civil war to prevent the Houthi faction from controlling Yemen. We’re been supplying much of the air power, bombs, maintenance, logistics and moral support for Saudi Arabia to kill all those Houthis. Why? We view the Houthis as proxies for Iran to extend its influence in the Middle East. We deem that an existential threat to US national security interests. Regardless of how delusional and senseless, the US has been fueling this proxy war against Iran for 8 years now.

    The other US proxy war is infinitely worse: our 8 year long proxy war against Russia that provoked their invasion of neighboring Ukraine 13 months ago. At that point the proxy war clueless respond incredulously, “Are you crazy? Putin woke up one morning and decided to reestablish the old Soviet Empire, starting with Ukraine. Once he takes Kyiv, he’ march westward into Western Europe. I know, read it in the NY Times and Washington Post.”

    That is the problem. In the US national security state and its compliant media, proxy war is the term that dare not speak its name.

    The information is out there but one must dig to get it. Try exploring the US supported coup of 2014 that deposed elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych to prevent Ukraine from partnering economically and politically with Russia. Check out the murderous civil war the coup started resulting in thousands of dead Russian leaning Ukrainians in Donbas. Learn how hundreds of millions in US weapons helped the US picked Ukrainian post-coup government kill those hapless Ukrainians. Investigate the 2015 Minsk II Agreement that was designed to give the Donbas independence under nominal Ukraine sovereignty, but free from further Ukraine government violence. One will find that France, Germany and the US neither supported nor intended Minsk II from providing Donbas independence. That would have been viewed as a Russian “win”, totally unacceptable to the US proxy war agenda.

    Why is the US proxy war against Russia infinitely worse than our proxy war against Iran in Yemen? The former could pivot from proxy war to nuclear war in a heartbeat. It could take just one mistake, one miscalculation, one deranged “Dr. Strangelove” military renegade to trigger an unstoppable nuclear onslaught.

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

    The forces of ignorance have won the narrative. Every media report on the war begins with “Russia’s unproved attack on Ukraine.” The term proxy war never has and never will appear.

    Might be too late but time for grammar and high school curriculums to add a chapter, maybe even a semester, on proxy war in US foreign policy history and current events classes. After horrendous debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq, killing 6,879 Americans, the US only does proxy wars. No Americans die in proxy wars, only proxies in designated countries like Yemen and Ukraine. Maybe the next generation will gain enough wisdom to recognize a proxy war when it occurs, and possibly push back to keep it from devolving from proxy to nuclear.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 21:40

  • Senate Hawks Make New Push To Give Ukraine F-16 Jets
    Senate Hawks Make New Push To Give Ukraine F-16 Jets

    At a moment it’s widely understood that Russian forces have the upper hand in Bakhmut, with the eastern city nearly surrounded, a new bipartisan push is on among Congressional hawks to pressure the administration into approving sending F-16 jets to Ukraine. 

    Politico reports this week on a letter written by a group of bipartisan senators and sent to President Biden: “The fresh push came in a letter Tuesday to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin from eight senators, and obtained by POLITICO, as top administration officials from President Joe Biden on down have poured cold water on bipartisan calls to send U.S.-made fighters into the fight for now.”

    Image via Flight Global

    The senators argue that F-16s are badly needed at this “critical juncture” to give the Ukrainians the edge they need. “After speaking with U.S., Ukrainian, and foreign leaders working to support Ukraine at the Munich Security Conference last month, we believe the U.S. needs to take a hard look at providing F-16 aircraft to Ukraine,” the senators wrote, while claiming it would be a “game changer on the battlefield.”

    The initiative was led by Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. The senators are also pressing the Pentagon for more information on what kind of timetable and resources it would take to get Ukrainian pilots up to speed on effectively flying the F-16s. Politico notes:

    Also signing onto the letter were Democrats Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Jacky Rosen of Nevada as well as Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and Ted Budd of North Carolina.

    But Biden administration and defense officials have recently testified to Congress that it’s anti-air defense systems, artillery and ammunition that currently rank among Ukraine’s highest priorities and requests.

    In other corners of the Senate, Republican hawks like Tom Cotton and Lindsay Graham are also making noise about “doing more”…

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

    Sen. Cotton recently characterized the White House approach as based on “half measures”. Cotton has a whole litany of escalatory measures he would like to see the US adopt when it comes to Ukraine.

    And Graham too has been advocating for the US to be ready and willing to shoot Russian planes out of the sky…

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

    But the fact that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin confirmed in a Wednesday afternoon press briefing that he spoke with his Russian counterpart Defense Secretary Sergei Shoigu – in the first such phone call since October -is a good sign that the two sides aren’t ready to enter a shooting war yet, and that perhaps for now saner minds are prevailing.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 21:20

  • Geofence Surveillance: First, They Spied On Protesters. Then Churches. You're Next…
    Geofence Surveillance: First, They Spied On Protesters. Then Churches. You’re Next…

    Authored by John and Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

    – Senator Frank Church on Meet The Press, 1975

    If you give the government an inch, it will always take a mile.

    This is how the slippery slope to all-out persecution starts.

    Martin Niemöller’s warning about the widening net that ensnares us all, a warning issued in response to the threat posed by Nazi Germany’s fascist regime, still applies.

    “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    This particular slippery slope has to do with the government’s use of geofence technology, which uses cell phone location data to identify people who are in a particular area at any given time.

    First, police began using geofence warrants to carry out dragnet sweeps of individuals near a crime scene.

    Then the FBI used geofence warrants to identify individuals who were in the vicinity of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    It wasn’t long before government officials in California used cell phone and geofence data to track the number and movements of churchgoers on church grounds during the COVID-19 lockdowns.

    If we’ve already reached the point where people praying and gathering on church grounds merits this level of government scrutiny and sanctions, we’re not too far from free-falling into a total surveillance state.

    Dragnet geofence surveillance sweeps can and eventually will be used to target as a suspect every person in any given place at any given time and sweep them up into a never-ending virtual line-up in the hopes of matching a criminal to every crime.

    There really can be no overstating the danger.

    The government’s efforts to round up those who took part in the Jan. 6 Capitol protests provided a glimpse of exactly how vulnerable we all are to the menace of a surveillance state that aspires to a God-like awareness of our lives.

    Relying on selfies, social media posts, location data, geotagged photos, facial recognition, surveillance cameras and crowdsourcing, government agents compiled a massive data trove on anyone and everyone who may have been anywhere in the vicinity of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

    Included in that data roundup were individuals who may have had nothing to do with the protests but whose cell phone location data identified them as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    You didn’t even have to be involved in the Capitol protests to qualify for a visit from the FBI: investigators reportedly tracked—and questioned—anyone whose cell phones connected to wi-fi or pinged cell phone towers near the Capitol.

    One man, who had gone out for a walk with his daughters only to end up stranded near the Capitol crowds, actually had FBI agents show up at his door days later. Using Google Maps, agents were able to pinpoint exactly where they were standing and for how long.

    The massive amount of surveillance data available to the government is staggering.

    As investigative journalists Charlie Warzel and Stuart A. Thompson explain, “This [surveillance] data…provide[s] an intimate record of people whether they were visiting drug treatment centers, strip clubs, casinos, abortion clinics or places of worship.”

    In such a surveillance ecosystem, we’re all suspects and databits to be tracked, catalogued and targeted.

    Forget about being innocent until proven guilty.

    Although the Constitution requires the government to provide solid proof of criminal activity before it can deprive a citizen of life or liberty, the government has turned that fundamental assurance of due process on its head.

    Now, thanks to the digital trails and digital footprints we all leave behind, you start off guilty and have to prove your innocence.

    In an age of overcriminalization, when the average American unknowingly commits at least three crimes a day, there is no one who would be spared.

    The ramifications of empowering the government to sidestep fundamental due process safeguards are so chilling and so far-reaching as to put a target on the back of anyone who happens to be in the same place where a crime takes place.

    As Warzel and Thompson warn:

    “To think that the information will be used against individuals only if they’ve broken the law is naïve; such data is collected and remains vulnerable to use and abuse whether people gather in support of an insurrection or they justly protest police violence… This collection will only grow more sophisticated… It gets easier by the day… it does not discriminate. It harvests from the phones of MAGA rioters, police officers, lawmakers and passers-by. There is no evidence, from the past or current day, that the power this data collection offers will be used only to good ends. There is no evidence that if we allow it to continue to happen, the country will be safer or fairer.”

    Saint or sinner, it doesn’t matter because we’re all being swept up into a massive digital data dragnet that does not distinguish between those who are innocent of wrongdoing, suspects, or criminals.

    Case in point: consider what happened to Calvary Chapel during COVID-19.

    Government officials in Santa Clara County, Calif., issued a shelter-in-place order in March 2020, dictating whom residents could see, where they could go, what they could do, and under what circumstances.

    County officials imposed even harsher restrictions on churches, accompanied by the threat of crippling fines for those that did not comply with the lockdown orders.

    Then Santa Clara officials reportedly used geofence surveillance technology to monitor the concentrations of congregants at Calvary Chapel during the COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020 and 2021, using their findings to justify levying nearly $3 million in public health fines against the church for violating the county’s strict pandemic restrictions.

    Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that similar restrictions unconstitutionally singled out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment and “struck “at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty,” county officials have sought to collect millions of dollars in fines levied against churches, including Calvary Chapel, for violating the county’s mandates.

    At a minimum, the use of geofence surveillance to monitor church attendees constitutes an egregious violation of the churchgoers’ Fourth Amendment rights and an attempt to undermine protected First Amendment activities relating to the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

    Still, the government’s use of geofence surveillance goes way beyond its impact on church members and anyone in the vicinity of the Jan. 6 protests.

    The ramifications for all of us are far-reaching.

    Mass surveillance has been shown to chill lawful First Amendment activities, and historically has been used to stifle dissent, persecute activists, and harass marginalized communities.

    A study conducted by Roger Clarke, the famed Australian specialist in data surveillance and privacy, indicates that the costs resulting from the erosion of personal privacy are so significant that they essentially threaten the very foundation of a democratic society.

    Some of the most serious harms include:

    • A prevailing climate of suspicion and adversarial relationships

    • Inequitable application of the law

    • Stultification of originality

    • Weakening of society’s moral fiber and cohesion

    • Repressive potential for a totalitarian government

    • Blacklisting

    • Ex-ante discrimination and guilt prediction

    • Inversion of the onus of proof.

    In other words, the chilling effects of pervasive surveillance give rise to a constant, justifiable fear in even the most compliant, law-abiding citizen.

    Of course, that’s the point.

    The government wants us muzzled, complacent and compliant.

    So far, it’s working.

    Americans are increasingly self-censoring and marching in lockstep with the government’s (and corporate America’s) dictates, whether out of fear or indoctrination, or a combination.

    In the meantime, the use of geofence warrants continues to be debated in the legislatures and challenged in the courts. For instance, while a California court found that a broad geofence search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, a federal district judge for the District of Columbia upheld the use of geofence warrants by police in connection with the events of Jan. 6.

    No matter how the courts rule, however, one thing is clear: these dragnet geofence searches are well on their way to becoming the eyes and ears of a police state that views each and every one of us as a potential suspect, terrorist and lawbreaker.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is how technologies purportedly adopted to rout out dangerous criminals in our midst are used to conquer a free people.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 21:00

  • $5 Million Each And No Taxes? San Francisco Reparations Committee Goes To Town
    $5 Million Each And No Taxes? San Francisco Reparations Committee Goes To Town

    Lawmakers in San Francisco heard several proposals on Tuesday by a city-approved reparations committee tasked with figuring out how the city can ‘atone’ for decades of racism by the city government.

    The more than 100 recommendations included payments of $5 million for every eligible black adult, the elimination of all personal debt and tax burdens, a guaranteed annual income of at least $97,000 for 250 years, and homes for just $1 per family.

    Upon hearing the proposals, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voiced enthusiastic support for the ideas, with some saying that something as trivial as ‘money’ shouldn’t stop the city from doing the right thing. (what?)

    Other supervisors were apparently surprised to that politically liberal residents pushed back against the ideas.

    “Those of my constituents who lost their minds about this proposal, it’s not something we’re doing or we would do for other people. It’s something we would do for our future for everybody’s collective future,” said supervisor Rafael Mandelman.

    Black residents once made up more than 13% of San Francisco’s population, but more than 50 years later, they account for less than 6% of the city’s residents – and 38% of the city’s homeless population. The reparations attempt to rectify historic injustices by focusing not on slavery but rather the city’s discriminatory treatment of Black residents during the period of “urban renewal” in the 1950s through 1970s, which included the razing of a thriving Black neighborhood and the displacement of nearly 20,000 people in the name of “economic development”.

    Adopting any of the recommendations would make San Francisco the first major US city to fund reparations, though the effort faces steep financial headwinds and criticism from conservatives. –The Guardian

    “I don’t need to impress upon you the fact that we are setting a national precedent here in San Francisco,” said Tinisch Hollins, vice-chair of the African American Reparations Advisory Committee. “What we are asking for and what we’re demanding for is a real commitment to what we need to move things forward.”

    Critics say the plans are absurd, particularly considering that California never enslaved black people, and that taxpayers who were never slave owners shouldn’t have to pay money to people who were never enslaved.

    “This conversation we’re having in San Francisco is completely unserious. They just threw a number up, there’s no analysis,” said John Dennis, chair of the San Francisco Republican Party. “It seems ridiculous, and it also seems that this is the one city where it could possibly pass.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 20:40

  • Leftist Groups Tapping $1 Billion To Vastly Expand The Private Financing Of Public Elections
    Leftist Groups Tapping $1 Billion To Vastly Expand The Private Financing Of Public Elections

    Authored by Steve Miller via RealClear Wire,

    Democrats and their progressive allies are vastly expanding their unprecedented efforts, begun in 2020, to use private money to influence and run public elections.  

    Supported by groups with more than $1 billion at their disposal, according to public records, these partisan groups are working with state and local boards to influence functions that have long been the domain of government or political parties.  

    Registering and turning out voters – once handled primarily by political parties – and design of election office websites and mail-in ballots are being handed over to those same nonprofits, which are staffed by progressive activists that include former Democratic Party advocates, organized labor adherents and community organizers. 

    Republicans have opposed such efforts, passing legislation in 24 states since 2020 curbing the private financing of elections. But the GOP does not have a comparable, boots-on-the-ground effort to influence election boards and workers, and the private-funding bans haven’t proved absolute in some states.  

     “There is a cottage industry of 501c3s in public policy and in the political arena, trying to shape the future of immigration or education or any other topic,” said Kimberly Fiorello, a former Republican state representative in Connecticut. “Increasingly they are about elections, election administration, election technology, ballot design, and all with big funding. These groups seem innocuous, but they aren’t innocuous because they are funded by one political side.”  \

    Many of the progressive groups seeking to influence elections are connected to Arabella Advisors, a Washington-based, for-profit consulting company founded and led by Eric Kessler, a White House appointee during the Clinton administration.  

    Arabella’s projects, which include the New Venture Fund, the Hopewell Fund, the Sixteen Thirty Fund and Secure Democracy USA, had combined revenues of $1.3 billion between 2020 and 2021, tax filings show.  Nonprofits supported by Arabella in 2020 gave out $529 million to “defend democracy.”  

    That coincided with the rise of private-public election partnerships as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, donated an estimated $350 million to the progressive Center for Tech and Civil Life (CTCL) to support local efforts in the pandemic-challenged 2020 election.

    The voting was marked by social-distancing rule changes encouraging early and mail balloting, imposing policies that Republicans seek to roll back to pre-pandemic rules. The grants of “Zuckerbucks”or “Zuckbucks,” as they are referred to by conservative critics, were supposed to be nonpartisan, but research indicated they were disproportionately allocated to areas to boost Democratic voter turnout. 

    Apart from legislative curbs on private financing of elections, Republicans so far have not shown any interest in countering their opponents’ strategies. Scott Walter, president of the conservative Capital Research Center, told a Zoom audience of Greenwich, Conn., residents this month that 2020 was an outlier in the way voting was shaped by outside influences.   

    “It was only in 2020 with the so-called ZuckBucks, and it wasn’t illegal because no one ever dreamt of having something like this,” Walter said. “There haven’t been any efforts by Republicans that we’re aware of to do anything like this anywhere.”  

    In the past two years, Democratic interests have worked from several angles, pushing back against voter ID, and seeking same-day voter registration, prolonged early voting, and a wide expansion of mail-in voting.  

    Among the endeavors:  

    • The training of election officials by CTCL and like-minded organizations promising “nonpartisan” learning opportunities. Such training used to be the primary domain of the Election Center, a 1,500-member trade group that includes election officials and administrators.   

    • CTCL efforts to generate favorable media coverage: setting up interviews between elections offices and media outlets, and placing op-eds in local newspapers, under the bylines of election officials, using a prewritten template lamenting the lack of public funding for elections.  (Stuart Baum, a CTCL staffer, wrote to Greenwich voting registrars in October: “A reporter from the Washington Post is interested in learning more about your experiences with your aging voting machines … specifically the unfortunate meltdowns that you’ve experienced with them.”)  

    • Sympathetic local officials alerting CTCL to public records requests for information regarding its work. A December information request from an attorney at the conservative Americans for Public Trust was sent to CTCL by Macoupin (Illinois) County Clerk Pete Duncan, noting “attached is a FOIA you may already be aware of, but I figured I would pass it along to you.”  

    • Lobbying at the state and federal level. New Venture, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, and the Hopewell Fund spent a combined $6.8 million on lobbying Congress last year, according to Open Secrets. State lobbying records show New Venture, Hopewell, and Secure Democracy have lobbied in at least 41 states over the past five years, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on issues including election reform.   

    Lobbying operations provide a more even battlefield as the two parties and their allies have worked vigorously to propose and support new election laws across the country and oppose such measures from the other side. But Democrat efforts draw special concern from foes because they are connected to the same groups that claim they are providing nonpartisan training to election officials and seek to allow private money to flow more freely.   

    In Georgia, the Hopewell Fund and Secure Democracy USA dispatched lobbyists to the Atlanta capitol building to water down a bill banning private funding of elections two weeks before its passage in March 2021.  They won a loophole that allowed DeKalb County in February to accept a $2 million grant from CTCL – this despite the law’s being drafted in part by Heritage Action for America, the lobbying arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation.   

    “Now it looks like some of these states will have to go back and amend their legislation to ensure things like DeKalb can’t happen,” Jessica Anderson, the executive director of Heritage Action for America,  told RCI. Georgia lawmakers have moved to strengthen the law following the DeKalb County grant.   

    In Utah, county clerks in Cache and Weber counties, while so far adhering to the state’s legislative ban on taking grants from outside private groups, have each paid $1,600 to be part of CTCL’s so-called voter integrity plan.  

    CTCL says more memberships and grants are to be announced soon, “once membership paperwork is finalized,” according to emails obtained by RCI through a public records request.   

    While Utah lawmakers last year passed a measure prohibiting elections offices from accepting private grants, “the way it’s written, I could technically take grant money if I wanted for certain activities, but I choose not to because I don’t want to push the envelope,” Ricky Hatch, Weber County clerk and a member of CTCL’s advisory board, said in a Zoom event earlier this year.   

    Hatch did not respond to an interview request.   

    CTCL’s allies include the National Vote at Home Institute, the Center for Democracy, Voting Rights Lab, Rock the Vote, and the Center for Secure and Modern Elections. The groups over the past several years have worked with CTCL on symposiums and presentations to election officials across the U.S.   

    The go-to for elections workshops and information has for decades been the Election Center, the national association of election officials, which holds numerous events each year. Now CTCL is among the presenters tentatively scheduled for an April event .  

    The Election Center’s spokeswoman and CEO of programs is CTCL board director Tammy Patrick, who is also a senior adviser to the elections division of the Democracy Fund.   

    Patrick said in an email that election training “continues to evolve,” and that as technology changes, more training is needed.  

    “Although [the] Election Center strives to meet every need our membership has, this is where our relationships with academic institutions, partner organizations and other government agencies plays a vital role in keeping election professionals current,” Patrick wrote.  

    In related activity, the Biden administration has sought to stem state probes of possible voting malfeasance, sending both broad and specific warnings to states engaged in post-election studies that would potentially catch election malfeasance.  

    A state audit in Texas found that a former Dallas city council member and convicted felon requested mail ballots for 393 individuals as the 2020 presidential election approached, and an RCI review of the ballot applications found that over 90% of those voters were Democrats.  

    Teri Hodge, convicted in 2010 on tax fraud charges connected to her alleged role in a city hall bribery and extortion scheme, collected the mail-in ballot applications all over the city as she and several assistants, including Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre, helped beef up the party’s voting base for the election by registering voters, signing up over 400 county residents to automatically receive mail-in ballots.  

    “This was not illegal,” said Sam Taylor, a spokesman for the Texas Secretary of State’s office.  

    But the finding would normally lead to a further look into the accuracy of the applications and verification through calling the voters.   

    As Taylor’s office sought to investigate further, it was thwarted by a directive from the U.S. Department of Justice issued in July 2021 that said contacting voters placed them in jeopardy of violating federal laws regarding voter intimidation.   

    “There is DOJ guidance that says that talking to voters about things like this [how they applied to vote by mail] is potentially considered voter harassment or voter intimidation,” said Jacqueline Hagan Doyer, legal director of the Forensic Audit Division at the Texas Secretary of State’s office.   

    Hodge, who also served on the elections committee as a state representative, could not be reached for comment.   

    “Since 2018, we’ve seen Democrats catch up with the Republican strategy of getting voters to vote,” said Paul Bentz, a political consultant in Arizona. Voter registration, early voting, and mail-in ballots are cornerstones of the strategy, he said.   

    The Republican National Committee in 2021 announced its Election Integrity Committee, which produced a 24-page report several months later. The report insisted outside help for elections be prohibited, among other things, but the committee has done nothing since.  

    “The RNC established an election integrity committee to examine how Democrats attack election integrity – and more importantly, to lay out a blueprint for protecting our elections from the far-left,” RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel told the Washington Examiner after the report was released.  

    Committee Chairman Joe Gruters did not respond to an interview request.   

    Mac Warner, West Virginia’s Republican Secretary of State, told RCI that his party needs to become more aggressive in elections, using some of the same tactics as their opponents.  

    “When you’ve lost so many elections, you finally have to decide to fight fire with fire,” said Warner, who is a gubernatorial candidate for 2024. “You don’t win elections by not getting ballots out there. You can start playing by their rules and win an election. It’s time to go in another direction.”  

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 20:20

  • Israel On Edge After Suspected Hezbollah Operative Crossed Border, Bombed Roadway
    Israel On Edge After Suspected Hezbollah Operative Crossed Border, Bombed Roadway

    Israel has been shaken by what’s being described as a very serious security breach on its northern border, with a mysterious roadside bombing at Megiddo in northern Israel on Monday now being described as a terror act of Lebanese Hezbollah.

    Until Wednesday, there was a strict gag order in place among Israeli security officials and media while the investigation was ongoing and top-level emergency security meetings were convened. One victim of the blast is said to be in serious condition, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been meeting with his top security officials, having also confirmed he’ll be returning from Berlin a day earlier to handle the crisis.

    IDF: Israeli soldiers are seen on the Lebanese border, March 13, 2023.

    According to The Times of Israel, a Hezbollah operative snuck across the border earlier this week, and reportedly hitched a ride with a local Arab. “The alleged terrorist was shot dead on the Lebanese border several hours after the attack on Monday. He was armed with an explosives belt at the time,” the report says.

    The bomb detonated Monday morning, and the IDF said forensic evidence showed the bomb to be “unusual” – and not like what is more common among Palestinian attackers. This prompted the military and police to shut down roads and the whole area while trying to track the culprit. The Times of Israel described:

    Officers of the elite police Yamam counterterrorism unit and Shin Bet officers opened fire at the suspect, killing him. The IDF said the suspect was a “clear danger” to the security forces and had a primed explosives belt on him at the time.

    The bystander who was the lone reported victim of the bombing attack has been identified as 21-year-old Shareef al-Din. He suffered shrapnel wounds all over his body.

    Before the details were revealed by authorities, Israeli Kan 11 channel reported that “most of the details of the case are forbidden to be published according to censorship instructions – the security system is very concerned about the details of the case.”

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

    This follows a string of attacks and major security incidents amid rising tensions in the West Bank between Palestinians and Israeli security. It also comes amid large Israeli protests in reaction to controversial judicial reforms and new policies of Netanyahu’s far right governing coalition. 

    According to Mideast news site The Cradle, “Such bombing operations are reminiscent of those carried out during the Second Intifada, which saw several large-scale attacks, such as the Megiddo Junction bus bombing of 2002 by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 20:00

  • How Dangerous Is AI, And Will It Really Take Your Job?
    How Dangerous Is AI, And Will It Really Take Your Job?

    Authored by John Mac Ghlionn via The Epoch Times,

    Artificial intelligence (AI), we’re told, will probably destroy humanity.

    Then again, those in the know tell us that it probably won’t. One thing AI will definitely do, though, is take our jobs, leaving a mass of unemployed, utterly useless individuals in its wake. Right?

    The truth, though, is far more nuanced than some reports would have us believe.

    There are currently 6.47 million unemployed people in the United States. Due to fierce competition, credential inflation, and companies becoming more selective, many of these people may find themselves unemployed for the foreseeable future. To compound matters, the jobless must also factor in another huge obstacle: AI-enabled machines and automation.

    It’s natural to fear new technology. The printing press was met with shock and horror. So, too, were inventions such as the telephone, radio, and TV. But AI is nothing like these rather benign creations. It’s a completely different animal altogether, one that has the power to destroy countless professions, but also create a number of eye-opening opportunities. Some analysts warn that AI will alter the employment landscape permanently. According to researchers at Oxford University, AI poses a direct threat to 47 percent of U.S. jobs. ChatGPT and other AI chatbots have people worried, understandably so.

    In the UK, over the next two decades, AI will leave at least 7 million people jobless, according to analysts at PwC. Considering the UK has a population of 67 million, 7 million is a huge number. At the same time, however, AI will create 7.2 million new jobs. The same is true in the United States. AI is predicted to create more jobs than it will destroy. This part is so often, either consciously or otherwise, omitted from the “AI will replace us” conversation.

    Of course, whether or not people have the opportunity, time, or finances to upskill is an important issue that requires further consideration. Nevertheless, on the job front, AI is not as destructive as many might assume.

    As John Hawksworth, PwC’s chief economist, rightly said, “Major new technologies, from steam engines to computers, displace some existing jobs but also generate large productivity gains,” adding that his team’s findings “suggests the same will be true of AI, robots and related technologies.”

    Just to note, the professions most at risk are ones that include rather repetitive actions, like data entry roles, telemarketing, and receptionist work.

    Although AI won’t actually remove humans from the job equation, at least not in the immediate future, it does pose a different, arguably more ominous threat to individuals, especially those residing in the United States.

    The (Further) Erosion of Privacy and Sanity

    In 2014, Stephen Hawking grimly predicted that the development of full AI “could spell the end of the human race.”

    Whether or not Hawking’s ominous prophecy proves to be true in, say, three to four decades from now remains to be seen. But AI will certainly end the idea of privacy, if it even exists anymore.

    An increasing number of federal agencies are using invasive facial recognition technology (FRT), with more planning to expand their use of FRT this year. The technology, which works by identifying and measuring specific facial features and storing the data as a faceprint, is powered by AI. Law enforcement agencies have, in recent times, turned to the technology in an effort to identify criminals. That’s problematic on many levels.

    As a recent Axios report demonstrated, FRT is incredibly flawed. The report was published shortly after a black man was jailed in Georgia after FRT wrongly matched his face with a suspect in a New Orleans robbery. The man, who claimed to have never visited Louisiana in his life, was released after almost a week in detention.

    This isn’t the first time the technology has resulted in the arrest of an innocent individual. As Wired reported last year, at least three prior false arrests occurred after officers used FRT. All three of those arrested were black men. The technology has a history of failing to accurately identify the faces of black people. Not only is FRT invasive, it also appears to be racist.

    Besides powering FRT, AI also powers small flying devices that are now plaguing Americans. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s a drone. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), more commonly known as drones, appear to be everywhere. From the world of agriculture to construction and mining, media and telecommunications to law enforcement, the demand for drones has never been higher. By 2025, the drone services market size is expected to be worth $63.6 billion.

    In the United States, drones are already delivering pizza. Walmart also uses drones to deliver groceries. But, as the writer Zachary Mack recently highlighted, critics are concerned that these flying travesties are violating their privacy. Their concerns are most definitely warranted; these machines come with mounted cameras, meaning they capture footage of just about anything.

    Moreover, drones are incredibly noisy. In Glendale, Arizona, residents in close proximity to a Walmart store, noted Mack, are fed up with the incessant noise, with one resident comparing the sound to “a hornet’s nest that’s been kicked up.” People might scoff at the remark, but the link between noise pollution and high blood pressure, as well as heart disease, sleep disturbances, and stress is undeniable.

    AI might not rob you of your job, but it will play a key role in robbing you of your face and, if you happen to live near a Walmart, maybe even your sanity.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 19:40

  • US Threatens To Ban TikTok Ban If Chinese Owners Don't Sell; Meta, Snapchat Jump
    US Threatens To Ban TikTok Ban If Chinese Owners Don’t Sell; Meta, Snapchat Jump

    In its most aggressive assault yet on addictive Chinese video-sharing sensation TikTok, the Biden administration is demanding that its Chinese owners sell their stakes or face a U.S. ban of the app, the WSJ reported citing people familiar with the matter. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, or Cfius — a multiagency federal task force that oversees national security risks in cross-border investments and which gained prominence under the Trump admin — made the sale demand recently.

    The move represents a major shift in policy on the part of the administration, which has been under fire from Republicans who say it hasn’t taken a tough enough stance to address the perceived security threat from TikTok, owned by Beijing-based ByteDance.

    TikTok executives have said that 60% of ByteDance shares are owned by global investors, 20% by employees and 20% by its founders, though the founders’ shares carry outsize voting rights, as is common with tech companies. The company was founded in Beijing in 2012 by Zhang Yiming, ByteDance Chief Executive Liang Rubo and others.

    In response to the US demand, TikTok said Wednesday that a forced sale wouldn’t address the perceived security risk. Instead, it has pledged to spend $1.5 billion on a program to safeguard U.S. user data and content from Chinese government access or influence.

    “If protecting national security is the objective, divestment doesn’t solve the problem: a change in ownership would not impose any new restrictions on data flows or access, ” TikTok spokeswoman Brooke Oberwetter said in a statement. True, but it wouldn’t hurt either.

    “The best way to address concerns about national security is with the transparent, U.S.-based protection of U.S. user data and systems, with robust third-party monitoring, vetting, and verification, which we are already implementing,” Oberwetter said.

    However, critics have said that plan isn’t sufficient, saying any Chinese-owned company must comply with demands from Beijing if called upon.

    Accprding to the WSJ, it wasn’t immediately clear what the next step by the U.S. would be, and the people familiar with the matter say a resolution could be months away. TikTok’s chief executive, Shou Zi Chew, is scheduled to appear before the House Energy and Commerce Committee next week to address lawmakers’ questions on the security issues.

    While the Trump administration sought to force a sale of TikTok to U.S.-majority ownership, based on similar national security concerns, it ultimately failed when ByteDance went to court to block a proposed federal ban, arguing that the ban would violate a law known as the Berman amendments, which exempt cross-border communications from the president’s powers to address national security threats

    The Biden administration’s move against TikTok could face a lengthy and bumpy road as well. The company can argue that any forced sale would amount to a ban, because the Chinese government wouldn’t allow the TikTok algorithm to be sold along with it. The company also might be able to argue that the move would violate the Berman amendment, as well as the First Amendment.

    News of the proposed ban boosted stocks of TikTok competitors Meta and Snapchat, the latter rising 10%, while the former gained as much as 3%.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 19:34

  • "Panic, Meltdowns, People Crying…"
    “Panic, Meltdowns, People Crying…”

    Forget SVB, Credit Suisse is the real thing – a SIFI that could bring it all down – and that is perhaps why the world his pet rabbit decided to buy some counterparty risk protection on the Swiss bank…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Credit Suisse has been a known issue for years, however, today’s rather public refusal by the Saudis to throw any more money at the Swiss bank, could have been the straw on this camel’s back, sending the stock to new record lows…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Credit Suisse ADRs (which traded after the late-day statement from SNB and Finma) shows the stock was not impressed…

    Charles Gasparino tweeted the following, which seemed to sum things up well:

    Breaking from a Credit Suisse employee: “panic, meltdowns, people crying.”

    European bank stocks crashed 7% today, down 15% in the last week, erasing all the gains YTD…

    Source: Bloomberg

    And European credit risk soared broadly…

    Source: Bloomberg

    German 2Y, 5Y, & 30Y bond yields crashed by their most on record today…

    Source: Bloomberg

    As market expectations for The ECB tomorrow plummeted from a 100% chance of 50bps a week ago to just barely pricing in a 25bps hike…

    Source: Bloomberg

    And that derisking spread around the world, dragging US stocks and bond yields down, dollar and gold higher…

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

    US equities plunged around 2% on the Credit Suisse contagion, but then well after EU closed, headline suggesting a statement from Swiss authorities prompted a rapid buying-panic, lifting Nasdaq green. But when the statement hit , it was disappointing and stocks faded back into the red with Small Caps the biggest losers (lots of small financials)…

    The S&P 500 briefly went negative year-to-date before the Swiss support headlines

    Late in the day saw 0DTE traders pushing negative against the rally…

    Regional Banks extended recent losses today (despite the bounce back this afternoon)…

    So much for the ‘bailout’ – here are some regional bank stock’s performances since Friday’s close…

    Treasuries were aggressively bid on safe-haven flows from Credit Suisse stress, with the short-end outperforming, but some of that was sold away after the ‘show of support’ headlines. On the week, amid all the incredible volatility, 30Y yield are practically unchanged while 2YU yields are down 65bps…

    Source: Bloomberg

    The 2Y Yield crashed to its lowest since Sept 2022, back below 4.00%…

    Source: Bloomberg

    The 10Y yield tested back below its 200DMA once again but found support…

    Source: Bloomberg

    The yield curve continues to steepen, with 2s30s at its least-inverted since Oct 2022…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Fed rate-hike expectations crashed again today, below Monday’s lows, pricing in over 100bps of rate-cuts by year-end at today’s lows and for March, the market says it’s a coin-toss between ‘pause’ and 25bps…

    Source: Bloomberg

    The last few days have seen the market’s expectations of The Fed’s path ahead totally collapse, signaling a panic series of cuts is coming soon…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Before we leave bond-land, we note that the 6mo T-Bill yield topping the S&P 500 earnings yield last week (for the first time since Jan 2001), appears to have marked an inflection point…

    Source: Bloomberg

    The dollar saw safe-haven flows today and rallied back to Friday’s highs…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Bitcoin traded flat to slightly lower today, finding support at $24,000…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Oil prices collapsed, with WTI suffering its worst daily decline in six months back below $70, plunging to its lowest since Dec 2021 before bouncing back later in the afternoon…

    Copper crashed too, nearly red on the year, after ‘meh’ China data and global stress…

    Gold extended gains today, despite dollar strength…

    Finally, systemic risk indicators are flashing red as our global dollar liquidity proxy crashed further today as demand for dollars abroad is soaring…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Time for some giant swap lines and jawboning. Who will save the world again this time?

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 19:26

  • Wellesley Students Vote To Admit Trans Men To Historic Women's College
    Wellesley Students Vote To Admit Trans Men To Historic Women’s College

    The student body at one of the country’s most prestigious women’s colleges has approved a referendum urging the school to open admission to all nonbinary and transgender people —  including trans men.  

    Tuesday’s vote at Wellesley College in suburban Boston isn’t binding. After the vote, the 2,500-student school –which counts blood-drenched foreign interventionists Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright among its alumnae — declared it had “no plan to revisit its mission as a women’s college or its admissions policy.” 

    However, the school has already bent to gender activism. Since 2015, Wellesley has offered admission to anyone “who lives as a woman and consistently identifies as a woman.” That includes trans women — biological men who call themselves women. 

    That’s not enough for a majority of students voting in Tuesday’s referendum: They also want biological women who seek to live their lives as men to be admitted to a college for women.   

    That’s eyebrow-raising enough, but note the referendum also gives a green light to “all nonbinary” people. That would open Wellesley to biological men who position themselves elsewhere across the bewildering, ever-growing taxonomy of gender identities…including, for example, those who claim to have a “fluctuating gender.”

    Earlier this month, Wellesley President Paula Johnson posted a message articulating the school’s devotion to remaining a women’s college, albeit one that approaches that definition flexibly: “Wellesley is a women’s college that admits cis, trans, and nonbinary students—all who consistently identify as women.”

    Naturally, there was a backlash, including an ongoing sit-in in the administration building. The student newspaper published an editorial disapproving of Johnson’s message, and “remind[ing] the Wellesley community that President Johnson is the spokesperson for the Board of Trustees, which must be held equally responsible for the College’s transphobic rhetoric.”   

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

    Per an odd policy, the college does not publish the actual vote tallies of its referendums. However, Tuesday’s result was widely expected. 

    Senior student Elizabeth Um told The New York Times that while she opposed the referendum, she didn’t pursue any activism against it because its passage seemed inevitable and publicly resisting it would have been “social suicide.” 

    Um, who’s president of a Wellesley anti-abortion group, did dare to share with theTimes her exasperation over the proposal to open her women’s college to women who identify as men, and men who call themselves nonbinary: 

    “If you don’t think you can fit in here, then you have your pick of thousands of other coed colleges…We’re a women’s college. That’s the core identity of the school, and we can’t start watering that down.”

    College president Johnson told the Times that students and faculty contacted her to say they feared ostracism if they went public with their opposition. “I’ve been personally booed at public gatherings where I’ve referred to Wellesley as a women’s college, which it is,” she said.

    Wellesley College President Paula Johnson (Photo: Wellesley)

    Supporters of the referendum say their proposal would be consistent with women’s colleges acting as havens for those who face gender discrimination. Retired Wellesley English professor Lawrence Rosenwald told the Times that the college has always been a home for those “not in positions of power in a patriarchal society.”

    Founded in 1870, Wellesley bills itself as an institution for “women who will make a difference in the world.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 19:20

  • The SVB Collapse: How Financial Crisis Boosts The CBDC 'Threat'
    The SVB Collapse: How Financial Crisis Boosts The CBDC ‘Threat’

    Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

    Last Friday saw the total failure of the Silicon Valley Bank, the 16th biggest bank in the United States. The biggest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis.

    By Sunday, the Silvergate Bank and Signature Bank had joined SVB in full collapse. All three are now safely under Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) control.

    The FDIC has taken the unusual step of fully guaranteeing all deposits kept with the SVB – meaning the federal government will give taxpayer money out to compensate every SVB customer.

    But the damage didn’t stop there. Naturally, this put pressure on other regional banks, with two more – First Republic Bank and PacWest Bank – coming close to collapsing themselves, following mini-runs.

    The weekend saw Wall Street’s 4 biggest banks lose over 55 billion dollars in value. Bank stocks around the world are sliding in value.

    As of this morning Credit Suisse’s stock is at an all-time low, sparking a sell-off of stocks all over the world.

    In short, the financial situation is teetering on the edge of a major crisis. But is it accidental? And if not, what is the agenda behind it?

    Well, firstly, no it’s not accidental. Let’s get that out of the way.

    Does that mean the collapses were planned and engineered to the last detail? Maybe, maybe not.

    Certainly, there was at least some warning for people in the know.

    SVB’s CEO and CFO dumped a combined 4 million dollars of stock in the two weeks before the crash, and Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund withdrew all their funds from SVB the Thursday before the collapse.

    That is despite the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation finding that SVB was a “sound financial institution” as late as March 9th, and that it only entered insolvency after investors caused a run.

    Obviously, that’s not proof of an intentional collapse, but it’s something to make a note of nonetheless.

    Anybody with some kind of foreknowledge could have made a fortune in put options over the weekend. It will be interesting if any spike in such deals was recorded.

    But all of that is irrelevant, really, because we know they have been deliberately tanking the economy for three years as a response to “the pandemic”.

    They inflated the cost of food and energy and destroyed the value of our currency by “printing” billions upon billions of dollars, pounds and euros.

    So, even if there was no specific micro-managed set-up with these specific banks, bank failures were the inevitable result of this economic vandalism – inevitable, and desired.

    The more important questions are “why?” and ”what happens now?”

    Well, one aspect will be tighter regulation – specifically of cryptocurrency. It’s likely no accident that two of the failed banks – Silvergate and Signature – are major investors in crypto, and SVB is known to have links to crypto too.

    The narrative will likely come about that “unregulated crypto investment poses a danger to the financial system” or that “unregulated crypto is makes our financial institutes vulnerable to economic warfare” or something similar

    We’re already seeing articles along those lines, as well as dire warnings of the same from last fall.

    The next phase will likely be arguing that small, regional, private banks cannot guarantee the security of their customer’s money, and it would be safer for individuals to bank with either giant international banks or directly with the central bank.

    It’s already being reported that Bank of America has seen a huge boost in deposits since the SVB crash. This process of consolidation in the major banks is likely to continue.

    Logically, there’s only one place this two-pronged propaganda is headed (for anyone who’s been paying even the smallest bit of attention): Central Bank Digital Currency.

    The narrative fits too well for it to be anything else.

    Going forward, CBDCs can be pitched as more secure than traditional banking, and more regulated than “traditional” crypto. Further, since the FDIC is now fully guaranteeing deposits in failed banks, you’re practically banking with the Fed anyway. Why not just cut out the middle man?

    We know they’re going to make these arguments because they already started making them.

    In January this year, the World Economic Forum published a paper titled:

    Can central bank digital currencies help stabilize global financial markets?

    It’s clear what the sales pitch is going to be.

    But more than that, it’s possible bank runs will actually be encouraged in future, because they could increase the uptake of digital currency.

    According to a report from the Bank of International Settlements [emphasis added]:

    Another set of studies focus on the risk that a CBDC may increase depositors’ sensitivity to system-wide banking crises by facilitating the transfer of deposits. The availability of CBDC might not have a large impact on individual bank runs as it is already possible to digitally and instantly transfer money between a weak and a strong bank (Kumhof and Noone (2018) and Carstens (2019)).

    However, during a systemic banking crisis, transfers from bank deposits into CBDC would face lower transaction costs than those associated with cash withdrawals (such as going to the ATM, waiting in line, etc.), and would provide a safe-haven destination in the form of the central bank.

    The lower costs of running to CBDC compared to cash imply that more depositors would quickly withdraw at a lower perceived probability of a system-wide bank solvency crisis.

    They argue that since any hypothetical CBDC will be more secure than traditional bank deposits, and easier to get than cash, people would opt to use it in the event of a run on the bank, and that bank runs would therefore be more likely and more common.

    Do you see the implication here?

    Once CBDCs are out there – optional at first, of course – the central banks could theoretically increase uptake by artificially engineering financial instability and causing regional banks to collapse.

    They won’t make it mandatory, they’ll just make it “safe”.

    Another report, published in 2022 by the UK’s House of Lords, described CBDCs as “A Solution in Search of a Problem”.

    It looks like they just found their problem. And problems are just like everything else – the bests are the ones you make yourself.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 19:00

  • Judge Denies Requests From Jan. 6 Defendants To Cross-Examine FBI Agent On Leaked Messages
    Judge Denies Requests From Jan. 6 Defendants To Cross-Examine FBI Agent On Leaked Messages

    Authored by Gary Bai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Defendants in the ongoing Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Breach trial suffered a defeat on Monday, as the court ordered that the defendants may not cross-examine an FBI agent for most of the defense attorneys’ allegations that spawned from internal FBI messages inadvertently leaked in court.

    Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump-appointed judge, on Monday addressed allegations made by attorneys of the Jan. 6 defendants that targeted leaked internal FBI messages, which were revealed in court when Nick Smith, a defense attorney representing Ethan Nordean, cross-examined FBI Special Agent Nicole Miller on Thursday last week.

    The judge denied all but one of the defendant’s arguments about the leaked messages. That leaves a narrowed space for the defendants to maneuver should they wish to upend the trial based on these messages alone.

    Police fire munitions into a crowd on the west side of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images)

    Leaked Messages in the Crosshair

    The leaked messages emerged when Smith showed in court hidden rows in an Excel spreadsheet provided to him by the DOJ, which contained thousands of lines of correspondence among FBI agents—mostly addressed to Agent Miller—in the agency’s Lync system. The files were “hidden” via a “filter” function in Excel, according to a Thursday filing by Nordean.

    These messages include a directive from FBI personnel to Miller to “destroy” 338 pieces of evidence and another directive to Miller to “edit out” an FBI agent from a Confidential Human Source (CHS) informant report, the filing read.

    Since last Thursday, these internal messages were the focus of defense attorneys, who alleged that the messages showed that the DOJ altered evidence, violated due process, and intruded on the defendants’ rights to counsel by monitoring the defendants’ communications with their counsel.

    Based on these allegations, the defendants’ attorneys made a range of requests to the court, including the appointment of a special counsel to review the messages, further cross-examination of Agent Miller about these messages, and dismissal of the case altogether.

    Cross-examination refers to the defense lawyer’s questioning of the plaintiff’s witness—Agent Miller, in this case—and comes after the plaintiff questions the witness in direct examinations. The scope of cross-examinations usually limits to that touched by the line of questioning by the plaintiff in direct examinations for the purpose of checking the witness’s testimony, knowledge, or credibility.

    The defense attorneys, in this case, requested to further cross-examine Agent Miller on the leaked FBI communications, which is extraneous information to the plaintiff’s original line of questioning. The DOJ sought to stop all further questioning about these leaked messages and push defense attorneys back to the DOJ’s original line of questioning in direct examination, according to its court filings over the weekend.

    The judge rejected all but one of the defendants’ allegations since the revealing of the FBI messages last Thursday.

    ‘Editing’ of Informant Reports

    The judge allowed only one request from the defendants, which was a request from Nordean’s attorney to cross-examine Agent Miller regarding the “editing” of an FBI personnel out of a CHS informant report.

    In a Sunday filing, the DOJ said the editing request in the disputed message was sent by another FBI personnel who is trying to remove his name from correspondence with a confidential source he was no longer handling. The DOJ maintained that the FBI personnel instructed Miller to edit out the agent’s name in pursuant to FBI policy and characterized the message as a “routine clerical matter” unrelated to the Proud Boys.

    In response, the defense said the DOJ’s words could not be assumed true and required further investigation.

    “Nordean does not deny that those facts could be true. However, the government’s summary presentation of facts in a brief—accompanied by no sworn declaration and without even an identified source for the information—cannot eliminate Nordean’s rule-based right to cross-examine the witness about an exchange that, on its face, does not appear benign,” Nordean’s attorney wrote in a filing on Sunday, adding that the defense should be able to cross-examine Agent Miller for this reason.

    In an order issued at the beginning of the trial, Kelly agreed with Nordean that cross-examination of Agent Miller on the message containing the CHS report would be appropriate and found the messages, at least at face value, that show it is plausible that the agent may have provided a CHS report that was inaccurate or incomplete.

    Nordean’s attorney cross-examined Miller on the CHS report. As of Monday, the judge has not found that the witness contradicted her own testimony on record.

    Monitoring of Attorney-Client Communications

    Another allegation, one that spurred heated exchanges in court, which Kelly ruled void, was the defendants’ claim that the DOJ monitored attorney-client communications and crafted a trial strategy around the said communications.

    “An agent involved in the investigation states to Miller, ‘this one email [definitely] indicates that [Defendant Rehl and his attorney] want to go to trial,’” wrote Nordean in a filing on Sunday, citing an FBI email message. “The agent says that one of the lead prosecutors on this matter should not be alerted, ‘yet.’”

    Attorneys acting for Jan. 6 defendants Dominic Pezzola and Nordean said in court filings over the weekend that the messages violate the defendants’ right to counsel, as the FBI allegedly monitored communications between a co-defendant, Zachary Rehl, and his attorney. The message thus violated the Sixth Amendment, the defense stated, which prohibits invasion of the right to counsel (Matter of Fusco v. Moses).

    But the DOJ said that because Rehl and his attorney communicated over a monitored prison system, they had waived the right to attorney-client privileges.

    “The government has not obtained any privileged communications between defendant Rehl and Moseley,” the government wrote in response to Roots’s contentions in a filing on Sunday. “Rehl and Moseley made a fully informed choice to communicate with one another over a monitored jail email system. In doing so, they waived any privilege.”

    Kelly, during trial on Monday, ruled in favor of the government and affirmed its stance that because the messages were made in a prison communications system, the defense’s claim that the FBI’s monitoring constitutes a Sixth Amendment violation is void. Therefore, Kelly said, the defendants may not cross-examine Agent Miller on this point.

    Destruction of Evidence

    Furthermore, Kelly ruled on Monday that the defendants may not cross-examine Miller on a leaked message that appeared to direct Agent Miller to “destroy” 338 pieces of evidence.

    Kelly affirmed the government’s stance that the defense had not shown sufficient evidence to connect the said evidence to the case.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 18:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest