- Iran Now Threatening Withdraw From Landmark 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty
Iran Now Threatening Withdraw From Landmark 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty
With the 2015 Iran nuclear deal now unraveling given the move by the UK, Germany, and France to trigger the dispute resolution mechanism which will ultimately lead to the next step of EU nations filing complaint with the UN Security Council that Iran is in violation, Iran’s participation in yet another historic treaty is on the chopping block.
Iran is now threatening to withdraw from the landmark Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which since taking effect in 1970 (after initiating in 1968) is recognized as the only binding international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, while promoting peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif announced to Iranian lawmakers Monday: “If Europeans continue their untenable conduct or send Iran’s nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council, we will withdraw from the N.P.T.,” according to state media.
File image: Iranian ballistic missile on display. Prior to Zarif’s statement Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi vowed that Iran is planning “one last step” in drawing down its commitment to the JCPOA which is to ultimately have “more effective consequences”. Many have taken this to mean the Obama-brokered deal is now all but dead, especially following the Jan.6 declaration in the wake of the Qassem Soleimani killing that Iran no longer accepts limits on uranium enrichment.
In a televised address to the nation last Thursday President Hassan Rouhani Rouhani reaffirmed that “no restrictions on nuclear energy” remain and that Iran is “better off in terms of nuclear power.” He claimed further that:
“We are enriching more uranium [than] before the deal was reached… Pressure has increased on Iran but we continue to progress.”
But he also left an opening for dialogue, emphasizing that the process remains reversible at this point, but only if Europe takes specific immediate action to allow the Islamic Republic to export its oil.
Adding fuel to the fire, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had responded to last week’s development’s by suggesting a new deal brokered with the Trump administration: “If we’re going to get rid of it, let’s replace it and let’s replace it with the Trump deal.”
This reportedly infuriated leaders in Tehran, who’ve repeatedly rebuffed past White House suggestions to scrap the 2015 deal altogether and start afresh with direct talks.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/21/2020 – 01:00 - The Geopolitics Of Epistemological Warfare: From Babylon To Neocon
The Geopolitics Of Epistemological Warfare: From Babylon To Neocon
Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
I think any sane human being can agree that while war was never a good idea, war in the 21st century is an absolutely intolerable one. The problem we currently face is that many of the forces driving world events towards an all-out war of “Mutually Assured Annihilation” are anything but sane.
While I’m obviously referring here to a certain category of people who fall under a particularly virulent strain of imperial thinking which can be labelled “neo-conservative” and while many of these disturbing figures honestly believe that a total war of annihilation is a risk worth taking in order to achieve their goals of total global hegemony, I would like to make one subtle yet very important distinction which is often overlooked.
What is this distinction?
Under the broad umbrella of “neo-conservative” one should properly differentiate those who really believe in their ideology and are trapped under the invisible cage of its unexamined assumptions vs. that smaller yet more important segment that created and manages the ideology from the top. I brushed on this grouping in a recent 3 part study called Origins of the Deep State and Myth of the Jewish Conspiracy.
To re-state my meaning: This group doesn’t necessarily believe in the ideological group they manage any more than a parent believes in that tooth fairy which they promote in order to achieve certain behavioral patterns in their children.
While belief in the tooth fairy is slightly less destructive than belief in a misanthropic neocon worldview of a Bolton, Pompeo or Cheney, the analogy is useful to communicate the point.
Cult Managers: Ancient Babylon and Now
Modern ideology-shapers serve the same role as those ancient high priests of Babylon, Persia and Rome who managed the many cults and countless pagan mystery religions recorded throughout the ages. It is well documented that any cult could comfortably exist under Rome’s control, as long as said cult denied any claim to objective truthfulness- making the rise of Abrahamic monotheistic faiths more than a little antagonistic to empire.
Did the high priests necessarily BELIEVE in those dogmas which they created and managed?
Hell no.
Was it politically necessary to create them?
Of course.
Why?
Because an Empire, like everything in the world, exist as a whole with parts… but since they deny any principle of natural law (justice, love, goodness, etc), empires are merely a sum of parts and their rules of organization can be nothing but zero sum. Each cultish group may coexist as an echo chamber alongside other groups sacrificing to whatever deity they wish without judgement of moral right or wrong bounded only by a common blind faith in their group’s beliefs- but nothing universal about justice, creative reason, or human nature is otherwise permitted. Here the a-moral “peace” of “equilibrium” can be achieved by an oligarchy which wishes to lord over the slaves. Whether we are dealing with Caesar Augustus, Lord Metternich’s Congress of Vienna, Aldous Huxley, Sir Henry Kissinger, or Leo Strauss (father of modern neo-conservativism), “Peace” can never be anything more than a mathematical “balancing of parts”.
Now it is a good moment to ask: What does this phenomenon look like in our modern age?
To answer this, let us leap over a couple of millennia and take a look at something a bit more personal: Adam Smith and the doctrine of free trade.
Smith at Her Majesty’s Service
Do Smith’s modern followers sincerely believe in the “self-regulating forces of the free market”?
Sure they do.
Did Adam Smith actually believe in his own system?
Whether he did or not, according to recent research conducted by historian Jeffrey Steinberg, Smith received his commission to compose his seminal book Wealth of Nations (published 1776) while riding with Lord Shelburne himself in a carriage ride from Edinburgh to London in 1763. The date 1776 is not a coincidence as this was the same Lord Shelburne who essentially managed the British Empire during the American Revolution and who always despised all colonial aspirations to use protective tariffs, emit productive credit or channel said credit towards internal improvements as Benjamin Franklin had championed in his 1729 Necessity of Paper Currency and Colonial Script.
Why develop Industry, asked Smith, when the new “Law” of “absolute advantage” demanded that everyone just do what they are good at for the best price possible? America has a lot of land, so they should stick with agriculture and slave-driven cotton. Britain had a lot of industry (don’t ask how that happened because it wasn’t through free trade), so they should stick with that! India had advanced textiles, but Britain had to destroy that so that India could then have a lot of opium fields so she could do that… which China could then smoke to death under the watch of British Gunships. “Free Trade” demanded it so.
Let’s look at another example: Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection
A Not-too-Natural Selection
Darwin’s theory published in his Origins of Species (1859) was based on the assumption that all changes in the biosphere are driven by “laws” of “survival of the fittest” within an assumed closed ecosystem of diminishing returns. Just as Smith asserted that an “invisible hand” brought creative order to the chaos of unregulated vice and self-interest, Darwin asserted that creative order on the large scale evolution of species could be explained by chaotic mutations on the micro level beyond a wall that no power of reason, free will or God could pass.
Did Charles Darwin believe his system? Probably.
But how about Thomas Huxley (aka: “Darwin’s Bulldog”) whose efforts to destroy all competing theories which included “purpose”, “meaning”, or “design” were crushed and ridiculed into obscurity? Huxley himself was on record saying he did not believe in Darwin’s system. So why was this theory promoted by forces (like Huxley’s X Club) who recognized its many flaws? Well, here again it helps to refer to Darwin’s own account of his discovery from his autobiography where he wrote:
“In October 1838, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on, from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of a new species. Here then, I had at last got a theory by which to work”.
Malthus’s ‘Dismal Science’
And here we have it! Reverend Thomas Malthus (the cold hearted “Man of God” who taught economics at the British East India Company’s Haileybury College) provided the very foundation upon which Darwin’s system stood! Thomas Huxley and the other “high priests” of Huxley’s X Club were always Malthusian (even before there was Malthus) since empires have always been more focused on monopolizing the finite resources of an age, rather than encouraging creative discoveries and new inventions which would bring new resources into being- overcoming nature’s “limits to growth” (a dis-equilibrium not to be tolerated). Whether Malthus actually believed in the system which bears his name, as generations of his adherents sincerely do, remains to be seen. However his own awareness of the needed extermination of the “unfit” by the Ubermenschen of the British Aristocracy preceded Social Darwinism by a full century when he coldly called for the encouragement of the plague and other “natural forms of destruction” to cull the herd of the unfit in his Essay on the Principle of Population (1799):
“We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.”
A little later, Malthus even argued for the early extermination of poor babies who were of low value to society when he said:
“I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring that no child born from any marriage taking place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance… The infant is, comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place.”
The neo-Malthusian revivalists such as Princes Bernhardt, Philip Mountbatten and Huxley’s own grandson Sir Julian who birthed the misanthropic deformity today called the Green New Deal were not ignorant to this tradition. The disastrous effect of this worldview upon races deemed “unfit” in the global south should also not be ignored. It is no coincidence that those three neo-Malthusian oligarchs founded the World Wildlife Fund, 1001 Nature Trust and Club of Rome which imposed a technological apartheid upon the third world over the bodies of countless statesmen during the Cold War.
The Danger of Creative Thought to an Empire
Encouraging creative thought and cooperation among diverse nations, linguistic, religious and ethnic groups tends to result in new uncontrolled systems of potential as humanity increases its capacity to sustain itself while imperial systems lose their ability to parasitically drain their host. In Lincoln’s great 1859 speech, the martyred leader stood up against this Malthusian paradigm endemic of the British Empire when he said:
“All creation is a mine, and every man, a miner. The whole earth, and all within it, upon it, and round about it, including himself, in his physical, moral, and intellectual nature, and his susceptibilities, are the infinitely various “leads” from which, man, from the first, was to dig out his destiny… Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who improves his workmanship. This improvement, he effects by Discoveries, and Inventions.”
Lincoln’s economic commitments to protective tariffs, state credit (greenbacks) and internal improvements are inextricably linked to this view of man also shared by the earlier Ben Franklin.
Today, the positive paradigm which Lincoln died to defend is most clearly represented by the leaders of such nations as Russia and China- both of whom have come out repeatedly attacking the post-truth neo-liberal order and also the win-lose philosophy of Hobbesian geopolitics. The folly of America’s new dance with impeachment and the neocon hand shaping Trump’s disastrous foreign policy agenda is tied to the oligarchy’s absolute fear of losing America to a new Eurasian partnership which Trump has promoted repeatedly since entering office in 2017.
Xi Jinping and Putin have not only responded to this obsolete system by creating an alternative system of win-win cooperation driven by unbounded scientific and technological progress but they have also managed to expose the Achilles heal of the empire. These statesmen have demonstrated a clear recognition that those ideologies ranging from neo-liberalism to neo-conservativism are entirely unsustainable, and defeatable (but not militarily). Xi expressed this insight most clearly during his recent trip to Greece.
Even though leaders like Putin and Xi understand this, citizens of the west will continue to be woefully unequipped to either make sense of these chaotic systems of belief, extract them from their own hearts if they are so contaminated or resist them effectively, without understanding that those who fabricated and manage these belief structures never truly believed in them.
Neoconservative founding fathers such as Leo Strauss, Sir Henry Kissinger and Sir Bernard Lewis absolutely never believed in the ideologies their cultish golems like Bolton, Cheney or Kristol have adhered to so religiously. Their belief was only that the sum-of-parts called humanity must ultimately be governed by a Hobbesian Leviathan (aka: a new globalized Roman Empire), and that Leviathan could only be created in response to an intolerably painful period of chaos which their twisted tooth fairies would usher into this world.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/21/2020 – 00:00 - The Moment We've All Waited For: Mile Long Asteroid Could Finally End Humanity On Earth
The Moment We’ve All Waited For: Mile Long Asteroid Could Finally End Humanity On Earth
We can only imagine how much the Dow Jones Industrial Average would rally on news of the end of humanity. Thankfully we won’t be around to witness it.
In upbeat news today, there’s a mile long asteroid floating around out that that experts say could finally end life on Earth.
The asteroid was linked to a one inch meteor that streaked a fireball through the sky of Japan three years ago and could eventually threaten humanity if it breaks up. The catch: it would likely happen millions of years from now, according to Fox News.
Toshihiro Kasuga, a visiting scientist at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and Kyoto Sangyo University, said in a release Wednesday: “The potential breakup of the rock could be dangerous to life on Earth. Those resulting asteroids could hit the Earth in the next 10 million years or so.”
The fireball that was seen over Kyoto in April 2017 was a one inch meteor that broke off of the asteroid, scientists later determined.
(2019/10/20) Fireball That Flew Over Japan in 2017 Was Tiny Piece of Giant Asteroid that Might One Day Threaten Earth | Live Science https://t.co/RP0YcC2UAy
In the early morning of April 28, 2017, a small fireball crept across the sky over Kyoto, Japan.
2003 YT1 pic.twitter.com/2hEHPxLJ4n
— matiere* (@matiere) October 23, 2019Kasuga said: “We uncovered the fireball’s true identity. The 2017 fireball and its parent asteroid gave us a behind-the-scenes look at meteors.”
The asteroid is known as 2003 YT1, and according to scientists is made up of two parts: “the larger rock measures 1.2 miles and is orbited by a 690-foot piece.”
“The parent body 2003 YT1 could break up and those resulting asteroids could hit the Earth in the next 10 million years or so, especially because 2003 YT1 has a dust production mechanism,” Kasuga concluded.
The asteroid was first discovered in 2003 and has a history of “cracking and releasing dust particles into space”.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 23:35 - Understanding The Fabian Window
Understanding The Fabian Window
In the video below, Truthstream Media discusses one of the most dangerous and ideologically insane root organizations of modern globalism and the “new world order – The Fabian Society.
The Fabians are notorious for their obsession with incremental tyranny and the erasure of individual and national sovereignty.
Though other organizations like the Council On Foreign Relations have now taken over at the forefront of the globalist effort, the Fabians were the foundation, the beginning of the modern push towards an everlasting totalitarian empire ruled by the elites. Understanding their history and tactics helps us to understand exactly what is taking place today.
The “Brave New Word” is being established now, and it must be stopped…
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 23:10 - "Eat The Rich": Davos Beefs Up Security As Protesters Gather
“Eat The Rich”: Davos Beefs Up Security As Protesters Gather
Organizers of the 50th World Economic Forum in Davos have beefed up security after hundreds of climate protesters made their way though snow-covered streets towards the annual gathering of roughly 3,000 global elites and their high-level minions.
According to AP, measures included extra vehicle checks and ‘webcam shutdowns,’ while the Swiss national authorities have restricted the airspace above the event.
Up to 5,000 troops, fighter jets, ground defense systems and additional radar have also been authorized as part of the enhanced security, as authorities and organizers work from a $9 million budget just for the extra security.
“Various people in the world are under great threat if you can put it that way, and wherever they appear, they deserve commensurate security measures,” said Walter Schlegel, the regional police commander (via DevDiscourse), adding “The U.S. president has a big security detail that must be deployed.”
#ClimateCrisis: a #WorldEconomicFailure!
First aid for social & #ClimateJustice: More than 1000 people are on a winter hike to #Davos – for justice & collaboration! Another world is already under way! Cool kids help a warming planet – why don’t we? #WEF2020 🔥🌍⌛️❄️🏔️🥾🚶♀️🚶♂️📢🤡✊ https://t.co/jdWyq74o23 pic.twitter.com/GGXwCGFPvi— Maria Green (@MariaHennaG) January 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Some activists were forced to reach the event via hiking trails after authorities banned foot traffic on the road between Davos and nearby Klosters.
Protesters with the “Strike-WEF” collective, who began marching toward Davos on Sunday, have taken issue with one security measure: An order from regional police that no more than 300 people can attend a planned protest near the town hall. Authorities insist the square is too small to hold more people. They call such limits anti-democratic.
“When they can have space for 3,000 people – the majority of who are the richest people on the planet – but for only 300 among the 99% of the rest of us, it’s a joke,” said Payal Parekh, a spokeswoman for the collective. Members of the group and its supporters – some dressed in get-ups like Ronald McDonald outfits – were marching toward Davos but have been barred from the main roads to get there. –AP via WaPo
The protesters, organizing under the hashtags #WorldEconomicFailure and #StrikeWEF, hiked roughly 30 miles from Landquart to Davos.
Colorful, loud and diverse: the winter hike from Landquart to #Davos begins with around 1000 participants ❄️
Follow us for information on the hike and the protests around #WEF20
Let’s put an end to this #WorldEconomicFailure! 🔥#StrikeWEF #SystemChangeNotClimateChange pic.twitter.com/mWJLRG2J5X
— strike-wef (@strike_wef) January 19, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Clown army presente #StrikeWEF #Winterwanderung pic.twitter.com/UaHLw7FrzH
— Anti. 🐘 (@AntiAll3s) January 20, 2020
“They say they want to make the world better, but for 50 years they haven’t done anything,” said Rosalina Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Young Socialists which helped organize the demonstration.
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 22:45 - Secret Wars, Forgotten Betrayals, Global Tyranny. Who's Really In Charge Of The US Military?
Secret Wars, Forgotten Betrayals, Global Tyranny. Who’s Really In Charge Of The US Military?
Authored by Cynthia Chung via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
“There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully unfold.”
– William Shakespeare
Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its breath all at once and can only wait to see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us by. The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters back and forth at the whim of one man. It is only normal then, that during such times of crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives of just this one person. The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and undeniably an essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that is exactly what we should not do.
In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous indignation unfortunately causes the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with what is right in front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the doublespeak of ‘official government statements’.
Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must first have an understanding as to what caused the United States to enter into an endless campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.
An Internal Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows
It is interesting timing that on Sept 2, 1945, the very day that WWII ended, Ho Chi Minh would announce the independence of Indochina. That on the very day that one of the most destructive wars to ever occur in history ended, another long war was declared at its doorstep. Churchill would announce his “Iron Curtain” against communism on March 5th, 1946, and there was no turning back at that point. The world had a mere 6 months to recover before it would be embroiled in another terrible war, except for the French, who would go to war against the Viet Minh opponents in French Indochina only days after WWII was over.
In a previous paper I wrote titled “On Churchill’s Sinews of Peace”, I went over a major re-organisation of the American government and its foreign intelligence bureau on the onset of Truman’s de facto presidency. Recall that there was an attempted military coup d’état, which was exposed by General Butler in a public address in 1933, against the Presidency of FDR who was only inaugurated that year. One could say that there was a very marked disapproval from shadowy corners for how Roosevelt would organise the government.
One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously existing foreign intelligence bureau that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared over. The OSS would be replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence purge and the internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows. In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National Security Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as the President’s principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.
In Col. Prouty’s book he states,
“In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations in compliance with National Security Council (NSC) Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations and assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions, provided they had been directed to do so by the NSC, and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces were directed to “provide the military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA” as an official function.”
What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC’s policies.
An Inheritance of Secret Wars
“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”
– Sun Tzu
On January 20th, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President of the United States. Along with inheriting the responsibility of the welfare of the country and its people, he was to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.
JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon, they knew where he stood on foreign matters and that it would be in direct conflict for what they had been working towards for nearly 15 years. Kennedy would inherit the CIA secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration’s March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach operations) to a 3,000 man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.
This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who warned at the end of his term of the military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence bureau who has never been subject to election or judgement by the people. It shows the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office, and the limitations of a President’s power when he does not hold support from these intelligence and military quarters.
Within three months into JFK’s term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17th to 20th 1961) was scheduled. As the popular revisionist history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the exiled Cuban brigade and the land invasion was a calamitous failure and a decisive victory for Castro’s Cuba. It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility for the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as a leader. It was an embarrassment because, had he not taken public responsibility, he would have had to explain the real reason why it failed. That the CIA and military were against him and that he did not have control over them. If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility as a President in his own country and internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in immediate danger amidst a Cold War.
What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike, by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro’s last three combat jets. This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself. Kennedy was always against an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro’s last jets by the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro’s threat, without the U.S. directly supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA’s plan for Cuba.
Kennedy’s order for the airstrike on Castro’s jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade’s B-26s were to take off from Nicaragua, Kennedy was not brought into this decision. In addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay of Pigs operation was unbelievably out of the country on the day of the landings.
Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborates on this situation:
“Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited the utilization of active-duty military personnel in covert operations. At no time was an “air cover” position written into the official invasion plan…The “air cover” story that has been created is incorrect.”
As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group the day after and charged it with the responsibility of determining the cause for the failure of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, Adm. Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded that the failure was due to Bundy’s telephone call to General Cabell (who was also CIA Deputy Director) that cancelled the President’s air strike order.
Kennedy had them.
Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay of Pigs op was a failure because of the CIA’s intervention into the President’s orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum #55 on June 28th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Prouty states,
“When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy’s coffin.”
If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell.
In Oct 1962, Kennedy was informed that Cuba had offensive Soviet missiles 90 miles from American shores. Soviet ships with more missiles were on their way towards Cuba but ended up turning around last minute. Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev, which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Criticisms of JFK being soft on communism began to stir.
NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy, was released on Oct 11th, 1963, and outlined a policy decision “to withdraw 1,000 military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963” and further stated that “It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel [including the CIA and military] by 1965.” The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline U.S. TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY ’65. Kennedy was winning the game and the American people.
This was to be the final nail in Kennedy’s coffin.
Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not just be seen as a tragic loss but, more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful military coup d’état that it was and is. The CIA showed what lengths it was ready to go to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District Attorney of New Orleans at the time, Jim Garrison’s book. And the excellently researched Oliver Stone movie “JFK”)
Through the Looking Glass
On Nov. 26th 1963, a full four days after Kennedy’s murder, de facto President Johnson signed NSAM #273 to begin the change of Kennedy’s policy under #263. And on March 4th, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War and involved 2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.
The Vietnam War, or more accurately the Indochina War, would continue for another 12 years after Kennedy’s death, lasting a total of 20 years for Americans.
Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would involve the world would begin full force on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold War. A war that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees the toppling of Russia and China. Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam Hussein was being backed by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979.
It had been understood far in advance by the CIA and US military that the toppling of sovereignty in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran needed to occur before Russia and China could be taken over. Such war tactics were formulaic after 3 decades of counterinsurgency against the CIA fueled “communist-insurgency” of Indochina. This is how today’s terrorist-inspired insurgency functions, as a perfect CIA formula for an endless bloodbath.
Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton during the presidential election campaign and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie Rose that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly to ‘pay the price’.
Therefore, when a drone stroke occurs assassinating an Iranian Maj. Gen., even if the U.S. President takes onus on it, I would not be so quick as to believe that that is necessarily the case, or the full story. Just as I would not take the statements of President Rouhani accepting responsibility for the Iranian military shooting down ‘by accident’ the Boeing 737-800 plane which contained 176 civilians, who were mostly Iranian, as something that can be relegated to criminal negligence, but rather that there is very likely something else going on here.
I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked, draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a compromised situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a simple matter that the President alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing.
One could speculate that the President was set up, with the official designation of the IRGC as “terrorist” occurring in April 2019 by the US State Department, a decision that was strongly supported by both Bolton and Pompeo, who were both members of the NSC at the time. This made it legal for a US military drone strike to occur against Soleimani under the 2001 AUMF, where the US military can attack any armed group deemed to be a terrorist threat. Both Bolton and Pompeo made no secret that they were overjoyed by Soleimani’s assassination and Bolton went so far as to tweet “Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.” Bolton has also made it no secret that he is eager to testify against Trump in his possible impeachment trial.
Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown conference recently, but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits that though West Points’ cadet motto is “You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.”, his training under the CIA was the very opposite, stating “I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. (long pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”
Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 22:20 - US Officials Admit Covert Tech Program Is Fueling Iran Protests
US Officials Admit Covert Tech Program Is Fueling Iran Protests
After major protests hit multiple cities across Iran in November following a drastic government slash in gasoline subsidies which quickly turned anti-regime, broad internet outages were reported — some lasting as long as a week or more nationwide — following Tehran authorities ordering the blockage of external access.
And during smaller January protests over downed Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, more widespread internet outages were reported recently, likely as Iranian security services fear protest “crackdown” videos would fuel outrage in western media, and after months ago Mike Pompeo expressly urged Iranians in the streets to send the State Department damning videos that would implicate Tehran’s leaders and police.
But now Washington appears to have initiated the “Syria option” inside Iran: covertly fueling and driving “popular protests” to eventually create conditions for large-scale confrontation on the ground geared toward regime change.
Image source: Zuma Press/DW.com Financial Times reports Washington’s ‘covert’ efforts are now increasing, and are more out in the open:
US government-funded technology companies have recorded an increase in the use of circumvention software in Iran in recent weeks after boosting efforts to help Iranian anti-regime protesters thwart internet censorship and use secure mobile messaging.
The outreach is part of a US government program dedicated to internet freedom that supports dissident pressure inside Iran and complements America’s policy of “maximum pressure” over the regime. A US state department official told the Financial Times that since protests in Iran in 2018 — at the time the largest in almost a decade — Washington had accelerated efforts to provide Iranians more options on how they communicate with each other and the outside world.
Similar efforts had long been in place with anti-Assad groups prior to the outbreak of conflict in Syria in 2011, WikiLeaks cables previously revealed.
The US State Department is now openly boasting it’s enacted this program for Iran, which includes “providing apps, servers and other technology to help people communicate, visit banned websites, install anti-tracking software and navigate data shutdowns,” according to FT.
Confirmed: Drop in internet connectivity registered at #Sharif University, Tehran from 11:50 UTC where students are protesting for colleagues and alumni killed on flight #PS752; national connectivity remains stable despite sporadic disruptions on third day of #Iran protests📉 pic.twitter.com/LjaNNd4Ut2
— NetBlocks.org (@netblocks) January 13, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And dangerously, many Iranians may not even realize they could be in some instances relying on such US-funded countermeasures to circumvent domestic internet blockages:
“Many Iranians rely on virtual private networks (VPNs) that receive US funding or are beamed in with US support, not knowing they are relying on Washington-backed tools.”
Iran is on occasion known to round of citizen-journalists and accuse them of being CIA assets — thus the State Department’s open boasting about its program, which is further connected to a broader $65.5 million “Internet Freedom program” in troubled spots throughout the world — could only serve to increase this trend.
“We work with technological companies to help free flow of information and provide circumvention tools that helped in [last week’s] protest,” one US state department official told the FT. “We are able to sponsor VPNs — and that allows Iranians to use the internet.”
So there it is: US officials explicitly admitting they were actively assisting in organizing recent protests which followed Soleimani’s killing and the Ukrainian airliner shoot down.
I have asked the Iranian protestors to send us their videos, photos, and information documenting the regime’s crackdown on protestors. The U.S. will expose and sanction the abuses. https://t.co/korr5p0woA
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) November 21, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
At least one circumvention software is actually identified in the report as being produced by Canada-based Psiphon, which receives American government funds. Of course the company sees its role more as facilitating “free flow of information” and less as essentially a willing asset in pursuing covert regime change in Tehran.
Interestingly, the revelation comes just as other US-funded propaganda campaigns related to Iran are coming to light:
One of the most viral videos about Iran last week — and a reason #IraniansDetestSoleimani was trending — was made by a lobbyist who had worked for a militia group in Libya https://t.co/fN7v6Vztyo
— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) January 17, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
All of this suggests neocons in Washington could be a big step closer to fulfilling their long-term dream of seeing US-sponsored regime change come to Iran — a policy plan which goes back to at least the 1990’s and was given greater impetus and urgency under the Bush administration.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 21:55 - Davos Elites Warn "Climate Action Failure" Biggest Global Risk In 2020
Davos Elites Warn “Climate Action Failure” Biggest Global Risk In 2020
Authored by Marcus Lu via VisualCapitalist.com,
Environmental concerns are a frequent talking point drawn upon by politicians and scientists alike, and for good reason. Irrespective of economic or social status, climate change has the potential to affect us all.
While public urgency surrounding climate action has been growing, it can be difficult to comprehend the potential extent of economic disruption that environmental risks pose.
Front and Center
Today’s chart uses data from the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Risks Report, which surveyed 800 leaders from business, government, and non-profits to showcase the most prominent economic risks the world faces.
According to the data in the report, here are the top five risks to the global economy, in terms of their likelihood and potential impact:
With more emphasis being placed on environmental risks, how much do we need to worry?
According to the World Economic Forum, more than we can imagine. The report asserts that, among many other things, natural disasters are becoming more intense and more frequent.
While it can be difficult to extrapolate precisely how environmental risks could cascade into trouble for the global economy and financial system, here are some interesting examples of how they are already affecting institutional investors and the insurance industry.
The Stranded Assets Dilemma
If the world is to stick to its 2°C global warming threshold, as outlined in the Paris Agreement, a significant amount of oil, gas, and coal reserves would need to be left untouched. These assets would become “stranded”, forfeiting roughly $1-4 trillion from the world economy.
Growing awareness of this risk has led to a change in sentiment. Many institutional investors have become wary of their portfolio exposures, and in some cases, have begun divesting from the sector entirely.
The financial case for fossil fuel divestment is strong. Fossil fuel companies once led the economy and world stock markets. They now lag.
– Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis
The last couple of years have been a game-changer for the industry’s future prospects. For example, 2018 was a milestone year in fossil fuel divestment:
-
Nearly 1,000 institutional investors representing $6.24 trillion in assets have pledged to divest from fossil fuels, up from just $52 billion four years ago;
-
Ireland became the first country to commit to fossil fuel divestment. At the time of announcement, its sovereign development fund had $10.4 billion in assets;
-
New York City became the largest (but not the first) city to commit to fossil fuel divestment. Its pension funds, totaling $189 billion at the time of announcement, aim to divest over a 5-year period.
A Tough Road Ahead
In a recent survey, actuaries ranked climate change as their top risk for 2019, ahead of damages from cyberattacks, financial instability, and terrorism—drawing strong parallels with the results of this year’s Global Risk Report.
These growing concerns are well-founded. 2017 was the costliest year on record for natural disasters, with $344 billion in global economic losses. This daunting figure translated to a record year for insured losses, totalling $140 billion.
Although insured losses over 2019 have fallen back in line with the average over the past 10 years, Munich RE believes that long-term environmental effects are already being felt:
-
Recent studies have shown that over the long term, the environmental conditions for bushfires in Australia have become more favorable;
-
Despite a decrease in U.S. wildfire losses compared to previous years, there is a rising long-term trend for forest area burned in the U.S.;
-
An increase in hailstorms, as a result of climate change, has been shown to contribute to growing losses across the globe.
The Ball Is In Our Court
It’s clear that the environmental issues we face are beginning to have a larger real impact. Despite growing awareness and preliminary actions such as fossil fuel divestment, the Global Risk Report stresses that there is much more work to be done to mitigate risks.
How companies and governments choose to respond over the next decade will be a focal point of many discussions to come.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 21:30 -
- Stocks, Yuan, Bond Yields Tumble As Fears Over Coronavirus Outbreak Spread
Stocks, Yuan, Bond Yields Tumble As Fears Over Coronavirus Outbreak Spread
Dow futures are down over 100 points, AsiaPac equity markets are down harder, and Treasuries are well bid along with gold after a Chinese officials confirmed the coronavirus can be spread by human-to-human contact, and the deadly disease is spreading to other asian nations.
“Now we can say it is certain that it is a human-to-human transmission phenomenon,” Zhong Nanshan, a scientist who is leading a government-appointed expert panel on the outbreak, said in an interview on state-run television on Monday.
As The New York Times reports, cases have been reported outside China.
The authorities in Thailand detected the new coronavirus last week in two Chinese women who had flown from Wuhan to Bangkok on separate trips. The government said the women, aged 74 and 61, were in good condition.
In Japan, a Chinese man who returned from Wuhan on Jan. 6 was also confirmed to have the disease. He was discharged after five days in a hospital.
South Korea confirmed its first case of the coronavirus on Monday in a 35-year-old Chinese woman from Wuhan who arrived on Sunday at Incheon International Airport, which serves Seoul.
The woman was found with a fever, muscle pain and other symptoms while going through customs and was immediately quarantined for tests, said Jung Eun-kyeong, director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The woman was traveling with five other people intending to spend the Lunar New Year holidays in South Korea and Japan, Ms. Jung said. South Korean officials were running tests on anyone believed to have come in contact with the woman in the plane, she said.
Surreal video out of China pic.twitter.com/Qqi5Z8OzQu
— Hipster (@Hipster_Trader) January 21, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And fear of a SARS 2.0 outbreak have sparked risk-off trades in early Asia trading.
“There are now sufficient cases that it’s not going to die out by chance,” said Neil Ferguson, a public health expert at Imperial College London who has studied the new virus.
“The real question now is, how efficiently can this virus spread from person to person?”
Hong Kong’s Hang Seng is down notably…
As are US futures…
And yuan is being dumped…
Bonds are bid…
Along with gold…
China’s leader, Xi Jinping, said on Monday that the outbreak “must be taken seriously” and that every possible measure should be taken to contain it, according to the state broadcaster CCTV.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 21:01 - Flynn's Lawyer: FBI Agents Wrote Flynn Didn't Lie, We Have Eyewitness
Flynn’s Lawyer: FBI Agents Wrote Flynn Didn’t Lie, We Have Eyewitness
Authored by Peter Svab via TheEpochTimes.com,
Sidney Powell, lawyer to Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, said the FBI excluded crucial information from a report on their interview of her client. The report, an FBI 302 form, was used to charge Flynn with lying to the FBI, but the original draft of the 302 stated that Flynn was honest with the FBI agents, according to a witness who saw the draft, said Powell.
Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty on Dec. 1, 2017, to one count of lying to FBI agents during a Jan. 24, 2017, interview.
A 302 report summarizing the interview was supposed to be filed within five days. But the earliest draft Flynn’s lawyers were provided was from Feb. 10, 2017 – more than two weeks after the interview.
Powell, who took over Flynn’s defense in June 2019, has for months asserted that an earlier 302 must exist. Prosecutors have said they don’t have it, stopping short of asserting that it doesn’t exist.
In an Oct. 24, 2019, court filing (pdf), Powell rejected the suggestion that the 302 draft was “missing,” saying neither the bureau nor its digital document system “loses the most important of its reports that is supposed to support the federal felony of the President’s National Security Adviser.”
On Jan. 16, Powell disclosed that she has a witness who could attest to what was in the original draft.
“I’ve now found a witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents and did not lie,” she told Larry O’Connor on his WMAL radio show.
“So for somebody to delete that from the 302 is just beyond outrageous.”
She wouldn’t elaborate much further when asked by The Epoch Times.
“Can’t say more about witness but yes, person saw it,” she said via email.
Withdrawing Plea
Flynn was expected to receive a light sentence because of cooperation with the government on two investigations—one led by then-special counsel Robert Mueller and the other in the Eastern District of Virginia against Flynn’s former business partner, Bijan Rafiekian.
In a Jan. 7 sentencing memo (pdf), however, prosecutors asked for up to six months in prison for Flynn, saying he pulled back his cooperation in the Rafiekian case last year.
In response to the memo, Flynn asked the court on Jan. 14 (pdf) to allow him to withdraw his original plea, saying the prosecutors violated the terms of the agreement.
Rafiekian was charged with acting as an unregistered foreign agent based on a job that Flynn’s now-defunct consultancy, Flynn Intel Group (FIG), did for Turkish businessman Kamil Ekim Alptekin.
Flynn wasn’t charged in that case and Rafiekian was ultimately acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
In June 2019, after Flynn fired his original lawyers and hired a new legal team led by Powell, prosecutors asked Flynn to testify that he signed FIG’s lobbying forms knowing there were lies in them. He refused, saying he only learned there was something wrong with the registration in retrospect.
That angered the lead prosecutor, Brandon Van Grack, notes from a June 27, 2019, conference call indicate.
Powell said that ever since then, the prosecutors’ behavior has been “retaliatory, vindictive, and in bad faith” because Flynn refused to lie.
In a Jan. 16 court filing (pdf), she disclosed documents that, in her view, indicate the prosecutors knew they were asking for a false statement.
She previously asked Judge Emmet Sullivan to order the government to hand over a plethora of documents she said were exculpatory to Flynn. She said the case should be dismissed for government misconduct, including for withholding the documents. Sullivan denied the request.
Top Brass Witnesses
Powell said in the WMAL radio interview that if Sullivan allows the plea withdrawal and the case goes to trial, she will call witnesses including former FBI Director James Comey, his former deputy, Andrew McCabe, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, and the “agent who cannot be named,” referring to Special Agent Joe Pientka.
It was Strzok and Pientka who interviewed Flynn, while Comey and McCabe were involved in planning the interview. Powell previously requested Clapper’s phone records to “confirm” whether he communicated with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, “especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn,’” she said.
Ignatius and Van Grack, the leading prosecutor in the Flynn case, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. An FBI spokesman declined to comment. An attempt to reach Clapper for comment was unsuccessful.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 20:40 - McConnell Gives Democrats Just Two Days For Trump Impeachment Trial In Senate
McConnell Gives Democrats Just Two Days For Trump Impeachment Trial In Senate
House impeachment managers will have just two days to prosecute their case against President Donald Trump according to a resolution circulated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a move meant to accelerates the timetable for a trial Republicans intend to end in a speedy acquittal. President Trump’s team will also have two days to present their arguments and then senators will have a chance to ask questions and consider subpoenas of witnesses.
Here’s the @senatemajldr resolution outlining how the impeachment trial will proceed: pic.twitter.com/apEkwk2D81
— Ben Siegel (@benyc) January 21, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
According to The Hill, both sides will have 24 hours to make their first round of arguments, the same amount of time House impeachment managers and Bill Clinton’s lawyers received in 1999, but it limits them to just two days each, instead of the three allowed in Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial more than 20 years ago. A Senate GOP leadership aide noted that prosecutors in the Clinton trial didn’t use all of their allotted time and finished their opening arguments within three days.
The resolution does not require additional witnesses to be subpoenaed, much to the anger of Democrats, and does not allow House prosecutors to admit evidence into the Senate trial record until after the opening arguments are heard. The rules would also allow the president’s team to seek a quick dismissal of the charges, though many Republican senators have said they should at least hear the case.
In response, the top Senate Democrat, Charles Schumer quickly pushed back and vowed to force votes on amendments. “Sen. McConnell’s resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace,” Schumer said in a statement Monday afternoon, further accusing McConnell of casting aside public statements that he would use the same rules as under the Clinton trial, adding that the majority leader is clearly “hell-bent on making it much more difficult to get witnesses and documents and intent on rushing the trial through.”
After reading his resolution, it’s clear Sen. McConnell is hell-bent on making it much more difficult to get witnesses & documents and intent on rushing the trial through
On something as important as impeachment—Sen. McConnell’s resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace pic.twitter.com/hyDVTYqdC5
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) January 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Schumer also said in a statement Monday evening that he will offer amendments to alter “the many flaws” in a “deeply unfair proposal,” as well as to subpoena further witnesses and documents.
The resolution also includes language favored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and other GOP moderates requiring a debate and vote on subpoenaing new witnesses and documents.
Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, who worked with McConnell and Collins to modify the resolution, said it “guarantees a vote on whether we need additional evidence at the appropriate time.”
Schumer argues that forcing House managers to cram their opening arguments into a two-day window will force them to present on the Senate floor well into the evening and possibly past midnight.
“McConnell’s resolution stipulates that key facts be delivered in the wee hours of the night simply because he doesn’t want the American people to hear them,” Schumer said.
According to the resolution, House managers will be allowed to begin their arguments 1 p.m. Wednesday.
In response, a Senate GOP leadership aide told the Hill that in 1999, the House prosecutors and the president’s defense team each used fewer than 12 hours over a three-day period. “This resolution provides the same time but more structure for the arguments,” the aide said. The resolution also provides 16 hours for senators to ask questions.
In another departure from the 1999 organizing resolution, McConnell’s measure does not allow evidence from the House impeachment inquiry to be entered into the Senate trial record until after the question of additional witnesses and documents receives consideration. McConnell reportedly did this in response to Trump’s lawyers not having the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the House hearings.
“The White House was denied due process throughout the 12 weeks of partisan House proceedings,” the source said.
Additionally, according to McConnell’s resolution if the Senate votes at the end of phase one against subpoenaing witnesses, then it will not be possible to consider additional motions on specific witnesses. Democrats have said they want to subpoena former national security adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, senior White House adviser Robert Blair and senior Office of Management Budget official Michael Duffey.
The Senate will vote on the resolution Tuesday.
Schumer called on moderate Republican colleagues to reconsider McConnell’s aggressive timeline: “Any senator that votes for the McConnell resolution will be voting to hide information and evidence,” he said in his statement.
“I will be offering amendments to address the many flaws in this deeply unfair proposal and to subpoena the witnesses and documents we have requested,” he added.
* * *
The White House immediately backed McConnell’s rules, but didn’t indicate whether it would press a quick vote on a motion to dismiss.
“Protecting the president’s rights to offer pretrial motions was critical for us to support the package, and we’re very gratified with the resolution,” said Eric Ueland, the White House’s liaison to Congress. “I’m not going to talk about trial strategy publicly.”
“It makes sense” to file a motion to dismiss because in every criminal case where there is no wrongdoing, you should try and get a dismissal, Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s defense team, said in an interview Monday evening.
Earlier on Monday, the White House and impeachment managers from the House of Representatives released a pair of filings where both sides argued that constitutional separation of powers is at stake in the trial.
The president’s 171-page filing contends that the House failed to prove that the president explicitly linked aid for Ukraine to an investigation Trump sought into political rival and former Vice President Joe Biden. And the president’s lawyers argued that the Senate should swiftly reject the impeachment articles.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 20:15 - Hundreds Of NYC Subway Doors Are Being Pulled From Service Due To Malfunctions
Hundreds Of NYC Subway Doors Are Being Pulled From Service Due To Malfunctions
As many New Yorkers already know, nothing exemplifies government efficiency better than Manhattan’s Metro Transportation Authority. Complaining about it is part of what being a New York resident is all about – just ask the Wall Street Journal’s Charley Grant, who takes to Twitter at least one a week to air his grievances with the city’s public transit.
The latest on the MTA “Wall of Fame” has been an announcement this week that more than 300 New York City subway cars were pulled from service on Wednesday due to “unreliable door mechanisms”, which has of course, raised questions about how the MTA is spending the hundreds of millions of dollars paid to it by taxpayers.
The MTA has had repeated problems with Bombardier, who is being blamed for the issue. Past problems with Bombardier include late delivery that resulted in Bombardier compensating the MTA with 18 additional R179 cars. The agency said none of them are operational.
New York City Transit President Andy Byford, who oversees subways for the MTA, told Bloomberg: “Out of an abundance of caution, NYCT removed all R179 train cars from service overnight for thorough inspection and re-deployed other spare cars to continue service for this morning’s rush and ensure minimal impacts to customers.”
“We intend to hold the company fully accountable,” Byford continued.
A spokeswoman for Bombardier blamed the issue on a Chinese company, Kangni Mechanical & Electrical Co Ltd., that supplied the doors.
She said: “Our investigation shows that the doors were not properly calibrated by Kangni. We value our partnership with New York City Transit and are fully committed to providing high quality, reliable, safe rail cars.”
Bombardier said it would inspect all of its NYC cars for safety. The cars in question would make up about 5% of the city’s 5,400-car subway fleet.
The city’s comptroller, Scott Stringer, found last month in a report that over the city’s seven year contract with Bombardier, the company consistently failed to meet deadlines and produce acceptable work. The audit also found that the MTA had dropped the ball by not overseeing Bombardier’s contract closer.
“Bombardier sold us lemons,” Stringer said.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 20:15 - What's Really Behind America's "Russia Problem"
What’s Really Behind America’s “Russia Problem”
RINSE AND REPEAT:
-
Back in 1996, Time Magazine crowed about how a team of American “specialists” helped Boris Yeltsin get re-elected.
-
In 2016, the US media flipped the script, now howling about how Vladimir Putin supposedly aided the Trump campaign.
“Russia helped Trump get elected!”, and “The Russians interfered in the 2016 US elections!”, and “The Russians have attacked our democracy!” etc.
Incredibly, these precepts still govern the parameters of political discourse for so many political and media operatives and these same beliefs have filtered down through to a large portion of the American electorate. But are they actually true, and why is it still forbidden to question any these sweeping statements? Is America’s reoccurring obsession fueling a permanent case of western xenophobia against Russia?
The following video presents an insightful conversation between high-profile pundits with opposing views, with veteran US news anchorman, Dan Rather, joined by renowned expert in US-Russian relations, Dr Stephen F. Cohen, and his wife Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation magazine. Watch:
Towards the end of the discussion (around the 55 min mark), Dan Rather shows how he still holds firm to Official Washington’s conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign somehow colluded with the Russians, but that nonetheless – we should all withhold our final judgment until the much-anticipated Mueller Report was released. Well, not long after this discussion, the Mueller Report did come out – but unfortunately for Rather, and for so many other true believers in Russiagate’s political mythology, there was no evidence of any collusion or interference. Mueller attempted to prove ‘meddling’ by indicting mysterious GRU Russian hackers, but even this turned out to be a groundless accusation. Real Clear Investigations explains:
While the 448-page Mueller report found no conspiracy between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, it offered voluminous details to support the sweeping conclusion that the Kremlin worked to secure Trump’s victory. The report claims that the interference operation occurred “principally” on two fronts: Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked embarrassing Democratic Party documents, and a government-linked troll farm orchestrated a sophisticated and far-reaching social media campaign that denigrated Hillary Clinton and promoted Trump.
But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved…
Sadly, even a decorated journalist and American institution like Rather could not free himself from the mainstream’s inbred media echo chamber, where most mainstream Establishment figures are still permanently wed to this national security state narrative. In the run-up to the 2020 Democratic Primaries, Rather continues to disseminate irrational fears that Putin is behind the latest political skirmishes between party front-runners – yet another example in a long line of evidence-free assertions which have appeared daily in western media since 2016.
A classic Russian ploy is to sow division and distrust between natural allies. So when you see overblown outrage trending on Twitter, ask yourself WWPW (what would Putin want) and maybe breathe and let the hashtag pass.
— Dan Rather (@DanRather) January 17, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
To any sober observer, all of this might sound like pure lunacy. But liberal America’s unhealthy fetish with Russia isn’t going away just yet and in fact, it continues to get worse, as the usual culprits now doubling-down on this losing formula in 2020.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 19:50 -
- New Video Shows Syrian Mercenaries Patrolling Streets Of Libyan Capital
New Video Shows Syrian Mercenaries Patrolling Streets Of Libyan Capital
A day after France’s Emmanuel Macron condemned Turkey’s transferring Free Syrian Army (FSA) militants to fight in Libya at the Berlin peace conference, a new video has surfaced and is going viral which shows a group of foreign fighters strolling through the streets of Tripoli.
The regional publication Libya Review describes the short video as featuring a group of Turkish-backed Syrian mercenaries walking through the capital city. Macron on Sunday slammed Turkey’s program to send thousands of jihadists to fight Gen. Khalifa Haftar in Libya. Macron expressed “acute concerns over the arrival of Syrian and foreign fighters in the city of Tripoli” which “must end”. Erdogan, Putin, Macron, Pompeo and other leaders were present for the talks which produced little definitive agreements other than common commitment to cease the flow of foreign weapons and fighters.
According the Middle East news site Al-Masdar, one of the militants appears to be a Syrian teenager, and another greets the group with “Libya welcomes you”:
Syrian fighters can be seen walking through a neighbourhood in Libyan capital Tripoli. One fighter can be heard saying “Libya welcomes you” #Libya pic.twitter.com/dBStDhoQzy
— Libya Review (@LibyaReview) January 19, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The video was actually published by Libya Review on the very day of the Berlin conference on Libyan peace.
It also comes days after separate video surfaced showing dozens of Syrian jihadists being flown into Tripoli on a commercial jet, in confirmation of a bombshell Guardian report which said some 2,000 Syrian mercenaries sponsored by Turkey were due to enter the Libyan battlefield in support of the government of Prime Minister Fayez al-Serraj (GNA).
Despite Macron and other European leaders condemning the foreign fighter influx Sunday, Serraj gave a subsequent interview saying he’ll welcome any external support. He was asked point blank in the interview about the Syrians, and seemed to support the now not-so “covert” initiative.
#BREAKING
In an interview with BBC News Libya’s GNA Prime Minister Fayez Al-Sarraj was asked about Syrian fighters arriving in Libya.
He replied “We will not hesitate in cooperating with any party willing to help us defeat the aggressor (LNA)” #Libya pic.twitter.com/PS8dmjQQJx— Libya Review (@LibyaReview) January 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the conflict Haftar’s Libyan National Army has accused both Erdogan and the GNA of fueling the rebirth of ISIS in the region.
Late last week the Pentagon actually confirmed a “small” resurgence in the Islamic State’s numbers in Libya, with Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Paul Selva, voicing concern that ISIS was being given breathing room to reconstitute as a “third party in the fight in Libya.”
But then the hypocrisy of France and the US expressing “concern” over terrorists in Libya is rich, considering it was their own 2011 military intervention against Gaddafi and support for jihadist “rebels” which created the current crisis in the first place.
Foreign countries meddling in Libya meet to discuss problems of foreign countries meddling in Libya. https://t.co/AGqoX7PuPx
— Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) January 19, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
As we’ve mentioned before, the war Libyan proxy war 2.0 is set to be among 2020’s most devastating and deadly geopolitical crises.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 19:25 - Are Consumers Nearing The End Of Their Road Of Debt?
Are Consumers Nearing The End Of Their Road Of Debt?
Are consumers getting close to the end of their road of debt?
There are some indications that they might be and that’s not good news for an economy built on consumers spending money they don’t have.
Total consumer debt grew and set yet another new record in November, according to the most recent data released by the Federal Reserve. But the rate of growth slowed and credit card debt contracted slightly for the third month out of the last four.
Total consumer debt grew by $12.5 billion to $4.176 trillion. (Seasonally adjusted). That represents an annual growth rate of 3.6%, down from 5.5% in October.
The Fed consumer debt figures include credit card debt, student loans and auto loans, but do not factor in mortgage debt.
Revolving credit outstanding, primarily credit card debt, fell by $2.4 billion, a 2.7% decline. That was offset by a healthy increase of $14.9 billion (5.8%) in non-revolving credit, including student loans, automobile loans and financing for other big-ticket purchases.
Even with the decline in revolving credit card debt, Americans still owe nearly $1.1 trillion on their plastic.
But the overall trend in borrowing has fallen over the last six months and credit card borrowing has taken a noticeably steep downturn.
Some are taking the sagging level of borrowing as a warning sign. As one analyst put it in an article on Seeking Alpha:
It could be that the consumer end of the economy has reached the point at which it cannot add any more debt. Unlike the federal government which has sovereign dollars to print, the consumer has a fixed amount they can spend including paying back any loans.”
Generally, consumer spending and consumer debt tend to move in the same direction. In other words, the drop in borrowing could indicate consumers are shutting their wallets.
The drop in credit card spending in November could have been due to consumers paying off balances in preparation for the holiday shopping season. Retail sales showed a healthy increase in December and holiday spending was up a little over 4% year-on-year. We may well see another increase in credit card debt when the December report comes out. But the longer-term downward trend in borrowing should cause concern if your focus is on economic growth.
There is also anecdotal evidence that Americans are getting in over their heads when it comes to debt. A Northwestern Mutual study in 2019 found that many millennials are drowning in credit card debt. The study found that “it’s from going out to dinner and travel.”
The truth is American consumers have been driving the US economy with money they don’t have. If they are getting close to maxing out the credit cards, that doesn’t bode well for future economic growth. If that moment isn’t upon us yet, it will be at some point in the not-to-distant future.
A large percentage of US GDP growth comes from consumer spending. Headlines have lauded the American consumer for “rescuing the US economy.” But as Peter Schiff has said, if that’s the case, who is going to rescue the consumer?
If you look at where the consumer is getting that money, it’s from credit. Year-over-year, consumer debt has increased by 5%. So, what is driving consumer spending is debt.”
Peter has also said the huge levels of debt could indicate that the economy isn’t as great as the pundits keep telling us.
If an economy really is strong, you would think consumers would be taking on less credit card debt because they wouldn’t need it. They would be able to buy more stuff that they could actually afford. They wouldn’t have to go into debt. Because credit card debt is the worst possible debt because the interest rate is so high on credit card debt. If you can afford to pay off your credit card, you’re going to pay it off.”
The question is how much money can American consumers borrow before the bubble pops? In effect, consumers are taking from the future to spend in the present. Whether driven by confidence or desperation, debt-fueled spending can’t go on forever. Credit cards have this inconvenient thing called a limit. What happens when the future arrives? Every dime borrowed eventually has to be paid off.
During an appearance on RT Boom Bust, Peter took on this notion that the US consumer has never been in better shape.
The consumer is completely levered up. He has record amounts of debt. And the only reason he can spend is because the Fed is keeping rates low enough so that credit continues to flow despite the lack of legitimate savings to finance it. So, this whole house of cards is going to come tumbling down and the consumer is going to be right in the center of that.”
In a word, the situation is unsustainable and American consumers could be getting close to the end of their road of debt.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 19:00 - China Coronavirus Outbreak Spreads; Hundreds Infected As Human-To-Human Transmission Confirmed
China Coronavirus Outbreak Spreads; Hundreds Infected As Human-To-Human Transmission Confirmed
Health officials in Wuhan, China reported 139 new cases of a new mystery virus over the weekend, now rapidly spreading to other provinces and surrounding countries, reported CNN.
As of Monday morning, three people have died from the pneumonia-like illness, and globally there have been more than 200 reported cases, noted Reuters.
Beijing confirmed two cases of coronavirus Monday, while Guangdong health officials reported one case in Shenzhen – these are the first reports that the virus is quickly spreading from Wuhan, the epicenter.
On Sunday, the World Health Organization (WHO) said the virus originated from a seafood/meat market in Wuhan, has likely spread through human-to-human transmission.
“It is clear that there is at least some human-to-human transmission from the evidence we have, but we don’t have clear evidence that shows the virus has acquired the capacity to transmit among humans easily,” said Takeshi Kasai, the WHO’s regional director for the western pacific, in an interview with Bloomberg TV on Monday. “We need more information to analyze that.”
There are significant concerns about a broader regional outbreak, reports Sunday warned the virus was detected outside China – two in Thailand and one in Japan.
The South Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (SKCDC) confirmed Monday that a 35-year-old woman arriving at Incheon International Airport from Wuhan tested positive for coronavirus.
“She was immediately separated for treatment in quarantine at a state-designated hospital,” the SKCDC said.
China’s National Health Commission confirmed Monday that the virus has occurred via human-to-human transmission. This has worried officials in the country and in surrounding countries ahead of the Lunar New Year holiday, in which millions of Chinese tourists are expected to travel across the region, could lead to a widespread outbreak of the virus.
More than 7 million Chinese traveled overseas last year during the holiday season.
“I believe Chinese tourists will bring the virus to many other countries in Asia in the coming days, due to their overseas travels during the Lunar New Year holiday,” Professor David Hui Shu-Cheong, a respiratory expert at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told CNN Monday.
Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London warned late last week that upwards of 1,700 in Wuhan had been infected with the virus.
Airports in Singapore and Hong Kong have been screening passengers from Wuhan, while three US airports (San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York) announced similar measures last week.
Investors on Monday dumped Chinese airline and casino stocks over fears a widespread outbreak of the virus could lead to lower holiday traffic.
Air China plunged 7.5% in Hong Kong to a one-month low, and China Southern Airlines and China Eastern Airlines were both down at least 3%.
Macau gaming stocks dropped by 4%, the most since last August, with SJM Holdings down 5.6% and Sands China -5%.
Shares of duty-free store operator Dufry fell nearly 7% on Monday over concerns the spread of the virus could lead to decreased air travel.
Mandy Jia, an analyst at SWS, told Bloomberg that investors sold casino stocks because the outbreak of the virus could lead to depressed holiday traffic.
If China and other Asian countries fail to control the spread of the virus during the upcoming holiday season, and a broader outbreak is seen, this could be a risk-off event for global equity markets.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 18:45 - China Releases Video Of World's Largest Three-Engine Utility-Attack Drone
China Releases Video Of World’s Largest Three-Engine Utility-Attack Drone
A rising global superpower must have an advanced aerospace industry to sustain dominance. When it comes to drone development, China has been rapidly advancing the technology and exporting the aircraft across the world — taking precious market share away from the U.S.
Chinese media is reporting that Chengdu-based Tengden Technology Co. has developed the world’s largest and first three-engine drone — took off from an airfield in southwest China late last week.
Chengdu Daily said the design of the drone is a world-first. The wingspan of the aircraft stretches 60 ft., and the aircraft’s main body section is 33 ft. long. It’s equipped with three-piston engines, with one on each side of the wing, along with one mounted on the rear of the plane, allowing it to have a maximum takeoff weight of 3.2 tons and fly for 35 hours.
The drone has a flight ceiling of about 31,000 ft. with a top speed of about 200 mph, Chengdu Daily said, adding that the plane has been designed for airfields in plateau regions.
The pusher configuration, an engine mounted on the rear of the plane, allows it to carry more payload and take off from shorter runways.
The drone is a multifunction aircraft that will allow the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) to fly attack and surveillance missions.
Chengdu Daily said it could also be used for disaster relief, forest firefighting, geographic mapping, meteorological observation, and aerial communications relay.
Tengoen Technology expects the drone to be in series production in the near term for delivery to clients in the second half of 2021.
China has become the top country, controlling at least 70% of the world’s civilian drone market, via the Shenzhen-based drone giant SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.
China’s military drones are also gaining market share across the world, with increased sales to Middle East countries.
China’s rapid ascension as a global superpower has been made part by its manufacturing hub, along with many advances in technologies, including artificial intelligence, automation, drones, and hypersonics. This has angered the Trump administration, who is threatening to ban all DJI products from federal agencies and has created fearmongering campaigns of how Chinese-made drones could be susceptible to hacks. Even the Pentagon has felt threatened by Chinese military drones because increased sales to the Middle East and other parts of the world have taken away market share from General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 18:35 - The Fed Is Stuck In QE Hell
The Fed Is Stuck In QE Hell
Authored by Howard Gold, op-ed via MarketWatch.com,
Imagine doing the same thing over and over again, with little progress and no relief. Sounds like most people’s vision of hell – or the Federal Reserve’s current predicament.
Since September, the central bank, through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, has been purchasing securities hand over fist to alleviate short-term pressures in the overnight money markets. It has used repurchase (“repo”) and reverse repurchase (“reverse repo”) agreements to provide liquidity and keep overnight borrowing rates from spiking.
But these complex money market operations already have caused the Fed to buy a net $400 billion worth of securities, after Chairman Jerome Powell shrank the Fed’s balance sheet by $700 billion. That “normalization,” which also included raising the federal funds rate through late 2018, is now effectively dead and the Fed’s balance sheet is growing again.
Powell and the Fed have repeatedly denied this is a new phase of “quantitative easing (QE),” three rounds of which added $3.6 trillion to the Fed’s balance sheet in the years after the financial crisis. And indeed, in the earlier rounds of QE, the central bank bought Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities of various maturities. The current buying has been focused on Treasuries with maturities of 12 months or less.
On the way: QE4
But that may not continue, says Danielle DiMartino Booth, CEO and chief strategist at Quill Intelligence, a Dallas-based boutique research firm. Booth, who worked on both Wall Street and in the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, has been a critic of Fed policies since the central bank pushed fed funds down to near zero and launched its three rounds of QE after the financial crisis. (She also was one of the few people to connect the dots between the housing bust and Wall Street before the crisis hit.)
Danielle DiMartino Booth, CEO of Dallas-based research firm Quill Intelligence, says the Federal Reserve is on the cusp of enacting QE4, or may already be there.
Booth thinks we’re on the cusp of QE4, or may already be there.
“We’ve surpassed the $400 billion mark,” she said in a phone interview.
“They call it ‘not QE’ because it’s maturities of 12 months or less and therefore presupposed to roll over within 12 months.”
But as of now, she says, “we have a $100-billion-per-month run rate of ‘not QE.’ ”
Booth acknowledges there’s a qualitative difference between current operations and the Fed’s QE policy of buying longer-dated securities, particularly mortgage-backed bonds, which also helped boost the housing market. And the current efforts to stabilize the overnight money markets may run through at least April, after tax season.
But she thinks the Fed is laying the groundwork for securities purchases to continue after that.
“The Fed will tell you it’s all technical in nature,” she said.
“In their last minutes, they said that if they had to move into [longer] coupons, they would. So the table has been set.”
This all comes, Booth believes, amid a weakening economy.
“We’ve just had commercial and industrial lending turn negative on a year-over year basis,” she told me.
“Not only have banks become less willing to extend the commercial and industrial loans, there has also been less demand for them.”
“We’re probably in our third quarter of contracting industrial production. That’s a huge red flag for the economy,” she said.
Economists forecast gross domestic product (GDP) growth of around 2% this year, but just in case the economy weakens, the Fed might think it’s good to have some “not QE” insurance on hand.
In a recent speech, former Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said that “the effects of asset purchases on yields were long-lasting and economically significant,” resulting in an impact of 120 basis points (1.2 percentage points) in 10-year Treasury yields.
Record-high stock prices
But he also said “the expected effects of the programs were already incorporated into market prices by the time of the formal announcements,” which suggests to me that at least some of QE’s impact was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That implies that what investors think the Fed is doing is at least as important as what it’s actually doing, and I’m seeing a lot of chatter about QE4 over the last couple of days, a big reason why the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 hover near all-time highs.
Booth points out that by several measures, “outside of the year 2000 the stock market has never been as overvalued,” which means stock markets more than ever hinge on the Fed’s every move.
That’s why I think if there are any signs of economic weakness by spring — particularly in manufacturing and the industrial economy — the Fed will find a way to keep the bond buying going, while calling it anything but QE.
“We have certainly started to see some signs of slowing, and I think Jay Powell is trapped,” said Booth.
“The Fed is trying to keep a bucket filled with holes full.”
Welcome to QE — or not QE — hell.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 18:10 - Baltic Dry Continues Epic Plunge As IMF Slashes Global GDP Forecast
Baltic Dry Continues Epic Plunge As IMF Slashes Global GDP Forecast
The Baltic Exchange’s main sea freight index hit a nine-month low on Monday, dragged down by falling rates of capesize and panamax segments as world trade continues to slump.
The Baltic Dry Index, which tracks rates for capesize, panamax and supramax vessels that ferry dry bulk commodities across the world, dropped 25 points, or 3.3%, to 729 (according to Refinitiv data), the lowest level since April 2019:
-
The capesize index .BACI dropped 119 points, or 16.7%, to 593 – its lowest since April 23.The index registered its 27th straight session of losses, and also its largest daily percentage loss since early April.
-
Average daily earnings for capesizes, which typically transport 170,000-180,000 tonne cargoes including iron ore and coal, fell $592 to $7,760.
-
The panamax index .BPNI lost 4 points, or 0.5%, to 866.
-
Average daily earnings for panamaxes, which usually carry coal or grain cargoes of about 60,000 tonnes to 70,000 tonnes, declined $39 to $7,791.
-
The supramax index .BSIS remained unchanged at 560 points.
Baltic Dry Index Falls 3.32% to 729 in London
•Capesize -7.09% to $7,760
•Panamax -0.6% to $6,455
•Supramax 58k tons 0.0% to $6,156
•Handysize -0.47% to $4,836#DryBulk #Shipping $GOGL $SBLK $GNK $DSX $SB $SALT $EGLE $GBLK pic.twitter.com/zlaZxm5Fsj— Joakim Hannisdahl (@JHannisdahl) January 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
We’ve noted how the “front-loading” effect ahead of tariff deadlines ended in late 3Q19 when the first signs of a trade resolution emerged between the U.S. and China.
In the last four months, the Baltic index has crashed 70%, the most since 2008, and has confirmed our slowbalisation thoughts.
The chart below makes clear that the spike in shipping rates was a one-off event spurred by importers front-running tariffs in 2019, now that is over, shipping rates are plunging as a manufacturing recession in the U.S. deepens and across the world.
And it was no surprise to us Monday that the IMF slashed the global economic outlook for 2019 to 2.9% in October, the lowest since the financial crisis, and warned that global trade growth is “close to a standstill.”
The Baltic Dry Index is seen as a leading indicator that provides a clear view of the global demand for commodities and raw materials.
The IMF also downgraded its forecast for global GDP for 2020 and 2021, its sixth straight reduction, although in a sliver of optimism, global GDP in 2020 is now expected to post a modest rebound from 2.9% to 3.3%, (down from 3.4% in October) and to 3.4% in 2021 (down from 3.6%) as the IMF says “there are now tentative signs that global growth may be stabilizing, though at subdued levels.”
However, the IMF warned that there are “few signs of turning points are yet visible in global macroeconomic data.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/20/2020 – 17:50 -
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://i0.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/iranmissilenew.jpg?ssl=1){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://i0.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/iraninternet.jpg?ssl=1){kind=link}