Apr 24

Today’s News 24th April 2022

  • How Much Are We Prepared To Sacrifice To Help The US Win A Propaganda War Against Putin?
    How Much Are We Prepared To Sacrifice To Help The US Win A Propaganda War Against Putin?

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Substack,

    There’s a very important question that we all need to be asking ourselves at this point in history, and that question is as follows: how much are we as a society willing to sacrifice so that the US government can win a propaganda war against Vladimir Putin?

    Let me explain.

    One severely under-discussed aspect of the latest round of escalations in Silicon Valley censorship which began at the start of the Ukraine war is the fact that it’s an entirely unprecedented order of censorship protocol. While it might look similar to all the other waves of social media purges and new categories of banned content that we’ve been experiencing since it became mainstream doctrine after the 2016 US election that tech platforms need to strictly regulate online speech, the justifications for it have taken a drastic deviation from established patterns.

    What sets this new censorship escalation apart from its predecessors is that this time nobody’s pretending that it’s being done in the interests of the people. With the censorship of racists the argument was that they were inciting hate crimes and racial harassment. With the censorship of Alex Jones and QAnon the argument was that they were inciting violence. With the censorship of Covid skeptics the argument was that they were promoting misinformation that could be deadly. Even with the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story it was argued that there was a need to protect election integrity from disinformation of potentially foreign origin.

    With censorship relating to the Ukraine war there is no argument that it’s being done to help the people.

    There is no case to be made that letting people say wrong things about this war kills Ukrainians, Americans, or anyone else. There is no case to be made that disputing claims about Russian war crimes will damage America’s democratic processes. It’s just, “Well we can’t have people saying wrong things about a war, can we?”

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

    Ask a properly brainwashed liberal why they support the censorship of someone who disputes US narratives about Russian war crimes in Bucha or Mariupol and they’ll probably tell you something like “Well, it’s disinformation!” or “Because it’s propaganda!” or “How much is Putin paying you??” But what they won’t be able to do is articulate exactly what specific harm is being done by such speech in the same way that they could when defending the censorship of Covid skeptics or the factions responsible for last year’s riot in the Capitol building. 

    The one argument you’ll get, if you really press the issue, is that the United States is in a propaganda war with Russia, and it is in our society’s interests for our media institutions to help the United States win that propaganda war. Cold wars are fought between nuclear powers because hot warfare would risk annihilating both nations, leaving only other forms of war like psychological warfare available. There’s no argument that this new escalation in censorship saves lives or protects elections, but there is an argument that it can help facilitate the long-term cold war agendas of the United States.

    But what does that mean exactly? It means if we accept this argument we’re knowingly consenting to a situation where all the major news outlets, websites and apps that people look to for information about the world are geared not toward telling us true things about reality, but toward beating Vladimir Putin in some weird psywar. It means abandoning any ambitions of being a truth-based civilization that is guided by facts, and instead accepting an existence as a propaganda-based civilization geared toward making sure we all think thoughts that hurt Moscow’s long-term strategic interests.

    And it’s just absolutely freakish that this is a decision that has already been made for us, without any public discussion as to whether or not that’s the kind of society we want to live in. They jumped right from “We’re censoring speech to protect you from violence and viruses” to “We’re censoring speech to help our government conduct information warfare against a foreign adversary.” Without skipping a beat.

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

    The consent-manufacturing class has helped pave the way for this smooth transition with their relentless and ongoing calls for more and more censorship, and for years we’ve been seeing signs that they view it as their duty to help facilitate an information war against Russia.

    Back in 2018 we saw a BBC reporter admonish a former high-ranking British navy official for speculating that the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria was a false flag, a claim we now have mountains of evidence is likely true thanks to whistleblowers from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The reason the reporter gave for her objection to those comments was that “we’re in an information war with Russia.”

    “Given that we’re in an information war with Russia on so many fronts, do you think perhaps it’s inadvisable to be stating this so publicly given your position and your profile? Isn’t there a danger that you’re muddying the waters?” the BBC’s Annita McVeigh asked Admiral Alan West after his comments.

    We saw a similar indication in the mass media a few weeks later in an interview with former Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who was admonished by CNN’s Chris Cuomo for highlighting the completely uncontroversial fact that the US is an extremely egregious offender when it comes to interferences in foreign elections. 

    “You know, that would be the case for Russia to make, not from the American perspective,” Cuomo said in response to Stein’s entirely accurate remarks.

    “Of course, there’s hypocrisy involved, lots of different big state actors do lots of things that they may not want people to know about. But let Russia say that the United States did it to us, and here’s how they did it, so this is fair play.”

    Which is the same as saying, “Forget what’s factually true. Don’t say true things that might help Russian interests. That’s Russia’s job. Our job here on CNN is to say things that hurt Russian interests.”

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

    We can trace the mainstreaming of the idea that it’s the western media’s job to manipulate information in the public interest, rather than simply tell the truth, back to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential win. In what was arguably the most significant political moment in the US since 9/11 and its aftermath, the consent-manufacturing class came to the decision that Trump’s election wasn’t a failure of status quo politics but a failure of information control.

    In October 2020 during the Hunter Biden laptop scandal The Spectator‘s Stephen L Miller described how the consensus formed among the mainstream press since Clinton’s 2016 loss that it was their moral duty to hide facts from the public which might lead to Trump’s re-election.

    “For almost four years now, journalists have shamed their colleagues and themselves over what I will call the ‘but her emails’ dilemma,” Miller writes.

    “Those who reported dutifully on the ill-timed federal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server and spillage of classified information have been cast out and shunted away from the journalist cool kids’ table. Focusing so much on what was, at the time, a considerable scandal, has been written off by many in the media as a blunder. They believe their friends and colleagues helped put Trump in the White House by focusing on a nothing-burger of a Clinton scandal when they should have been highlighting Trump’s foibles. It’s an error no journalist wants to repeat.”

    Once “journalists” accepted that their most important job is not to tell the truth but to keep people from thinking bad thoughts about the status quo political system, it was inevitable that they’d start enthusiastically cheerleading for more internet censorship. They see it as their duty, which is why now the leading proponents of online censorship are corporate media reporters.

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

    But it shouldn’t be this way. There’s no legitimate reason for the Silicon Valley proxies of the most powerful government on earth to be censoring people for disagreeing with that government about a war, yet this is exactly what’s happening and it’s happening more and more. It should alarm us all that it’s becoming increasingly acceptable to silence people not because they’re circulating dangerous disinfo, nor even because they’re saying things that are in any way false, but solely because they are saying things which undermine the US infowar.

    People should absolutely be allowed to say things which disagree with the most powerful empire in history about a war. They should even be allowed to say brazenly false things about that war, because otherwise only the powerful will be allowed to say brazenly false things about it.

    Free speech is important not because it’s nice to be able to say what you want, but because the free flow of ideas and information creates a check on the powerful. It gives people the ability to hold the powerful to account. Which is exactly why the powerful work to eliminate it.

    We should see it as a huge, huge problem that so much of the world has been herded onto these giant monopolistic speech platforms that conduct censorship in complete alignment with the mightiest power structure in the world. This is the exact opposite of putting a check on power.

    How much are we as a society willing to give up for the US government and its allies to win a propaganda war against Putin? Are we willing to commit to being a civilization for which the primary consideration with any piece of data is not whether or not it’s true, but whether it helps undermine Russia?

    This is a conversation which should already have been going on in mainstream circles for some time now, but it never even started. Let’s start it.

    *  *  *

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 23:30

  • Satellite Maps Expose Shanghai's Supply Chain Standstill
    Satellite Maps Expose Shanghai’s Supply Chain Standstill

    China has mandated a strict “zero COVID” policy since the onset of the global pandemic, which has led to tight lockdowns across the country whenever cases have started to spike.

    Recently, lockdown restrictions have been enacted in major cities like Shenzhen and Shanghai, as China deals with one of its worst outbreaks since Wuhan in December 2019.

    As Visual Capitalist’s Carmen Ang and Nick Routley detail below, these cautionary measures have had far-reaching impacts on China’s economy, especially on its supply chain and logistics operations. Shanghai’s port system, which handles about one-fifth of China’s export containers, is currently experiencing significant delays as a result of the recent government lockdown.

    Shipping volume has dipped drastically since early March this year, right after partial lockdowns began in Shanghai. By the end of March, as restrictions continued to tighten up, shipping activity dipped nearly 30% compared to pre-lockdown levels. And while activity has recently picked up, it’s still far below average shipment volumes prior to the recent lockdown.

    While the port is still technically operating, shipping delays will likely cause hiccups in the global supply chain. That’s because the Shanghai port is a major hub for international trade, and one of the largest and busiest container ports in the world.

    How Bad is the Back-Up?

    Here’s a closer look at satellite imagery that was captured by the Sentinel-1 satellite, which shows the current congestion at Shanghai’s port as of April 14, 2022. In the image, a majority of the white dots are cargo ships, many of which have been stuck in limbo for days.

    Quite a difference from 3 years ago…

    Traffic has been building up at the Shanghai terminal. As of April 19, 2022, over 470 ships are still waiting to deliver goods to China. If you’d like to check out the Shanghai ports most up-to-date traffic, this live map by MarineTraffice provides real-time updates.

    The number of container vessels waiting outside of Chinese ports today is 195% higher than it was in February.

     – WINDWARD

    Much of these delays are due to transport issues—an estimated 90% of trucks that support import and export activities are currently offline, which is causing dwell time for containers at Shanghai marine terminals to increase drastically.

    Wait times for at Shanghai marine terminals has increased nearly 75% since the lockdowns began. Delays at the Shanghai terminal have sent ships to neighboring ports in Ningbo and Yangshan, but those ports are beginning to get congested as well.

    The global impacts of this current bottleneck are still pending, and depend greatly on the length of Shanghai’s lockdown. According to an article in Freight Waves, this could turn into the biggest supply chain issue since the start of the pandemic if China’s marine shipping congestion isn’t cleared up soon.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 23:00

  • China Would Support Russia Even If It Used Tactical Nuclear Weapons In Ukraine War: Former Defense Official
    China Would Support Russia Even If It Used Tactical Nuclear Weapons In Ukraine War: Former Defense Official

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

    The Chinese Communist Party would continue to support Vladimir Putin’s regime in Russia in the event that it used tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, according to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Graham Allison.

    A rocket launches from missile system as part of a ground-based intercontinental ballistic missile test launched from the Plesetsk facility in northwestern Russia on Dec. 9, 2020. (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)

    “The answer is yes,” Allison said when asked if China would continue its support of Russia regardless of escalations by Putin.

    “Even if it comes to Putin’s use of tactical nuclear weapons on a target in Ukraine.”

    Allison, a professor at Harvard University, delivered the remarks as part of an April 19 lecture on the strategic situation between China, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States at the Institute for International and Strategic Studies, a security-focused think tank.

    He warned that the United States and China were headed towards a “catastrophic outcome,” due to their increasingly antagonistic rivalry, and that China’s burgeoning alliance with Russia complicated international security given increasing fears that Russia could deploy a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

    Allison, who has been a member of the Secretary of Defense’s Defense Policy Board since 1985, cautioned that tensions would continue to worsen due to a lack of understanding in Washington about China’s strategic thinking vis-à-vis Russia.

    “Expect things to get worse before they get worse,” Allison said.

    “Most people in Washington still cannot accept the fact that Xi has built with Putin’s Russia a functional alliance that is operationally more significant than most of the U.S. treaty alliances.”

    The budding alliance between Xi and Putin was solidified on Feb. 4, with the announcement of a “no-limits” partnership, which China later reaffirmed amid Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

    Allison said that the greatest challenge would now be to manage the world’s fiercest rivalry between the Chinese regime and the United States without a catastrophic war. It was a point that U.S. military leadership has itself warned of, now that the United States must strategically consider the combined nuclear power of both China and Russia in the event of military hostilities.

    To that end, Allison said that policymakers should expect Russia to become “locked into China as a dependency,” and that Xi had done “brilliantly” in manipulating and managing Putin’s ego as a now-junior partner in the arrangement. An arrangement, Allison argued, that could now outlive both leaders.

    “Xi has done this … but this will institutionalize Russia’s role as a vassal state, basically providing natural resources for [China],” Allison said.

    Allison said that what Chinese communist leadership wanted most was “benign inattention” from the international community, which would allow it to continue to expand its nuclear arsenal and economic coercion with less interference. As such, he said that China would use Russia to keep the international community’s eyes averted from its own actions, and would not interfere with any of Russia’s aggressive actions.

    When asked if China could actually leverage its partnership with Russia to displace the United States as the world’s greatest power, Allison’s response was less than optimistic.

    “Is that conceivable?” Allison said. “Unfortunately, it is.”

    “The Chinese study war way, way, way more seriously than we do.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 22:30

  • "Will Be Like Home But Faster" – Starlink Inks First In-Flight WiFi Deal With Carrier 
    “Will Be Like Home But Faster” – Starlink Inks First In-Flight WiFi Deal With Carrier 

    Anyone who has flown and used in-flight wireless internet has experienced very slow speeds that make it near impossible to run the mobile version of Bloomberg Terminal or Refinitiv Eikon (or anything other than WhatsApp). According to Reuters, that may change as the first airline inked a deal with Elon Musk’s Starlink to equip its jets with high-speed internet. 

    Semi-private jet service JSX plans to outfit its 77 30-seat Embraer jets with Starlink terminals developed specifically for the aviation market. 

    JSX CEO Alex Wilcox told CNBC, “We’ll be the first to have [Starlink] on an airplane.” He said Starlink service on JSX flights is pending regulatory approval and may be available on its fleet by the fourth quarter. 

    JSX’s announcement comes days after Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian told WSJ about its exploratory tests of Starlink’s technology. He declined to mention specifics. 

    In March, Jonathan Hofeller, vice president of Starlink commercial sales, told a conference that Starlink’s technology could overhaul the entire in-flight internet industry. 

    Starlink may experience hurdles in winning contracts with carriers because many are locked in long-term contracts with other providers, such as Gogo Inflight Internet. 

    Starlink on JSX “will be just like home, only faster,” Wilcox said.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 22:00

  • Visualizing The TimeSpiral Evolution Of Earth Since The Big-Bang
    Visualizing The TimeSpiral Evolution Of Earth Since The Big-Bang

    Since the dawn of humanity, we have looked questioningly to the heavens with great interest and awe. We’ve called on the stars to guide us, and have made some of humanity’s most interesting discoveries based on those observations. This also led us to question our existence and how we came to be in this moment in time.

    As Visual Capitalist’s Anshool Deshmukh details below, that journey began some 14 billion years ago, when the Big Bang led to the universe emerging from a hot, dense sea of matter and energy.

    As the cosmos expanded and cooled, they spawned galaxies, stars, planets, and eventually, life.

    In the below visualization, Pablo Carlos Buddassi illustrates this journey of epic proportions in the intricately designed Nature Timespiral, depicting the various eras that the Earth has gone through since the inception of the universe itself.

    Evolutionary Timeline of the World

    Not much is known about what came before the Big Bang, but we do know that it launched a sequence of events that gave rise to the universal laws of physics and the chemical elements that make up matter. How the Earth came about, and life subsequently followed, is a wondrous story of time and change.

    Let’s look at what transpired after the Big Bang to trace our journey through the cosmos.

    The Big Bang and Hadean Eon

    The Big Bang formed the entire universe that we know, including the elements, forces, stars, and planets. Hydrogen and massive dissipation of heat dominated the initial stages of the universe.

    During a time span known as the Hadean eon, our Solar System formed within a large cloud of gas and dust. The Sun’s gravitational pull brought together spatial particles to create the Earth and other planets, but they would take a long time to reach their modern forms.

    Sometime during the first 800 million years of its history, the surface of the Earth changed from liquid to solid.

    Archean Eon (4 – 2.5 billion years ago)

    After its initial formation, the surface of the Earth was extremely hot. This subsequent eon saw the planet cool down massively, giving rise to oceans and continents, and the first recorded history of rocks.

    It was early in the Archean eon that life first appeared on Earth. Our oldest discovered fossils date to roughly 3.5 billion years ago and consist of tiny, preserved microorganisms.

    Paleoproterozoic Era (2.5 – 1.6 billion years ago)

    The first era of the Proterozoic Eon, the Paleoproterozoic, was the longest in Earth’s geological history. Tectonic plates arose and landmasses shifted across the globe—it was the beginning of the formation of the Earth we know today.

    Cyanobacteria, the first organisms using photosynthesis, also appeared during this period. Their photosynthetic activity brought about a rapid upsurge in atmospheric oxygen, resulting in the Great Oxidation Event. This killed off many primordial anaerobic bacterial groups but paved the way for multicellular life to grow and flourish.

    Mesoproterozoic Era (1.6 – 1 billion years ago)

    The Mesoproterozoic occurred during what is known as the “boring billion” stage of Earth’s history. That is due to a lack of widespread geochemical activity and the relative stability of the ocean carbon reservoirs.

    But this era did see the break-up of the supercontinents and the formation of new continents. This period also saw the first noted case of sexual reproduction among organisms and the probable appearance of multicellular organisms and green plants.

    Neoproterozoic Era (1 billion – 542.0 million years ago)

    The Neoproterozoic was arguably the most profound in Earth’s history. It stands at the intersection of the two great tracts of evolutionary time: on the one side, some three billion years of predominantly microbial life, and on the other the inception of a modern biosphere with its extraordinarily diverse large multicellular organisms.

    At the same time, Earth also experienced severe glaciations known as the Cryogenian Period and its first ice age, also known as Snowball Earth.

    The era saw the formation of the ozone layer and the earliest evidence of multicellular life, including the emergence of the first hard-shelled animals, such as trilobites and archaeocyathids.

    Paleozoic Era (541 million – 252 million years ago)

    The Paleozoic is best known for ushering in an explosion of life on Earth, with two of the most critical events in the history of animal life. At its beginning, multicellular animals underwent a dramatic Cambrian explosion in aquatic diversity, and almost all living animals appeared within a few millions of years.

    At the other end of the Paleozoic, the largest mass extinction in history resulted in 96% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life dying out. Halfway between these events, animals, fungi, and plants colonized the land, and the insects took to the air.

    Mesozoic Era (252 million – 66 million years ago)

    The Mesozoic was the Age of Reptiles. Dinosaurs, crocodiles, and pterosaurs ruled the land and air. This era can be subdivided into three periods of time:

    • Triassic (252 to 201.3 million years ago)

    • Jurassic (201.3 to 145 million years ago)

    • Cretaceous (145 to 66 million years ago)

    The rise of the dinosaurs began at the end of the Triassic Period. A fossil of one of the earliest-known dinosaurs, a two-legged omnivore roughly three feet long-named Eoraptor, is dated all the way back to this time.

    Scientists believe the Eoraptor (and a few other early dinosaurs still being discovered today) evolved into the many species of well-known dinosaurs that would dominate the planet during the Jurassic period. They would continue to flourish well into the Cretaceous period, when it is widely accepted that the Chicxulub impactor, the plummeting asteroid that crashed into Earth off the coast of Mexico, brought the reign of the dinosaurs to an abrupt and calamitous end.

    Cenozoic Era (66 million – Present Day)

    After the end of the Age of Dinosaurs, this era saw massive adaptations by natural flora and fauna to survive. The plants and animals that formed during this era look most like those on Earth today.

    The earliest forms of modern mammals, amphibians, birds, and reptiles can be traced back to the Cenozoic. Human history is entirely contained within this period, as apes developed through evolutionary pressure and gave rise to the present-day human being or Homo sapiens.

    Compared to the evolutionary timeline of the world, human history has risen quite rapidly and dramatically. Going from our first stone tools and the Age of the Kings to concrete jungles with modern technology may seem like a long journey, but compared to everything that came before it, is but a brief blink of an eye.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 21:00

  • Japan, New Zealand Boost Defense Cooperation Amid 'Unprecedented Challenges'
    Japan, New Zealand Boost Defense Cooperation Amid ‘Unprecedented Challenges’

    Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    New Zealand and Japan agreed Thursday to strengthen defense cooperation and initiate formal negotiations toward an information-sharing pact as the world faces “unprecedented challenges” from the Russia-Ukraine war.

    Japanese Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida (second right), talks with New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern (third left), during a meeting at his official residence in Tokyo, Japan on April 21, 2022. (Kimimasa Mayama/Getty Images)

    Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida met with visiting New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for the first time on Thursday since his election last year.

    In a joint statement issued after the talks, the two leaders said they agreed to strengthen cooperation in areas like political ties, defense and security, as well as trade and economic growth.

    They also agreed to commence negotiations on an information-sharing agreement to enable closer engagement on international security issues.

    Ardern described Japan as one of New Zealand’s “most important partners in the Indo-Pacific region,” with which it shares common values and approaches to the challenges facing the region.

    “Japan and New Zealand will work together to support economic recovery from COVID-19, combat climate change, promote peace and stability in our region and uphold the global rules-based order,” she said in a statement.

    Kishida and Ardern strongly condemned Russia’s illegal aggression against Ukraine, saying it constituted “a serious threat” to the rules-based international order, with ramifications far beyond Europe and the Indo-Pacific region.

    They demanded an immediate withdrawal of Moscow’s forces in Ukraine and vowed to continue implementing economic sanctions against Russia.

    Their talks also covered the East and South China Seas, where Beijing has increased its military presence. The two leaders said they strongly opposed unilateral actions that seek to alter the status quo by force and escalate tensions in the disputed seas.

    Both leaders reaffirmed the importance of resolving maritime disputes in accordance with international law, calling on relevant parties to adhere to the final and legally binding July 2016 Arbitral Award on the South China Sea.

    Kishida said that Japan and New Zealand “will not tolerate any attempts to alter the status quo by force and oppose them in the East and South China seas or any other regions,” Japan’s media Kyodo News reported.

    Japan and New Zealand also pledged to cooperate in supporting the Pacific island nations’ security and resilience, and condemned North Korea’s ongoing development of nuclear weapons.

    The meeting comes on the heels of the Solomon Islands and China officially signing a security treaty that will allow Beijing to station armed police and troops on the Pacific island.

    On April 18, the United States convened a meeting with officials of Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, during which they expressed concerns about the Solomon-China deal. The White House said that Washington was concerned by the lack of transparency and “unspecified nature” of the agreement.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 20:30

  • Russian Airlines Told To Prepare For World Without GPS 
    Russian Airlines Told To Prepare For World Without GPS 

    Russia’s air traffic regulator sent a warning to airlines about potential upcoming flights without using the American Global Positioning System (GPS). 

    Russian newspaper Izvestia reported Friday that a letter from the Federal Air Transport Agency (FATA) instructed national airlines to be aware of “GPS failures, degradations, and abnormal performance.”

    Areas prone to “jamming” of GPS signals and spoofing attacks include Russia’s western enclave, the Kaliningrad region, over the Black Sea, east of Finland, and the Mediterranean. 

    The letter said FATA would assist aircraft crews when GPS signals are disrupted or turned off. 

    Pilots are advised to immediately inform air traffic controllers of “glitches, degradation and abnormal performance of GPS” or related avionics. Carriers need to assess the risks and limitations associated with failures of navigation instruments and on-board systems using the GPS signal, and conduct additional exercises with flight crews to practice actions in the event of failures in the operation of satellite navigation systems. – Izvestia

    The letter said aircraft crews must be prepared to perform take-off and landings without GPS and rely on backup air navigation aids. 

    Izvestia outlined: “Experts believe that the recommendation to prepare does not mean a ban on the use of GPS.” 

    Several Russian carriers, including Aeroflot and S7, have received FATA’s letter. So far, they’ve yet to encounter GPS issues since the invasion of Ukraine. 

    In mid-March, Dmitry Rogozin, the director-general of Roscosmos and former deputy prime minister of Russia, said the US considered disconnecting Russia from the GPS. He noted that it would be very challenging for the US to do so. 

    FATA’s warning comes after the European Union Aviation Safety Agency warned about increased GPS jamming and spoofing incidents following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

    Since Western sanctions are pushing Russia closer to China as a multi-polar world emerges, perhaps, if the US decides to kick Russian commercial jets off GPS, they could gravitate to a Chinese version. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 20:00

  • Destroying Democracy To Save It? Court Advances Effort To Block GOP Candidates From Ballots
    Destroying Democracy To Save It? Court Advances Effort To Block GOP Candidates From Ballots

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    Below is my column in the Hill on the recent decision of a federal judge to allow a challenge to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.) from appearing on the ballot as an insurrectionist.

    In my view, the underlying claim is meritless. The theory, supported by figures like Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe, runs against the clear language and history of the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Here is the column:

    As the country braces for the midterm elections, the left seems to be rallying behind three D’s: Democracy, Disinformation and Disqualification. The latter effort just received a huge boost from a judge in Georgia who has allowed a challenge to knock Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) off the ballot as an insurrectionist. Nothing says “democracy” like preventing others from voting.

    Many of us have criticized Greene for her inflammatory rhetoric and her extreme views. No less dangerous, though, is the means being used by some of Greene’s critics to get rid of her. It is all part of a new movement to defend democracy by denying it. To paraphrase the Vietnam strategy, democracy can only be saved by destroying it through the denial of speech or the right to vote.

    Many Democratic politicians and pundits have long pushed for censorship as vital to freedom.

    However, if such freedom-is-tyranny claims seem Orwellian, they are nothing compared to the push to disqualify dozens of candidates from appearing on ballots.

    Judge Amy Totenberg ruled that critics could potentially strip Greene from the ballot due to her public comments before and after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot in Congress. Totenberg ruled that Greene’s critics could bring a challenge under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, known as the “Disqualification Clause.” This is the same clause cited by some liberal members of Congress and legal experts as a way to bar dozens of Republicans, including former President Trump, from office for allegedly engaging in insurrection against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

    This argument most recently was used against Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), who also has been opposed by House colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Cawthorn prevailed in a federal court, which dismissed that effort; an appeal of that ruling will be heard May 3 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va.

    There are similar efforts to block members like Arizona GOP Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs from appearing on state ballots.

    Totenberg gave a green light to these constitutional claims despite both the constitutional text and history showing that the claims are meritless.

    Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was written after the 39th Congress convened in December 1865, following the end of the Civil War. At the time, many members were not pleased to see former Confederates like Alexander Stephens (D-Ga.), the Confederacy’s vice president, appear in Congress to retake the very oath they previously violated by waging war against the country.

    Whether Jan. 6 was a riot or an actual insurrection remains a matter of deep and largely partisan disagreement — but the disqualification clause was written in reference to a real Civil War in which more than 750,000 people died in combat. The Confederacy was a separate government with its own army, currency and foreign policy.

    There is another problem: To the extent that a person can be disqualified under the 14th Amendment, it requires action from Congress, not a local board of election. Despite an otherwise long, careful opinion, Totenberg blithely set aside such details, including an 1869 decision by then-Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. The case in question challenged the right of Hugh W. Sheffey to hold a Virginia state court office, given his support for the Confederacy. Chase ruled that Section 3 did not disqualify Sheffey because “legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and disqualification from office “can only be provided for by Congress.”

    Congress later passed the Amnesty Act of 1872, which overrode the Disqualification Clause except for “Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses.”

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that states cannot impose their own qualifications for Congress because it would “erode the structure envisioned by the Framers.” Under such an approach, partisan state election boards could simply conclude that a member is an insurrectionist and prevent voters from being able to make such choices for themselves.

    Totenberg simply insists that barring an insurrectionist is the same as barring someone from running for president who is not a natural-born citizen or who does not meet the age requirement for Congress. However, age and citizenship are easily ascertainable qualifications stated in the Constitution for all candidates. There is no additional finding or action required for such disqualifications. Totenberg is suggesting that a local board declaring a representative to be an insurrectionist is the same as confirming the age or place of birth of a candidate.

    Countries like Iran routinely strike candidates from ballots due to their underlying views or perceived disloyalty. Just as free speech allows good ideas to counteract bad ideas, free elections allow good candidates to prevail over bad candidates. The problem is that you have to be willing to live with the judgment of your fellow citizens rather than control what they read or who they may vote for.

    In fairness to the court, Totenberg complained that “the parties devoted little time and few pages to the complicated questions inspired by this novel situation.” As such, she did not feel comfortable in granting an injunction for Greene. However, that expression of reluctance at the end of the opinion belies the sweeping language used to get there.

    With the other pending cases, this issue may now be headed for a Supreme Court showdown. In the meantime, the Democrats will likely see in November whether the “three D’s” resonate as well with voters as they did with this judge.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 19:30

  • FBI Warns of Targeted Cyber Attacks On Food Plants After Mysterious Rash Of Fires
    FBI Warns of Targeted Cyber Attacks On Food Plants After Mysterious Rash Of Fires

    The FBI’s Cyber Division published a notice this past week warning about increased cyber-attack threats on agricultural cooperatives, which comes at a time when a curious string of fires and explosions damage major food processing plants across the country. 

    “Ransomware actors may be more likely to attack agricultural cooperatives during critical planting and harvest seasons, disrupting operations, causing financial loss, and negatively impacting the food supply chain,” the notice read, adding 2021 and early 2022 ransomware attacks on farming co-ops could affect the current planting season “by disrupting the supply of seeds and fertilizer.”

    The agency warned, “A significant disruption of grain production could impact the entire food chain, since grain is not only consumed by humans but also used for animal feed … In addition, a significant disruption of grain and corn production could impact commodities trading and stocks. “

    The FBI’s warning comes as “nearly two dozen food processing facilities across Canada and the US” have experienced a “string of fires, plane crashes and explosions,” according to The Western Standard. 

    The most recent incidents were fires at two Oregon-based food processing plants. The first, on Monday night, a fire destroyed Azure Standard’s joint headquarters and warehouse facilities. The second was an explosion on Tuesday at a Shearer’s Foods plant. 

    Internet sleuths pieced together a compilation of headlines showing a spate of fires at food processing plants across the country in the last year or so. 

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

    One sleuth highlights recent warehouse fires affecting food supply chains in a series of tweets. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is all happening as the Ukraine-Russian conflict has disrupted the global food supply chain. Food prices are at record highs, and the Rockefeller Foundation just released their timeframe of when a “massive, immediate food crisis” may begin — they say, “in the next six months.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 19:00

  • Feeding LA's Homeless Industrial Complex
    Feeding LA’s Homeless Industrial Complex

    Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

    Election season 2022 is in full bloom.  Activists, with clipboards and ballot initiatives, are abundantly flowering outside supermarkets.  They want signatures – your signature – in support of new legislation that would increase funding for various whacky and zany ideas.

    In California, and particularly in Los Angeles, initiatives that would fire off more dollars to combat the abundance of shanty favelas blighting urban areas are flourishing.  The rationale is compelling…

    As of 2020, there were over 161,000 homeless people in California.  In Los Angeles County alone, the homeless population, as of 2020, was precisely 66,463.  Both those counts are now likely much higher.

    Who doesn’t want to do something about the profusion of tented bivouacs, barrel fires, medieval disease, human excrement, public drug use, crime, and mental illness that is running rampant across the southland?

    Surely something must be done.  But what?

    One state measure that will be on the 2022 ballot,  the California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Act, promises hundreds of millions of dollars each year to fight homelessness in California.  These hundreds of millions of dollars would come from taxing online sports betting.

    The City of Los Angeles also has its own citywide measure.  It’s called the Los Angeles Program to Prevent Homelessness and Fund Affordable Housing.  According to the United to House LA campaign, the measure would deliver about $875 million annually through imposing a new two-tier assessment on the sale of high value property in LA City.  High value being properties selling for over $5 million.

    Could these measures be the answer to the homeless crisis?

    If they were, the homeless crisis would have been solved long ago.  Here’s why…

    Forced Philanthropy

    Here at the Economic Prism we don’t own a $5 million home.  Nor do we bet on sports.

    Still, we can see these measures for what they are: Giant money grabs for California’s homeless industrial complex.

    These measures won’t do a lick to address the homeless crisis that gets worse with every passing year.  How do we know this?

    We know this because these money appropriation and forced philanthropy schemes have been tried over and over again.  With respect to helping the homeless, they are an utter failure.  But for the supervising agencies and the non-profits – the homeless industrial complex – they are extraordinarily lucrative…

    The homeless problem in Los Angeles County is an utter disaster – approximately 70,000.  The homeless population in the City of Los Angeles alone is over 40,000.  And all this despite the fact that the City and the County passed $4.7 billion in tax-increased funding – via Proposition HHH and Measure H – in 2016 and 2017.

    Proposition HHH is a bond measure designed to build permanent supportive housing.  Homeless professionals call this “housing first.”  Measure H is a 0.25 percent sales tax increase in the County, pushing the minimum sales tax in many cities within the county above 10.25 percent.

    What does Los Angeles have to show for its nearly $5 billion increase in spending on homelessness?

    The major philanthropic groups that helped push the initiatives have delivered moronic platitudes.  Fred Ali, president and CEO of LA-based Weingart Foundation, humbly attests:

    “We can’t let our sense of what’s possible be limited to what we’ve been able to do so far.  Philanthropy can be the laboratory for an agenda to overturn racial injustice, challenge white supremacy and nurture equity.  It can also build support for new funding streams and new governance structures.”

    And United Way Los Angeles claims on its website:

    “We’re on a mission to permanently break the cycle of poverty for our most vulnerable neighbors: low-income families, students, veterans and people experiencing homelessness… By focusing on local, state, and national public policy, we fight poverty’s root causes through the systems that sustain them.  We led the fight that resulted in nearly $5 billion in civic funds being dedicated to solutions to ending poverty.”

    What “root causes” of poverty is the United Way Los Angeles fighting?

    Feeding LA’s Homeless Industrial Complex

    Fighting poverty’s “root causes” has led to an obsession on the “housing first” approach to homelessness.  Philanthropic groups like United Way reject mere “bandaid” approaches to homelessness.  Temporary shelters, bridge housing, safe overnight parking sites, etc. are not ideologically acceptable.

    Housing first has been an dismal failure if you go by the tens-of-thousands of more homeless people sleeping on the streets since its adoption.  But if you go by the boon of money this has unlocked for the homeless industrial complex it is a smashing success.

    You see, when fighting the homeless crisis, dollars alone equal victory.  Results are an afterthought.  Money – more of your money – is the ultimate objective.

    Unfortunately for taxpayer, more money isn’t limited to securing private funds.  Rather it involves appropriating public funds and directing them towards the progressive-technocratic vision of the philanthropy experts.

    According to a recent City audit, in the City of Los Angeles, where over 40,000 homeless people thrash about, it now costs $837,000 to build a single housing unit for one homeless person.  This price tag is the magic of housing first.

    Since voters approved the Proposition HHH spending in 2016 about 1,200 units have been completed.  That comes to about 200 units per year.

    Certainly, there’s plenty of grift built into LA’s homeless industrial complex, which merely exercises the malady to keep the money flowing.  But at this rate, to construct “housing first” for 40,000 homeless people it will take roughly 200 years.  And at a cost of $837,000 per housing unit it will cost roughly $33.5 billion.

    Still, Democratic Mayor Eric Garcetti claims the program is a success.  According to Garcetti, the program “is producing more units than promised, at a lower cost than expected.”

    Garcetti, without question, is providing cover for the failures of housing first.  Perhaps when his second term in office is up later this year he can make bank working for a non-profit in LA’s homeless industrial complex.

    It’s a well fed group.  And with the host of new measures on the ballot it will only get fatter.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 18:30

  • Zelensky Announces Blinken & Austin To Visit Ukraine On Sunday
    Zelensky Announces Blinken & Austin To Visit Ukraine On Sunday

    The Ukrainian president announced Saturday that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin are set to travel to Ukraine, in what will be the highest ranking American officials to visit the war-torn country since Russia’s Feb.24 invasion. 

    “I don’t think that this is a big secret. The people from the U.S. are coming to us tomorrow. I shall … meeting with the State Secretary Mr. Blinken and the Defense secretary who are coming to us,” Volodymyr Zelensky said to reporters during a briefing.

    Bloomberg/Getty Images

    The Sunday trip comes on the occasion of Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox Easter (or Pascha), and also after there has been some degree of pressure for President Biden to go in person, after Boris Johnson’s recent surprise visit to Kiev.

    And of course Zelensky immediately raised the issue of more weapons: “Tomorrow we will be discussing the list of weapons which we need,” he added in his comments to reporters. 

    The Ukrainian leader was referencing the $800 million in military aid package that the White House just approved, and there are reports of even more to come. Fox News reviews that: 

    The U.S. has provided over $4 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since August 2021 – $3.4 billion of which has been allotted since Russian President Vladimir Putin’s February invasion. 

    As for the question of Biden making the trip himself, which would come with significant security risks and preparation, Zelensky said in the Saturday comments: “We will be waiting for the time when the security situation will allow the president of the US to come and to talk to us.”

    According to The Hill, neither the Pentagon nor State Department provided immediate comment on Zelensky’s revealing that the Pentagon chief and Secretary of State is traveling to Ukraine, likely given the high stakes difficult security environment.

    A week ago White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki appeared to shut the door on the possibility that Biden could go to Ukraine. Speaking of Boris Johnson’s trip, she had explained that the UK prime minister “took an eight-hour train through a war zone to get to the middle of Ukraine” – and continued: “So no, that is not in the plans for the president of the United States.” Psaki added: “We should all be maybe relieved about that.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 18:00

  • Taking Away Special Treatment For Woke Corporations Is Not "Authoritarian"
    Taking Away Special Treatment For Woke Corporations Is Not “Authoritarian”

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

    For many years now I have been pointing out that there is a false public perception of the relationship between governments and corporations. In the past the belief has been that government is supposed to keep private business in check while private business is supposed to limit government intrusion through the assertion of property rights. But when it comes to major corporations there is no such game of balance.

    In reality, international conglomerates like Disney generally do whatever they please because they are PARTNERS with government.

    For whatever reason, certain companies are afforded special treatment by state and federal institutions and what this does is create problems. This is not a free market system, rather, it is socialist and monopolistic. Subsidies and incentives can sometimes be used to encourage business growth, but when they are afforded to only a tiny handful of mega-corporations the result is the opposite; the growth of competition is stifled and small to medium businesses will never be able to compete with the giants that have already garnered government protection.

    It’s interesting to me that the political left, which was once supposedly anti-big business, is now suddenly so enamored with corporate oligarchy to the point that they rabidly defend it as long as those companies espouse woke rhetoric. What this confirms is something that conservatives have always known – That leftists don’t have any concrete principles or morals, they only care about winning no matter the cost.

    I 2020 I published an article suggesting a potential solution to Big Tech and woke corporate censorship of conservative ideas: That solution would be for conservative state governments to take away the very incentives and subsidies that they often use to entice these businesses into setting up shop within their borders. That is to say, all they have to do is take away the special goodies that these corporations never should have been handed in the first place.

    At the time, I thought that no state government would actually have the guts to carry out such a strategy, but things have changed. Corporations like Disney have now crossed the line into the realm of open indoctrination; asserting that they will upend any Florida law that prevent the sexualization and indoctrination of children into the leftist fold. Disney picked a fight; they strutted around as if they owned the state, and now they are paying the price by losing the very subsidies that made them successful.

    This in itself is not the overt use of government power as a means to oppress the rights of businesses. These corporations have no right to such subsidies and they are not entitled to special treatment. Taking it away is not a violation of any business’ rights or of private property rights. Subsidies are something that certain corporations have come to expect, and maybe that should change.

    In my recent article on Elon Musk’s ongoing plan to buy out the leftist hive mind known as Twitter, I made this argument:

    “Musk’s surprising pursuit of Twitter is interesting no matter which way it goes. He could take control and shut the whole thing down, which is what I would suggest given the platform is a cancer on society and rife with government and corporate surveillance. Scattering the blue check cult to the four winds would be one of the best gifts Musk could give the the world right now. They can always complain about everything on other platforms, just not with so much concentrated corporate and government power at their disposal.

    They’ll say this is all an attack on free speech, but these people don’t understand what free speech is. They believe that it is free speech if they walk up to people and say “I’m going to destroy you and your way of life.” And then when those people react to stop them, they cry that they are victims and claim that this is a violation of their rights. Where I come from, you don’t make threats against people and then expect them to do nothing about it. The leftists on Twitter and elsewhere are going to learn this lesson soon, one way or another.”

    The Cry-Bully tactic used by leftists is ever present and embarrassingly evident in their response to the battle between Disney and the state of Florida. Disney has enjoyed extensive subsidies and special incentives from Florida through their Reedy Creek municipality agreement. Of course, when this deal was signed Disney was not seen as a hostile entity that would seek to supplant Florida’s legislature and voters.

    The lies that leftists are using to attack Florida’s anti-grooming bill and the state response to Disney’s woke corporate hostility are bizarrely tone deaf. These people clearly have no understanding how businesses the size of Walt Disney World function and make money and how they integrate into state tax systems. They also appear to be oblivious to the trespasses of their own side, or they are gaslighting as if the woke cult has done nothing wrong and Florida’s reaction is completely unprovoked. The amount of disinformation being spread by leftists on this issue is truly staggering.

    If you want a prime example of this I suggest taking a look at THIS ARTICLE from the Florida Politics website as well as the responses from leftists in the comments. The level of delusion is shocking. Here are just some of the lies perpetrated by the left so far in reference to the Reedy Creek situation:

    Governor DeSantis Is A “Bully” And Authoritarian Picking On Disney?

    This is pure idiocy. A state governor is “bullying” a massive international conglomerate with its tentacles wrapped around numerous facets of our society including considerable control over the mainstream media? Yeah, I don’t think so. If anything, Disney is the bully on the block that has finally for the first time been punched in the face by a kid he thought he could shake down for lunch money. And now Disney, in typical gaslighting fashion, is pretending to be the victim and the leftists are eating it up.

    It was Disney that started this fight by stating they would do everything in their power to undermine the legislature and the majority of voters in Florida and dismantle a law which protects young children from gender identity indoctrination and sexualized lessons which have no place in public schools anyway. Not only that, but Disney has been exposed as a leftist indoctrination machine as they openly admit in Zoom conference calls to injecting gender identity and LGBT propaganda into their content directed specifically at young children.

    The leftist strategy basically boils down to this, and it stems from classic Marxist disruption of a society: Keep stabbing at the bear and try to kill him with a thousand cuts, and when the bear decides to bite back, act like you’re a poor victim that needs protection from the bear. Beg some hunters to kill the bear for you, and see who you can con into doing it.

    The Florida Anti-Grooming Law And Response To Disney Is A “Violation Of Free Speech?”

    No, it is not. Again, corporations are not entitled to special subsidies that give them monopolistic power. Governments should not give out such subsidies, but if they do, they can certainly take them away any time they want. Disney’s speech has not been impeded by the end of Reedy Creek; now they have to operate on a level playing field along with other businesses. God forbid…

    Teachers have no free speech rights inside the classroom.  They are employees of the district and work for the parents that pay the taxes that pay their salaries.  They do not have the right to teach sexualized lessons or ideological cultism to children that are not their own.

    Also, leftists have no concept of what free speech actually means. They are constantly engaged in censorship and cancel culture and argue with an ends-justify-the-means attitude. They like to call it “consequence culture” instead of cancel culture. Now that they are getting a taste of their own medicine, they don’t seem to like it very much and suddenly consider it “authoritarianism.” In other words, their definition of tyranny is when they are not allowed to do whatever they want whenever they please no matter how criminal or immoral.

    There Is No Sexualization Or Indoctrination Of Children, So The Law Is Pointless?

    If there is no intent to sexualize children in public schools, then why are leftists so enraged by the law? If it changes nothing, then why are they against it? I have yet to see a leftist actually answer this question with any logic or reason.

    Furthermore, their argument is based on a lie. The facts show that there has been a growing program of gender identity indoctrination in schools including teachers openly admitting online that they are engaged in sex lessons for young students. These teachers even argue that children as young as kindergarten are “sexually aware” and are “already asking questions” about gender and sex. I defy any leftist to show me an example of a young child interested in this nonsense that hasn’t been groomed into it by a teacher or a parent.

    Libs Of TikTok has been an excellent source for collecting and showcasing the open admissions of leftist teachers discussing how they indoctrinate children with their ideology. All the account does is show these people speaking in their own words about their own activities. Yet, their Twitter account has come under attack by the media for doing nothing more than letting the teachers speak for themselves.

    Some examples of grooming in schools include leftist states like New Jersey, which are adding gender identity and sex lessons into the curriculum for 1st graders and above. There are also numerous online courses and resources published by leftist groups designed to show teachers how to build gender and sex lessons into their lesson plans. Leftists have been attempting to make gender ideology a pillar within the education system by using the Equality Act to adjust discrimination standards. This would essentially make it discriminatory to NOT include gender identity and alternative sex lessons in public school curriculum.

    This is happening across the nation and yet leftists continue to claim it is all a “conspiracy theory.”

    Conservatives In Florida Are “Burning Books?”

    This meme is popping up often in conjunction with the DeSantis response to Disney’s transgressions. Leftists can’t win the debate on Reedy Creek so they then turn to disinformation on Florida’s discernment on school textbooks.

    Math and STEM books should not contain ANY sociological commentary, including critical race theory or gender identity propaganda. They should teach math and science. That is all.

    There Is No CRT Being Added To School Textbooks?

    Yes, there is, and Florida just released some examples of the lessons they are finding hidden in new textbooks, which include math problems that “measure racial bias using polynomials,” and using an “Implicit Association Test” to measure racism. Critical Race Theory in school textbooks IS A FACT. There is no debate.

    Leftists can deny reality all they want, but the truth does not care about their fantasies.

    Florida Needs Disney Revenues And Will Fold Under Pressure From Lobbyists?

    Uh, no, they won’t fold and DeSantis has already proven this. Reedy Creek is over. Sure, Disney will try to fight this in court but they will fail because no company can argue that they have a legal entitlement to special treatment from a state government, which is what Reedy Creek is.

    As far as revenues are concerned, there is zero chance that Disney will be able to relocate their theme park, which is around the same size as the city of San Francisco. The cost would be prohibitive and would destroy the company’s bottom line. Leftists don’t understand logistics and they don’t understand business. They think that Disney has some kind of economic leverage to exploit here, which just goes to show how ignorant they are on how these companies function.

    Everything Disney does comes down to cost vs. benefit. Even though they claim to have high ideals rooted in leftist illusions of “equity,” when all is said and done the shareholders of the company are their only concern. To move the park would be pointless because the cost would far exceed any subsidies they might get from another state for many years to come, causing their stock prices to plunge even further. This means they will continue to operate in Florida or they will be forced to shut down completely, which again, would collapse their stock price.

    Disney is not the “hand that feeds Florida,” Florida is the hand that feeds Disney. Many people don’t understand that Disney is reliant on park revenues to keep the company afloat, their movies are peripheral to the parks. And, with California going down the tubes as a vacation spot, Florida is where the money is at. Disney’s only option is to stay in Orlando, pay their taxes and remain under the watchful eye of the stage government or they will die as a company. It’s that simple.

    At bottom it’s amazing that leftists have chosen this hill to die on. Standing against a bill that prevents indoctrination and sexualization of young children automatically makes them suspect. They claim it’s not happening, which is a provable lie. They claim it’s authoritarian, but can’t produce a logical argument as to how preventing such lessons in public schools violates anyone’s rights. They say that conservatives are bullies for going after Disney, but ignore the fact that Disney started the whole thing by attacking Floridians that support a legal and constitutional bill.

    Frankly, these people deserve what they get. There is no reasoning with them and their insanity should be held up as an example of what not to do as a society for generations to come. They should be kept as far away from power as possible because they are dangerous zealots who do not care about facts, science or core principles. They only want to destroy their enemies, and they see us as the enemy. If they can get to us through our kids, then they are fine with that. I feel no empathy for them when they get hit back.

    *  *  *

    If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 17:30

  • Putin To Test Nuclear Missile Capable Of Striking US By Autumn
    Putin To Test Nuclear Missile Capable Of Striking US By Autumn

    The Kremlin said Saturday that it plans to test a new-generation nuclear ICBM capable of striking the US by the fall.

    According to Reuters, the ambitious target was announced by Dmitry Rogozin, head of the Roscosmos space agency, on Saturday just days after the first test launch was carried out on Wednesday. Western military experts said more tests would be needed before the missile could be deployed.

    The Sarmat is capable of carrying 10 or more nuclear warheads (or decoys) and of striking targets thousands of miles away in the US or Europe.

    This week’s test came after years of delays due to funding and technical issues. The missile test marked a show of strength by Russia at a time when the war in Ukraine has sent tensions with the US and its allies soaring to the highest levels since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

    During an interview with Russian state TV, Rogozin said that the missiles would be deployed with a unit in the Krasnoyarsk region of Siberia, about 3,000 km (1,860 miles) east of Moscow.

    He added that they would be stored at the same sites, and in the same silos, as the Soviet-era Voyevoda missiles they will be replacing, something that would save “colossal resources and time”.

    Rogozin added that the launch of the new Russian “super-weapon” would be an historic event that would guarantee the security of Russia’s ‘children and grandchildren’ for the next 30-40 years.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 17:00

  • Economically-Free States Are Recovering Rapidly. High-Control States, Not So Much…
    Economically-Free States Are Recovering Rapidly. High-Control States, Not So Much…

    Authored by Vance Ginn and Erik Randolph via RealClear Policy (emphasis ours),

    The fact that our nation’s unemployment rate is approaching the low rate of 3.5% that was reached just prior to the pandemic should be a cause for celebration. But for a variety of reasons, the official unemployment number is misleading.

    (Warren)

    The employment situation is not as rosy as it may seem. There is a wide disparity among the states that can be explained by how much economic freedom they allow, including how severely each state shut down its economy due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Consider that the U.S. remains 1.6 million jobs short of our February 2020 high, just before the pandemic came to our shores. Since then, our population has grown by 3.8 million people but the labor force shrank by 174,000 workers.

    The picture diverges for states. As demonstrated in our 2021 study, the states with the worst job recovery also imposed the harshest COVID-19 measures.

    For example, two states with the severest lockdowns — California and New York — are also experiencing two of the worst job recoveries, with unemployment rates at least a full percentage point above the national average of 3.6% based on the newly released March 2022 data.

    Conversely, Utah and Nebraska, who are among the states with the least severe lockdown policies, are tied with the lowest unemployment rate of 2.0%, well below the national average.

    In measuring how states have rebounded, a better metric than the unemployment rate is the recovery in private employment. Only 16 states have recovered all the private jobs lost due to the shutdowns compared to February 2020. But if we account for each state’s pre-pandemic job growth trajectory, our analysis shows that Montana and Utah stand above the rest for exceeding our forecast of their private employment.

    Idaho follows closely behind Montana and Utah, and then Wyoming, North Carolina, Mississippi, South Dakota, Arkansas, Maine, and Georgia to round out the top 10 performing states. Except for Maine and North Carolina, each one has a Republican trifecta (GOP controls both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s office).

    North Carolina leans Republican, and Maine is the anomaly having a Democrat trifecta.

    What about the bottom 10 states in private-sector jobs recovery? They are Hawaii, New York, North Dakota, California, Maryland, Vermont, Minnesota, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Louisiana. Four of those have Democrat trifectas and four lean Democrat. Louisiana, the last state to make the bottom 10, leans Republican.

    North Dakota — a Republican trifecta that had one of the least restrictive COVID policies — is a special case due to an unusual economic situation. Its pre-pandemic job growth numbers differed from all other states, and it also relies more heavily on mining and petroleum than any other state. Its petroleum industry went bust in 2014, causing private employment to peak in December 2014 that finally bottomed out in January 2017. Since then, its private job growth has been slow, less than 1% per year.

    President Biden’s anti-fossil fuels executive orders, including the cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, have only made matters worse for North Dakota.

    Putting this outlier aside, what accounts for this dramatic difference in recoveries between red and blue states? As already indicated, Republican governors were less severe with their lockdown policies.

    For another, all Republican governors (with the exception of Louisiana) ended supplemental unemployment payments before they were set to expire last September. These payments contributed to some people receiving more than they would have had they been working. In fact, one study finds that those states that didn’t end these payments early contributed to 3 million fewer people in the labor force.

    Underlying the difference is likely the extent of economic freedom in each state. Using the Economic Freedom of North America 2021 report published by the Fraser Institute, which is based on 2019 data, the top 17 states allowing for the most economic freedom either lean Republican or have Republican trifectas. In fact, 14 of them are the trifectas.

    Eight of the bottom 10 have Democrat trifectas, with New York leading the pack, followed by California. The other two in the bottom 10 include Vermont that leans Democrat and West Virginia with a Republican trifecta.

    The best path to prosperity is a job. Work brings dignity, hope, and purpose to people by allowing them to earn a living, gain skills, and build social capital that endures. Advancing policies that connect people with work, along with reducing barriers for new jobs and opportunities, should be our goal, rather than making a government the first resort for help that disconnects people from what work brings.

    The red states are showing the way to achieve this sound policy. Other states should follow while things at the federal level look bleak. But as our founders desired, the system of federalism that breeds a laboratory of competition helps shed light on what works best to let people prosper.

    Vance Ginn is Chief Economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Erik Randolph is the Director of Research at the Georgia Center for Opportunity.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 16:30

  • "It Could Destroy Your Life" – Crypto Traders Seek Treatment For Compulsive Gambling
    “It Could Destroy Your Life” – Crypto Traders Seek Treatment For Compulsive Gambling

    Since the start of last year, cryptocurrency prices have, for the most part, been ping-ponging lower in price. And as a result, many of the traders who enjoyed their first taste of trading victory last year began to experience something very different: Defeat.

    As a result, many have tried to chase that feeling of winning, often with the result of burying themselves further in debt. After a while, some have found themselves in treatment centers for compulsive gambling – or worse.

    Take the case of Fillipino Stevie Rojas, a tech entrepreneur who got “hooked” on crypto. He described the sensation of how trading “hijacked” his brain  during an interview with Bloomberg.

    He says he spent hours a day hunting for digital treasure on his smartphone. The ups made his pulse quicken. The downs left him strung-out.

    He says he gave up morning prayers and time with his baby daughter. He scrolled Reddit and chased the action instead. If he wasn’t trading crypto, he was thinking about trading crypto.

    Rojas became – his word – an “addict.

    And so one day last year Rojas knelt in the darkened confessional of a Roman Catholic church in Manila, where he lives. He broke down and prayed for help.

    While the experts haven’t formally classified crypto trading as a type of dangerous gambling, some have started studying the effect that cryptocurrency trading has on nerve receptors.

    And now a growing number of mental-health professionals are adding an asterisk to the guides to designate cryptocurrencies as a trouble spot akin to gambling, and in some ways more insidious.

    Scientists have long suspected what Wall Street has always known: Our brains lust after money, cocaine, the thrill of buying Dogecoin: the same these activities light up the receptors, suggesting that the same parts of the brain govern all these activities. Researchers have even linked an elongated version of one neural receptor, dopamine receptor No. 4, to a tendency toward financial risk-taking and risk taking with street drugs.

    These qualities can introduce a dangerous element to crypto trading that can lead an individual to develop a serious gambling problem.

    “It’s very similar to being at a roulette table,” says Dylan Kerr, an online therapist in Thailand who has treated about 15 self-professed crypto addicts and accepts payment in cryptocurrency. “It’s seemingly never ending, and it demands your attention,” Kerr says of crypto-trading. “If you take your eyes off the prize, you could miss out on massive opportunities and incur massive penalties.”

    Says Lia Nower, director of the Center for Gambling Studies at Rutgers University: “Excessive crypto trading and high-risk stock trading could be forms of gambling and lead to gambling disorder.”

    Which is what brings us to the Paracelsus Recovery Clinic, a $90K/week treatment center for compulsive behaviors.

    The $90,000-a-week view stretches across Lake Zurich to the snow-peaked Alps beyond. Here at the luxury Paracelsus Recovery clinic, a range of mental suffering is discretely treated in velvet-rope style. Amenities include butlers, personal chefs, chauffeured limousines and more.

    Behavioral “addictions” handled here include some that don’t appear in conventional diagnostic manuals: plastic surgery, pornography, exercise, work, shopping. Another problem that’s been coming up more lately: cryptocurrency.

    Clients here undergo therapy with a team of three psychotherapists. Personal trainers, nutritionists, yoga teachers, acupuncturists and the like help soothe troubled minds, says Jan Gerber, who runs the private clinic.

    Another patient at a different recovery clinic – “Castle Craig”, located in the UK, shared how he was simultaneously addicted to smoking crack and crypto.

    Steven Elphinstone came to Castle Craig for a variety of reasons. Elphinstone, 50, was working as a tunnel miner in London when he got into spread betting, a speculative derivatives strategy that’s banned in the United States. He started trading crypto early, around 2015, and promised himself he’d become a Bitcoin millionaire.

    Back then, Bitcoin was trading around $240, and he says he was buying four or five tokens a week. Elphinstone spent hours poring over charts at his home on the Shetland Islands, where he’d relocated while rebuilding his mother’s house.

    He says he loved the high of a trade gone right. But the losses were thrilling, too. He says he also struggled with other addictions. Cocaine was a big one. He sank all of his earnings into the crypto market or crack binges. He felt as if he could swap the two habits.

    “I was addicted to cocaine, and I was addicted to gambling,” he says. “If I didn’t have cocaine, I was fairly happy gambling.”

    “You’re always chasing the next high, and you’re never satisfied with the next high,” Elphinstone says.

    The BBG piece concluded with a quote from Rojas, describing crypto as “like any other addiction.”

    “It could destroy your life if you’re not careful.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 16:00

  • Showdown Looms Over Vacated Mask Mandate
    Showdown Looms Over Vacated Mask Mandate

    Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClear Politics (emphasis ours),

    On the question of whether the federal government ought to require airplane passengers to wear a face mask, the White House is flying blind. Then again, so is everyone else.

    “Public polling does not actually show that there is a universal view of people getting rid of masks,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters as videos of jubilant passengers and flight attendants tossing their face coverings flooded the Internet. “That is not,” Psaki added, “actually what public polling shows.”

    (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

    White House officials would not say what polls they were reading when RealClearPolitics asked, while reiterating the caveat that the administration makes public health policy based on public health, not public opinion surveys. White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain did seem to endorse one survey though: He retweeted an online YouGov Poll that showed 63% of Americans in support of a travel mask mandate.

    But that YouGov poll was conducted on April 18, the same day a federal judge in Florida ruled that health officials had exceeded their authority when they mandated that every man, woman, and child over 2 years old wear a mask when traveling across state lines on an airplane. And polls that have been bandied about in subsequent arguments all predated that decision. The two most prominent come from the Associated Press and Morning Consult.

    The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research released a survey showing that 56% of Americans favor requiring people on planes, trains, and public transportation to wear masks. Meanwhile it found that 24% opposed the mandates and 20% were ambivalent. The AP poll was conducted from last Thursday up until the Monday decision, meaning that it didn’t capture public opinion after the mandate was nixed.

    A Morning Consult/Politico survey similarly reported that most voters were on board with keeping the mandate for travel in place through early May: 59% supported it while 33% opposed it and 8% had no opinion. It was, however, conducted the weekend before the decision was dropped.

    Journalists have noted those two polls in their reports, dutifully pointing out when the surveys took place. But those headlines were quickly overshadowed by viral videos of overjoyed travelers and flight attendants ditching their masks. The pre-decision polling that Psaki was referring to in the briefing room has been eclipsed and there is no going back, says prominent Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

    “There is still a strong commitment to safety among a meaningful, measurable percentage of the country,” Luntz told RCP. “That said, the moment that the masks come off, everything changes.” Stuff the mask in a pocket, and suddenly “you start to think of what you hated about it, rather than why you’re wearing it. You think about the negatives of it, rather than the rationale for it.”

    The Biden administration still encourages passengers to mask up when they travel, and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy posted a lengthy thread Thursday detailing why he still wears one. “Bottom line: wearing a mask while traveling is a small step that can go a long way to protecting ourselves and others,” Murthy concluded. Notably though, the doctor described masking as “a choice.”

    So did Joe Biden. On the tarmac in New Hampshire on Tuesday, the president told reporters that, for passengers, the decision to wear or not wear a mask “is up to them.” His Justice Department, meanwhile, announced that same day that it would appeal the decision, but only at the request of the Centers for Disease Control.

    “It is CDC’s continuing assessment that at this time an order requiring masking in the indoor transportation corridor remains necessary for the public health,” the CDC said in a statement Wednesday. “CDC believes this is a lawful order, well within CDC’s legal authority to protect public health.”

    While that plays out in the courts, public opinion is likely shifting. “I have no doubt that the mood today would be different than 72 hours ago,” Luntz said, previewing what he expects future polling will reveal. This is welcome news to the airlines. Many of the major carriers including American, Delta, and Southwest Airlines were pleading with the administration to rescind the mandate given the advances in vaccination rates as well as the many treatments and therapies now available.

    Luntz suggested that those airlines designate certain high-frequency flights, for instance flights from New York to Washington, D.C., as mask only. There is a demand for that kind of service, Luntz said, albeit from “a minority in the population.”

    A number of Democrats, especially those facing tough elections, were done with masking. This included Florida’s Democratic Agricultural Commissioner Nikki Fried who is challenging Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. She celebrated the end of the mask mandate with a selfie shared on Twitter Tuesday. Then, Fried spent the next couple of hours fending off criticism from the left.

    The first tweet was exuberant: “Peace out to the TSA mask mandate, but also peace and respect to others, whether wearing a mask or not.” The second, defensive: “I’ll read all your takes, but the mandates are dropped, vaccines are working, things are getting back to normal, and it’s okay for a Democrat to say it – because we made it possible. I love y’all.”

    White House aides say that they will continue to make decisions about the lingering pandemic based on public health data, not polls. Even so, the polls that Psaki and others are reading are a snapshot of a moment in time that has passed and the midterm elections are fast approaching.

    “If the DOJ is successful, it will absolutely destroy Democrats in the fall, even if there are solid health reasons,” Luntz said.

    “If you go back now, it won’t be the Justice Department or the CDC that’s punished. It will be Biden and Democrats. They ought to leave well enough alone at this point.”

    [ZH: and just one more thing…]

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

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 15:30

  • Biden Approval Is Plunging The Most With Younger Americans
    Biden Approval Is Plunging The Most With Younger Americans

    President Biden’s approval rating has been taking a bit of a battering of late, but, as Statista’s Martin Armstrong details below, in a somewhat surprising new analysis of survey data by Gallup, it’s among the younger voters where the biggest falls are being recorded.

    Infographic: Biden Approval Is Falling the Most With Younger Americans | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    As this infographic illustrates, there has been a 21 point drop in approval with members of Generation Z (born 1997 to 2004) since the first half of 2021, bringing the rate down to just 39 percent – the lowest of all the generation groups having been joint highest with Millennials. Speaking of which, those born between 1981 and 1996 registered a 19 point decrease in approval of the president, falling to 41 percent, and one percent below the national average of 42 percent.

    Gallup provides some context for the changes:

    “By the summer (of 2021), as coronavirus cases unexpectedly rose, Biden had lost significant support among Generation Z, millennials and Generation X, ranging from seven- to ten-percentage-point drops. But his approval rating held steady among baby boomers and traditionalists. All generational groups have become less approving of Biden since the summer, after the troubled U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in late August 2021, with the exception of traditionalists, whose approval has not changed.”

    Notably, since candidate Biden came on the scene, he has never been this far below Trump in nationwide ‘favorability’…

    And gas prices are not falling enough to spark any comebacks for now.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 15:00

  • Buchanan: First Priority – Avoid US War With Russia
    Buchanan: First Priority – Avoid US War With Russia

    Authored by Pat Buchanan,

    Asked if the U.S. should send troops to fight beside the Ukrainians, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Sunday the time may have come.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin “will only stop when we stop him,” said Coons.

    “We are in a very dangerous moment where it is important that … we in Congress and the administration come to a common position about when we are willing to go the next step and to send not just arms but troops to the aid in defense of Ukraine.”

    “If the answer is never, then we are inviting another level of escalation in brutality by Putin.”

    In response, the White House affirmed President Joe Biden’s declaration that U.S. troops are not going to be sent to fight Russians in Ukraine, as this would open the door to World War III.

    Said Biden last month:

    “The idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews, just understand … that’s called World War III, OK? Let’s get it straight here, guys.”

    Biden added, “We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”

    Since Biden made these remarks, however, the red line against direct U.S. aid to the Ukrainian military has shifted, though the prohibition against the introduction of U.S. troops and air power has remained.

    The present U.S. position might be summarized thus:

    As U.S. forces fighting and killing Russians in Ukraine would ignite a U.S.-Russia war, which could escalate to nuclear war, we are not going to take that first step and risk the security and survival of our country, even if our staying out of this two-month war means the defeat of Ukraine.

    Call it the Eisenhower position.

    In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower refused to use U.S. forces to intervene to halt Russian tanks from crushing the Hungarian Revolution that had risen up against Soviet occupation and rule.

    Ike was unwilling to cross the Yalta line dividing Europe and chose to let the Hungarian Revolution fail rather than potentially ignite a war in which our own soldiers and nation would be at risk.

    Ike literally put America first, ahead of the Hungarians.

    Where does Biden’s refusal to follow Coon’s urgings leave the rival belligerents in this Ukraine-Russia war?

    Putin has suffered a series of setbacks since his invasion began.

    • He has failed to capture any of the three largest cities in Ukraine: Kyiv, the capital, or Kharkiv, the second largest city, or Odessa, the third largest city and principal port on the Black Sea.

    • Putin suffered a humiliating defeat and retreat in the battle of Kyiv and has lost a fourth of the forces with which he started the war.

    • The flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, the cruiser Moskva, has been sunk, reportedly by Ukrainian anti-ship missiles.

    Yet Putin has had his successes as well.

    • If Mariupol, Ukraine’s major port on the Sea of Azov falls, as is expected, Putin will have his “land bridge” from Russia to Crimea. North of Crimea and in the west of Luhansk and Donetsk, Putin has also added to the lands he has held since 2014.

    • Russia’s capture and annexation of the Donbas could be called a victory by Putin. Capture of Kharkiv or Odessa, the latter of which would give Putin control of the entire Black Sea coast of Ukraine, making Kyiv the capital of a land-locked country, would constitute a triumph.

    Which brings us to the debate now shaping up in the USA.

    Neocons and war hawks are taking the position that the visible defeat of the Russian army and its expulsion from Ukraine, and Putin’s humiliation and ouster, must be America’s goals. And these goals should be nonnegotiable. Failure to achieve these ends, it is said, would amount to a defeat for NATO and the United States.

    The problem with this victory scenario?

    Putin has sent many signals that before he accepts the defeat of his army and country and his own removal and trial as a “war criminal” who engaged in “genocide,” he will use battlefield nuclear weapons from his arsenal of 6,000 such weapons to win the war.

    Wednesday Putin announced Russia’s test of a giant new intercontinental ballistic missile.

    Dissenters believe that Putin may not be bluffing, that an early and negotiated end to this war may be necessary to avoid a wider conflict that could escalate into World War III.

    But, as ever, they are being charged with timidity and cowardice and letting pass a historic opportunity to administer to authoritarian Russia the defeat it invited with this invasion and that it richly deserves.

    Yet, recall: To avoid war with Russia, President Harry Truman refused to breach Joseph Stalin’s Berlin Blockade. Eisenhower let the Hungarian revolution be drowned in blood and told the Brits, French and Israelis to get out of Egypt. President John F. Kennedy let the Berlin Wall go up. President Lyndon B. Johnson let the Prague Spring be crushed by the Warsaw Pact.

    The sooner this war ends, the better for all.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 14:30

  • California, Hawaii See Largest Share Of Homes Selling For $1 Million Or More
    California, Hawaii See Largest Share Of Homes Selling For $1 Million Or More

    One of the most dominant stories since the COVID pandemic began has been the fiercely competitive housing market. The median sales price of a home in the US climbed above $400,000, as aggressive bidding wars drove home prices higher.

    Source: ISN

    The current challenges of the housing market have come from a potent combination of supply- and demand-side factors. For example, the US has failed to build enough homes for years, with mortgage lender Freddie Mac estimating a shortage of 3.8 million housing units as of 2020.

    The result has been a surge in homes sold for $1 million or more – the cutoff for what’s considered a luxury home.

    Source: ISN

    The COVID pandemic has brought additional struggles, as supply chain constraints and labor shortages have raised costs and made it difficult for builders to keep up. On the demand side, millennials have reached a peak period for buying homes after a years-long run of low mortgage rates attracted buyers into the market.

    More recently, the pandemic led to higher wages for many professions and and a shift to remote work which has raised demand for larger homes.

    While prices have been rising across the US, the states with the largest share of homes selling above $1 million are California and Hawaii.

    Source: ISN

    Finally, here’s a breakdown of small and medium municipalities with the largest number of homes selling for more than $1 million.

    Source: ISN

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 04/23/2022 – 14:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest