Today’s News 24th February 2021

• CJ Hopkins: The Vaccine (Dis)Information War
  CJ Hopkins: The Vaccine (Dis)Information War

  Authored (mostly satirically) by CJ Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

  So, good news, folks! It appears that GloboCap’s Genetic Modification Division has come up with a miracle vaccine for Covid! It’s an absolutely safe, non-experimental, messenger-RNA vaccine that teaches your cells to produce a protein that triggers an immune response, just like your body’s immune-system response, only better, because it’s made by corporations!

  

  OK, technically, it hasn’t been approved for use – that process normally takes several years – so I guess it’s slightly “experimental,” but the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have issued “Emergency Use Authorizations,” and it has been “tested extensively for safety and effectiveness,” according to Facebook’s anonymous “fact checkers,” so there’s absolutely nothing to worry about.

  This non-experimental experimental vaccine is truly a historic development, because apart from saving the world from a virus that causes mild to moderate flu-like symptoms (or, more commonly, no symptoms whatsoever) in roughly 95% of those infected, and that over 99% of those infected survive, the possibilities for future applications of messenger-RNA technology, and the genetic modification of humans, generally, is virtually unlimited at this point.

  Imagine all the diseases we can cure, and all the genetic “mistakes” we can fix, now that we can reprogram people’s genes to do whatever we want … cancer, heart disease, dementia, blindness, not to mention the common cold! We could even cure psychiatric disorders, like “antisocial personality disorder,” “oppositional defiant disorder,” and other “conduct disorders” and “personality disorders.”

  Who knows?

  In another hundred years, we will probably be able to genetically cleanse the human species of age-old scourges, like racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia, etcetera, by reprogramming everyone’s defective alleles, or implanting some kind of nanotechnological neurosynaptic chips into our brains. The only thing standing in our way is people’s totally irrational resistance to letting corporations redesign the human organism, which, clearly, was rather poorly designed, and thus is vulnerable to all these horrible diseases, and emotional and behavioral disorders.

  But I’m getting a little ahead of myself. The important thing at the moment is to defeat this common-flu-like pestilence that has no significant effect on age-adjusted death rates, and the mortality profile of which is more or less identical to the normal mortality profile, but which has nonetheless left the global corporatocracy no choice but to “lock down” the entire planet, plunge millions into desperate poverty, order everyone to wear medical-looking masks, unleash armed goon squads to raid people’s homes, and otherwise transform society into a pathologized-totalitarian nightmare. And, of course, the only way to do that (i.e., save humanity from a flu-like bug) is to coercively vaccinate every single human being on the planet Earth!

  OK, you’re probably thinking that doesn’t make much sense, this crusade to vaccinate the entire species against a relatively standard respiratory virus, but that’s just because you are still thinking critically. You really need to stop thinking like that. As The New York Times just pointed out, “critical thinking isn’t helping.” In fact, it might be symptomatic of one of those “disorders” I just mentioned above. Critical thinking leads to “vaccine hesitancy,” which is why corporations are working with governments to immediately censor any and all content that deviates from the official Covid-19 narrative and deplatform the authors of such content, or discredit them as “anti-vax disinformationists.”

  For example, Children’s Health Defense, which has been reporting on so-called “adverse events” and deaths in connection with the Covid vaccines, despite the fact that, according to the authorities, “there are no safety problems with the vaccines” and “there is no link between Covid-19 vaccines and those who die after receiving them.” In fact, according to the “fact-checkers” at Reuters, these purported “reports of adverse events” “may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable!”

  Yes, you’re reading between the lines right. The corporate media can’t come right out and say it, but it appears the “anti-vax disinformationists” are fabricating “adverse events” out of whole cloth and hacking them into the VAERS database and other such systems around the world. Worse, they are somehow infiltrating these made-up stories into the mainstream media in order to lure people into “vaccine hesitancy” and stop us from vaccinating every man, woman, and child in the physical universe, repeatedly, on an ongoing basis, for as long as the “medical experts” deem necessary.

  Here are just a few examples of their handiwork …

  • In Norway, 23 elderly people died after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. However, according to Reuters’ “fact-checkers,” it turns out, old people just die sometimes, especially in nursing homes, from a variety of causes … unless they haven’t been vaccinated, in which case they definitely died of Covid, regardless of what they actually died of. For example, a 99-year-old man suffering from dementia and emphysema, who tested negative for the virus three times, was added to the “Covid deaths” figures because a nursing home doctor “assumed” it was Covid (which GloboCap has expressly instructed him to do).

  • In Germany, 13 of 40 residents of one nursing home died after being vaccinated, but this was just a “tragic coincidence,” which had absolutely nothing to do with the vaccine.

  • In Spain, in another “tragic coincidence,” 46 nursing home residents who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine died within the course of one month. A further 28 of the 94 residents and 12 staff members subsequently tested positive.

  • In Florida, a healthy middle-aged doctor died from an unusual blood disorder two weeks after receiving the vaccine, but, according to the experts, the sudden onset of this rare immunological blood disorder (i.e., immune thrombocytopenia) “should not be interpreted as linked to the vaccine,” and was probably just a total coincidence.

  • In California, a 60-year-old X-ray technologist received a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. A few hours later he had trouble breathing. He was hospitalized and died four days later. His widow says she’s not ready at this point to link her husband’s death to the vaccine. “I’m not putting any blame on Pfizer,” she said, “or on any other pharmaceutical company.” So, probably just another coincidence.

  • A 78-year-old woman in California died immediately after being vaccinated, but her death was not related to the vaccine, health officials assured the public. “(She) received an injection of the Covid-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer around noon. While seated in the observation area after the injection, [she] complained of feeling discomfort and while being evaluated by medical personnel she lost consciousness.” Despite the sudden death of his wife, her husband intends to receive a second dose.

  • A former Detroit news anchor died just one day after receiving the vaccine, but it was probably just a coincidental stroke, which the “normal side effects of the vaccine may have masked.”

  • Also in Michigan, a 90-year-old man died the day after receiving the vaccine, but, again, this was just a tragic coincidence. As Dr. David Gorski explained, “the baseline death rate of 90-year-olds is high because they’re 90 years old,” which makes perfect sense … unless, of course, they died of Covid, in which case their age and underlying conditions make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

  • In Kentucky, two nuns at a monastery died, and more than two dozen others tested positive, in a sudden “Covid-19 outbreak” that began two days after the nuns were vaccinated. The monastery had been completely closed to visitors and Covid-free up to that point, but the nuns were old and had “health issues,” and so on.

  • In Virginia, a 58-year-old grandmother died within hours after receiving the vaccine, but, as Facebook’s “fact checkers” prominently pointed out, it had to be just another coincidence, because the “vaccines have been tested for safety extensively.”

  

  And then there are all the people on Facebook sharing their stories of loved ones who have died shortly after receiving the Covid vaccine, who the Facebook “fact checkers” are doing their utmost to discredit with their official-looking “fact-check notices.” For example …

  

  OK, I realize it’s uncomfortable to have to face things like that (i.e., global corporations like Facebook implying that these people are lying or are using the sudden deaths of their loved ones to discourage others from getting vaccinated), especially if you’re just trying to follow orders and parrot official propaganda … even the most fanatical Covidian Cultists probably still have a shred of human empathy buried deep in their cold little hearts. But there’s an information war on, folks! You’re either with the Corporatocracy or against it! This is no time to get squeamish, or, you know, publicly exhibit an ounce of compassion. What would your friends and colleagues think of you?!

  No, report these anti-vaxxers to the authorities, shout them down on social media, switch off your critical-thinking faculties, and get in line to get your vaccination!

  The fate of the human species depends on it!

  And, if you’re lucky, maybe GloboCap will even give you one of these nifty numerical Covid-vaccine tattoos for free!

  

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/24/2021 – 00:05

• Saudi Arabia Sued By Families Of Pensacola Terror Attack Victims
  Saudi Arabia Sued By Families Of Pensacola Terror Attack Victims

  Saudi Arabia is once again facing a major lawsuit in the US filed by the families of victims killed in a terror attack perpetrated by a Saudi citizen.

  The attack in question occurred at Pensacola Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla. on Dec. 6, 2019. On that morning, a 21-year-old member of the Saudi military opened fire on Americans staying at the Naval base, carrying out a shooting rampage that led to the deaths of 3 Americans with 13 others wounded. The perpetrator, Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, is believed to have posted his justification to social media before the attack. He was a member of the Royal Saudi Air Force staying in the US as part of a program whereby the US military offers training to military pilots from certain geopolitical ‘partners’.

  

  Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility for the attack weeks later, a claim that was corroborated by the FBI, which ruled the attack was motivated by Jihadist ideology. And while it had little discernible impact on US-Saudi relations at the time, that may soon change. Because family members of the deceased and wounded are now suing Saudi Arabia for civil damages.

  The complaint filed in federal court in Pensacola on Monday alleged that the Saudi Arabian government had known about the gunman and his increasing radicalization, and could have prevented the killing.

  According to Reuters, the Saudis didn’t respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz condemned the attack as a “heinous crime” and said it “does not represent the Saudi people” during a statement made shortly after it happened.

  Although several of Alshamrani’s fellow Saudi Naval officers reported attending a dinner party thrown by Alshamrani shortly before the attack where they all watched videos of US mass shootings, it was determined that Alshamrani was the sole shooter, and that he acted alone.

  President Joe Biden and his administration are already embracing a more distant approach to handling America’s allies and adversaries in the Middle East, particularly when it comes to Saudi Arabia and Israel. Whether or not this lawsuit further sours relations between Washington and Riyadh remains to be seen.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 23:45

• 60 Years After Eisenhower's Warning, Distinct Signs Of A 'Digital-Intelligence Complex'
  60 Years After Eisenhower’s Warning, Distinct Signs Of A ‘Digital-Intelligence Complex’

  Authored by Eric Felten via RealClearInvestigations.com,

  In June 2019, Susan Gordon stood on a stage at the Washington Convention Center. Behind her loomed three giant letters, “AWS,” the abbreviation for Amazon Web Services, the cloud computing division of the giant Internet retailer.

  

  After three decades at the Central Intelligence Agency, Gordon had risen to one of the top jobs in the cloak-and-dagger world: principal deputy director of national intelligence. From that perch she publicly extolled the virtues of Amazon Web Services and the cloud services the tech giant provides the CIA.

  She told the crowd that the intelligence community’s 2013 decision to sign a multi-year, $600 million contract with AWS for cloud computing “will stand as one of those that caused the greatest leap forward. … The investment we made so many years ago in order to be able to try and harness the power of the cloud with a partner who wanted to learn and grow with us has left us not only ready for today but positioned for tomorrow.”

  The agreement was also a “real game-changer,” said André Pienaar, founder and CEO of a tech firm called C5 Capital, whose business includes reselling AWS services.

  “When the CIA said they were going adopt the AWS cloud platform,” Pienaar said at another AWS event.

  “People said if the U.S. intelligence community has the confidence to feel secure on the AWS cloud, why can’t we?”

  

  U.S. intelligence official Susan Gordon, top photo, extolling Amazon Web Services in 2019 and, just above, at a “FedTalks” in 2015 with AWS Vice President Bill Vass. He spoke glowingly of the government-AWS partnership. She agreed: “… If you believe in the engine of a great society, you’ve just described it.” YouTube/AWS

  Gordon left government in August 2019, two months after her  AWS summit talk. In November 2019  she became senior advisor to a consultancy with close Amazon connections and in April joined the board of  defense contractor with extensive AWS business.

  Gordon is one of scores of former government officials who have landed lucrative work in Big Tech.

  The synergy between Washington and Silicon Valley can be seen as the latest manifestation of the Beltway’s revolving door. But the size and scope of Big Tech – and the increasing dependence of government on its products and talent – suggest something more: the rise of a Digital-Intelligence Complex. Like the Military-Industrial Complex that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against in 1961, it represents a symbiotic relationship in which the lines between one and the other are blurred.

  

  Ike’s televised 1961 farewell address presciently warning of the “miltary-industrial complex.” Now it appears to have evolved. Wikipedia

  Gordon’s history illustrates this development. Her endorsement of Amazon was important to the company: AWS touted the success of the CIA deal as a prime reason it believed the Pentagon should award the company a 10-year, $10 billion contract for cloud computing for the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI. That bid has been mired in litigation as competing tech companies have accused the government of insider dealing, political interference, and other improprieties in considering and awarding the contract.

  The web services side of Amazon is believed to be the most profitable part of the mammoth company. Illustrating the pride of place AWS enjoys within Amazon, Jeff Bezos recently announced he is stepping aside from his role as CEO, making room for Andy Jassy, who has been in charge of the AWS subsidiary. It’s also a prime reason Amazon chose the D.C. suburbs for the company’s new HQ2: “The D.C. tech sector is one of the fastest growing in the world,” Teresa Carlson, AWS vice president for Worldwide Public Sector and Industries, told Washington Life magazine last year. That growth is “largely driven by big U.S. government projects,” she added.

  

  Jeff Bezos recently relinquished the role of Amazon CEO to Amazon Web Services boss Andy Jassy, right, ilustrating the pride of place AWS enjoys within Amazon. AWS Vice President Teresa Carlson, left, says growth is “largely driven by big U.S. government projects.” YouTube/AWS

  As Amazon has built that government business, AWS has had no bigger cheerleader than Gordon, who has made repeated presentations praising Amazon. In 2018, she  appeared at a government/industry confab called “FedTalks.” She shared the stage with AWS Vice President for Engineering Bill Vass, who interviewed her about the work they had done together.

  “Can you talk a little bit about the partnership that you’ve had with the cloud provider in this case?” Vass asked, and then added, “It’s been very tight.”

  “Throughout my career, which is long, all the great advances we’ve made have been in partnership with industry,” Gordon replied.

  “We’ve had a partner who is as committed to our needs as we were.”

  Vass said that the work with government had made AWS more attractive to private sector companies buying cloud services: “I’ve found it very satisfying to also take input from the intelligence agencies and put that into our commercial products. So, our commercial products–”

  “We’re demanding,” Gordon interjected with a laugh.

  “Yes, you are demanding, and that’s a good thing because it causes us to raise the bar continuously and I think that has enabled us to put those features into our commercial products,” Vass said. “And a lot of the security requirements that you’ve had just exist on our commercial products that our commercial customers can now leverage.”

  “Right,” said Gordon.

  “Right,” agreed Vass. “So, they sort of had that same level of security that you have, which is pretty exciting for all of our customers. 

  “Yeah,” Gordon enthused, “so, if you believe in the engine of a great society, you’ve just described it.” 

  ‘I Cannot Wait to See What We Do’

  Gordon also appeared in a “customer spotlight” on Oct. 7, 2015, at a gathering called the AWS re:Invent conference, where she provided Amazon with a testimonial: “With the help of partners like AWS, I cannot wait to see what we do.”

  A former top federal ethics official says that if he had been asked to okay Gordon’s participation in AWS events, he would have required that she explicitly tell the audience she was not endorsing Amazon. The former official told RCI that executive branch employees have to be careful not to run afoul of regulations that prohibit “the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise.”

  RealClearInvestigations attempted to contact Gordon multiple times for comment; she did not reply. RCI also asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence whether Gordon’s speech had been approved by government lawyers. “ODNI has a process in place to ensure that all engagements … are appropriately reviewed and vetted, including by ODNI ethics officials,” an ODNI spokesperson said. ODNI did not make available any materials documenting such review or vetting.

  For years, AWS has been making the same argument for its cloud services that Gordon repeatedly offered: that the intelligence community’s choice of the product showed the way forward for adoption by the public and private sector alike. But Gordon was hardly the only person connected to government with strong ties to Amazon.

  

  Sally Donnelly: Helped guide both the Defense Secretary and Amazon. Pallas Advisors

  Sally Donnelly is a former Time magazine reporter who left journalism and who would become director of the Washington office of U.S. Central Command. She left the Department of Defense in 2012 and formed a consulting practice called SBD Advisors. One of her first clients was C5 Capital, the tech firm founded and run by André Pienaar. Soon, SBD added Amazon Web Services to its roster of customers. Donnelly’s SBD advised AWS on how to sell its services to the Pentagon. 

  Donnelly helped guide Secretary of Defense nominee James Mattis through his Senate confirmation hearing in 2017, and was offered a position as senior adviser to Mattis. To accept, she had to sell her business. Also joining Mattis, as his deputy chief of staff, was Tony DeMartino, who had worked on the Amazon account at Donnelly’s consultancy.

  Donnelly found a ready buyer for her consultancy in Pienaar’s C5 Capital, which already owned 20% of SBD. Donnelly was paid $1.56 million for her remaining 80% stake. Donnelly received the payments in $390,000 chunks, the majority during  her time at the Pentagon.

  

  Trump Defense Secretary Jim Mattis: Attended a private dinner in London replete with Amazon connections. AP Photo/Richard Drew, File

  While Donnelly and DeMartino were working for Defense Secretary Mattis, the Pentagon was considering and comparing the companies competing for all or part of the $10 billion JEDI contract. Among the competitors was AWS. Two of the other companies vying for JEDI business, Oracle and IBM, each complained to the Government Accountability Office that they had been cut out of a fair chance at the contract. That would lead to an investigation by the DoD’s inspector general, the details of which were published last April.

  “The complaints we received alleged, among other issues, that Secretary Mattis and Ms. Donnelly provided preferential treatment to Amazon,” the IG said.

  One of the events Amazon’s cloud computing competitors complained about was a March 31, 2017, private dinner Mattis attended in London. Hosted by retired British general Graeme Lamb at 5 Hertford Street (a private club regularly described as “secretive”), the dinner had fewer than a dozen guests. Among them were Donnelly, Amazon Web Services V.P. Carlson, and C5 Capital’s Pienaar.

  Interviewed by the inspector general about the dinner, Mattis described Pienaar as a “friend.” As for Carlson, he said he had never met her before the London gathering and was “not certain why Teresa Carlson was included,” but offered that “Sally [Donnelly] knew Teresa.”  Donnelly told the IG that she had no “insight” into why Carlson was at the dinner.

  

  Tony DeMartino: Mattis aide helped opened the door to Amazon, and soon Mattis was meeting Jeff Bezos. Pallas Advisors

  But the notion that Carlson was an unknown mystery guest is not supported by sworn testimony given to the DoD Inspector General, transcripts of which have been acquired by RealClearInvestigations. Six weeks before the London dinner, DeMartino had emailed Carlson, writing, “We obviously would like all our friends around us going forward.” Asked by the Inspector General what he had meant, DeMartino explained the Secretary had “a list of the people to fill jobs in the Department of Defense.” The White House had its own list, and “there was a negotiation” going on. “So,” DeMartino answered the I.G., “that note to Teresa was that she was on Secretary Mattis’ list for a potential job.” RCI reached out to Mattis, asking why Carlson was on his list for a “senior position” at the DoD if he did not know her and had never met her. Mattis did not respond. 

  The dinner’s host, Lamb, is a partner at C5 Capital. The dinner opened the door to Amazon with Mattis. A few weeks later, someone from Amazon called Mattis’ staff and told them that at the dinner in London, the secretary of defense had “expressed interest in meeting with [Jeff] Bezos.” 

  There was a question among the military bureaucrats whether Mattis should meet with Amazon’s founder. So Donnelly prepared an internal memo  listing reasons for going ahead with the proposed get-together. Among them: “Bezos owns the Washington Post.” Donnelly touted his accomplishments:

  “Amazon is one of the most successful start-ups in the history of the US economy,” she wrote.

  “Amazon has revolutionized delivery and consumer service.”

  And then there was the product: “The Amazon cloud is the foundation of all Amazon’s businesses and allows unprecedented speed.” She also made the argument top intelligence official Sue Gordon repeated at Amazon sales conventions — that the CIA uses Amazon’s cloud. 

  

  Jeff Bezos: His private meeting with Defense Secretary Mattis drew the DoD inspector general’s scrutiny. Los Angeles Air Force Base

  Mattis met with various tech executives, including Bezos, on a West Coast trip. But he also met privately again with Bezos, over dinner in Washington the evening of Jan. 17, 2018. The only others at the dinner were Carlson and Donnelly.

  The inspector general concluded in April 2020 that, even with their connections to Amazon, neither Donnelly nor DeMartino had acted unethically. The IG seemed more persuaded that illegitimate influence, if there had been any, had come from a Bezos-hating President Trump, who reportedly told Mattis to “screw Amazon.”

  By the time the IG report came out, Mattis was no longer secretary of defense. And Sally Donnelly and Tony DeMartino had already left the Pentagon to start up a new consulting firm, Pallas Advisors. Teresa Carlson subsequently married André Pienaar.

  The JEDI contract was eventually awarded to Microsoft. Amazon is asking a federal court to overturn the Pentagon’s decision. An AWS spokesperson told RealClearInvestigations that the DoD is attempting “to avoid a meaningful and transparent review of the JEDI contract award.” 

  In August 2019, Sue Gordon resigned as principal deputy director of national intelligence. Her private sector career has flourished. Last April, she joined the board of defense contractor CACI. According to its website, “CACI is an Amazon Web Services (AWS) Premier Consulting Partner, Public Sector Partner, and Authorized Reseller.” The company brags of its “healthy revenue-generating consulting business on AWS.”

  It’s arguable that, given the far reach of AWS in Washington, it would be hard for Gordon to find post-government employment without there being some connection with Amazon or AWS. That said, Gordon is not entirely in the AWS orbit. She consults with Microsoft. Still, the most interesting private company Gordon has gone to work for is one founded by “consultants” with longstanding AWS connections. Gordon is now a senior adviser for the company Sally Donnelly and Tony DeMartino formed after they left the Pentagon: Pallas Advisors.

  If it appears there is a steadily revolving door between tech companies and national security workers and officials, it may be because Gordon is in favor of exactly that. In an interview with Wired magazine when she was still in office, Gordon advocated what Wired described as “more of a revolving door.” Gordon was characterized as envisioning “a new paradigm for sharing talented workers between the government and the private sector.” According to Wired, she claimed that techies should start in government where they can learn what the problems and challenges are. They should move over to the private sector where they will have more freedom to innovate. “And then when they are ready to slow down and leave the rat race,” Wired quotes her as saying, “they can return to government.”

  Gordon calls this “cross-pollination” and “talent-sharing.”

  Critics of tech industry power and influence point out that Big Tech is now among the biggest employers of lobbyists, hiring primarily those who formerly worked for government. In 2010 Amazon fielded eight lobbyists. Last year the company flooded the zone with 118, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

  This may or may not be good for government, which can’t afford to fall behind on the latest technologies. But it is clearly good for government workers who leave for the private sector, especially those who had been vocal “partners” and advocates of tech.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 23:25

• Amnesty International Rescinds Navalny's 'Prisoner Of Conscience' Status After Discovering His Past
  Amnesty International Rescinds Navalny’s ‘Prisoner Of Conscience’ Status After Discovering His Past

  In a surprise twist on the Alexei Navalny saga, and on the very day that it’s being widely reported Biden is preparing sanctions on Russia as punishment for his alleged poisoning by nerve agent last August, the human rights organization Amnesty International has withdrawn its formal designation of Navalny as a “prisoner of conscience”. 

  US state-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports the following on Tuesday:

  Amnesty International has reportedly withdrawn its recent designation of Russian opposition politician Aleksei Navalny’s as a “prisoner of conscience” over his alleged advocacy of violence and discrimination and comments that included hate speech.

  Aleksandr Artemyev, the rights watchdog’s media manager for Russia and Eurasia, confirmed the decision to Mediazona on February 23 after the news was first reported by U.S. journalist Aaron Mate.

  

  And just like that it appears the narrative which cast Navalny and his supporters as some kind of ‘anti-Putin freedom fighters’ has been deflated. 

  The early February street protests following Navalny’s arrest after he arrived from Berlin where he’d been recovering from an alleged poisoning were widely supported by officials in the West, including by the US and some European embassies in Moscow.

  This created tensions leading to the Kremlin expelling a handful of European diplomats, citing their stoking unrest related to ‘illegal’ protests. US mainstream media also gave the large pro-Navalny protests close coverage. 

  New: @AmnestyUK withdraws designation of Navalny as a “prisoner of conscience.” In email, Amnesty says it’s “no longer able to consider Aleksei Navalny a prisoner of conscience given the fact that he advocated violence and discrimination and he has not retracted such statements.” pic.twitter.com/E9m0e6lzT8

  — Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) February 23, 2021

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

  Here’s how Amnesty International previously described Navalny and his plight in a January press release:

  “He has previously been tried and convicted in two separate, politically-motivated criminal cases. On 29 December, the Russian Investigative Committee levelled new charges against Navalny, accusing him of embezzling 356 million rubles (£3.6m) in donations to the Anti-Corruption Foundation and affiliated non-profit organisations. Amnesty believes these charges are trumped-up.

  Navalny has been deprived of his liberty for his peaceful political activism and for exercising free speech. Amnesty considers him a prisoner of conscience and is calling for his immediate and unconditional release.”

  This “prisoner of conscience” designation is what Amnesty has now walked back in a clearly humiliating and devastating blow to his cause and his supporters.

  

  In the wake of the initial reports, an Amnesty official confirmed to independent Russian news outlet Meduza: “Yes, we will no longer use the phrase ‘prisoner of conscience’ when referring to [Navalny], insofar as our legal and political department studied Navalny’s statements from the mid-2000s and determined that they qualify as hate speech.”

  As an example of Navalny’s “newly uncovered” hate speech (though long well-known inside Russia), see this…

  Navalny’s infamous “Muslim migrants are cockroaches” video with English subtitles.
  At the end, Navalny shoots person representing Muslim migrants from North Caucasus. [Small correction: opener is “Alexei Navalny Certified Nationalist” not “specialist”] pic.twitter.com/XERk5qBMtn

  — Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) January 26, 2021

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

  He was recently sentenced by a Moscow court to serve over 2.5 years in prison for probation violation stemming from a prior embezzlement case.

  Amnesty’s dramatic change in designation is related to the “jailed Russian opposition politician’s past statements about migrants from Central Asia and the North Caucasus [which] constitute hate speech,” Meduza writes. But the question now remains how quickly he’ll be dropped as a darling of Western media coverage which has included a recent flurry of ‘romanticized’ reports on the anti-Kremlin activist, if at all.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 23:05

• Capitol Riots Were A Dark Day For American Journalism
  Capitol Riots Were A Dark Day For American Journalism

  Authored by Patrick Cockburn via Counterpunch.org,

  The invasion of the Capitol on 6 January now stands alongside 9/11 as an act of war against American democracy. Unsurprisingly, news coverage of the incursion has come to resemble war propaganda. All facts, true or false, are pointed in the same direction with the aim of demonising the enemy and anybody who minimises its demonic nature.

  

  The three-hour takeover of the Capitol building by a pro-Trump mob is portrayed as a “coup” or an “insurrection” egged on by President Trump. The five who died during the events are seen as evidence of a violent, pre-planned plot to overturn the result of the US presidential election. Film spliced together and shown by prosecutors during the impeachment proceedings gives the impression that what happened resembled a battle scene in Braveheart.

  Does it matter what really did occur?

  Many people feel that anything damaging to Trump and his fascistic followers is all right by them. They may suspect privately that accounts of Trump’s plot against America are exaggerated, but the fabricator of 30,573 falsehoods over the last four years is scarcely in a position to criticise his opponents for departing from the strict truth. They argue that he is an unprecedented threat to American democracy, even as it becomes clear that what actually happened in the Capitol on that day was radically different from the way elements of the media reported it.

  But what is reported matters and particularly so when it risks exaggerating violence or deepening fear and a sense of threat. If the US government really was the target of an armed insurrection, then this will be used to justify repression, as it was after 9/11, and not just against right wing conspiracy theorists. By becoming partisan instruments for spreading fake news, the media undermines its own credibility.

  A problem with a giant news story like the Capitol invasion is that at first it is over-covered before we know the full facts, and then it is under-covered when those facts begin to emerge. This has been true of US media coverage. But even at the time it seemed to be a very peculiar armed insurrection.

  Only one shot appears to have been fired and that was by a police officer who killed Trump supporter Ashil Babbitt who was involved in the storming of the Capitol.

  In a country like the US awash with guns, this absence of gunfire is remarkable.

  Five people died during the takeover of the Capitol building and this is the main proof of deadly intent by the rioters. But one of the dead was Babbitt, killed by the police, and three of the others were members of the pro-Trump mob, who died, respectively, from a stroke, a heart attack and from being accidentally crushed by the crowd.

  This leaves just one person, Capitol policeman Brian Sicknick, as the sole victim of the Trump supporters who allegedly beat him to death with a fire extinguisher. On 8 January, the New York Times ran two stories about his death, quoting anonymous law officers as describing how pro-Trump rioters had struck him on the head with a fire extinguisher causing “a bloody gash on his head”. He is then reported to have been rushed to hospital, placed on life support but to have died the following day.

  This graphic story went around the world and was widely picked up by other news outlets – including The Independent, the BBC and USA Today. It was also separately reported by the Associated Press. It gave credibility to the idea that the pro-Trump mob was willing to kill, even if they only killed one person. It also gave credibility to the idea that vice president Mike Pence, House speaker Nancy Pelosi and senator Mitt Romney had only escaped being lynched by seconds.

  Yet over the last seven weeks – without the world paying any attention – the story of the murder of Officer Sicknick has progressively unravelled. Just how this happened is told in fascinating detail by Glenn Greenwald, the investigative journalist and constitutional lawyer, who concludes that “the problem with this story is that it is false in all respects”.

  It was always strange that, though every event that took place during the riot was filmed, there is no video of the attack on Sicknick. He texted his brother later that day and sounded as if he was in good spirits. No autopsy report has been released that would confirm his alleged injuries. Conclusively, the New York Times quietly “updated” its original articles about the murder of Sicknick, admitting that new information had emerged that “questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police”.

  Since these officials were the only source for the original story, this – though readers might not guess it – amounts to an admission that it is untrue.

  The misreporting of the Capitol invasion also included: a man carrying zip ties – that were taken to be evidence of a possible organised plan to detain political leaders – were in fact, according to prosecutors, picked up from a table within the Capitol, likely to ensure police could not use them. It is significant because it is part of a decline in media reporting everywhere, but particularly in the US. Trump is both a symptom and cause of this decline since he is a past master of saying and doing things, however untruthful or absurd, which are usually entertaining and always attention-grabbing. He guarantees high ratings for himself and the television channels, Trump haters and Trump-lovers alike, to their mutual benefit.

  This symbiotic relationship between Trump and the media means that they do less and less reporting, allowing Trump and his supporters to provide the action while they provide the talking heads who thrive on venomous confrontation. Even American reporters on the ground have turned themselves into talking heads, willing to waffle on endlessly to meet the needs of 24/7 newscasts.

  Events on Capitol Hill provided damning evidence of this decline in American journalism when Robert Moore, ITV News’s Washington correspondent, was the only television correspondent to make his way into the Capitol in the middle of the turmoil. He later expressed astonishment that, given the vast resources of US television and the thousands of journalists in Washington, that it should be “a solitary TV crew from Britain that was the only one to capture this moment in history – it’s bizarre”.

  Bizarre, but not surprising. As a news event, the Capitol invasion showed that when it comes to spreading “fake facts”, the traditional media can be even more effective than the social media that is usually blamed.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 22:45

• It Now Only Costs $350 To 3D-Print An Entire Gun
  It Now Only Costs $350 To 3D-Print An Entire Gun

  The next round of COVID-19 relief could bring up to $1,400 direct payments to millions of Americans. Some people will buy food, save money, pay rent or bills. Others will gamble in the stock market. Some may take the free money and print an entire 3D gun at home. According to Futurism, it now only costs $350 to print to a firearm, including the printer’s cost. 

  Deterrence Dispensed, an online group that promotes and distributes open-source 3D-printed firearms, has designed a fully functional 3D-printable semiautomatic pistol caliber carbine. Designs for the FGC-9, which stands for “f**k gun control 9 mm,” were made widely available on the internet in late 2020. 

  

  The FGC-9 eliminates the need for factory-made gun parts. Its design was created with careful consideration for anyone, at any skill level, to produce the firearm at home with a 3D-printer. From the body of the weapon to the magazine, much of the gun can be printed. The FGC-9’s barrel, which is metal and cannot be printed with a typical 3D printer, is created through electrochemical machining. 

  

  Futurism states that the total cost of the weapon is $350, including a $250 printer and $100 in parts. 

  But the days of people sharing 3D printed gun designs on the internet could be limited. The Biden administration has repeatedly warned they will “stop ghost guns.” Here’s what Biden’s website says:

  One way people who cannot legally obtain a gun may gain access to a weapon is by assembling a one on their own, either by buying a kit of disassembled gun parts or 3D printing a working firearm. Biden will stop the proliferation of these so-called “ghost guns” by passing legislation requiring that purchasers of gun kits or 3D printing code pass a federal background check. Additionally, Biden will ensure that the authority for firearms exports stays with the State Department, and if needed, reverse a proposed rule by President Trump. This will ensure the State Department continues to block the code used to 3D print firearms from being made available on the internet.

  As for now, Deterrence Dispensed and Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed, another open-source website that develops firearms in CAD files, still operate, but we assume a crackdown is nearing.  

  US lawmakers could cite Baltimore’s massive increase in ghost gun seizures as one reason why these untraceable weapons need to be regulated or banned. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 22:25

• Mysterious $111 Billion Payment Gap Is "Talk Of The Town"
  Mysterious $111 Billion Payment Gap Is “Talk Of The Town”

  A bizarre disconnect between yuan settlement data and the PBOC’s balance sheet has generated much interest among economists and market participants, according to Bloomberg’s Ye Xie who notes that until recently, when China Inc. posted a trade surplus, corporates sold the dollar proceeds to commercial banks. The PBOC then bought the dollars from banks and sold yuan to them, as part of its intervention to slow the yuan’s appreciation.

  As a result, there used to be a tight relationship between the net yuan settlement – corporates selling dollars to banks – and changes in foreign-currency funds outstanding at the PBOC, a proxy for its intervention activities.

  However, as the chart below shows, the relationship started to fray some time in 2017 and the decoupling has become quite grotesque in recent months. As we first discussed yesterday, the latest settlement data released over the weekend showed Chinese banks bought a net 691 billion yuan ($107 billion) of foreign currency from clients in December and January, the most on record (since 2014). The surge suggest – to Xie – that exporters rushed to convert their dollar revenues to yuan ahead of the New Year Holiday and to take advantage of a stronger exchange rate.

  

  However, as the red line above shows, the PBOC’s FX funds outstanding barely changed, something we highlighted yesterday, and in fact, they declined by 24 billion yuan ($4 billion) during the two-month period. Combined, this $111 billion payment gap has become the “talk of the town” according to Xie.

  While it is not entirely clear what’s going on, there are at least two conclusions we can draw according to the Bloomberg macro strategist:

  • First, the central bank has stayed away from heavy-handed direct intervention.
  • Second, the banking system as a whole has accumulated a large amount of dollar assets, with an unknown purpose.

  What does this all mean, Xie asks? Well, as we touched on earlier this week, if dollars keep coming in – and they are doing just that at a record pace…

  

  … demand for the yuan will become so high that – without the PBOC adding money supply – liquidity will tighten. Therefore, the PBOC has to accumulate foreign reserves again to add money supply, as it used to do. Others say it’s difficult to return to the old policy when the exchange rate is under scrunity from the U.S.

  It may also explain why, as the SCMP reported last week, China is mulling cracking open its monetary firewall, and “allowing investment in overseas stocks, insurance” and maybe even housing (and while we are at it, why not bitcoin?)

  Chinese individuals cannot directly invest in overseas stocks and bonds unless they are through banks or qualified institutional investors. Citizens are also banned from exchanging the yuan to buy property overseas.

  Guan Tao, a former division director at SAFE, said Beijing had flagged the idea now because the yuan has been appreciating and foreign exchange supply has exceeded demand, meaning the country’s trade surplus had grown but there were few channels for capital outflows.

  “There is not an effective hedging mechanism, and there are three ways to deal with the current situation: increase the exchange rate flexibility, control capital inflows to some extent, and expand capital outflows in an orderly manner,” said Guan, who is now chief economist at BOC International.

  It would be remarkable if, as a result of the record recent inflows of dollars which may be behind this “mystery” $111 billion payment gap, Beijing would be forced to liberalize its currency. This is how Rabobank’s Michael Every explained the challenge facing China (a loose recap of the impossible trinity, also known as the trilemma, according to which it is impossible to have all three of the following at the same time: i) a fixed foreign exchange rate, ii) absence of capital controls and iii) an independent monetary policy_.

  … As in the 1930s, no country wants to see a stronger currency and become a larger net importer of goods (and exporter of jobs). That includes China. To avoid excess FX appreciation on the back of its huge trade surpluses and the rising capital inflows from global markets happily shrugging off any Biden appeals to trans-Atlantic values, Beijing may not only allow easy access to the promised USD50,000 in per capita annual FX outflows, but permit this for buying foreign financial assets or property! Let’s see if this is actually delivered, but if it is, more levitation for all assets outside China seems assured. Ta-dah! Let’s just try not to think of the risks involved from the asset-liability imbalances as foreign capital flows into China, and those FX flow back out again rather than boosting its FX reserves – especially if that FX flows into US assets, helping to push up US real yields even faster

  Others, such as Larry Hu, head of China economics at Macquarie Group, agree that a gradual restart of FX outflows may be in the cards: “what is clear is that policy makers will likely open up more channels for outflows to ease the appreciation pressure” and while it remains to be seen if the hard retail cap of $50,000/year is expanded, already the QDII quota – which allows domestic institutions to invest abroad – has been increased again. Certainly relaxing limits on individuals’ overseas investment could be the next step.

  And whether Chinese households – who as a reminder have a financial system that is 150% bigger than its US counterpart…

  

  … end up buying US stocks (sending real rates even higher), US real estate or just bitcoin, the consequences for global capital flows will be massive.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 22:05

• Apple Reclaims Top Smartphone Maker, First Time Since 2016 
  Apple Reclaims Top Smartphone Maker, First Time Since 2016 

  Apple reigned supreme in the fourth quarter as it shipped more smartphones than any other company in the fourth quarter. Still, in the full year, Samsung emerged as the top smartphone vendor, according to a report released by market research firm Gartner on Monday.

  Apple shipped 80 million phones in the final three months of 2020, surpassing rival Samsung to become the world’s top smartphone maker. The last time this happened was in 2016. Apple’s growth was primarily driven by the release of the 5G iPhone 12 series. 

  Due to the US government’s sanctions, Huawei suffered a massive slide in smartphone sales for the quarter, down 41%. The Chinese technology company sank to fifth place in the table below, beneath other domestic rivals Xiaomi and Oppo. 

  

  Anshul Gupta, senior research director at Gartner, wrote in the report that “sales of more 5G smartphones and lower-to-mid-tier smartphones minimized the market decline in the fourth quarter of 2020.” 

  Gupta said, “even as consumers remained cautious in their spending and held off on some discretionary purchases, 5G smartphones and pro-camera features encouraged some end users to purchase new smartphones or upgrade their current smartphones in the quarter.” 

  Gartner’s numbers indicate Apple has weathered the pandemic storm much better than its competitors. 

  Even though Apple led the fourth quarter, on a full-year basis, Samsung was the top smartphone vendor. Samsung posted a 14.6% decline year-on-year in 2020. However, the highest drop was suffered by Huawei.

  

  Overall, global smartphone shipments declined 5.4% in 2020 amid the worldwide coronavirus pandemic, according to Gartner. 

  Gupta believes affordable 5G smartphones could boost 2021 sales. 

  “In 2021, the availability of lower end 5G smartphones and innovative features will be deciding factors for end-users to upgrade their existing smartphones,” he said. “The rising demand for affordable 5G smartphones outside China will boost smartphone sales in 2021.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 21:45

• Kentucky Police Officer Fired For Allegedly Giving Officers' Information To BLM Protesters
  Kentucky Police Officer Fired For Allegedly Giving Officers’ Information To BLM Protesters

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

  A police officer in Kentucky was fired on Feb. 19 over allegations he provided a Black Lives Matter organizer with information about other officers in the department during protests last year.

  

  Lexington Police Officer Jervis Middleton was fired after a unanimous vote by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council, said local reports. The council found Middleton guilty on two of three counts of violating operational rules.

  “Officer Middleton’s conduct during a highly stressful and potentially vulnerable time during the history of our community – the most significant policing event in our community in 20 years – demonstrates that he should no longer be a police officer,” said Keith Horn, a lawyer with the city, told the Lexington Herald-Leader.

  Middleton challenged his termination and said the information didn’t jeopardize officers’ safety and was free speech. Middleton, who is black, said he faced racial taunts and discrimination in the department.

  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) division in Kentucky also weighed in.

  “The ACLU of Kentucky is concerned (the) Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council fired Officer Jervis Middleton amidst longstanding calls for a radical transformation of policing and transparent relationships with the public,” said Executive Director Michael Aldridge in a statement to Kentucky.com.

  “While Officer Middleton’s actions may warrant some level of disciplinary action, it is particularly concerning he was more swiftly investigated and harshly punished for sharing non-critical information than officers who use excessive force against protesters or create the culture of racism and hostility Middleton reported to no avail.”

  Lexington Police Chief Lawrence Weathers said a police disciplinary board recommended that Middleton be fired after he shared information with the organization and allegedly lied about it, according to the Herald-Leader. The paper reported said that Middleton used police resources to look up information about a woman who he was allegedly involved with.

  “I felt like the discipline he received last time should have been a message to him and allow him to come back and become the officer that I know he can be,” Weathers said.

  “After this, I just can’t see him coming back. To me, it was a violation of trust and a violation of the position of a police officer. He was supposed to protect the public, but he should also protect his fellow officers.”

  Investigators wrote that Middleton advised Williams that “certain officers and command staff were ‘racists’ and directed her to call them out during the protests” last year.

  “He also provided her copies of sensitive ‘law enforcement only’ communications, including emails and text messages which outlined staffing, operational, and deployment plans. Based upon conversations between Ms. Williams and Officer Middleton, it is reasonable to believe that he knew what she would do and how she would use it against the officers and the agency once she received it,” they wrote. There are also incidents where Officer Middleton actively encouraged Ms. Williams [tp] curse out and use the personal information he provided in a manner to embarrass the officers involved.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 21:25

• Japan Appoints "Minister Of Loneliness" After Disturbing Rise In 'Social Distancing Era' Suicides
  Japan Appoints “Minister Of Loneliness” After Disturbing Rise In ‘Social Distancing Era’ Suicides

  Japan like many other developed nations witnessed an alarming rise in suicides or attempted suicides over this past year of pandemic shutdowns and social distancing measures. The country was already at crisis levels even before the pandemic (though generally on a downward trajectory the prior decade), with recent studies showing it to be “the leading cause of death in men among the ages of 20-44 and women among the ages of 15 to 34.”

  To tackle the crisis, especially in the midst of this COVID-induced period of greater social isolation, Japan’s government has appointed a “Minister of Loneliness” after the UK became the first country to establish such a position in 2018.

  

  The most recent numbers cited in Japanese media reports say that 879 women killed themselves in the country during the month of October, a figure that marks a whopping 70% increase compared to the same month from 2019. Officials have noted that the pandemic and oftentimes mandated social distancing measures have appeared to have a harsher impact on women.

  According to Japan Times, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga earlier in the month appointed as the new Minister of Loneliness a 70-year old veteran politician named Tetsushi Sakamoto. It is a cabinet level position which aims to alleviate social isolation among citizens. 

  He’ll head up an ’emergency taskforce’ to battle the disturbing spike in suicides nationally as his first order of business. “With isolation tied to an array of social woes such as suicide, poverty and hikikomori (social recluses), the Cabinet Office also established a task force Friday that seeks to address the problem of loneliness across various ministries, including by investigating its impact,” Japan Times writes.

  “According to preliminary figures released by the National Police Agency, 20,919 people took their own lives in 2020, up 750 from the previous year and marking the first year-on-year increase in 11 years. The surge is largely attributed to a noticeable rise in suicides among women and young people,” the report pointed out.

  Suicides end 10-year decline in Japan as pandemic stress hits women harder https://t.co/s0bs6uCSV9 pic.twitter.com/boOuCnC49U

  — Reuters (@Reuters) January 22, 2021

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

  Perhaps ironically, Japan also a has minister in charge of tackling Japan’s sharply declining birthrate, which has also been subject of much reporting in recent years. 

  We wonder if these ministers will tackle some of the underlying problems related to both the suicide and low birthrate crisis. As an example recall that Japan has seen whole high-tech industries and supposed ‘solutions’ arise, including ‘loneliness’ bots that provide AI-based “companionship” and even sex robots. 

  One UK media report recounts for example, “Experts have suggested that the popularity of love dolls and sex robots might be to blame for Japan’s declining birth rate. One even warned that Japanese people had become ‘an endangered species’ as the nation falls in love with silicon women.” These bizarre trends only look to perpetuate the problems. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 21:05

• Biden Administration Rejects China's Calls For Better Relations
  Biden Administration Rejects China’s Calls For Better Relations

  Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

  In the wake of the Trump administration, US-China relations are at their lowest point in decades. For weeks now, Chinese officials have been calling for better relations, and on Monday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi continued the call.

  “We stand ready to have candid communication with the US side, and engage in dialogues aimed at solving problems,” Wang said. He also called on the US to lift trade restrictions and stop interfering in China’s internal affairs. The US responded sharply to Wang’s remarks.

  

  “I think his comments reflect the continued pattern of Beijing’s tendency to avert blame for its predatory economic practices, its lack of transparency, its failure to honor its international agreements, and its repression of universal human rights,” US State Department spokesman Ned Price said in response to Wang.

  “You’ve heard us speak before about the way in which we will approach China, through the prism of competition from a position of strength,” Price added.

  So far, President Biden’s China policy is looking a lot like his predecessor’s. US warships continue to frequently sail into the South China Sea, trade restrictions are still in place, and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said tariffs on Chinese goods will remain, at least for now.

  Biden’s Pentagon is currently reviewing the US military’s posture in Asia and its overall China policy. The review is being led by Ely Ratner, a China hawk who co-authored an article last September titled, “Trump Has Been Weak on China, and Americans Have Paid the Price.” Ratner was appointed to advise Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who Republican China hawks feared was too inexperienced on Asia.

  Speaking at the Munich Security Conference last week, President Biden said the US and its allies must prepare for “long-term strategic competition with China.” Working with regional allies to confront China seems to be the focus of Washington’s Asia strategy. Even NATO is looking to get in on the action in the Pacific.

  Also speaking at the Munich Conference, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg echoed Biden and said the “rise of China” is a “defining issue” for the alliance. “This is why NATO should deepen our relationships with close partners, like Australia and Japan, and forge new ones around the world,” he said.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 20:45

• First Batch Of Russian COVID Jab Arrives In Mexico
  First Batch Of Russian COVID Jab Arrives In Mexico

  The first shipment of Russia’s Sputnik V COVID jab has arrived in Mexico just days after the Russian government moved to approve another experimental vaccine developed by Russian entities.

  In a statement, Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard Casaubon said that the Russian vaccine has shown “very good results” and is “one of the best-evaluated in the world,” adding that more batches would land in the future. Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (which financed the development of the vaccine) praised the cooperation between Russia and Mexico as “a great example of pooling efforts to jointly fight the pandemic and save lives.”

  

  Last night, WHO head Dr. Tedros urged the developed world not to order more vaccine doses than its population will need, as it might divert supplies away from poorer nations who need the vaccines.

  Mexico has greatly lagged the US and Europe in terms of its vaccination rollout.

  The Russian jab was approved for emergency use in Mexico back on Feb. 3. Mexico is one of some 30 countries, including Argentina and Brazil, that have moved to embrace the Russian vaccine. And why not? The Russian jab is cheaper than western-developed shots, and even the Lancet acknowledged that the Gamaleya-developed jab is more than 90% effective at preventing viral symptoms.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 20:25

• Rochester Cops Avoid Charges In Death Of Mentally Distressed Black Man Placed In 'Spit Hood'
  Rochester Cops Avoid Charges In Death Of Mentally Distressed Black Man Placed In ‘Spit Hood’

  A New York Grand Jury has voted not to indict several Rochester police officers involved in the death of 41-year-old Daniel Prude last March, according to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who launched an investigation into the fatal encounter.

  In a viral video released nearly six months after his death, Prude could be seen sitting handcuffed and naked in the street, wearing a “spit hood” which had been placed around his head after he reportedly smashed store windows and ranted about having COVID-19. The officers could be seen laughing and smiling as Prude made delusional comments, at times shouting incoherently in what a lieutenant later described in police documents as Prude having “acted in a fashion consistent with an individual in some form of mental distress.”

  Rochester police arrested Prude in the early hours of March 23 while responding to a 911 call made by his brother, who was concerned about Prude’s safety during an apparent mental health crisis.

  Prude had been released from Rochester’s Strong Memorial Hospital earlier that evening after expressing suicidal thoughts and had left his brother’s house wearing long johns and a tank top in below-freezing temperatures. Police found him naked and acting irrationally, allegedly smashing storefront windows and ranting about having the coronavirus. –NPR

  According to police reports, Prude lost consciousness and stopped breathing – only to die a week later after being taken off life support.

  Prude’s family, which obtained the bodycam footage through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, filed a federal lawsuit alleging the Rochester police department attempted to cover up the true nature of his death.

  

  According to the Chicago Tribune, officers Troy Taladay, Paul Ricotta, Francisco Santiago, Andrew Specksgoor, Josiah Harris and Mark Vaughn, along with Sgt. Michael Magri were cleared of wrongdoing by the Grand Jury, after their attorneys argued that the officers were strictly following their training that night, and had employed a restraining technique called “segmenting.”

  They claim that Prude’s use of PCP was the “root cause” of his death, while the county medical examiner cited the drug as a “contributing factor.”

  Following Prude’s death, Democratic Mayor Lovely Warren fired police chief La’Ron Singletary, the latter of whom claims that Warren told him to lie to support her claim that she didn’t know about Prude’s death until months later, and that he was fired for refusing to do so.

  

  Warren announced a run for a third term in January and pleaded not guilty in October to an unrelated indictment alleging she broke campaign finance rules and committed fraud. The city’s public integrity office found no ethical lapses by the mayor in a narrow review of Prude’s death.

  The city halted its investigation into Prude’s death when James’ office began its own investigation in April. Under New York law, deaths of unarmed people in police custody are typically turned over to the attorney general’s office, rather than handled by local officials. –Chicago Tribune

  Cover photo via the Daily Mail.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 20:05

• Variable Rate Electricity Plans Under Scrutiny After Texas Power Bill Chaos 
  Variable Rate Electricity Plans Under Scrutiny After Texas Power Bill Chaos 

  There are a couple of types of electricity plans for commercial and residential customers. Some power companies offer fixed-rate electricity plans, while others provide variable-rate electricity plans. It’s up to the customer which plan they select – not knowing the difference can be financially painful when power rates rise, as many in Texas found out last week. 

  More than a dozen states allow power companies to offer variable rate plans, which fluctuate with power prices. As of 2019, about 11 million homes and businesses nationwide were enrolled in variable-rate programs, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

  

  Scrutiny of dynamic pricing comes as last week’s power grid chaos in Texas resulted in rolling blackouts for days. Power prices spiked to unprecedented levels as various power generations froze due to the polar vortex dumping Arctic weather into the state. 

  As the energy crisis unfolded, we were one of the first to note variable rate plans would go to the “moon” as power prices spiked. We then provided shocking accounts of some residents who were slapped with multi-thousand dollar energy bills. 

  In particular, Texan resident Ty Williams told local news WFAA that his average electric bill is around $660 per month. After the rolling blackouts, his power bill jumped to $17,000. 

  John Howat, a senior energy analyst with National Consumer Law Center, a consumer advocacy group, told Reuters that electric suppliers in other states pushed customers to join variable-rate style plans. 

  Since the Texas energy crisis, multiple states have opened probes into surging utility bills. Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter told reporters Monday that his team will be investigating whether power companies violated Oklahoma laws that cap prices of goods to a 10% rise after an emergency is declared.

  “The goal there is to, in as substantive and productive a way as possible, figure out ways to mitigate the impact of this utility bill phenomenon we’re expecting to see in the next couple of months,” Hunter said.

  Texas utility regulators have said a temporary ban is in place from billing customers or cutting off their power for non-payment. 

  Catherine Webking, a partner at Austin-based law firm Scott Douglass & McConnico, said there is some good news among residential power customers; most do not have variable-rate plans.

  “It’s important to understand that is such a small, small sliver,” Webking said.

  Unfortunately, when energy demand is high, the wholesale price of power can be quite expensive. Certainly, scrutiny is building across multiple state governments about how some energy companies charge their customers. 

  One Texas resident was slapped with a multi-thousand dollar power bill. She said:

  “I’m not exactly sure what I’m supposed to do – should I take from my 401K? Should I get a loan?”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 19:45

• Case Study Shows Cannabis Led To Remarkable Improvement In Childhood Autism Symptoms
  Case Study Shows Cannabis Led To Remarkable Improvement In Childhood Autism Symptoms

  Authored by Matt Agorist via TheFreeThoughtProject.com,

  An extremely promising case study was recently published in the Journal of Medical Case Reports illustrating the positive effects of cannabis extract and its association with improved autism related behavioral symptoms.

  

  According to the authors, “the pharmacological treatment for autism spectrum disorders is often poorly tolerated and has traditionally targeted associated conditions, with limited benefit for the core social deficits. We describe the novel use of a cannabidiol-based extract that incidentally improved core social deficits and overall functioning in a patient with autism spectrum disorder, at a lower dose than has been previously reported in autism spectrum disorder.”

  The case study focused on a child with autism who was switching out prescription seizure medicine for his epilepsy with a very low cannabidiol-based extract dose. The study found that not only did the cannabidiol extract help with his seizures, but he also “experienced unanticipated positive effects on behavioral symptoms and core social deficits,” according to the study.

  Researchers pointed out that to modify disruptive behaviors and improve social communication skills, often times children with autism are prescribed psychopharmacologic medications that target specific ASD core behaviors (for example, repetitive behaviors) and associated behaviors (for example, hyperactivity, aggression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances), but do not treat core social communication deficits. They explain that these medications are known for producing “substantial side effects.”

  For example, aripiprazole and risperidone, the only two medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat irritability and agitation in ASD, frequently cause somnolence, increased appetite, and weight gain.

  These factors have led to families seeking alternative treatments outside of the psychopharmacologic realm. One of the newest forms of these alternative medicines is cannabidiol-based extract.

  Researchers reported that the patient’s symptoms improved within six-months of treatment, and that he has maintained “positive effects on his behavioral symptoms, anxiety, sleep, and social deficits” since that time.

  The results of CBE treatments, according to the case study, were nothing short of remarkable.

  He became more motivated and energetic, starting his own vegetarian diet and exercise programs, ultimately losing 6.4 kg after starting CBE for a calculated BMI of 21.33 kg/m2. He was able to start his first part-time job helping customers and interacting with them. He was instructed to fill out the self-administered Adult AQ which resulted in a normal score of 10. His mother stated he now also has a girlfriend.

  “This case report provides evidence that a lower than previously reported dose of a phytocannabinoid in the form of a cannabidiol-based extract may be capable of aiding in autism spectrum disorder-related behavioral symptoms, core social communication abilities, and comorbid anxiety, sleep difficulties, and weight control,” authors concluded. “Further research is needed to elucidate the clinical role and underlying biological mechanisms of action of cannabidiol-based extract in patients with autism spectrum disorder.”

  According to a report in Norml, these finding back up previous research published last year by investigators at Tufts University in Boston who similarly reported that the oral administration of cannabis-based products is associated with improvements in autistic symptoms in patients with self-injurious behaviors and co-morbid epilepsy, Several small clinical trials – such as those reported here, here, here, and here – have also previously reported that plant-derived cannabis extracts are effective and well-tolerated in mitigating various symptoms in patients with ASD, including hyperactivity, seizures, anxiety, and rage attacks.

  Knowing these incredible effects, imagine the obstinance, cruelty, and sheer lunacy that it takes for those in Washington to keep cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug – claiming it has no medical use whatsoever.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 19:25

• Softbank Reportedly Eyes Billion-Dollar Biotech Bet
  Softbank Reportedly Eyes Billion-Dollar Biotech Bet

  Though SoftBank has denied it, rumors are circulating Tuesday that the Japanese telecom/venture capital giant is planning to invest billions of dollars in the biotech sector.

  

  The booming SPAC trend has amplified curiosity about Softbank’s next big investment idea, especially amid rumors that the company might pursue a SPAC as the vehicle for its second “Vision Fund”, and according to Bloomberg’s sources, SB is looking to focus on biotech, a sector that has already been embraced by Wall Street Bets and others betting on microcap biotech stocks.

  

  Biotech has been a hot sector for the SPAC trend: this past week alone, Foresite Capital’s second SPAC raised $175 million in its IPO, while two other biotech SPACs, European Biotech Acquisition and Frontier Acquisition, filed to raise a total of $300 million in their Nasdaq debuts.

  Japan’s aging population offers fertile ground for biotech companies looking to solve myriad problems linked to aging. Softbank has already made a series of equity investments in the sector, including a $312MM stake in Pacific Biosciences of California, an American DNA-sequencing company whose stock has risen almost 9x over the past year. 

  And now, the Japanese firm is reportedly planning to spend billions investing in public biotech companies, according to Bloomberg and its sources. The trades will reportedly be housed in the company’s SB Northstar, which houses some of the company’s Nasdaq “whale” trades. One Softbank rep told Bloomberg that the report about Northstar’s role were inaccurate.

  “This is misleading and inaccurate,” said a SoftBank spokesperson.

  “SB Northstar continues to consider investment opportunities across the entire technology spectrum and is not specifically focused on one particular sector.”

  Softbank has already made a number of investments in health-care startups, primarily through its Vision Fund, such as 10x Genomics and Roivant Sciences. The Japanese investor also has a $298MM equity stake in Canadian antibody-drug discovery platform AbCellera Biologics, a small investment in 4D Molecular Therapeutics, and is planning a further $900MM convertible debt investment in a company called PacBio, according to Bloomberg.

  Still, analysts and investors have been speculating about whether founder Masayoshi Son will spend more than $80B in assets, after the Softbank CEO last year unveiled plans to sell off $43B in assets and buy back 2.5 trillion yen of its own stock. Shares in the Japanese billionaire’s company have since surged, reaching the highest close since the company went public in 1994, and flying past a long-standing record two decades ago. This has helped Softbank’s post-WeWork turnaround, and will continue to enable Masa Son to trawl about for a new strategy.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 19:05

• Chicken Sandwich Craze Draws In More Competition
  Chicken Sandwich Craze Draws In More Competition

  Submitted by Market Crumbs,

  We wrote just last month about McDonald’s and KFC rushing to capitalize on the popular crispy chicken sandwich as they each announced they’ll introduce versions of their own.

  

  Once again, the last week has seen a slew of quick service restaurants announce they’ll offer their own take on the popular chicken sandwich as Wendy’s, Burger King and Taco Bell all prepare to steal market share in the category.

  In a press release titled We Won’t Half A** a New Chicken Sandwich, Burger King announced last week that it will introduce a new hand-breaded chicken sandwich later this year. Promising no more “burger-joint-quality” chicken, Burger King said it’s been working on the sandwich since 2019 and testing it since last September.

  The sandwich, which will be available in original or spicy, contains breaded thick cut white meat chicken breast, crisp deli pickles and signature sauce on a toasty potato bun.

  “What if hand-breading were to chicken what flame-grilling is to burgers? That’s been our guiding filter to bring a delicious chicken sandwich to guests in a way only BK can,” Burger King North America chief marketing officer Ellie Doty said.

  On the same day that Burger King announced its chicken sandwich, Wendy’s unveiled the Wendy’s Jalapeño Popper Chicken Sandwich and Salad. The Jalapeño Popper Chicken Sandwich is stacked with ingredients including Wendy’s spicy chicken fillet, creamy jalapeño cream cheese, six slices of jalapenos, three strips of bacon, and cheddar cheese and shredded pepper jack cheese on a toasted bun.

  “While everyone else is playing catch up and distracting consumers with stale chicken drops, we are listening and bringing exciting flavors and bold ingredients forward to help fans avoid the McStake of settling for the same boring chicken sandwiches from other fast-food joints,” Wendy’s Chief Marketing Officer Carl Loredo said. “Our new Jalapeño Popper Chicken Sandwich casts a big shadow across the competition and really delivers an enhanced chicken sandwich experience.”

  Taco Bell announced yesterday that it would join the chicken wars by introducing the Crispy Chicken Sandwich Taco, which will be available in Nashville, Tennessee and Charlotte, North Carolina on March 11 before a wider rollout later this year.

  The Crispy Chicken Sandwich Taco features white-meat chicken marinated in jalapeño buttermilk, spices and a crust made from tortilla chip crumbs, along with creamy chipotle sauce and jalapeño slices on a taco-shaped “puffy bread.”

  “It’s a sandwich AND a taco,” a Taco Bell spokesperson told Thrillist. “And it doesn’t have to explain itself to be this delicious.” The spokesperson added it won’t be the only “chicken innovation” that Taco Bell releases this year.

  As quick service restaurants rush to introduce a chicken sandwich, or taco, it looks like the chicken sandwich craze is far from over.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 18:45

• Board Leaders Of Texas Power Grid Resign After Blackout Outrage
  Board Leaders Of Texas Power Grid Resign After Blackout Outrage

  The chair of Texas’s power grid operator and four other board members have resigned in the wake of the widespread outrage resulting from the energy crisis that crippled the state’s electrical system.

  According to a filing by the PUC of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas Chair Sally Talberg resigned along with Vice Chair Peter Cramton and board members Raymond Hepper, Terry Bulger, Vanessa Anesetti-Parra,/

  In their resignation letter, the member cited recent concerns raised about out-of-state board leadership at the grid operator. “To allow state leaders a free hand with future direction and to eliminate distractions, we are resigning from the board effective after our urgent board teleconference meeting adjourns on Wednesday, February 24, 2021.”

  

  The resignations come as the Texas grid operator ERCOT and state regulators scramble to contain the catastrophic fallout from last week’s blackouts that left millions of homes without heat and light during a severe cold snap. The resignations also come after Texas Governor Greg Abbott last week called for Ercot leadership, including board members, to step down, and one day after the mother of an 11-year-old Texas boy who died during the power outage sued ERCOT and Entergy.

  “We look forward to working with the Texas Legislature, and we thank the outgoing Board Members for their service,” Ercot spokesperson Leslie Sopko said in a statement.

  Craig Ivey also submitted a letter to withdraw his petition for approval as an unaffiliated director, citing concerns stakeholders recently expressed of having out-of-state directors.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 18:25

• Can Governments Stop Bitcoin?
  Can Governments Stop Bitcoin?

  Authored by Alex Gladstein via Quillette.com,

  Since its creation more than 12 years ago, Bitcoin is undefeated. Its price has leaped from $5 to $50 to $500 to $5,000 to now past $50,000. The number of global users has eclipsed 100 million. The system’s network security, number of developers, and new applications are at all-time highs. Dozens of companies including Tesla and Square have started to add Bitcoin to their corporate treasuries.

  

  This worldwide success doesn’t mean that people haven’t tried to stop Bitcoin. The digital money project has in fact survived a variety of attacks which in some cases threatened its existence.

  There are two main vectors: network attacks on the software and hardware infrastructure, and legal attacks on Bitcoin users.

  Before we explore them and consider why they failed, let’s start at the beginning.

  In January 2009, a mysterious coder going by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto launched Bitcoin, an open-source financial network with big ambitions: to replace central banking with a decentralized, peer-to-peer system with no rulers. It would use a programmable, highly-fungible token that could be spent like electronic cash or saved like digital gold. It would be distributed around the world through a set-in-stone money printing schedule to a subset of users who would compete to secure the network with energy and in return, get freshly minted Bitcoin.

  Initially, most were understandably skeptical, and very few paid attention. There had been attempts at creating “ecash” before, and all had failed. No one had been able to figure out how to create a decentralized, incorruptible mint, or how to grow a system that couldn’t be stopped by governments.

  But a small community grew around Bitcoin, which promised just that. Led by Satoshi and Hal Finney, this group of iconoclasts discussed, tinkered with, and improved the software in its first year, using their computers to mine1 50 worthless Bitcoin every 10 minutes. Eventually, someone decided these virtual tokens were worth enough to accept in return for a real-world good. On May 22nd, 2010, a developer named Laszlo Hanyecz paid 10,000 Bitcoin for two Papa John’s pizzas, at an exchange rate of .1 cents per Bitcoin. No one could have predicted that Laszlo’s pizza order would one day be so costly: today, this order is worth more than $500 million.

  Since the early days of PC mining and the Silk Road, Bitcoin has become a global phenomenon. No one knows who Satoshi is, but if their creation was a company, it would be one of the world’s top 10 most valuable. Its fan base has grown from a few pseudonyms on Cypherpunk messageboards to including the likes of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Harvard professor Niall Ferguson, Fidelity CEO Abby Johnson, actress Lindsay Lohan, singer Soulja Boy, skateboarder Tony Hawk, and investor Paul Tudor Jones. It has its own unicode character, the ₿. An industry conference held this month focusing on how to add Bitcoin to corporate treasuries drew more than 6,000 companies. MIT boasts a research center contributing to long-term Bitcoin security.

  Bitcoin markets have popped up in virtually every country and major urban area on Earth, with local traders eager to buy Bitcoin in exchange for local currency everywhere from Caracas to Manila to Moscow. Millions of people in Nigeria, Argentina, Iran, Cuba, and beyond are now using Bitcoin to escape their local currency system, and opt into something with a better track record as a store of value than the naira, bolivar, rial, or peso. They can control their Bitcoin with a private key (think: password) that they can store on a phone, USB stick, on paper, or even with memorized wordlists, and send the currency to family or friends anywhere on Earth in minutes, with no permission from any authority required.

  The mainstream media typically portrays Bitcoin as a penny stock gone wild, or a new kind of digital tulip mania. But the reality is Bitcoin is a political project that threatens to fundamentally disrupt the Davos-led economic system, with everyone from Janet Yellen to Christine Lagarde expressing fear about its rise and demanding it be regulated.

  Governments retain their power in part by issuing and controlling money. Bitcoin is a new model that mints and secures money without governments. So the big question is: Why haven’t governments or megacorps stopped it? And if they try to attack Bitcoin in the near future, what would that look like?

  There is an enormous amount of speculation on the Internet about how Bitcoin might be attacked, but few stop to think about why it hasn’t already been destroyed. The answer is that there are political and economic incentives for more and more people to push the system forward and strengthen its security, and strong political, economic, and technical disincentives that discourage attacks.

  Certainly, Bitcoin isn’t too small to draw the attention of governments. Previous attempts at parallel online digital currencies, like e-Gold and Liberty Reserve, were shut down by the US government before even making it to $10 billion in market capitalization. Bitcoin now has a market cap north of $1 trillion. Every day Bitcoin survives, it becomes stronger, and for many attack vectors, the windows are rapidly closing.

  One reason that Bitcoin is so tenacious is that it is a globally-distributed phenomenon. The vast majority of mining takes place outside of the US in China and central Asia. But the vast majority of Bitcoin holders and buyers appear to be US and EU entities, and the software’s core developers and node-runners (who host Bitcoin’s servers) are scattered throughout the world. The most important person in Bitcoin—its inventor—is no longer relevant, and could even be dead.

  Coding, mining, infrastructure, and markets are all independent, happening in competing jurisdictions and geopolitical rivals, often done by anonymous or pseudonymous actors, all with different philosophies and goals, but with one uniting motivation: to keep Bitcoin going.

  Unlike every other cryptocurrency, there is no central point of failure. Bitcoin has no Vitalik Buterin, no Ethereum Foundation, no Deltec bank like Tether, no fancy offices in San Francisco, no team of lawyers, no governance token, no VC-backing, no pre-mine, no small council, and no whales able to manipulate the system. This decentralized architecture has already insulated Bitcoin from attacks at the highest levels. No matter how much Bitcoin you own, you can’t change the rules, print more, censor, steal or prevent others from using the network.

  Arguably the most powerful financial force in the world—the US government led by then-Treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin—just launched an attack on Bitcoin in December 2020. It was not a particularly strong one, but still, an attack nonetheless, which would have forced US exchanges to gather more information about individuals withdrawing their Bitcoin to wallets they control than even mainstream banks collect, handing the surveillance state much more intricate knowledge of Bitcoin’s flow of funds. But the crackdown failed, stymied by a broad coalition of opposition, and Mnuchin is now gone.

  The new US regulatory regime might be less aggressive. In fact, incoming SEC chairman Gary Gensler once taught a class about Bitcoin. Cynthia Lummis, a freshly elected Senator from Wyoming and passionate Bitcoin supporter, has been named to the Senate Banking Committee. That means one of the most powerful bodies in the US financial system now sports a member who recently tweeted about Bitcoin: “I came for the store of value. I stayed for the censorship-resistance.” Lummis joins Warren Davidson and others in Congress who have vowed to defend Bitcoin.

  The biggest attack in Bitcoin’s history came in 2017 at the software level. That spring a handful of the most important industry actors gathered and signed what is called the New York Agreement. The authors boasted more than 83% of the global mining hashpower, more than 50 total companies, more than 20 million wallets, and a huge share of the payment infrastructure. It was an alliance between Chinese miners, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street, and their goal was to change Bitcoin to allow it to process more transactions per second, at the cost of sacrificing decentralization and the ability of users to audit the monetary supply from home.

  Despite the odds, a handful of grassroots activists ended up building a movement that stunningly defeated this New York alliance. By November 2017, the corporate “SegWit2X” plan was dead, and Bitcoin remained decentralized. The lesson from these “scaling wars” is that neither miners nor corporations control Bitcoin. Yes, miners process transactions, and developers propose upgrades to the software, but tens of thousands of users running nodes actually decide what transactions are valid and what software version is adopted.

  Even if a government took control of a majority of the Bitcoin hashrate, this doesn’t enable them to change the Bitcoin consensus rules or print more Bitcoin or steal anyone’s holdings. The worst they could do is use their power to mine new versions of Bitcoin (which, in the case of BCH or BSV, has failed spectacularly), or burn billions of dollars to temporarily damage the network in what’s called a “51% attack.” In such an attack, a majority of miners could team up and use their superior hashrate to momentarily overwhelm the network. The price of the hardware required would exceed $5 billion.

  Even if a government did want to risk that much on such an exotic assault, it is unlikely that they would divert the precious fabrication capacity of the world’s few semiconductor manufacturers to this very speculative purpose. For China or the US, disrupting existing semiconductor orders during a global shortage could put national security at stake. An alternative would be to seize a majority of the world’s mining equipment in a military operation. But the logistics of trying to locate and violently capture hundreds of thousands of 5-pound machines owned by often pseudonymous actors across dozens of jurisdictions would be hugely prohibitive.

  Speculation about other technical attacks on Bitcoin abounds: mining pools censoring transactions (miners make more money from not censoring, can quickly switch to non-censoring pools, and may adopt software that makes censorship impossible), a global internet shutdown (could be disruptive, but not fatal), mining hardware backdoors (this actually happened, but was not exploited, and the threat is now fading), quantum computers breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography (not to be taken seriously according to experts), and even bad actors making harmful updates to the codebase (this wouldn’t stand a chance against hundreds of watchful developers).

  The fact is, despite constant fear-mongering about how Bitcoin could fail, all users have always been able to transact. There have been no significant acts of censorship. Attempts to disrupt the protocol or the network infrastructure would be incredibly difficult and costly to attempt, and have no guarantee of success. As we saw in 2017, even if powers are able to amass a super-majority of the hashrate, they could be defeated by the network’s decentralized architecture. Far easier and far more likely are attacks on users themselves.

  There are several nightmare scenarios that Bitcoiners fear that don’t involve science fiction around governments teaming up in a Mission Impossible-style mission to seize billions of dollars of energy and mining equipment.

  One such fear is four numbers: 6102.

  In 1933, the FDR administration passed Executive Order 6102, which banned citizens from holding gold and forced them to turn in any gold to the authorities. The US government, or any other government, could try doing the same, giving citizens a window to declare and sell their Bitcoin to the government, or else face jail time.

  The Bitcoin community is already preparing for such an attack. One reason 6102 was so successful is that the government could just go to banks who held gold on behalf of citizens, and seize at point of custody. So every January 3rd, users celebrate “proof of keys” day, where it is customary to withdraw any Bitcoin they own on exchanges or in the custody of third parties to wallets that the end users control. “Not your keys, not your coins,” first popularized by Bitcoin educator Andreas Antonopoulos, is a community mantra. With more than 10 percent of the American population using Bitcoin, if enough people self-custody, then a 6102 attack would be of limited effect. Given that the keys to your Bitcoin account are typically in the form of 24 seed words that can be written down, hidden, encoded, or memorized, a military home-by-home raid couldn’t work very well and would constitute a mass set of human rights violations.

  Another regulatory threat would be a new unrealized gains tax on Bitcoin, which would be devastating to long-term savers, or new strict “know your customer” rules making it a crime to buy Bitcoin through an unauthorized issuer. But such rules have many obstacles: first and fourth amendment protections; numerous senators and congressmen pushing for a more Bitcoin-inclusive policy; and a large and growing cryptocurrency industry that would vigorously lobby against such rules.

  Governments could try to marginalize Bitcoin by introducing a competitor: a Central Bank Digital Currency. Most central banks worldwide are experimenting with the idea of replacing banknotes with digital tokens that citizens could hold in mobile wallets. One argument that promoters of these systems make is that they could help check the thirst for Bitcoin. Ultimately, however, CBDCs like China’s DCEP can’t compete because their floating global price will be tied to the existing fiat currency, which will inevitably fall in relative purchasing power. Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s purchasing power continues to rise over time, and it offers a level of transactional freedom and privacy from the state that no CBDC could ever boast.

  Another attack vector could be a ban on the act of Bitcoin mining itself inside democracies. Today, many mainstream media articles describe Bitcoin as an environmental disaster. In reality, it relies heavily on renewable energy (estimates range from 39 percent to 74 percent), consumes a lot of stranded or excess energy, and could very well have a mostly green future. But given the poorly-informed narratives around the subject, one could imagine a world in which the Biden Administration restricts Bitcoin mining as part of a Green New Deal.

  The “two-Bitcoin” problem is perhaps the biggest existing threat to Bitcoin users today. If the top 25 global exchanges in the US, EU, and East Asia agreed to end user withdrawals, then that would effectively bifurcate the system. Bitcoin inside the bubble would be “whitelisted” and Bitcoin outside could be “blacklisted” — meaning, if a merchant accepts Bitcoin from you that is not on a certain list, they’d be running a risk. No matter how private you are with your Bitcoin, it wouldn’t matter. You’d need to find people willing to accept your Bitcoin with no trail. Such laws would force users into peer-to-peer markets, where buyers don’t care about coin history.

  Even still, there are lots of barriers to this attack. Exchanges would lose millions of customers and billions of dollars of business. The “DeFi” ecosystem would potentially collapse, given it relies on users being able to purchase ETH with dollars on big exchanges and then withdraw to trading platforms like Uniswap. Companies in this space would vigorously resist any change that would prevent citizens from withdrawing Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency to self-controlled wallets.

  As these examples show, there are plenty of kinds of regulatory attacks that should concern Bitcoin users, and they are much more likely than cryptographic or hashrate attacks on the network, but the reality is that many legal attacks have already happened, and they have been ineffective.

  In 2017, the Chinese Communist Party restricted the ability of its citizens to exchange RMB for Bitcoin. Shortly thereafter, the Indian government did the same, followed by the Pakistani government and several others. In other words, the two largest governments in the world tried to cut off Bitcoin access to their citizenry at the most obvious point: the on and off ramps where citizens exchange local currency for Bitcoin through exchanges.

  Last year, the Indian Supreme Court reversed this rule, and Bitcoin is no longer restricted. The government is again seeking to pass a bill prohibiting Bitcoin and all non-state cryptocurrencies, while also launching a digital currency to be issued by the Reserve Bank of India, but in the meantime, local usage grows. In China after the 2017 restrictions, some companies moved to other countries in east Asia, but continued to do business with Chinese customers. Two of the biggest exchanges for the Chinese market, Huobi and OKCoin, still service millions of Chinese. In Pakistan, Bitcoin is de facto banned, but adoption is exploding.

  In Nigeria, the government is currently promising to freeze the bank accounts of any citizens who are identified as buying or selling Bitcoin. This regime has tried similar tactics before, but all have failed. What these actions actually accomplish is to drive citizens into harder to control peer-to-peer markets, and into the arms of risk-tolerant entrepreneurs committed to helping their fellow citizens access a better financial system.

  In the United States, the recent last-minute attack by Secretary Mnuchin aside, American financial activity is increasingly monitored under laws like the Bank Secrecy Act. In line with this trend, cryptocurrency exchanges have introduced more stringent identification requirements for their customers, as well as increasingly small withdrawal limits. So far though, Americans are still easily able to buy Bitcoin and withdraw it to wallets they control, and this will be defended by new powerful allies.

  Senator Lummis and Congressmen Davidson, McHenry, Emmer, and Soto, as well as state leaders like Miami mayor Francis Suarez, have all come out in support of Bitcoin, whether by hosting the whitepaper on their websites, promising to fend off overly-restrictive regulation, or pledging to make their jurisdictions hotspots for Bitcoin entrepreneurial activity and innovation. Mayor Suarez, for example, is pushing for employees of the city of Miami to earn a percentage of their salary in Bitcoin, for residents to be able to pay taxes in Bitcoin, and to include Bitcoin as part of the city’s investment portfolio.

  Some argue that corporate America will try to attack Bitcoin. But so far, it seems that big companies are instead trying to join the party. In the past few months, Tesla, Microstrategy, Square, Grayscale, and others are buying up billions of dollars more Bitcoin than the amount being produced through mining. And, as savvy investors will realize, ultimately you can’t separate Bitcoin from its cypherpunk nature. Bitcoin is only valuable as an asset because of its decentralization, since no one can arbitrarily change its rules or decide to print more. Driven by self-interest, Wall Street may ironically end up being one of the biggest cheerleaders of this new technology that Washington can’t control.

  So far, it seems that when governments try to ban or restrict Bitcoin, it ends up merely accelerating the adoption of the currency inside their countries. Governments that have failed miserably with their Wars on Drugs may find stopping people from holding something that’s invisible, borderless, and teleporting much more difficult. In democracies, governments will face major obstacles from the tech and financial industries, but also from the fact that restrictions on Bitcoin ownership can clash with free speech, privacy, and private property protections. Confiscation will require brutality, and it’s not clear that all governments have the stomach or ability.

  In the end, Bitcoin’s biggest defense is human nature itself. We are greedy and self-interested, and this applies to our governments. Already, some authorities are starting to mine or are encouraging mining. This is happening everywhere from Beijing to Kentucky to Siberia to Ukraine. As the price rises, more and more are buying into Bitcoin’s value as a long-term store-of-value and inflation hedge. Just as some governments with weak currencies have been forced to dollarize, others in the future could be forced to accumulate Bitcoin. It’s a rivalrous planet.

  Why would a government attack Bitcoin if it could gain more from using its energy monopoly or ability to print fiat to buy some? The rich and powerful will always design systems that benefit them before everyone else. The genius of Bitcoin is to take advantage of that very base reality and force them to get involved and help run the system, instead of attacking it.

  In a world with friendly US regulators, rogue regimes mining Bitcoin to print dollars, and citizens of the world demanding an asset that can’t be inflated away, the incentive to attack Bitcoin is dwindling.

  In the end, the only way to kill Bitcoin may be to make it so that people don’t need it anymore. If no one wants a devaluation-proof, censorship-resistant, permissionless, borderless, non-discriminatory, teleporting financial asset, then no one will feed it energy, and it will die. Perhaps humanity can come up with another technology that addresses these needs.

  But until then, Bitcoin will thrive.

  *  *  *

  Alex Gladstein is chief strategy officer at the Human Rights Foundation, a non-profit that supports civil liberties in authoritarian societies. You can follow him on Twitter @gladstein.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/23/2021 – 18:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest