- And The Best University In The World Is…
And The Best University In The World Is…
The latest global university ranking has been released by Times Higher Education, putting the UK’s Oxford University at the top of the pile.
You will find more infographics at Statista
Institutions are ranked based on five indicators: teaching, research, citations, international outlook and industry income.
On this basis, the UK and United States completely dominate the top ten, and indeed the top 15, with only one other country represented – Switzerland with ETH Zurich in 13th place.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/23/2019 – 02:45 - White Helmets, Black Lies
White Helmets, Black Lies
Authored by David Macilwain via Off-Guardian.org,
This is the story of my challenge to Australia’s SBS TV over their role in passing on criminal disinformation about Syria, chemical weapons and the White Helmets.
On the 8th of April last year, SBS television broadcast a report claiming sixty people had died in a chemical weapons attack in Douma on their evening world news bulletin. It was substantially the same as reports in all Western and West-friendly countries, though with an SBS commentary added.
SBS – the “Special Broadcasting Service” was set up by the Australian government in the ‘70s to serve the many different ethnic communities here; it also broadcasts foreign language news bulletins from many countries, including Russia and Turkey but not Iran or Lebanon.
While SBS remains partly government funded, it claims editorial independence – including from its commercial sponsors. Its current promotional slogan is “We tell stories – with a difference”, supported by appealing testimonies from the story-tellers, who no doubt believe this delusional claim. Not only are SBS stories on the chief issues of contention no different, or even sourced from other Western media, they are mostly just stories, with a loose or non-existent relation to the truth.
Challenging the SBS narrative is therefore problematic, but SBS has a well-defined Code of Practice on balance and bias against which one can make complaints for up to six weeks following a broadcast. Complaints are assessed by the “SBS Ombudsman” Sally Begbie, and a verdict delivered within sixty days.
I have gone through this process a few times over the last decade, and the result has been the same regardless of the case – “SBS has found that the broadcast complied with the Code, etc. etc.”
So it was that at the time of the Douma Incident, complaining to SBS for spreading the same lies as everyone else was not the highest priority! I was also preparing to head off for a holiday starting in Syria and struggling with a visa.
In addition though, it was not until later that there was substantive evidence on which to build a case for a complaint that might succeed. It’s easy to forget this, and that people in Douma knew nothing about a “chemical weapon attack”.
The big story there was the Syrian-Russian liberation of this last terrorist stronghold, at least until a week later when the US coalition missile attack became the story. The idea that a chlorine attack had killed people was anyway innately unbelievable, and even on the mainstream news it was the story of the children being hosed and choked in the Douma Hospital ward that dominated the bulletins.
Ironically, the best news reports – not stories – from Syria were broadcast every morning on SBS in the Russian news from NTV.
The simple sight of their Syria correspondent was sufficient – crouching beside the gas cylinder on the roof, and then chatting to a Russian military policeman in the bedroom while the toxic gas container lay there amongst its entourage of unbroken light fittings on the bed beside them.
The Russian news also showed the film that Western audiences saw, of some guy in a full gas mask in the same place.
Given the ongoing disinformation about Syria and my focus on the closely connected Novichok story, it wasn’t until the appearance of the Intercept’s report on Douma in February 2019 that the question of what actually happened there became important once more. Released in advance of the OPCW’s final report, and likely in the knowledge of it, the Atlantic Council sponsored report looked like an exercise in damage control.
The slick video production succeeded in giving some very dubious characters the appearance of independent and unbiased judgement, and credibility to their conclusion that “on balance it seems likely there was a gas attack there”.
There was of course no ‘balance’ question involved, as it was extremely unlikely or impossible there would have been such an attack from the Syrian army, leave alone on the very civilians the army was trying to rescue from their terrorist oppressors.
It was however the deceptions in the lengthy written part of the Intercept’s Douma report that made it significant, and which formed the central point of my subsequent complaint to SBS. James Harkin who wrote the report didn’t attempt to hide the questionable allegiances of the White Helmets, detailing their funding by the UK and US and association with British Army advisors.
But by admitting to their already-exposed propaganda role, Harkin reframed this as well-motivated; the White Helmets “association” with Opposition Islamist militias could then be excused as part of “their unobjectionable and utterly necessary work rescuing civilians from buildings bombed by the Russian and Syrian air-forces.”
So I put together an elaborate complaint to SBS following the Intercept report, in anticipation of the release of the OPCW’s final report and a predicted SBS rehash of all the false claims made a year earlier. This included my own observations from visiting Douma in May 2018 which pointed out the subtle ways that Harkin and Mackey had distorted the picture to suit their story.
Central to this was the “disappearing” of Douma hospital, whose most obvious survival was something of an embarrassment for them – evidence that Syrian and Russian militaries had avoided hitting this hospital, which unlike so many health centres had not been completely taken over by terrorist fighters and was vital for the local community.
Harkin also “admitted” that the terrorist group controlling Douma, Jaish al Islam, “ruled with an iron fist”, and so could take the blame for video trickery, rather than the White Helmets who merely witnessed it. A close scrutiny of the Douma emergency room footage however revealed the truth, of the White Helmets’ intimate involvement in the “treatment” as well as it fabrication.
This was assisted by the uncovering of another video of the hospital scene distributed by Turkey’s Anadolu Agency. From detailed examination of this video I was able to conclude that it was an earlier “take” featuring the same four men and same young child as was depicted in the SBS TV report, where a near-naked child is forcibly given Ventolin and slapped “to get her breathing”.
It was easy to see why this video report got left on the cutting room floor, as the man-handling of the infant victim was so clearly fake; the child screaming and struggling while her clothes were pulled off by four men, including one wearing a White Helmets jacket and a “nurse” from “Medical Relief for Syria”. It was this child who then appeared white with fear after further Ventolin treatment and hosing down, as a credible “gas attack victim” in the SBS report.
The object of my complaint to SBS was to show that they were guilty of using footage of violent child abuse as a propaganda tool to facilitate illegal and lethal action, wittingly or unwittingly. Even when serious doubts were cast over the credibility of the event by the testimony of one victim Hassan Diab, SBS had continued to promote the false story with the same emotive footage.
“We cannot consider your complaint as the program in question occurred more than six weeks ago.” – was the response. And as SBS had never mentioned the OPCW final report with its insipid confirmation of a chlorine attack in Douma, there was no more recent report for me to reference.
At the time however, there were frequent warnings that the Syrian army was preparing to move in on Idlib, and Russia was reporting plans by the White Helmets to stage another “chemical attack”. In anticipation of this, I ended my complaint with a warning, that –
The Syrian and Russian move to finally take back control of Idlib from Al Qaeda linked forces must not be allowed to develop into yet another Western-created “humanitarian crisis” by yet another White Helmet facilitated propaganda offensive streamed through Western mainstream media, with SBS playing its part.”
Just after sending off that complaint, the OPCW Engineers’ report was leaked to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media by its team leader Ian Henderson.
This was the final nail in the coffin of the Syrian opposition claims, as well as evidence of White Helmet collusion in torture and murder of the “gas attack victims”. But it was only when the “worst humanitarian disaster this century” warning was issued, and swarms of child-carrying White Helmets filled the news bulletins again in May, that I could put together a new complaint to SBS.
Over a period of six weeks to mid-June, SBS ran reports on different aspects of the alleged Idlib offensive by the Syrian and Russian militaries. There was the humanitarian crisis, with 300,000 people fleeing the province. There were attacks on hospitals and schools.
There was the targeting of rescue workers, and then of journalists, with a cameo appearance of Channel 4’s Alex Crawford pointing out an approaching Syrian helicopter to an HTS commander. And of course there were “unconventional weapons, even chemical” and a sickening episode at the UN reminiscent of Samantha Power’s “have you no shame?” attack on Russia’s Vitaly Churkin.
And through it all, White Helmets running and digging and finding children, in the usual places.
I think my complaint made a good case, at least for exercising caution in presenting any more emotive White Helmet footage. Unlike almost every other news report where the faces of children are blurred out, these reports apparently depend on people seeing and being affected by such shocking images, while being issued with an obligatory warning that “some viewers may find these images upsetting”.
My second complaint, sent in late June, included copies of the video reports under review with a precis of their contents, but focused principally on the hugely significant investigations of the OPCW engineers’ team and the apparent attempt to suppress their findings.
It followed on and quoted from the WGSPM’s report with its unavoidable and logical conclusion – that the White Helmets had colluded in the torture and execution of civilians to make a propaganda film, on behalf of their paymasters in Whitehall and Washington.
SBS agreed to review my complaint, and respond “within 60 days” – as required by their charter. While the propaganda barrage that began on April 28th had fizzled out as attention turned to provocations in the Persian Gulf, it had just restarted on the day in mid-August that I received the SBS Ombudsman’s response, and with renewed and malignant vigour.
SBS played a Channel 4 report, where Lindsay Hilsum conjured up the spectre of Stalin in a stomach-turning concoction that included a long speech by an HTS commander, and a venomous attack on President Assad. And of course, White Helmets digging and running with children.
Somehow I thought this time SBS would have to concede some fault. The case was indisputable; even the Atlantic Council’s staff agreed the hospital scenes had been staged, and the claim the gas bottles had fallen from the sky had been completely trashed. And there were 35 bodies of women and children showing signs of violent death in another location.
Most importantly, the White Helmets were implicated by their own admission, but this is why my complaint was dismissed:
“For the reasons below, the SBS News coverage that concerned you was found to be in line with the Code” – on “balance and impartiality”.
SBS considered that: “your overall concern seems to be that SBS does not cover the Russian or Syrian perspective adequately in reporting the Syrian Civil War.”
SBS identified my other apparent “concerns”, including:
You feel SBS did not place adequate weight or provide balanced coverage that supports your view that “Not only are the Syrian Army and Russian air-force not responsible for such attacks against civilian targets and infrastructure, the actions they are taking are in defence of the local civilian population under constant attack by terrorist militias.”
And:
You feel that “there was an almost complete absence of opinion from genuine Syrian sources or Syrian government officials in SBS reports.”
And that:
You were also concerned that SBS presents the White Helmets as “Civil Defence”, “rescue workers” and “volunteers” when in fact they have “staged” attacks and made “false claims.”
To support its defence, of reports with which we are all too familiar – whether broadcast on Al Jazeera or the BBC, Deutsche Welle, France 24, or CNN, the Ombudsman had to make some extraordinary claims.
Picking through the bones of all eight bulletins I had cited, Sally Begbie found half a dozen mentions of a Russian or Syrian viewpoint, such as this:
Syrian ally Russia, which has veto power at the Security Council, claims it is working with President Assad to fight terrorists.
“Russia claims” is reporting a “Russian viewpoint”, apparently. SBS then offered this general excuse for its failure:
SBS has no journalists based in the Middle East, and its coverage is based on material received by the world’s major news agencies on which SBS relies including Reuters, APTN, Al Jazeera, and the BBC. This material provides a comprehensive range of sources, ensuring coverage that is as balanced as possible within the circumstances.
When possible SBS uses official Russian and Syrian spokespeople to provide their views, however such people were often not available able to SBS on the standard news feeds.
When they are available they are used in the evening’s news coverage. This included on 18 May when Syria’s Ambassador to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, said “The terrorist organisations use hundreds of thousands of civilians as human shields” and on the 29 May when the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergei Vershinin, said “The fighters from HTS are terrorising civilians and they are using civilian infrastructure for military ends and are also using civilians as human shields.”
Far from acknowledging that the eminent representatives of Syria and Russia at the UN “support my view” – that their armies are fighting a war against Western-backed and armed terrorists besieging Idlib the way that they besieged Aleppo and Ghouta – Begbie used the exchange at the UN to support the view of Mark Lowcock and the White Helmets.
Jaafari and Vershinin were actually reacting to Lowcock’s claims of an unprecedented humanitarian disaster, itself based on activist claims and White Helmet propaganda rescue videos. SBS broadcast Lowcock’s whole tirade so the responses in Russian and Syrian with subtitles had little impact. I don’t honestly know how SBS dared to present this travesty as “as balanced as possible”.
But it was SBS’ response to my White Helmets accusations that really left me dumb:
In relation specifically to the White Helmets, SBS’s coverage from 18 May to 17 June was not “propaganda” as you assert but consistent with widely held views about the role of this group.
First Begbie cited the New York Magazine from July 2018:
In 2016 and 2017, the White Helmets—Syrian volunteers who have risked their lives to rescue civilians trapped in rubble following air strikes, barrel bombings, and chemical-weapons attacks—were among the front-runners for the Nobel Peace Prize. A collection of bakers, tailors, engineers, pharmacists, painters, carpenters, and students nicknamed for their protective hats, they have saved more than a hundred thousand people in Syria’s vicious civil war.”
And then Wikipedia:
As of April 2018, the organisation said it had saved over 114,000 lives, with 204 White Helmet volunteers losing their lives in the process. They assert impartiality in the Syrian conflict, though only operate in rebel held areas. The organisation has been the target of a disinformation campaign by supporters of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian-sponsored media organisations such as RT, with false claims of close ties with terrorist activities and other conspiracy theories.
But finally SBS came up with this master stroke – unwittingly finding one of the Guardian’s most egregious pieces of “journalism” on the Syrian conflict that also betrayed its own active role in assisting the FCO-supported White Helmets:
This disinformation campaign was recently detailed in The Guardian, in an article titled ‘How Syria’s White Helmet’s become victims of an online propaganda machine’.
For anyone concerned enough to reach the end of my complaint, it will be seen that I specifically detailed the work of Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley that Olivia Solon, technology reporter from San Francisco deigns to dismiss as nonsense. Although she took over fifty days to do it, it doesn’t seem that the SBS Ombudsman got that far, nor realised just how insulting her suggestion was.
In fact I am left wondering whether Ms Begbie properly read any of my complaint, or examined the video clips I shot in Douma, or consulted any of the links that supported my case. She seems unaware that I am a vocal supporter of President Assad and an active participant in the campaign to expose the White Helmets’ criminal conduct and propaganda, despite this being the subject of my complaint.
Even more astonishingly, Begbie completely ignored my detailed dissection of the OPCW reports that constitutes the actual evidence for my claims the White Helmets are a criminal organisation and that Russia and Syria are fighting a war against foreign-backed terrorists. Just as the OPCW reports were missing from SBS news and so provided no basis for complaint, so their absence from the SBS response fails to address this central issue – the broadcasting of false news.
Were it a relatively trivial matter, the exclusion of some information could be called “white lies”, but it is not. The failure to acknowledge the truth of what happened at Douma is a “black lie”, because it facilitates further lethal and criminal actions by the White Helmets and their takfiri comrades, which were taking place at the same time SBS was broadcasting their sham videos.
So where to now? Have we lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the victims of the disinformation super-highway?
Tyler Durden
Mon, 09/23/2019 – 02:00 - Thinking The Unthinkable, Saying The Unsayable
Thinking The Unthinkable, Saying The Unsayable
Authored by Patrick Armstrong via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable.
– The Showa Emperor, August 1945
A couple of months ago Putin observed that the time of modern day liberalism had passed.
There is also the so-called liberal idea, which has outlived its purpose. Our Western partners have admitted that some elements of the liberal idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable.
Liberalism, in its current manifestation, he suggested, was failing its people. The remarks were happily seized on to bolster the meme that Putin is the enemy. We were assured that liberalism was just fine and criticism was just what you’d expect from “a bloody dictator“. No, Mr. Putin, liberalism is not dead. Martin Wolf: why Vladimir Putin is wrong to claim liberalism is dead. Putin is wrong. Liberalism is more important than ever. So there the issue sat: Putin had been slapped down and any deviations from happy complacency – maillots jaunes, Brexit, Trump – were his fault. His attempts to wreck us would fail because “Defences have proven stronger; citizens are getting wiser“. In any case, Russia won’t be around much longer; the end was coming soon in 2001, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2014, 2019. Well… someday soon.
And then, out of the blue, appears this (my emphases):
We experience this world all together and you know that better than I, but the international order is being disrupted in an unprecedented way, with massive upheaval, probably for the first time in our history, in almost all areas and on a historic scale. Above all, a transformation, a geopolitical and strategic reconfiguration. We are probably in the process of experiencing the end of Western hegemony over the world. We were used to an international order that had been based on Western hegemony since the 18th century… Things change. And they have been deeply affected by the mistakes made by Westerners in certain crises, by American decisions over the last several years which did not start with this administration, but have led us to re-examine certain involvements in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to re-think fundamental diplomatic and military strategy and on occasion elements of solidarity which we thought were forever inalienable… And it is also the emergence of new powers whose impact we have probably underestimated for far too long.
China first and foremost as well as Russia’s strategy that has, let’s face it, been pursued with greater success over the last few years.
Putin’s gone over the top here: End of Western hegemony? Mistakes? Reconsider? Russia‘s success? Well isn’t that just what he would want you to think? The sower of divisions, doubts and chaos just wants us to give up.
Except that the speaker is French President Emmanuel Macron
Macron understands that things have got worse for many in the West and says so – maybe the maillots jaunes have got their message though. The market economy, that used to work well, today produces serious inequalities:
When the middle classes, which form the basis of our democracies, no longer have a fair share in it, they start to express doubts and are legitimately tempted by authoritarian regimes or illiberal democracies, or are tempted to question this economic system.
if we continue as before, then we will definitely lose control. And that would mean obliteration. (l’effacement).
He even (!) has a kind word for Orbán in Hungary.
(I don’t think he’s fully thought it out: if, as he thinks, the proper role for France and Europe is to balance between the USA and China, then that will require an independent position: Beijing could never regard an ally of Washington as a “balancer”. So… out of NATO. But he hasn’t got there yet.)
But what he says about Russia is more interesting: the West made mistakes (no counterfeit modesty of allowing that, perhaps, we’re in there for one or two percent of the blame):
We are part of Europe; so is Russia. And if we are unable to accomplish anything useful with Russia at any given time, we will remain in a state of deeply unproductive tension. We will continue to be stuck in conflicts throughout Europe. Europe will continue to be the theatre of a strategic battle between the United States and Russia, with the consequences of the Cold War still visible on our soil. And we will not lay the groundwork for the profound re-creation of European civilization that I mentioned earlier. Because we cannot do that without reassessing in depth, in great depth, our relationship with Russia. I also think that pushing Russia away from Europe is a major strategic error, because we are pushing it either toward isolation, which heightens tensions, or toward alliances with other great powers such as China, which would not at all be in our interest. At the same time, it must be said that while our relations have been based on mistrust, there are documented reasons for it. We’ve witnessed cyber-attacks, the destabilization of democracies, and a Russian project that is deeply conservative and opposed to the EU project. And all that basically developed in the 1990s and 2000s when a series of misunderstandings took place, and when Europe no doubt did not enact its own strategy [l’Europe n’a pas joué une stratégie propre] and gave the impression of being a Trojan Horse for the West, whose final aim was to destroy Russia, and when Russia built a fantasy around the destruction of the West and the weakening of the EU. That is the situation. We can deplore it, we can continue to jockey for position, but it is not in our best interest to do so. Nor is it in our interest to show a guilty weakness toward Russia and to believe that we should forget all the disagreements and past conflicts, and fall into each other’s arms. No. But I believe we must very carefully rethink the fundamentals. I believe we must build a new architecture based on trust and security in Europe, because the European continent will never be stable, will never be secure, if we do not ease and clarify our relations with Russia. That is not in the interest of some of our allies, let’s be clear about that. Some of them will urge us to impose more sanctions on Russia because it is in their interest.
The end of the INF Treaty requires us to have this dialogue [with Russia], because the missiles would return to our territory.
He’s not entirely free from delusion:
that great power [Russia], which invests a great deal in arming itself and frightens us so much, has the gross domestic product of Spain, a declining demographic, an ageing population and growing political tension.
(If it were declining it wouldn’t be as successful as he said it was earlier, would it? And the GDP argument is nonsense.) And “cyber-attacks, the destabilization of democracies, and a Russian project that is deeply conservative and opposed to the EU project” is the usual unexamined twaddle. And if Russia dreamed of destroying an entity which was giving “the impression” that its “final aim” was to “destroy” it, it would just have been defending itself, wouldn’t it? But every journey begins with a single step and this is very far from the usual “if Russia would behave ‘like a normal country‘ we might let it back into the club on probation”.
What really struck me was this:
Take India, Russia and China for example. They have a lot more political inspiration than Europeans today. They take a logical approach to the world, they have a genuine philosophy, a resourcefulness that we have to a certain extent lost.
So the West is not “logical”, has a “shallow philosophy” and no ingenuity. (You know it’s true, don’t you?)
One of the major players in the Western World’s ancien régime is saying:
Our day is coming to an end
and the other guys have a better take on things than we do.
We at Strategic Culture Foundation and other alternative outlets may take pleasure that when we said the world was changing, that the Western establishment was dangerously unaware, when we said that Russia and China were stronger and more resilient than complacent op-ed writers thought they were, that the West was fragile, that Western leaders had failed their people, we were not just crazy people shouting at lamp-posts: a principal of the ancien régime agrees with us. Maybe they do read us in the Elysée.
(Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, they haven’t got the memo:
We don’t always get it right. Not always perfect. But our efforts are noble and important, and we try to make America secure and at the same time [improve] the lives of people in every country … to improve their capacity for freedom and liberty in their own nation.)
But, when all is said and done, it’s just a speech. Will we see actions that prove intent? Suggestions: Crimea is Russian; the fighting in Ukraine is a civil war; Assad’s future is up to Syrians; Maduro’s of Venezuelans; everybody out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria ASAP; stop arming the killers in Yemen. Lots to admit to; lots to stop doing.
We may have a clue soon: a Normandy Format meeting on Ukraine to which Macron has invited Putin. If it’s more claptrap about how Moscow must honour its commitments under the Minsk agreement (there are none – the word “Russia” does not appear) then we’ll know that it was just words.
Western media coverage will be interesting to watch – not much at the moment in the Anglophone world and what there is misses the big points; several times it’s presented as just a “turn away” from Trump (which it is – more evidence for my Gordian Knot theory). But what he’s saying is hard to take in if you’ve been cruising along, confident that what is “really obsolete” is not liberalism but “authoritarianism, personality cults and the rule of oligarchs”; it will take time before it sinks in that one of the prominent figures of the Western establishment is pretty close to agreement with Putin.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/22/2019 – 23:30 - Orwellian Nightmare: Six US Cities Make List Of Most Surveilled Places In The World
Orwellian Nightmare: Six US Cities Make List Of Most Surveilled Places In The World
A new report from Comparitech, a technology research firm, details how an Orwellian society, very similar to what was written in George Orwell’s (non-fiction) novel 1984, is playing out across cities in the US. According to Comparitech, six US cities made the top 50 list of the most surveilled places in the world.
Why? Because closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in the US have increased from 33 million in 2012 to nearly 62 million in 2016 and could double or triple from there in the next five years. Both government and private sources operate these cameras in cities.
Surprisingly, CNN HQ-host Atlanta was the US city to make the top ten list, with 15.56 cameras per thousand residents. Cities in China dominated the top 10 ten, with 8/10 spots. Cities in China averaged 39.93 to 168.03 cameras per thousand residents. London, England, was No. 6 on the list with 68.40 cameras per thousand residents.
The five other US cities on the top 50 most surveilled places in the world were all Democratic party bastions, including Chicago No. 13 with 13.06 cameras per thousand residents; Washington, DC, No. 28 with 5.61 cameras per thousand residents; San Francisco No. 38 with 3.07 cameras per thousand residents; San Diego No. 42 with 2.48 cameras per thousand residents, and Boston No. 46 with 2.23 cameras per thousand residents.
Kenneth Johnson, former Chicago Police Department commander of the Englewood district, told the New York Times last year that residents shouldn’t be worried about their privacy because the cameras are in public places. “This isn’t a secret. This isn’t an Orwellian ‘Big Brother.'”
Atlanta Sgt. John Chafee told Route Fifty that surveillance cameras “play a vital role” in keeping the public safe and the city is expected to expand its more than 7,800 cameras in the next several years.
“Access to these cameras multiplies the number of eyes we have on the street looking for criminal activity and assisting with situational awareness during large events and gatherings,” Chafee said. “They allow us to identify criminal activity as it is occurring, prevent and deter criminal activity, and capture video evidence when a crime does occur to aid in criminal investigations and prosecutions.”
Privacy rights groups, including the Anti Surveillance Coalition (ASC), have called for San Diego to stop surveilling its citizens through cameras.
“I understand that there may be benefits to crime prevention, but the point is, we have rights and until we talk about privacy rights and our concerns, then we can’t have the rest of the conversation,” Genevieve Jones-Wright of the ASC told NBC San Diego.
And last week, we reported that Edward Snowden laid it all out for both The Guardian and Spiegel Online, in a Moscow interview to promote his new 432-page book, Permanent Record, which will be published worldwide on Tuesday, September 17.
The infamous whistleblower said: “The greatest danger still lies ahead, with the refinement of artificial intelligence capabilities, such as facial and pattern recognition.” Adding that, “An AI-equipped surveillance camera would be not a mere recording device, but could be made into something closer to an automated police officer.”
With more and more US cities entering the Minority Report dystopia, there is no turning back for cities like Atlanta, Washington, DC, San Francisco, San Diego, and Boston after the implementation of mass surveillance cameras. Artificial intelligence will be the next layer added to these cameras in the early 2020s, acting as automated police officers, as individual rights and privacy are inexorably stripped away in the US government’s quest for supreme control over everything.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/22/2019 – 23:00 - Google's "Quantum Supremacy" To Render All Cryptocurrency & Military Secrets Breakable
Google’s “Quantum Supremacy” To Render All Cryptocurrency & Military Secrets Breakable
Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,
Google’s announcement that it has achieved “quantum supremacy” with a 53-qubit quantum computer greases the skids for all cryptocurrency and military secrets protected by cryptography to be breakable in a stunning new development that will change the world.
The Big Tech corporation’s new quantum processor took a mere 200 seconds to complete a computing task that would normally require 10,000 years on a supercomputer.
The 53-qubit quantum computer can break any 53-bit cryptography in seconds, meaning Bitcoin’s 256-bit encryption is vulnerable once Google scales its quantum computing to 256 qubits, something their own scientists say will be possible by 2022.
Modern military cryptography will also eventually be rendered obsolete given that the number of qubits in Google’s quantum computers will double at least every year, according to the report, growing at “double exponential rate,” which is even faster than Moore’s Law.
At this rate, Google will be able to break all military encryption by 2024, a frightening prospect given the company’s close ties to China.
The prospects of Google controlling such vast supercomputer power when it applies to the field of surveillance is also chilling.
“Google will rapidly come to dominate the world, controlling most of the money, all speech, all politics, most science and technology, most of the news media and all public officials,” writes Mike Adams.
“Google will become the dominant controlling authoritarian force on planet Earth, and all humans will be subservient to its demands. Democracy, truth and freedom will be annihilated.”
Read Adams’ full article for a comprehensive breakdown of what this means for the future – a beast system controlled by Google that makes Skynet look amateur in comparison, controls all secrets, communications and financial transactions.
Google has come a long way from “don’t be evil” to establishing a monopoly over technology that will literally allow them to become the most dominant force on the planet.
* * *
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/22/2019 – 22:30 - SoftBank Is Hiring A… Valuations Expert
SoftBank Is Hiring A… Valuations Expert
With its marquee investments, Uber and WeWork foundering now that the IPO investing public has been dragged out of its idiotic zombified trance following the realization that insiders exiting their stake to naive retail investors at all time highs is not a recipe for success (Theranos investor Larry Elison piling on is certainly not helping), and with some even speculating that SoftBank’s entire investing style is nothing but one giant, self-perpetuating ponzi scheme (with the twist that SoftBank is the only investors who keeps dumping money at higher and higher valuations) based on cheap money, hype, hyperventilatio and slide charts such as this one…
… it appears that Japan’s VC behemoth is starting to sweat.
Proof: the company with the now infamous $100 billion SoftBank Vision Fund is seeking to hire a, drumroll, Valuations Director.
Here is what the new hire will be expected to do:
This position represents a unique opportunity to provide valuations expertise within a dynamic corporate venture capital environment, working with visionary senior management team on strategic investments, performance monitoring and valuation of our investments primary focused on growth stage world-class technology companies.
The Valuations Director will be primarily responsible for determining the fair value of investments for quarterly financial reporting and providing valuable and timely insight to management on our investments.
No, this is not a joke: it’s real.
As for Masayoshi, here is some free, if valuable and timely insight: this is a hire you probably should have considered a few years ago.
Meanwhile, for those who hope to become as rich as SoftBank’s head – and Japan’s richest man – Masayoshi Son, who lost a $70 billion fortune when the dot com bubble burst, only to rebuild it from scratch thanks to the latest, and biggest ever, asset price bubble courtesy of central banks, only to lose it all again very soon, here’s a suggestion: find a way to, ahem, secure funding to short every single one of SoftBank’s current portfolio companies with leverage.
Then sit back and wait five or so years to find out who will play you in the sequel to the Big Short.
h/t ThreeCommaKid
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/22/2019 – 22:05 - China's Golden Corridor – Gold Reserves And Negative Yield
China’s Golden Corridor – Gold Reserves And Negative Yield
Authored by Marin Katusa via InternationalMan.com,
Earlier this year, gold prices hit all-time highs in most major currencies.
The British Pound… the Canadian Dollar… the Australian Dollar… the Indian Rupee… the Japanese Yen… the Chinese Yuan… the South African Rand… and more.
It also broke above $1,500 in dollar terms. The highest it’s been in 6 years.
This shouldn’t come as a total surprise…a trade war between global economic powers, global debt spiraling out of control…
Iran and North Korea building up weapons…
The world is in uncharted waters.
Are the chickens going to come home to roost?
Today I’ll share a few of the major key themes that every investor needs to be aware of right now.
The Chinese Yuan is in Freefall
Given the recent onslaught of tweets from Donald Trump, you’d think the Chinese Yuan had just started falling.
In reality though, the Yuan has been depreciating since 2014.
This trend was further magnified when the Chinese government let the Yuan fall below its symbolic threshold of 7 Yuan per U.S. dollar.
When this happened, the #POTUS tweeting machine went out in full force, labeling China a currency manipulator.
Below is a chart which shows the historical exchange rate between the Yuan and the U.S. dollar.
Currency devaluation aside, it makes a lot of sense to own assets which hold their value.
Physical assets like gold, art and vintage wine all make for excellent hedges against currency devaluation.
But it’s tough for major institutions or governments to buy enough art or wine to truly protect themselves. This leaves gold as the number one acquisition.
It should come as no surprise that central banks have been very active in buying gold.
Especially China’s…
The Chinese Central Bank is Buying TONS of Gold
And I mean that literally.
Just so far this year, the Chinese have acquired 2.7 million ounces (92.5 tons) of gold. Using a spot price of $1,500, that’s $4 billion worth of bullion.
Below is a chart showing Chinese Gold Reserves.
As a country focused on exporting more than it imports, it’s no surprise China wants to keep its currency value low. I could see the Chinese accumulating more gold over the coming months if their currency continues to weaken due to the trade war.
The U.S.-China trade war has not only impacted the American and Chinese economies, but the entire pattern for global trade as well.
Leading global economic indicators like national Purchasing Manufacturing Indexes have only recently begun to nosedive. And this could easily be just the tip of the iceberg.
To make matters worse, it’s getting harder and harder to find somewhere safe to park cash.
In times of chaos, government bonds are usually a standard go-to investment.
However, times are changing.
Right now, many government bonds actually have a negative yield.
You read that right – if you invest $100 into negative yield or a government bond in almost any European nation, you’re going to get back less than $100 in 10 years’ time.
How crazy is that?
Below is a table which shows the current yields on government bonds in nations around the world. The darker the red, the more negative the yield.
I don’t see this changing anytime soon either.
I believe there’s more devaluation to come.
Below is a chart which shows the soaring amount of negative yield government debt. It has recently surpassed $15 trillion.
More alarming is the amount of corporate debt that has also hit negative yield. Currently there is over $1.2 trillion in negative yield corporate debt.
Just a few years ago there was virtually none. Below is a chart showing this dramatic increase.
Unquestionably there is blood in the streets of the bond market. Investors have no choice but to look for other places as stores of value.
That’s when investors look to the famous “pet rock” and “barbarous relic” for some wealth protection.
After all, it’s that or slowly lighting your money on fire buying bonds in countries with negative interest rates.
With bond yields the least attractive they’ve been in years, investors and central banks are turning to gold.
And with the recent surge in the Commitment of Traders long positioning and the price of gold smashing through $1,500… many pundits are saying “THIS IS IT!”
The technical chartists are all coming out with their best head and shoulders, bull flag, sliding wedge and upside-down watermelon patterns that determine the next leg up in gold.
To be honest, I couldn’t care less what the talking heads say their target price is.
From a fundamental perspective gold is very strong right now.
With nearly two decades of experience managing a fund focused on the commodity sector… I know that being positioned in the best gold developers and gold producers offers tremendous leverage to rising gold prices.
My subscribers and I are up over 100% on one of my strongest conviction investments so far this year.
Many of our other positions are up over 50% so far this year. Our portfolio is incredibly well positioned to profit from the global market chaos.
The unrest in China, the trade war and the rise of negative yield debt aren’t likely to be cleanly resolved anytime soon.
And in the meantime, many will flock to the safest haven they know – gold.
* * *
Negative interest rates are spreading like wildfire around the world. Investors have no choice but to look for other places as stores of value. That’s why many smart investors are running towards gold. It’s also why the big buyers, like China and Russia, are accumulating as much gold as possible. Here’s the bottom line… Negative interest rates and the devaluation of currencies will hurt a lot of people, particularly savers and retirees. But they will also give rocket fuel to the coming bull market in precious metals. That’s precisely why legendary speculator Doug Casey and resource expert Marin Katusa just released an urgent video on this topic. Doug and Marin breakdown exactly what is coming, and what you can do about it. Click here to watch it now.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/22/2019 – 21:40 - 'Vaguely Troubling': BIS Warns Of Financial Disaster Amid $17 Trillion In Negative-Yield Debt
‘Vaguely Troubling’: BIS Warns Of Financial Disaster Amid $17 Trillion In Negative-Yield Debt
When the central bank for central banks publishes its quarterly review, the world should take note.
Claudio Borio, Head of the Monetary and Economic Department at the BIS, published the BIS Quarterly Review, September 2019 on Sunday, revealing how the increasing acceptance of negative interest rates has reached “vaguely troubling” levels.
The statement comes after the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank (ECB) cut interest rates to flight a global manufacturing slowdown — Borio said that the effectiveness of monetary policy is severely waning and might not be able to counter the global downturn, in other words, JPMorgan Global Composite PMI might print sub 50 for a considerable period of time.
“The room for monetary policy maneuver has narrowed further. Should a downturn materialize, monetary policy will need a helping hand, not least from a wise use of fiscal policy in those countries where there is still room for maneuver.”
The BIS, known as the ‘central bankers’ bank,’ said the recent easing by the Fed, ECB, and PBOC, has pushed yields lower across the world, contributing to the more than $17 trillion in negative-yielding tradeable bonds.
From Germany to Japan, 10-year government debt rates have plunged into negative territory, in recent times.
“Against this backdrop, sovereign bond yields naturally declined further, at times driven by the prospect of slower economic activity and heightened risks, at others by central banks’ reassuring easing measures. At one point, before the recent uptick in yields, the amount of sovereign and even corporate bonds trading at negative rates hit a new record, over USD 17 trillion according to certain estimates, equivalent to roughly 20% of world GDP. Indeed, some households, too, could borrow at negative rates. A growing number of investors are paying for the privilege of parting with their money. Even at the height of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007-09, this would have been unthinkable. There is something vaguely troubling when the unthinkable becomes routine,” Borio warned.
Central bankers have already acknowledged that the flurry of recent rate cuts had continued to deplete their already-limited firepower – which would make their ability to fight a prolonged downturn less effective than ever before.
ECB President Mario Draghi said earlier this month that “it’s high time for the fiscal policy to take charge,” an indirect admittance that monetary policy has run its course.
“Almost all the things that you see in Europe, the creation of more than 11 million jobs in a short period of time, the recovery, the sustained growth for several quarters, were by and large produced by our monetary policy. There was very little else… Now it’s high time for the fiscal policy to take charge.”
Draghi: We are very concerned about the pension industry and related services. Negative rates are necessary instruments of monetary policy. It has created a lot of positive effects. How do we speed up these effects so that interest rates can go up? The answer is fiscal policy.
— European Central Bank (@ecb) September 12, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Borio said global markets were alarmed this summer by the inversion of the US and other major countries’ bond yield curves.
He also warned about the corporate debt market, specifically major imbalances in leveraged loans known as collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) which “represent a clear vulnerability” to the global financial system.
And perhaps gold is ‘fearing’ the same “unthinkable” status quo that Borio warns of as it rises alongside negative rates…
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/22/2019 – 21:15 - Insane And Ill-Advised: Trump's Future War With Iran, Part 2
Insane And Ill-Advised: Trump’s Future War With Iran, Part 2
Authored by US Army Major (ret.) Danny Sjursen via The Future of Freedom Foundation,
Iran is an enigma to most American policymakers. Iranian foreign and defense policies, according to Kenneth Katzman, are “products of overlapping, and sometimes contradictory, motivations.” The key question is whether Iran is an expansionist, theocratic, Shia-chauvinist state, or a rational, defensive bulwark with only limited regional aspirations. While it is a bit of both, it is generally more defensive and decidedly not a strategic or existential threat to the United States.
Iran’s role in the region is not entirely negative. Particularly in Iraq, Iran and the United States have recently found themselves on the same side. Both states opposed the Islamic State. Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units, a largely Shia Iraqi militia network, were critical in stopping the spread of ISIS and then fighting back against them. These militias have enjoyed significant Iranian support, without becoming a totally Iranian initiative. At the same time, they have been significant drivers of sectarianism and have raised worries that they will undermine the Iraqi government’s authority at Iran’s behest. Iran and the United States also both opposed the independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan and the attempted coup in Turkey. Those areas of overlapping interest are narrow and often temporary, yet they highlight the danger of viewing U.S.-Iranian relations as a zero-sum competition.
There are also limits on the threat Iran poses to vital U.S. interests in the Middle East. Thanks to the 2016 nuclear agreement, the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon has been delayed for a number of years. Iran would have to either develop covert facilities, which the agreement’s inspection regime makes more difficult; or signal its intentions to weaponize by expelling inspectors, an act that would quickly isolate it diplomatically.
Overestimating Iran’s power
For all the standard neocon alarmism of the Trump team, Iran’s conventional military power is actually quite limited, especially in comparison with the United States’. In order to achieve control of the key oil regions at the western end of the Persian Gulf, Iran would have to advance over the same open desert terrain where American air power and ground forces crushed Saddam Hussein’s army in 1991. Even before being confronted by America, Iranian invaders would have to defeat the Gulf Arab militaries, which enjoy better equipment than Iran and are more capable than the forces Iraq routed in Kuwait. Iran’s military is not built to engage in offensives, but to defend against attackers by means of a “mosaic” of independent military commands across the country. Any shift to include some offensive elements will take many years to realize — years in which Iran’s neighbors can strengthen their defenses.
Iran’s threat to the Gulf oil flow is also overstated. In order to stop oil shipments, Iran would have to deploy large numbers of mines, swarming small craft, and missile launchers. Strategically, the global economic impact of choking the oil flow would isolate Iran, a very negative outcome that Iranian policymakers would have to consider in deciding whether to launch a Gulf offensive. Thus, there are many reasons to suspect Iranian action in the Strait would be focused more on harassment than on achieving a sustained interruption in the oil flow. And a harassment campaign, while it would boost oil prices, would allow much oil to get through, limiting the impact on the U.S. economy.
Even Iran’s most dastardly activity, its support for terrorism, has a measure of predictability. Iranian terror attacks have often been not bolts from the blue, but responses to attacks by others. For example, between 2010 and 2012, Iran faced a wave of assassinations of nuclear scientists and the use of the U.S./Israeli-created Stuxnet cyber weapon against Iranian centrifuge facilities. Outside Iran, there was a similar uptick in Iranian-backed terror attacks and plots against Israeli, American, and Saudi targets, along with a major cyberattack on Saudi Arabia’s state oil company. The 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina came one month after an Israeli airstrike killed the leader of Hezbollah; the terrorists explicitly stated that their action was a response to that killing. This is not to excuse such activity, but rather illuminates that there are two sides to this, and every, story.
Iran and its neighbors
In general, Iran’s (limited) assertiveness has only damaged its relations with its neighbors. Their fear of Tehran, coupled with a perceived U.S. withdrawal during the Obama administration, encouraged them to strengthen their militaries, including advanced missile defense systems. That was by far preferable to the United States’ taking the lead to check Iran which, as recent history demonstrates, only increases tensions.
Iran’s support for Syria has only compounded its own regional isolation. Sending Shia militias to back a tyrannical non-Sunni regime in its brutal war against a largely Sunni opposition has turned Sunnis against Iran in large numbers. While the West favors Iran’s current president, Hassan Rouhani, far more than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Syria war has helped make the reverse true in the Arab world. Iran’s best proxy, Hezbollah, has had a similar experience — it went from great popular support after fighting Israel to a draw in 2006 to growing isolation as it became entangled in Syria.
At the same time, Iran has been able to cooperate successfully with Russia, particularly in Syria. Given Iran’s strong nationalistic tendencies — including a constitution that forbids any foreign military base to be established on its soil — it is noteworthy that Iran has allowed Russian aircraft and cruise missiles to overfly Iran on their way to Syria, and even allowed Russian bombers to temporarily operate from an airbase in western Iran for operations in Syria. That arrangement fell apart after a week because of Iranian frustration with Russia’s giving it major publicity, amplifying controversy in Iran. Russia also sold Iran the S-300 air defense missile system, a relatively advanced system that could significantly complicate any U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran. However, the Iranian-Russian relationship has many complexities. Roughly a decade elapsed between Russia’s selling Iran the S-300 and the system’s being delivered and going operational, in part because of a Russian decision to withhold the weapons. That was above and beyond its obligations under Security Council restrictions on weapons sales to Iran, signaling a potential hesitation on the part of Russia to empower Iran with the technology.
Russia has long had a friendly relationship with the Kurds, and responded to Iraqi Kurdistan’s independence referendum ambiguously, contrasting sharply with Iran’s opposition to the referendum and support for Iraqi military operations against the Kurds. Russia’s oil giant, Rosneft, a firm majority-owned by the Russian government, has provided the Kurds with significant financial support and expanded its position in Kurdistan, even during the height of the crisis with Baghdad.
In Syria, Russia favors a strong, central Syrian state, and Iran favors another Lebanon, with local sectarian proxies loyal to Tehran, not Damascus. Russia fears Sunni jihadism, and can reasonably expect that the Iranian tendency to sectarianize conflicts would strengthen such jihadism in Syria. Moreover, Russia has at times worked to limit Iranian influence in key areas of Syria, and has a close relationship with Iran’s bitter rival, Israel.
Iran’s influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon is clearly greater than it was prior to the Iraq War and the Arab Spring. Iraq, in particular, went from being Iran’s firmest foe and a serious check on its power to being an area where Iranian-backed militias and political factions have a notable impact. That was the ultimate outcome of America’s invasion of Iraq, and should give policymakers pause before repeating the folly in Iran. Iran has a greater ability to shape events in Syria, thanks to its growing weakness, and in Lebanon, thanks to its perennial divisions. The key question for U.S. interests is whether it will lead to Iranian dominance of the region — and specifically, of the region’s oil exports. It won’t!
In the near-to-medium term, Iraq and Syria are unlikely to be great assets for Iran, since both states have been wrecked, divided, and destabilized by war. Syria in particular will require tremendous reconstruction in order to be a source of strength for those who control it. The proxy forces and foreign militiamen Iran has used to expand its regional influence aren’t likely to be effective at governance, especially in the inclusive and professional way that would foster reconciliation. Moreover, given the ethnic and sectarian divisions in Iraq and Syria, fearful local powers will find many potential partners as they seek to raise the costs of Iranian rule in the area. Thus, it is possible that American allies in the region will empower radical jihadist groups in their efforts to build resistance to Iran, or that they will unwittingly cause a regional conflict while trying to counter Iran.
Over the last few months, Trump’s team — led, apparently, by John Bolton — has edged the United States to the brink of war by provoking Iran’s insecure and defensive leaders. Re-imposed U.S. sanctions on Tehran hurt the people more than they hurt the governing elites of Iran and serve mainly to drive the populace into the arms of the nationalist mullahs. Then the United States declared an official portion of Iran’s military — the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) — a “terrorist” organization. That unnecessary and absurd decision prompted Tehran to counter (with some validity) that the U.S. military command in the Middle East, USCENTCOM, was the actual terrorist organization.
Iran, strangled by sanctions, and threatened by public pronouncements of U.S. bellicosity as well as American troops based in a veritable ring around the country, then proceeded to “act out.” Trump’s response to these modest provocations has brought the United States to the edge of war — something Bolton has long desired. When various oil tankers in the Persian Gulf were attacked, Trump immediately (with little evidence) blamed Iran. Then, when Iran shot down an unmanned American drone in the Gulf, Trump claimed that he’d come within ten minutes of bombing Iran before standing down. He has not, however, ruled out future use of military force against Tehran, and, with Iran now declaring its intent to enrich more uranium than was allowed by the JCPOA — which admittedly the United States dropped out of — the war drums have certainly not ceased to beat.
Exit and engage.
For most of its history, the United States has not been deeply involved in the Middle East. However, with the Persian Gulf intervention in 1991, America shifted to an active, interventionist (even hegemonic) role. Aided by a large military presence posted throughout the Gulf region, the United States attempted to actively manage Gulf security. That new strategy has entangled the United States in constant conflict, from enforcing the Iraqi no-fly zones, to overthrowing Saddam, to a system of deadly sanctions on Iraq, to attempts to stabilize Iraq, to driving back ISIS in Syria, and to containing Iran. All that has proven disastrous for the American republic and for the region as a whole.
We should generally expect Iran’s neighbors to respond to Iranian pressure with resistance, not acquiescence. The United States does not need to play any role in the region. Indeed, a policy of nonintervention on the part of the United States would give them stronger incentives to work together and to bear more of the burden of their own defense. Conversely, increased U.S. support for Iran’s neighbors against Iran may yield less cooperation among them and greater dependency on the United States. The recent Qatar crisis, which broke out days after a firm U.S. declaration of support for Saudi Arabia, highlights the danger that stronger U.S. backing can suppress regional cooperation.
Iran must be given some breathing space and an assurance of security. An American pledge not to undertake a regime-change operation in Tehran would be a solid start. Let us remember that matters in the Persian Gulf, the Arab world, and Central Asia are vital strategic interests and potentially existential threats to the Islamic Republic. U.S. presence and interests in the area are but distant and tangential by comparison. Courage and statesmanship do not need to mean war. Context and nuance ought to reign, and Trump must realize that even the loss of a drone, potential attacks on foreign oil tankers, and Iranian support for regional proxies — even if all that is true — ought not to reach the threshold of war. It is time, in short, for the “dealmaker” to strike a deal with Iran.
Avoiding catastrophe or destabilization
Given the chaos that followed regime change in Iraq and Libya, the U.S. government should not pursue regime change in Iran and should simply get out of the Middle East entirely. It should not engage in a war with Iran. Period. An invasion of the large, mountainous, nationalistic Iranian plateau would be a military and diplomatic disaster. Instead, America should offer Iran a path to better relations, even under its current regime. The United States must accept the world and region as it is, not as it would like it to be. That requires an understanding of two inconvenient truths: that the view from Tehran demonstrates the United States has often been the aggressor in the bilateral relationship, and furthermore, that Iran is not the monster of the hawkish imagination. Iran is complex and nuanced — there are no simple solutions. America’s favorite policy tool, its military, has the least efficacy in the current situation. Every president from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama to Donald Trump has refused to take U.S. military options “off the table,” but that’s precisely what prudence requires.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/22/2019 – 20:50
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...