Jun 01

Today’s News 1st June 2017

  • Forget Peace & Stability – Washington's Policy In The South China Sea Is Confrontational

    Authored by Brian Cloughley via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The American guided missile destroyer USS Dewey was reported as having carried out a ‘freedom of navigation operation’ or FONOP in the South China Sea on May 24. According to the US Naval Institute the undertaking involved manoeuvres «within 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef for about 90 minutes zig-zagging in the water near the installation. At one point during the operation, the ship’s crew conducted a man overboard drill».

    Mischief Reef is 900 miles from the mainland of China, and 12,000 miles from the mainland of the United States. It has been built up by China from a sandy pile of rock into a habitable base and lies in the Spratly Island chain which is claimed by the Philippines and Vietnam, both members of the Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN.

    A week before the United States sent a warship to «demonstrate that Mischief Reef is not entitled to its own territorial sea regardless of whether an artificial island has been built on top of it» there was a meeting attended by representatives of China and all ten ASEAN countries. The purpose was to continue discussions aimed at establishing a code of conduct in the South China Sea, and on May 18 an announcement of progress was made. It was stated that all concerned nations «uphold using the framework of regional rules to manage and control disputes, to deepen practical maritime cooperation, to promote consultation on the code [of conduct] and jointly maintain the peace and stability of the South China Sea».

    As stated by the head of the Chinese delegation, deputy foreign minister Liu Zhenmin, «the draft framework contains only the elements and is not the final rules, but the conclusion of the framework is a milestone in the process and is significant. It will provide a good foundation for the next round of consultations». It wasn’t a breakthrough in agreeing about allocation of territory or anything like that — but it was indicative of peaceful progress in an important matter affecting regional countries.

    In 2012 the countries involved had agreed that «the adoption of a code of conduct in the South China Sea would further promote peace and stability in the region» and issued a statement that included reaffirmation of «their commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and other universally recognized principles of international law which shall serve as the basic norms governing state-to-state relations».

    All these countries are, of course, signatories to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which, according to the Voice of America «provides guidelines for how nations use the world's seas and their natural resources. It also contains mechanisms for addressing disputes».

    But the United States of America, whose coast is 12,000 miles from the South China Sea where its ships zig-zag in ‘Freedom of Navigation’ operations, and its electronic warfare aircraft roam the skies forcing China to activate its mainland defensive radars so that they can be identified as future targets, refuses to sign the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

    The Berkeley Journal of International Law notes perceptively that «Although ratification of UNCLOS is unlikely today given staunch opposition to it in the Senate, the treaty remains an essential instrument of international law, particularly for resolving international maritime disputes. America’s abstention from the treaty is significant in this context, since as the preeminent naval power in the world it should hold a leading role in shaping the law of the sea. Instead, other nations are playing a larger role». But the US Senate is not known for a logical approach to international affairs, and its reaction is usually confrontational.

    On May 10, just before the China-ASEAN conference and the zig-zagging antics of the USS Dewey, several US senators, including the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, wrote to President Trump expressing concern that the US Navy had not carried out patrols «upholding freedom of navigation» in the South China Sea since October 2016. This caused them to «urge your administration to take necessary steps to routinely exercise freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea, which is critical to US national security interests and to peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region».

    There has been no instance of any international commercial vessel being in any way denied passage through the South China Sea. There has never been a case in which any nation in the world has had cause to protest that one of its transiting merchant ships has been approached or in any fashion intimidated, endangered or even mildly disconcerted by the actions of a Chinese warship. There hasn’t been a single Chinese zig-zag.

    These US Senators appear unable to understand that for China to take such action would be economically disastrous. The New York Times records that «$5.3 trillion worth of goods moves through the sea every year, which is about 30 percent of global maritime trade. That includes huge amounts of oil and $1.2 trillion worth of annual trade with the United States». Surely these representatives of the American people, elected presumably because of their outstanding levels of intelligence, flexibility, shrewdness, self-discipline and overall integrity, can see that if there were any real threat to passage of mercantile craft in the South China Sea there would be a catastrophic impact on making profits?

    Even if they are not intelligent or shrewd or possess any of the other qualities desirable in a national legislator, they should realise that if the world’s financial community thought there was a threat to merchant ships in the South China Sea then insurance rates would go through the roof. There would be worldwide rocketing of commodity prices and a massive financial crisis. That is basic enough for even the dumbest senator to understand.

    The only overflights in the region that have drawn attention have been the coat-trailing provocative electronic warfare missions of US military aircraft. There has not been one occasion on which an overflying civil aircraft has experienced interference of any sort.

    Maintenance of peace and furtherance of prosperity of the region are being handled satisfactorily by regional countries, as demonstrated by the recent amicable gathering of Asian nations who agreed to «jointly maintain the peace and stability of the South China Sea». The major problem in the region is interference by warships and military aircraft of the United States. There is little doubt that China’s deputy foreign minister had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he told the media he hoped the China-ASEAN consultations would not be «subject to any outside interference», because he knew very well that cordial agreement between China and other Asian nations concerning the South China Sea would be anathema to Washington.

    The Congress and the Pentagon are marching in step, as evidenced by the declaration of the senators that «We are encouraged by the statement made by Admiral Harry Harris, Commander of US Pacific Command, during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 26, that he expects new FONOPs to take place soon. We also share Admiral Harris’s assessments that ‘China’s militarization of the South China Sea is real’ and that ‘China continues its methodical strategy to control the South China Sea’».

    Much of the world believes that the United States, 12,000 miles from the South China Sea, is the country that wants to control it. Methodical strategy might be the way to go about it, but as we have seen in the swathe of nations from Afghanistan to Libya, by way of Iraq and Syria, the strategy of the United States is not methodical. But it is decidedly confrontational. And disastrous.

  • The Meme Wars Continue: Don Trump Jr. Throws Salt at Hillary's Attempt at Humor

     

    Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

    Last night President Trump typed in a word ‘covfefe’, which lit the internet ablaze. Obviously, we can’t have this man have access to the nuke codes.

    Some believe Trump say on his phone in a drunken stupor and wrongly typed indiscernible words into this phone. Libshits were swinging from vines, attempting humor at the President’s expense. Since then, translations of the mysterious word have surfaced.

    The White House said the word was typed on purpose and that they knew what it meant. Either way, this is juvenile horseshit.

    Alas, Hillary Clinton attempts to capitalize on grande stupidity, taking her cool factor from -10 to -100.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Don Trump Jr. checked and mated her. Game, set, match.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • Russian Lawmaker Issues Sobering Threat: We're Willing To Use Nukes To Defend Crimea

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    As of late, the media has forgotten about tensions between Ukraine, NATO, and Russia. Crimea and the conflict in Eastern Ukraine have largely left the public’s awareness. However, that shouldn’t be the case, because this region is still a powder keg that could blow at any time. And if it does, it could easily result in another world war.

    If you don’t think the situation in Ukraine could still explode into a wider conflict, take a look at what this member of Russia’s parliament recently said at an international security conference.

    “On the issue of NATO expansion on our borders, at some point I heard from the Russian military — and I think they are right — If U.S. forces, NATO forces, are, were, in the Crimea, in eastern Ukraine, Russia is undefendable militarily in case of conflict without using nuclear weapons in the early stage of the conflict,” Russian parliamentarian Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Nikonov told attendees at the GLOBSEC 2017 forum in Bratislava, Slovakia.

     

    Russian military leaders have discussed Moscow’s willingness to use nuclear weapons in a conflict with military leaders in NATO, as part of broader and increasingly contentious conversations about the alliance’s expansion, Nikonov later told Defense One.

    That’s a startling admission when you think about it. It seems the Russian’s believe that if there is a war between Russia and the West, their conventional forces won’t be capable of defending Russian soil from NATO. They’re basically warning us that “if you bring a knife to this fight, we know we can’t win, so we’ll be bringing a gun.”

    And there’s a good reason for them to believe that NATO poses a dire threat to their territory and interests.

    “For us, [NATO] is a military alliance spanning three-quarters of the global defense money, now planning to expand that figure,” said Nikonov.

     

    In the two years since Russia annexed Crimea, NATO’s Baltic members have doubled their defense budgets. In 2018, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are projected to spend nearly $670 million, up from $210 million in 2014. “This growth is faster than any other region globally,” Craig Caffrey, principal analyst at IHS Jane’s, remarked last October. “In 2005, the region’s total defence budget was $930 million. By 2020, the region’s defence budget will be $2.1 billion.”

     

    NATO has been expanding its troop presence in Eastern Europe as well. In April 2016, during the Warsaw summit, NATO agreed to increase the size of the NATO force deployed to Baltics, a posture move sometimes called enhanced forward presence. In January, the U.S. deployed some 4,000 troops to Poland. The following month, Germany, announced that it will send some 1,000 troops to  Lithuania.

    Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has slowly but surely encircled Russia. Just last month NATO admitted another Eastern European nation into their alliance, and the current antagonism between West and Russia is being driven by NATO’s attempts to absorb Ukraine.

    The West needs a reality check. The further we encroach into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence, the closer we come to World War Three. And if Russia really is such a serious threat to us, as our government has claimed many times in recent years, is expanding NATO really going to guarantee our safety?

    We were perfectly capable of protecting ourselves from the much more powerful Soviet Union, and we did so with a much smaller alliance. We’re expanding NATO to Russia’s doorstep, and all we’re receiving in return is the heightened risk of nuclear war.

  • Sorry Siri – You're The Dumbest "Smart" Assistant Out There

    Many industry experts predict that our interactions with computing devices will move away from text-based input towards voice-based input in the future. Smartphones, voice-enabled speakers and other devices already come with so-called smart assistants such as Siri, Cortana or Google Assistant. As Statista's Felix Richter notes, these virtual assistants can help you organize your day, control smart home devices and answer general questions. Or can they?

    According to research conducted by digital agency Stone Temple "smart assistants" may not be quite as smart as they are made out to be.

    Infographic: How Smart Are

    You will find more statistics at Statista

    Take Amazon's Alexa for example: the assistant powering the company’s popular line of voice-enabled speakers was able to answer just 20.7 percent of the 5,000 questions fired at it as part of the experiment. Notably, Google Assistant and Microsoft's Cortana were much more knowledgeable when it came to these factual questions while Apple's Siri performed similar to Alexa… but as the chart above shows, Siri was the worst-performer in terms of 100% correct responses.

  • Kristin Tate: Kathy Griffin Is Just The Tip Of The Liberal Violence Iceberg

    Authored by Kristin Tate, op-ed via TheHill.com,

    One of the pillars of democracy erodes before our eyes. The ability to disagree with the politically different disintegrates under red and black flags, and hooded rioters obscuring their faces. It’s not Donald Trump’s secret police. It’s not something out of a dystopian novel. It’s the very real culture of permissive violence exploding from today’s left. Bit by bit, this sort of behavior becomes quickly normalized (in the parlance du jour) and escalated.

    While there’s generally been blackout coverage of these “mostly peaceful” riots in the legacy media, every once in awhile something breaks through. Such is the case with the ever desperate Kathy Griffin’s latest sickening stunt. Griffin, who most people aren’t exactly sure why she is famous, posed for photos featuring the decapitated head of President Trump. Intended for an audience eager for more and more radical action, Griffin jumped over a big red line. Even CNN had to ask: did she commit a felony?

    Her too little, too late apology simply said she went “too far” rather than understanding the underlying crassness and danger her precedent sets. Griffin, who must appear on almost everyone’s “Top 10 Annoying Noncriminal People” (although the latter may change) list, traded vulgar coarseness for attention to a dying career. She said she asked the photographer to “take down the image” — as if that’s possible in the age of the internet. The only thing genuine in her drab statement was that it “wasn’t funny.” Understatement of the year.

    The real underlying question is why Griffin thought that such an odious action was acceptable in the first place. In the echo chamber of the modern left wing, it’s obvious. Where is the swift condemnation of the stunt by this “comedian?” Whataboutisms abounded, said one Twitter commentator with 217 followers — a random hillbilly once depicted a hanged President Obama!

    Some criticism came in from the left, including CNN’s Jake Tapper. He hosted a segment where — surprise, surprise, his panel said the network had better things to talk about than her. Considering the news network employs her for their New Year’s “I forgot to turn on Ryan Seacrest” snoozefest says enough.

    Will this incident live past this news cycle? Will there be solemn op-eds calling for “soul searching” among leaders of the Democratic Party for their tacit support of violent rhetoric and its predictable results? How many Seth Meyers and Stephen Colbert monologues will ridicule Griffin back into obscurity? Unfortunately, such questions are a waste of time. Even violence committed by that side of the aisle gets blamed on the White House.

    One of the rioters in Berkeley was finally arrested for assaulting a Trump supporter with a bike lock. Kellyanne Conway called on Democratic Party leaders to quell the rising violence among their supporters. Police again arrested violent protesters during the People’s Republic of Seattle’s May Day. Black clad antifa rioters assault and intimidate citizens and pro-Trump marchers.

    Meanwhile, if you turned on the mainstream media, you would think that President Trump was personally leading a campaign of violence from the left wing Oregon hipster district to the Montana congressional race.

    Take last week’s terrible attack on passengers in Portland. A mentally deranged man screamed at two Muslim women and slit the throats of their defenders. The media saw its narrative perfectly crafted. Except he was a Bernie supporting, Jill Stein voting, Trump hating maniac. The New York Daily News instantly declared Trump “ignored” the incident. The Huffington Post had to one up — or should I say 20-up them. Inverse said that Trump’s tweet condemning the attack didn’t even exist.

    I wrote about the issue two months ago — and it only seems to be getting worse. This isn’t some sort of game. It’s people’s lives and livelihoods played with to reach the front of TMZ or the Huffington Post. Heck, the latter said that violence was “logical” and apologized to … you guessed it, liberals.

    It’s not funny. It’s not edgy. It’s just wrong.

    Where does the atmosphere of delegitimizing an elected government and brushing violence under the rug get you? Well, it gets you this…

  • China Manufacturing Contracts For The First Time In A Year: "The Economy Is Clearly On A Downward Trajectory"

    Following yesterday's official  (if less credible and focused mostly on SOEs) manufacturing and non-mfg PMI reports from China's National Bureau of Statistics, both of which came either in line or slightly better than expected, moments ago Caixin/Markit reported its own set of Chinese manufacturing data, and it was far more disappointing: at 49.6, not only did it miss expectations of 50.1, but by printing below 50, the operating conditions faced by Chinese goods producers deteriorated for the first time in nearly a year. As shown below, this was the first contractionary print sine last June when China's massive, anti-deflationary fiscal stimulus kicked in.

    The seasonally adjusted PMI posted below the neutral 50.0 value at 49.6 in May, the first contractionary print since the middle of 2016. Although only indicative of a marginal deterioration in operating conditions, Caixin conceded that the index fell from 50.3 to signal the first decline in the health of the sector for 11 months.

    The fall in the headline index coincided with slower increases in output and new orders, while staff numbers were cut at a quicker rate. Subdued demand conditions underpinned a renewed fall in purchasing activity, albeit only slight, and the first increase in inventories of finished items in 2017 so far. The latest data also signalled the first fall in input costs since last June, which in turn led manufacturers to lower their selling prices for the first time since February 2016.

    Commenting on the data, Dr. Zhengsheng Zhong, Director of Macroeconomic Analysis at CEBM Group said:

    “The Caixin China General Manufacturing PMI fell 0.7 points to 49.6 in May, marking its first contraction in 11 months. The subindices of output and new business stayed in expansionary territory, but both fell to their lowest levels since June last year. The subindices of input costs and output prices dropped into contractionary territory for the first time since June 2016 and February 2016 respectively. The sub-index of stocks of purchases signalled a renewed decline, while the sub-index of stocks of finished goods rebounded, indicating that companies have stopped actively restocking as inventories began to stack up. China’s manufacturing sector has come under greater pressure in May and the economy is clearly on a downward trajectory.”

    And while Chinese manufacturers reported a further rise in production during May, the pace of expansion was the weakest in the current 11-month sequence and only slight. Softer growth in output reflected a relatively muted increase in total new orders during May. Furthermore, growth in new order books was also the slowest seen since the current upturn began in July 2016. Data indicated that customer demand was relatively subdued both at home and overseas, with new export sales rising at a similarly marginal pace. Confidence towards the year-ahead meanwhile remained weaker than the historical average, with the degree of optimism unchanged from April’s four-month low.

    At the same time, employment continued on a downward trend, with the rate of job shedding picking up slightly for the third month running. Notably, it was the quickest decline in workforce numbers seen since last September. Lower staffing levels were partly linked to company down-sizing initiatives, but also the non-replacement of voluntary leavers. As a result, outstanding business increased again in May and at the fastest pace this year so far.

    Goods producers in China lowered their purchasing activity for the first time in 11 months in May, albeit only slightly. A number of panellists mentioned that weaker than expected sales had weighed on input buying. As a result, stocks of inputs declined and at the quickest pace since January. Subdued sales also contributed to a renewed increase in inventories of finished items.

    Although purchasing activity fell in May, average delivery times continued to lengthen. A number of panellists blamed longer lead times on stock shortages at vendors.

    Manufacturing companies reported the first decline in average cost burdens for nearly a year in May. The rate of reduction was marginal overall, and widely linked by respondents to lower raw material prices. Firms generally passed on any savings to clients, by cutting their output charges for the first time since February 2016.

    The FX market reacted swiftly with AUDUSD gains being erased…

    And Offshore Yuan erasing early losses and pushing to new highs…

    * * *

    None of this should come as a surprise: back in February we showed that, as a result of China's deleveraging measures, the global credit impulse had suddenly tumbled back to zero.

    And since that is a 3-4 month leading indicator, it was only a matter of time before China's economy reverted back into contraction, as the latest PMI data now confirms.

  • Why Carson Block Sees "Real Problems With Canada"

    Less than a week after declaring that China’s economy is headed for an economic “day of reckoning” thanks to its twin asset bubbles (real estate and equity), short-seller Carson Block said he’s starting to believe there are “real problems with Canada” – particularly the country’s dangerously overvalued housing market.

    Block discussed Canada's housing market with a Bloomberg reporter who called him for comment after shares of Element Fleet Management, a Toronto-based leasing company, plunged 38% on unfounded speculation that the famed short-seller had chosen the company as his next target. Shares of troubled home lender Home Capital Group also dipped in early trade.

    Block told Bloomberg that the action in those two stocks suggests Canadians are (rightfully) nervous about soaring real estate prices and household debt…

    “I’m starting to believe that there could be some real problems with Canada,”

    Though Block said he hadn’t heard of Element before Wednesday, the run on Home Capital Group’s deposits in recent weeks suggests that “investors denial is just starting to crack.” HCG is being drained of assets at an unprecedented pace – already 94% of retail deposits have fled the troubled lender – and the company has erased more than half of its market capitalization since a Canadian regulator accused it five weeks ago of misleading investors over an internal probe of fraudulent mortgage loan applications – a practice that bears some resemblance to US mortgage lenders’ reliance on “liar loans,” which helped inflate the subprime bubble.

     

    “Particularly given what happened to Home Capital in recent weeks I kind of wonder if Canadian investors are really nervous about the stuff that they’re holding and that’s why there was so much sensitivity around Element this morning," Block said.

     

    “When I see a reaction like we saw to a stock that I had never heard of because people were evidently concerned that we were about to short it, that tells me that maybe we’re at a point in Canada where investor denial is just starting to crack,” he said.

    Block told Bloomberg that Canada’s real estate market has “been pushed by foreign money” to the kind of “buying frenzy” the U.S. experienced a decade ago.

    A frenzy of buying by wealthy Chinese nationals seeking to store their wealth outside of China has helped push Canadian home prices in certain markets to levels that are obviously unsustainable and well beyond the means of most Canadian citizens.

    Even Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz acknowledged as much earlier this month when he remarked that Toronto home prices “were not sustainable” while answering questions following a speech in Mexico City.

    Block told Bloomberg about a visit to Toronto in 2011, when he said he was stunned to see posters throughout Toronto’s financial district encouraging people to borrow aggressively for consumption.

    “I was thinking, my God, didn’t we just go through this in the U.S.?”

    Meanwhile, there is a prevailing sense in Canada that the situation is different, and the collapse experienced by the U.S. in 2008 couldn’t happen here, he told Bloomberg.

    “Every time you hear that, you know that it can happen, and it’s going to.”

    Block concluded ominously…

    "The conditions seem to exist for there to be some pain inflicted on the markets. That suggests that Canada is the hottest market in the world for short sellers; if not, it could be."

    After a more than five-year break from shorting Canadian companies, Block announced Monday that he is shorting Asanko Mining Inc., saying that production problems at the company's largest mine will likely force the company into bankruptcy in 2018.

    True to form, Block explained his reasoning for shorting the stock in a 43-page research report published Wednesday, then summarized its contents during an appearance on Canada’s Business News Network. The notorious short seller believes the Vancouver-based mining company will run out of money in 2018 as it struggles to make urgent repairs at its main asset, the Ghana-based Nkran gold mine, while also serving its $165 million debt load.

    “We think Asanko is on its way to zero,” Block said during the interview.

     

     

  • Globalists Are Building An Army Of Millennials To Destroy Sovereignty

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    Back in October of 2016 I covered an issue which I have been very concerned with for over a year now. In an article titled Global Elites Are Getting Ready To Blame You For The Coming Financial Crash, I outlined the basis for my belief that Donald Trump would win the U.S. election and why the U.K. Brexit was allowed to meet with success. Here is a quote from that article to give you a general sense of my position:

    “I argue that the Trump tapes will be forgotten in a week and that they have no bearing whatsoever on the election. They are nothing more than bread and circus. Beyond the fact that really, almost no one cares what Trump said a decade ago. I argue that this election has already been decided. I argue that the globalists want Trump in office, just as they wanted the passage of the Brexit. I argue that they need conservative movements to feel as though we have won, so that they can pull the rug out from under us in the near future. I argue that we are being set up.

     

    Again, the elites are openly telling us what is about to happen. They are telling us that if ‘populists’ (conservatives) gain political power, the system will effectively collapse. To what extent is hard to say, but let’s assume that the situation will be ugly enough to influence the masses to reconsider the ideal of globalism as a possible solution. The elites are fond of the Hegelian dialectic and the philosophy of ‘order out of chaos,’ after all.”

    While Trump did indeed go on to “win” the presidency, I still believe that the basic foundation underlying my prediction has mostly fallen on deaf ears. There is a disconnect in terms of the globalist long game in people’s minds. I think it is because many in the public do not consider the effects of geopolitical events on mass psychology. Or, to be more precise, many people, even in the liberty movement, forget that the ultimate goal of the globalists is not just to corrupt governments and monetary systems, but to corrupt our collective mindset.

    As a perfect example, I will link to the latest globalist lunacy from the Pope, Jorge Bergoglio, in which he attacks libertarianism (true conservatism) as a dangerous form of individualism that threatens the fabric of the new and more progressive collectivist world.

    In terms of Western culture, recent events would indicate that globalists hope to enlist the newest generation to reach “maturity” (and I use that term loosely), the millennials, as a weapon to deal the death blow to conservatism. If not directly, then indirectly through propagation.  That is to say, if the globalists can’t kill us off immediately, they will try to breed us and our ideas out after bringing down the hammer of economic and social crisis.

    When I discuss what essentially amounts to a “war on conservatism,” what do I mean? Well, first let’s consider what it is about conservatives that presents a threat to the globalists…

    Limited Government

    The basic core of conservative thought rests on the concept of limited or small Constitutional government. If you don’t believe in small government, you are not a conservative. Big (and centralized) government is the most vital tool in the hands of globalists. Without it, they would not be able to accomplish a single item on their agenda.

    Big government requires big money. Thus, the central banking syndicate becomes “necessary” to the life of the nation or society because they have positioned themselves to provide the financing and fiat that greases the big government wheels. In a limited government system, central banking becomes irrelevant. It is therefore essential that globalist financiers diminish or destroy conservative principles of limited government because they represent a primal threat to the interdependent behemoth system they hope to create.

    Sound Money

    True conservatives are sound money champions. This principle fell by the wayside for many decades but has made a resurgence since 2008 as more people have been awakened to the failings of central banking and fiat money. Sound money is basically money backed by a tangible commodity, money that cannot be created out of thin air. If it can be created out of thin air, it is not sound money.

    Obviously, the very existence of a true sound money movement horrifies the globalists. Without fiat printing or digital currency systems (which can be created and re-created ad infinitum), the future of a global currency system, the pinnacle goal of the globalist economic scheme, is all but impossible.

    Free Thought And Free Expression

    If you are in the business of controlling the thoughts and opinions of other people, then you are not a conservative. This is where we find distinct misconceptions, by liberals most of all, as far as what free expression is.

    For conservatives, this means that if you are in a publicly funded space or on private property with permission of the owners, you should have the right to say whatever you like whenever you like (this includes so-called "hate speech", millennials and liberals). You should be able to make grievances known and to discuss those grievances in a constructive manner. It does not matter if your thoughts are offensive to some people; their feelings are meaningless compared to your freedom to speak in that space.

    Leftists seem to think that freedom of expression means being allowed to invade the sanctity of other people’s private property or invade a public gathering with the intention of disrupting the free speech of others that they disagree with. My favorite argument presented by leftists is their argument that liberty proponents cannot kick them out of events or off of websites because “that would be a violation of our own principles and their free speech.” They don’t seem to understand the different between private and public or destructive and constructive. My other favorite argument leftists often use is their argument that it is an act of free speech when they disrupt other people’s free speech.

    Hopefully you can see the difference between the two ideals. Leftists today seek to control speech and expression they see as “aberrant” or “evil.” Conservatives defend everyone’s right to speak as long as they respect the nature of the property they are standing on and do not abuse the owners of that property — this includes taxpayers, the owners of public property.

    Freedom Of Association

    This is a very simple and straightforward liberty that has all but been crushed in our country today. Conservatives have this crazy idea that you should not be forced by government to associate with people you do not want to associate with. It does not matter why you don’t want to associate with them. The “why” has no bearing whatsoever. We feel that logic should dictate the situation. If you don’t want to associate with someone, why would they want to associate with you?

    But, for some reason, certain people within our culture and within government believe that denying anyone association is discrimination, and, in a progressive and interdependent society, discrimination is unacceptable. I happen to think the ability to discriminate on an individual level is necessary to a healthy society. Discrimination only becomes dangerous when it is backed by government power.

    The Right To Self Defense

    Many people are so disconnected from their own survival that the notion of “self defense” is alien and terrifying to them. They pay taxes so that “professionals” can handle their security for them, after all. Why should they need the means to secure themselves and their loved ones?

    Well, what if the professionals you pay taxes for suddenly turn on you? Or what if they simply quit en masse one day? What if your attacker is 60 seconds from harming you and the closest law enforcement officer is six minutes away? In a conservative society, EVERYONE acts as security for themselves and others if needed.

    Globalists need to encourage a culture in which the population is always reliant on government for everything, including their own safety. The most effective form of control comes not through force, but through permission. The most successful tyranny is the one that the people demand rather than the one people barely tolerate.

    Sovereignty

    All of these principles coalesce into the root principle of sovereignty — the inborn right to self determination. This might take the form of individual action or voluntary group action based on the freedom of association. A single person might seek to live on his own away from others in his own way, and he absolutely has the right to do this even if it annoys people for whatever crazy reason. A large group of people also have the right to cooperate, to build a system or even a nation based on a particular set of shared values and to have their borders respected or avoided by those with different values.

    Conservatism, at least in its traditional form, is the vanguard of sovereignty. Without conservatives, sovereignty dies.

    *  *  *

    Now that we have briefly summarized the conservative archetype, consider for a moment the predominantly progressive millennial generation; what values do they hold? This is not to say that all millennials think the same way, but what about the majority? In 10 years, what would a country like the U.S. look like when they move into power?

    The statistics indicate that the U.S. would be even more socialist than it is today, bordering on communist. A paradise for pushing forward the globalist agenda.

    When you take into account the fact that Bernie Sanders, a staunch socialist with Marxist tendencies, garnered more support from young voters during the last election than both Clinton and Trump combined, you can see the problem here. Sanders enjoyed nearly 80 percent of the millenial vote in many states, and this tends to correlate with what we have seen in other western nations such as the U.K., where over 70 percent of the young vote was AGAINST the Brexit campaign to leave the globalist EU project.

    Also take into account the establishment push to instill millennial academia with open borders propaganda.  In this article for the Washington Post, the president of George Mason University in Northern Virginia argues that open borders are the source of "innovation" and a better economy.  Open borders philosophy cannot coexist with sovereignty.  Sovereignty being a foundation for individualism and nationalism; open borders being a foundation for forced collectivism and a one world system.  For open border ideology to continue forward, all sovereignty must be eliminated.

    Here we find the socialist entrenchment within the younger population. To question its validity among them is simply not done. Through most of Europe, for example, to even describe one’s self as “conservative” is considered highly taboo. Many sovereignty activists there will instead list themselves as “classical liberal” (conservatives).

    In the U.S., the last true bastion of hardcore conservatives, there is a little more hope as Generation Z teens are showing signs of a conservative resurgence and a little more sense than their older millennial brothers and sisters. This is why I believe the globalists are focusing on the millennial subset; the millennials experienced the American world when they were children at its height pre-2008 and conjured grand dreams of career, success and technological ease. After the crash and subsequent end of college degree relevancy, they now feel jilted and put upon. Clearly “free markets” are the culprit and revolution is the answer.

    Generation Z is growing up in the new and downtrodden economic landscape. They are accepting that harder work is necessary and that more freedom is paramount instead of demanding that entitlements be given to them. So, it would appear that the the globalists have a small window of time to stage a coup against conservative philosophy, install a new millennial generation as the captains of the ship and discourage Generation Z from continuing on the path towards what they consider a "terrible and ignorant" world view.

    If you think that perhaps I am exaggerating the gravity of the situation, or that I am applying too much conspiracy to an otherwise random social development, I would like to cite Facebook mogul and globalist cabana boy Mark Zuckerberg, who in a recent speech to Harvard graduates asked them to “fight isolationism and nationalism” which he equated with “authoritarianism” and to support “openness and global community.”

    “This is the struggle of our time. This is not a battle of nations, it is a battle of ideas,” Zuckerberg stated.

    Zuckerberg’s rant is just the most recent example of this propaganda in action. As I have been warning, the globalist strategy is to destroy opposing ideas, not just opposing groups. And clearly, they want to exploit the millennials to do just that.

  • Tucker Carlson Discusses Hillary Clinton's Recent Russian Conspiracy Theories

     

    Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

     

    Ever since the election, the democrats and establishment republicans have been ‘investigating’ Russian ties to Trump and how that all led to John Podesta’s email box to be hacked into, which of course led to Hillary Clinton losing the Presidential election. She lost, not because of her criminality, but because of fake news, obviously. It’s worth noting, in a year of arduous investigations, nothing has been proven to tie Trump to the Russians.

    Yesterday, Hillary discussed the election, positing questions to the panel regarding RUSSIAN COLLUSION with Trump. She said Trump directed the release of the Podesta emails down to the second, coordinated and directed the fake news media to concoct salacious stories, fueled by the emails, colluding with Russian intelligence to steal the election from her.

    In case you’re just tuning in, you did not reject the DNC establishment candidate and vote for populism because you were sick and tired of the same old corrupt DC bullshit. No, you voted for Trump because of the Russians, the ultimate King makers, coerced into the decision via a series of psyops programs, coordinated with Trump, to brainwash people into believing she was not a trustworthy candidate.

    Holy shit Hillary has lost her mind. Tucker’s take.

    Here are some of her sweeter moments in the interview, accusing the idiot Giant Orange President of being a criminal mastermind — directing endless schemes and plots to seize the Presidency from her claws.
     

    “It’s important that Americans…understand that Putin wants to bring us down. He was an old KGB agent.”
     
    “We saw evidence of [Russian involvement] and we could track it. But they were shooed away.”
     
    “The Russians are increasingly..launching cyber attacks. A lot of the information they’ve stolen they use for internal purposes. So this was different because they went public.”
     
    “That was the conclusion. I think it’s fair to ask how did that actually influence the campaign and how did they know what messages to deliver. Who told them? Who were they coordinating with or colluding
    with? I’m leaning Trump.”
     
    “Within one hour of the Access Hollywood tapes being leaked, the Russians or say Wikileaks — same thing — dumped the John Podesta emails.”
     
    “The Russians in my opinion could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided by Americans.”
     
    “My email account was turned into the biggest scandal since Lord knows when. And, you know, in the book I’m just using everything that anybody else said about it besides me to basically say this was the biggest nothing-burger ever. It was a mistake. I’ve said it was a mistake, and obviously if I could turn the clock back I wouldn’t have done it in the first place. But the way that it was used was very damaging.”
     
    “We know it hurt us, as I explain in my book, the Comey letter which was now we know partly based on a false memo from the Russians. It was a classic piece of Russian disinformation. So for whatever reason, he dumps that on me on October 28 and I immediately start falling.”
     
    “Well if you went all the way back, doing things that others have done before was no longer acceptable. I didn’t break any rule nobody said don’t do this. I was very responsible and not at all careless. You end up with a situation that was exploited.”
     
    “Here’s a really telling statistic that has been validated. I had this old fashioned idea that it would matter what I would do as president. We had a great tech program and a really good set of policies. In 2008 which as the last time you had a contested election, the policies put forth by President Obama, Senator McCain got 222 minutes of airtime. In 2016 despite my best efforts, we got 32 minutes, total, over 18 months.”
     
    “Media forces on the Republican side are entrenched and very effective. They’re beginning to call the shots on those local stations. Local TV is still incredibly powerful.”
     
    “I have been on many speaking platforms with many men who are in office or running for office. And the crowd gets you going and I watch my male counterparts and they beat the podium and they yell and the crowd loves it. I have tried that and it’s been less than successful.”

     
    Regarding her Goldman Sachs speeches.
     

    “Men got paid for the speeches they made…I got paid for the speeches I made.”
     
    “I have to say, Walt I never thought someone would throw out my entire career…because I made a couple of speeches.”

    There you have it. The emails were giant ‘nothing-burgers’ that were attained by an evil genius, criminal, mastermind, named Donald Trump, with the help of the inherently evil Vlad Putin (how many Americans has Russia killed lately?). She lost thanks to a vast right wing conspiracy of media shills at the NY Times and other publications who wanted to see Trump elected.
     
    What.the.fuck?

    Notable: Trump is back to ‘Crooked Hillary’ again.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Digest powered by RSS Digest