Today’s News 25th May 2024

• Hedges: The Slow-Motion Execution Of Julian Assange Continues
  Hedges: The Slow-Motion Execution Of Julian Assange Continues

  Authored by Chris Hedges via Scheerpost.com,

  The decision by the High Court in London to grant Julian Assange the right to appeal the order to extradite him to the United States may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. It does not mean Julian will elude extradition. It does not mean the court has ruled, as it should, that he is a journalist whose only “crime” was providing evidence of war crimes and lies by the U.S. government to the public. It does not mean he will be released from the high-security HMS Belmarsh prison where, as Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, after visiting Julian there, said he was undergoing a “slow-motion execution.”

  

  It does not mean that journalism is any less imperiled. Editors and publishers of  five international media outlets —– The New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais and DER SPIEGEL —– which published stories based on documents released by WikiLeaks, have urged that the U.S. charges be dropped and Julian be released. None of these media executives were charged with espionage. It does not dismiss the ludicrous ploy by the U.S. government to extradite an Australian citizen whose publication is not based in the U.S. and charge him under the Espionage Act. It continues the long Dickensian farce that mocks the most basic concepts of due process.

  This ruling is based on the grounds that the U.S. government did not offer sufficient assurances that Julian would be granted the same First Amendment protections afforded to a U.S. citizen, should he stand trial. The appeal process is one more legal hurdle in the persecution of a journalist who should not only be free, but feted and honored as the most courageous of our generation.  

  Yes. He can file an appeal. But this means another year, perhaps longer, in harsh prison conditions as his physical and psychological health deteriorates. He has spent over five years in HMS Belmarsh without being charged. He spent seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy because the U.K. and Swedish governments refused to guarantee that he wouldn’t be extradited to the U.S., even though he agreed to return to Sweden to aid a preliminary investigation that was eventually dropped.

  The judicial lynching of Julian was never about justice. The plethora of legal irregularities, including the recording of his meetings with attorneys by the Spanish security firm UC Global at the embassy on behalf of the CIA, alone should have seen the case thrown out of court as it eviscerates attorney-client privilege.

  The U.S. has charged Julian with 17 acts under the Espionage Act and one count of computer misuse, for an alleged conspiracy to take possession of and then publish national defense information. If found guilty on all of these charges he faces 175 years in a U.S. prison.

  The extradition request is based on the 2010 release by WikiLeaks of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs — hundreds of thousands of classified documents, leaked to the site by Chelsea Manning, then an Army intelligence analyst, which exposed numerous U.S. war crimes including video images of the gunning down of two Reuters journalists and 10 other unarmed civilians in the Collateral Murder video, the routine torture of Iraqi prisoners, the covering up of thousands of civilian deaths and the killing of nearly 700 civilians that had approached too closely to U.S. checkpoints.

  In February, lawyers for Julian submitted nine separate grounds for a possible appeal. 

  A two-day hearing in March, which I attended, was Julian’s last chance to request an appeal of the extradition decision made in 2022 by the then British home secretary, Priti Patel, and of many of the rulings of District Judge Baraitser in 2021. 

  The two High Court judges, Dame Victoria Sharp and Justice Jeremy Johnson, in March rejected most of Julian’s grounds of appeal. These included his lawyers’ contention that the UK-US extradition treaty bars extradition for political offenses; that the extradition request was made for the purpose of prosecuting him for his political opinions; that extradition would amount to retroactive application of the law — because it was not foreseeable that a century-old espionage law would be used against a foreign publisher; and that he would not receive a fair trial in the Eastern District of Virginia. The judges also refused to hear new evidence that the CIA plotted to kidnap and assassinate Julian, concluding — both perversely and incorrectly — that the CIA only considered these options because they believed Julian was planning to flee to Russia.

  But the two judges determined Monday that it is “arguable” that a U.S. court might not grant Julian protection under the First Amendment, violating his rights to free speech as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

  The judges in March asked the U.S. to provide written assurances that Julian would be protected under the First Amendment and that he would be exempt from a death penalty verdict. The U.S. assured the court that Julian would not be subjected to the death penalty, which Julian’s lawyers ultimately accepted. But the Department of Justice was unable to provide an assurance that Julian could mount a First Amendment defense in a U.S. court. Such a decision is made in a U.S. federal court, their lawyers explained. 

  Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg, who is prosecuting Julian, has argued that only U.S. citizens are guaranteed First Amendment rights in U.S. courts. Kromberg has stated that what Julian published was “not in the public interest” and that the U.S. was not seeking his extradition on political grounds.

  Free speech is a key issue. If Julian is granted First Amendment rights in a U.S. court it will be very difficult for the U.S. to build a criminal case against him, since other news organizations, including The New York Times and The Guardian, published the material he released. 

  The extradition request is based on the contention that Julian is not a journalist and not protected under the First Amendment.

  Julian’s attorneys and those representing the U.S. government have until May 24 to submit a draft order, which will determine when the appeal will be heard. 

  Julian committed the empire’s greatest sin — he exposed it as a criminal enterprise. He documented its lies, routine violation of human rights, wanton killing of innocent civilians, rampant corruption and war crimes. Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Labour, Trump or Biden — it does not matter. Those who manage the empire use the same dirty playbook.

  The publication of classified documents is not a crime in the United States, but if Julian is extradited and convicted, it will become one. 

  Julian is in precarious physical and psychological health. His physical and psychological deterioration has resulted in a minor stroke, hallucinations and depression. He takes antidepressant medication and the antipsychotic quetiapine. He has been observed pacing his cell until he collapses, punching himself in the face and banging his head against the wall. He has spent weeks in the medical wing of Belmarsh, nicknamed “hell wing.” Prison authorities found “half of a razor blade” hidden under his socks. He has repeatedly called the suicide hotline run by the Samaritans because he thought about killing himself “hundreds of times a day.” 

  These slow-motion executioners have not yet completed their work. Toussaint L’Ouverture, who led the Haitian independence movement, the only successful slave revolt in human history, was physically destroyed in the same manner. He was locked by the French in an unheated and cramped prison cell and left to die of exhaustion, malnutrition, apoplexy, pneumonia and probably tuberculosis. 

  Prolonged imprisonment, which the granting of this appeal perpetuates, is the point. The 12 years Julian has been detained — seven in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and over five in high-security Belmarsh Prison — have been accompanied by a lack of sunlight and exercise, as well as unrelenting threats, pressure, prolonged isolation, anxiety and constant stress. The goal is to destroy him.

  We must free Julian. We must keep him out of the hands of the U.S. government. Given all he did for us, we owe him an unrelenting fight. 

  If there is no freedom of speech for Julian, there will be no freedom of speech for us.

  *  *  *

  NOTE TO SCHEERPOST READERS FROM CHRIS HEDGES: There is now no way left for me to continue to write a weekly column for ScheerPost and produce my weekly television show without your help. The walls are closing in, with startling rapidity, on independent journalism, with the elites, including the Democratic Party elites, clamoring for more and more censorship. Bob Scheer, who runs ScheerPost on a shoestring budget, and I will not waver in our commitment to independent and honest journalism, and we will never put ScheerPost behind a paywall, charge a subscription for it, sell your data or accept advertising. Please, if you can, sign up at chrishedges.substack.com so I can continue to post my now weekly Monday column on ScheerPost and produce my weekly television show, The Chris Hedges Report.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 23:40

• Ukraine Hits Base In Crimea With US Long-Range Missiles In Further Escalation
  Ukraine Hits Base In Crimea With US Long-Range Missiles In Further Escalation

  The Ukrainians aren’t waiting for ‘permission’ from the US despite the Biden administration’s official prohibition on using American-supplied weaponry to strike inside Russian territory. But perhaps Kiev’s argument is that Crimea is not ‘Russian territory’…

  “Ukraine hit a Russian military complex in Crimea with U.S.-provided long-range missiles Thursday night, the latest in a mounting series of strikes aimed at slowing the Russian war machine,” The Wall Street Journal reports Friday.

  

  The WSJ continues, “The missile strike hit a communications center of Russian air-defense forces in the city of Alushta, according to a Ukrainian defense official.” It added: “Crimean social-media channels reported several explosions in the coastal city, with one video showing a large blast, but the extent of the damage couldn’t immediately be established.”

  Long-range ATACMS (or Army Tactical Missile System), were first transferred ‘secretly’ by Washington to Ukraine’s military earlier this year, and only disclosed publicly just weeks ago. In late April, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said a “significant number” of the ATACMS have been sent to Ukraine but did not specify how many. They can hit targets up to 190 miles away – and earlier in the war were withheld reportedly on White House concerns that they would be used to attack deep within Russian territory.

  The UK and France have also of late provided longer-range systems, including cruise missiles that can be launched from aircraft. The WSJ underscores these new weapons “have significantly boosted the range, value and number of the deep-lying targets that Ukraine can attack.”

  But the reality is that with each new attack on Russia, its forces appear to be hitting back harder with ‘punishing’ strikes on Kharkiv and as far south as the large port city of Odessa. 

  For example, Russia’s defense ministry is reporting its troops have achieved 49 combined strikes at “Ukrainian military sites, military-industrial facilities, arms, ammunition and fuel depots, army and mercenaries’ deployment areas” over the past week of fighting.

  In the Kharkiv region, “The enemy’s losses over the week amounted to 1,840 personnel, six tanks, eight armored combat vehicles, 40 motor vehicles, four Grad and Vampire multiple rocket launchers and 37 field artillery guns,” the ministry said.

  Thus Ukraine’s provocative attacks inside Russian territory aren’t having any actual impact on frontline fighting positions. Instead, the attacks are ultimately resulting in drawing NATO and Russia deeper into a more direct conflict.

  Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Friday lodged a new complaint, saying West-supplied weapon are already being used against civilians inside Russia.

  The below WSJ/ISW map demonstrates Ukraine forces’ significantly increasing missile range:

  

  “American weapons are already being used against a wide variety of facilities outside the combat zone,” Lavrov stated. “We proceed from the fact that American and other Western weapons are hitting targets on Russian territory, primarily civilian infrastructure and residential neighborhoods.”

  He bluntly concluded Western countries “are waging a war against Russia” despite all the officially stated positions which appear to dissuade Kiev from escalating with Western weapons. Lavrov said this is something that “that the Americans are trying to present to their public opinion or to NATO members.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 23:20

• CJ Hopkins: Asymmetric Idiocy
  CJ Hopkins: Asymmetric Idiocy

  Authored by CJ Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

  I miss the 1970s sometimes.

  Not just the music. And the sex. And the drugs. I miss the terrorists. The old-school terrorists. Or, OK, maybe not the terrorists, but the revolutionaries who cheered on the terrorists.

  

  I miss the clarity, and the honesty, of that era.

  Maybe you’re too young to remember, but, back in the day, you didn’t get all this hemming and hawing about murdering civilians. The terrorists, and the revolutionaries who supported them, were not ashamed of murdering civilians. The Revolution demanded that they murder civilians. Murdering civilians was one of the fundamental strategies of the Revolution.

  The way this strategy works is simple. What you do is, you murder a bunch of civilians, in order to provoke your adversary into massively over-retaliating against you and committing all kinds of war crimes and atrocities, like the USA did in Iraq twenty years ago, like the IDF is now doing in Gaza. The goal of the strategy is to broaden the conflict, and draw your potential allies into it, or at least significantly weaken support for your enemy.

  OK, sure, that means you have to murder some people… men, women, children, whole families, and then your enemy is going to go apeshit and kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of your people, but, if all goes to plan, your “allies” will join you, and attack your enemy, and drive him into the sea, or off the face of the earth, or wherever. So, in the end, all the murdering will have been totally worth it.

  This is not a theory I just made up.

  It is one of the basics of asymmetric warfare. If you are not already familiar with that subject, this might be a good time to look into it.

  I’m not a fan of murdering civilians. Not even for the Revolution. I do not think it is a very good strategy. Plus, well, the murdering. I’m against that, generally. Soldiers killing each other is one thing. They have been doing that since the dawn of history. And I have no problem with guerilla tactics. People fight wars with the means they have available. It’s just the murdering thing that I can’t get down with. Especially the murdering of the women and the kids, but it’s probably not politically correct to say that, what with the diversity, equity, and inclusion thing these days.

  Anyway, as it appears I’m currently alienating a significant portion of my longstanding readers, half of whom believe I’m an “Islamofascist,” and the other half of whom believe I’m a “Zionist,” I figure I’ll go ahead and go for broke, and wax nostalgic about the 1970s, and say a few things I haven’t been saying, or, rather, I’ll say a few things I’ve been saying delicately not so delicately.

  I’ve been saying those things delicately, because, as I made pretty clear in October, when this whole horror show started, my sympathies are with the Palestinian people. My sympathies are also with the loved ones of the Israeli civilians who were murdered by Hamas, but I am talking about the bigger picture now, the broader “Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

  In that bigger picture, the Palestinians are fucked. They’ve been getting fucked for quite some time now. That is what happens when empires conquer the land you live on and do what they want with it. The land in question has been getting conquered for approximately 4,500 years. The Babylonians conquered it. The Persians conquered it. Alexander the Great conquered it. The Romans conquered it. And so on. That’s all ancient history.

  More recently, in 1920, the Ottoman Empire lost World War One, and the British Empire took the land over. You are probably familiar with the rest of the history. The British pulled out in 1948. Zionists established The State of Israel. War broke out. Israel won. War broke out again. Israel won again. And again. And so on. And … well, here we are.

  As I was saying, the Palestinians are fucked. Look at a map of the territory. Does it look like Palestine is on the verge of being “free”?

  

  The State of Israel is not going anywhere. It is an essential component of the global-capitalist empire. It’s the empire’s headquarters in the Middle East. It has nuclear weapons. It is backed by the US military. The “Islamic world” is not going to join Hamas and attack it, regardless of how many war crimes it perpetrates in Gaza. The ICJ is not going to put it on trial. The United Nations isn’t going to make it play nice. It isn’t going to disappear into the ether. It is a fact of life. It isn’t fair. It has nothing to do with fairness and justice and rights and good and bad and whatever. It doesn’t even have much to do with Zionism. Zionism is just Israel’s ideology, like Islamism is Saudi Arabia’s ideology. What it has to do with is the global-capitalist empire, and resistance to the global-capitalist empire.

  Which brings us back to asymmetric warfare, and Hamas’ October 7 “Al-Aqsa Flood” strategy, and the utter fucking pointlessness of it, and the utter fucking callousness of it.

  Do you seriously believe that the leadership of Hamas did not know exactly how Israel would respond to the slaughter of hundreds of Israeli citizens, families, children, people at a rave? If you honestly believe that, I don’t know what to say.

  The goal of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” attack was to provoke precisely the response it has provoked. There is nothing mysterious or complicated about this. It is Asymmetric Warfare 101, straight out of the Terrorism textbook.

  For seven months I have been watching my “radical” colleagues trying to obscure this fact. It isn’t helpful. It doesn’t help anyone. It certainly doesn’t help the Palestinian people. There is more than enough about Israel to criticize. Lying, twisting the facts about Hamas, convincing people that the IDF “Hanniballed” everyone on October 7, is (a) unnecessary, (b) obfuscatory, and (c) destroys your credibility.

  On top of which, it makes you look like pussies.

  If you believe that murdering people to provoke your enemy into overreacting is a productive armed-resistance strategy, at least have the fucking courage to say so. Bring back the spirit of the 1970s! The old PLO! The RAF! The IRA! The SLA! Do it for the Revolution! Or the Globalized Intifada! Or whatever.

  I’m just kidding, of course. It is an idiotic strategy. It hands your enemy a free “get out of war-crimes tribunal” card. Meanwhile, the people you are purporting to be fighting for are getting slaughtered by the tens of thousands. But whatever … as long as it boosts your cred among the other “legitimate armed resisters,” who cares how many families get wasted? After all, it’s not your fault! It’s the oppressors! The Zionists! The Americans! Or whoever.

  Seriously, though, I am feeling a bit nostalgic for the 1970s, when at least you could have a real argument over tactics with your revolutionary comrades instead of hearing mindless gibberish like this …

  

  Yes, you actually just read those words, “they never killed anyone with an intent to kill.” And Lena’s note is not at all an anomaly. I have been hearing this gibberish for seven months now.

  So, thanks, all my radical anti-Zionist friends and colleagues who have been pumping out this narrative, and all the thought-terminating clichés, and conducting Anti-Zionist Inquisitions, and so on! Well done! I’m pretty sure all the folks like Lena who you have helped to transform into a mass of mindless Pavlovian robots will never, ever, be turned against us, like, you know, the next time the Powers That Be come up with an irresistible stimulus!

  

  I mean, what are the odds of that ever happening?

  *  *  *

  Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 23:00

• 1 In 7 American Kids Live In Poverty
  1 In 7 American Kids Live In Poverty

  More than 11 million children were estimated to be living in poverty in 2021, according to U.S. Census Bureau data published by the Children’s Defense Fund.

  That equates to around one in seven children in the U.S., or 15.3 percent. It’s a high toll, and one even higher than the adult population, which was 10.5 percent for 19-64 year olds that year and 10.3 percent for adults aged 65+.

  According to an analysis by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, this difference is due to factors such as the “cost of caregiving and its responsibilities, transitions to a single parenthood household, unemployment of parents, and disabilities of family members.”

  As Statista’s Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, poverty levels are disproportionately higher among non-White populations.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  American Indian/Alaska Native children were particularly overrepresented, with 29.1 percent of this group living in poverty in 2021, followed closely behind by Black children at 27.1 percent, versus a comparatively low 8.8 percent of white children.

  In terms of absolute numbers, Hispanic children were the biggest group, with 4,168,000 registered as poor in 2021, according to the source, or 37.4 percent of all children who were in poverty.

  Other patterns in the data highlighted by the Childrens’ Defense Foundation include the regional divide, with the South showing a child poverty prevalence of nearly 20 percent, or one in five children. This drops to below 15 percent in the Northeast, Midwest and West (closer to one in seven).

  Perhaps the starkest figure though, is for children living in a single female-headed household, where nearly four in ten (37.1 percent) were living in poverty in 2021.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 22:40

• Palestinians Stranded In Gaza After Paying Egypt $5,000 Each To Flee
  Palestinians Stranded In Gaza After Paying Egypt $5,000 Each To Flee

  Via Middle East Eye

  The Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza has been closed indefinitely since the Israeli military seized the crossing on 7 May, a closure which has left thousands of Palestinians in limbo. Since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza in October, and the subsequent closure of all other crossings, the Rafah crossing with Egypt has been the only passageway for civilians fleeing the conflict.

  An Egyptian company with exclusive control on exits and transfers via the terminal had been charging Palestinians at least $5,000 per adult and $2,500 per child to cross to the Egyptian side. In April, Hala Consulting and Tourism Services, a firm owned by Sinai tribal leader and business tycoon Ibrahim al-Organi, made at least $2m per day from Palestinians, Middle East Eye has revealed.

  

  Now, those who were due to travel in May after paying thousands of dollars in advance have no clear means of getting a refund. And they do not know if they will ever leave Gaza via Egypt, as Cairo has refused to work with Israel to operate the crossing. 

  Samer, 29, paid Hala $20,000 before Israel shut the Rafah crossing. He wanted to leave Gaza along with his new wife and his elderly and sick parents. To raise the money, he had to borrow from friends and family, and sell his car and all his electronic goods. 

  “I cannot believe that as soon as I got the money and was supposed to travel three days after the invasion, I am still here,” he told Middle East Eye. “I feel like a rat in a box running around trying to find an exit, and as soon as I see a hole in the box, someone shuts it.”

  People are unsure when they might get their money back, or how to reach out to Hala for assistance. Hala has yet to provide a clear communication channel or timeline for resolving these issues, and does not respond to emails or social media messages.

  The company did not release any official statement or comment to explain to thousands of Palestinian customers what they needed to do to either obtain a refund or keep their names registered. An employee from Hala told MEE on condition of anonymity: “We are overwhelmed with calls and complaints. The company is trying to figure out a solution, but we don’t have any concrete answers at the moment.”

  Hala’s official Facebook page is full of messages from Palestinians asking how they can get a refund, and asking what will happen if the borders remain shut. Others asked anyone who managed to get a response from Hala to share the information, as all their attempts to contact the office had failed.

  Thousands of Palestinians are believed to be in the same position. The daily lists published by Hala in April showed that between 300-400 Palestinians left via the Rafah crossing on a daily basis. Applicants register and pay for these lists weeks in advance.

  Tough choices

  Sahar, 36, has a close relative in Egypt who registered her for travelling with Hala’s office in Cairo. Sahar was supposed to leave Gaza on the same day Israel invaded the crossing. 

  When her sister went to the Hala office, she was told that they could issue a refund, but she would have to wait some time to receive it. However, when – and if – the Rafah crossing reopens, Sahar will have to go through the registration process all over again, and the company would not guarantee her exit then.

  🇪🇬 People in Egypt tore up posters of President Sisi after the Rafah border crossing was closed 🇵🇸 pic.twitter.com/SBOdQPcU6c

  — S p r i n t e r F a c t o r y (@Sprinterfactory) May 24, 2024

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

  “I decided not to get a refund. I just want to know that if the crossing reopens ever again, I have a way out. I had already said my goodbyes the night before the invasion,” she told MEE. “We should not be paying money to leave to begin with. Now, even when we manage to get the money, we cannot leave.”

  Yosef, 39, paid $13,000 to Hala before the Israeli operation, to travel with his wife and two children. Yosef’s wife sold all her gold jewelry to pay the travel fees. She had always thought she would sell the gold to use as a down payment for a house in Gaza City. 

  “I am torn between two tough choices. Either ask for a refund, which takes a long time to get, but that means if the border opens again we lose our ‘turn’ and we will have to go on a waiting list again,” Yosef told MEE.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 22:20

• Iran's Military Concludes No Foul Play In Raisi Helicopter Crash
  Iran’s Military Concludes No Foul Play In Raisi Helicopter Crash

  A preliminary report produced by Iran’s military has found no evidence of criminal activity or foreign interference in last Sunday’s helicopter crash that killed the late President Ebrahim Raisi and seven others, according to state media.

  The report was produced by the general staff of the armed forces, and it states Raisi’s helicopter “caught fire after hitting an elevated area” and found no traces of “bullet holes” on the helicopter among the wreckage.

  

  The aircraft had been flying on a “pre-planned route and did not leave the designated flight path” before the crash into the side of a mountain, official IRNA news agency reports.

  “No suspicious content was observed during the communications between the watch tower and the flight crew,” the findings concluded. The final radio communications between the presidential helicopter and two others flying nearby occurred one-and-half minutes before the crash.

  The “complexity of the area, fog and low temperature” had also hindered the search and rescue efforts, which took hours. The site had been located with the help of an advanced drone sent by Turkey’s military which has thermal imaging capabilities.

  Initially, when news first hit international press reports that Raisi was ‘missing’ – Iranian state media reported the incident as a mere “hard landing” and strongly suggested that at least some aboard survived. However, as hours passed and conflicting information emerged, Iran’s Supreme Leader made statements preparing the population for the worst, telling them to “pray”. 

  Almost immediately as news broke of the crash Sunday, the question was raised: was Israel or another foreign enemy of Tehran behind this? As if anticipating this, and given the volatility of the Mideast region at this tense moment, Israeli officials issued statements rejecting any suggestion of its involvement.

  This was the first question on the minds of many when news of the helicopter downing broke…

  Helicopter carrying Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi has crashed.

  Israel?????????? pic.twitter.com/SeNoHlRbqR

  — Prayag (@theprayagtiwari) May 19, 2024

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

  Additionally and perhaps most importantly Iran itself had never alleged any act of sabotage. From the start, the official explanation has focused on ‘technical failure’ and the hazards of low visibility weather.

  With other big incidents or assassinations (for example of Iranian nuclear scientists), Tehran officials haven’t been shy about pointing to foreign intelligence like Israel’s Mossad or the CIA. So if there was any evidence of a foreign plot, it is likely Tehran would have alleged it by now.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 22:00

• Trump Suggests Nikki Haley Will Be 'On Our Team In Some Form'
  Trump Suggests Nikki Haley Will Be ‘On Our Team In Some Form’

  Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Following her announcement that she would be voting for former President Donald Trump after challenging him in the Republican primaries this year, President Trump said he was sure that former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley would be joining his team in some capacity.

  

  Ms. Haley was previously the United Nations ambassador under President Trump’s first administration. She noted in her first remarks since dropping out of the race on May 22 that she would be supporting her former boss and opponent while calling President Joe Biden’s presidency a “catastrophe.”

  In a revealing interview with News 12 New York after a campaign rally in the Bronx, New York, President Trump responded to Ms. Haley’s recent public endorsement of him following her exit from the presidential race.

  When asked about the possibility of Ms. Haley being a part of his team or even his ticket, Trump responded positively. “Well, I think she’s going to be on our team because we have a lot of the same ideas, the same thoughts,” President Trump stated. “I appreciated what she said. You know, we had a nasty campaign, it was pretty nasty, but she’s a very capable person and I’m sure she’s going to be on our team in some form absolutely.”

  The endorsement marks a significant change in the public-facing relationship between the two despite the heated and often contentious primary battles. Ms. Haley’s change of tune suggests a more unified front by the GOP against the current administration, signaling a strategic move to consolidate conservative support ahead of the general election.

  Mr. Trump also declined to name his top three possible running mates in the interview but had previously noted that Ms. Haley was not on the list for his vice presidential running mate.

  The former president also said in a prior interview that he would likely make his announcement around the time of the GOP convention later this summer.

  Haley’s Endorsement

  Ms. Haley said during a conversation at the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank where she is now the Walter P. Stern Chair, that, “I put my priorities on a president who’s going to have the backs of our allies and hold our enemies to account, who would secure the border.”

  “No more excuses,” she said. “A president who would support capitalism and freedom. A president who understands we need less debt, not more debt. Trump has not been perfect on these policies. I’ve made that clear many, many times. But Biden has been a catastrophe. So I will be voting for Trump.”

  Ms. Haley has urged President Trump to engage with her supporters.

  Despite ending her campaign, she has still garnered support in GOP primaries. Last week, Ms. Haley notched 20 percent of the vote in the Maryland Republican primary and 18 percent in Nebraska. Earlier this month, she won 22 percent in the Indiana GOP primary.

  Ms. Haley has been critical of both Democrat and Republican approaches to foreign policy, particularly concerning Israel, Ukraine, and China’s potential threat to Taiwan. She emphasized the importance of addressing both domestic and foreign issues simultaneously to prevent enemies from gaining strength.

  In her speech at the Hudson Institute, Ms. Haley rebuked President Biden, the Democratic Party, and the GOP regarding foreign policy.

  Ms. Haley decried Democrats’ response to the war between Israel and Hamas. She cited President Biden’s decision to withhold some bombs and munitions over concerns about Israel using them in the southern Gazan city of Rafah, where the last remaining Hamas battalions are believed to be operating.

  She also criticized President Biden’s response to the war in Ukraine, blaming him for not sending Kyiv what they needed.

  Ms. Haley warned that China is watching how the United States responds to the war in Ukraine and that it will either deter or encourage Beijing to invade Taiwan.

  Jackson Richman, Stacy Robinson, and Janice Hisle contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 21:40

• First McDonald's, Now Burger King Admits Consumers Are Broke With Planned Reintroduction Of $5 Meal Deal
  First McDonald’s, Now Burger King Admits Consumers Are Broke With Planned Reintroduction Of $5 Meal Deal

  A recent trend of mega corporations rolling back prices and reintroducing deals has emerged. Whether this is potentially due to pressure from the White House ahead of elections or, as Goldman pointed out, “Consumer caution mounts as cracks in resilience theme emerge,” there’s growing evidence that working poor consumers are struggling in the era of failed Bidenomics.

  About two weeks ago, after three years of ‘McFlation‘ that sent the price of combo meals as high as $18, McDonald’s weighed on new plans to reintroduce $5 combo meal deals. The report, initially from Bloomberg, specified the deal could include a McChicken or a McDouble, fries, and a drink. 

  Elsewhere, Walmart, Target, and Aldi have lowered prices on thousands of everyday items, including staple foods. This comes in response to a spending slowdown among cash-strapped working-poor consumers who are drowning in insurmountable credit card debt and drained personal savings amid elevated inflation. 

  Covering the faltering consumer theme have been the analysts at Goldman: 

  • The Largest US Trading Desk Is “Getting Bearish On The US Consumer”
  • Goldman Warns Consumers Are Cracking As Stagflation Threats Emerge
  • Goldman’s Commentary On Consumer Health Is An Ominous One

  The value war kicked off earlier this month as corporations strive to retain their customer base and prevent trade-downs or migrations to competitors. This is why McDonald’s meal deal push has prompted Burger King to offer a similar deal. 

  Bloomberg reported that Burger King is preparing to launch a $5 meal deal. The deal will include the choice of one of three sandwiches with nuggets, fries, and a drink. Franchisees approved the deal in April. 

  

  “Regardless of their plans, we are moving full speed ahead with our own plans to launch our own $5 value meal before they do — and run it for several months,” Burger King US and Canada President Tom Curtis wrote in an internal memo obtained by Bloomberg. 

  The bigger story is that mega-corporations are cutting prices and offering deals because, as Goldman has shown, working-poor consumers have hit a proverbial brick wall. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 21:20

• They Want To Scare You With Myths Of "Unhampered Capitalism"
  They Want To Scare You With Myths Of “Unhampered Capitalism”

  Authored by George Fo4rd Smith via The Mises Institute,

  Bad ideas are sometimes the hardest to dethrone. It’s probably accurate to say most people think of money as the paper currency printed by governments. And it is money in the sense that it functions as a medium of exchange, but is it sound? Is it vulnerable to inflation? Its very existence is evidence that it is, so why are so many people reluctant to switch to a money that isn’t?

  

  There any many myths surrounding hard money currencies, and one of them is that money, both its nature and supply, is best left to the alleged guardian of our rights, the state. The fact that money came into existence on the market, and that its ultimate form and supply were determined by economic law, is disregarded. Money matters belong to the state because the state, unlike the rest of us, is in a position to remove itself from market discipline. Since the state is necessary to our survival, the story goes, it cannot do its job unless it can control the growth of money. Money, therefore, must be of such a nature that its supply can grow in accordance with the orders of a state-appointed committee.

  Even the classical gold standard was under control of the state. When that control proved too limited for those eager for war, it was abandoned. The gold standard did not fail. States failed to keep the gold standard.

  When Keynes unloaded his General Theory on the world in 1936 it was a manifesto of state economic law. Free-market economists would critique his work, but capitalism untethered scared the public. After 1929 it became the devil in fine suits. The fact that even top economists and industry leaders failed to see the Crash coming was especially unnerving.

  Unaware of Austrian trade cycle theory, the public saw the market as an alluring evil, drawing people into its clutches with promises of riches then suddenly stripping them of their wealth. Fear, then, and not ideological persuasion led them to reject the market as it existed in the 1920s and along with it any notion that the unhampered market was self-regulating.

  Prior to US entry into World War I, the government and its media allies worked hard trying to convince Americans that Germany was a threat to civilization itself. No such effort was required to scare them about the Depression. Unlike the Germans who were over there, the Depression was very painfully over here.

  Robert Higgs’ outstanding book Neither Liberty Nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government underscores the importance of widespread fear for government growth. In his opening chapter, “Fear: The Foundation of Every Government’s Power,” he contends that, contrary to the positions of David Hume, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and others, public opinion is not the bedrock of government. Public opinion rests on something deeper and more primordial: fear. After the Great Crash, the man in the street feared the market, and the governments of Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt were eager to oblige. Gold, by then, had been corrupted enough to take the fall.

  Whether the public still feared the market six years later was immaterial because neither major party offered a free-market candidate for election. But FDR knew the importance of keeping the public uneasy. In his State of the Union address of 1936, he told listeners, “In thirty-four months we have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people’s Government this power is wholesome and proper. In hands under control of an economic autocracy such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people.”

  It’s difficult to believe Americans would fall for the notion of a wholesome people’s government, but the times were ripe for collectivist ideas as long as they were served up properly.

  FDR won reelection that year by a huge landslide.

  It’s been said that FDR saved capitalism by co-opting the radical left into his New Deal. Without FDR, in other words, we would be living under full fascism instead of quasi fascism. The free market was still useful, especially the name, but only if government-appointed bureaucrats regulated it, never mind the contradiction. Exactly which regulations were needed was a big unknown, but as a way of emphasizing the new in New Deal, government would experiment until it found the right combination. How would they know if the system of rugged individualism that favored the big guys was adequately harnessed? By looking at the economy. Every trouble spot, for the government, acted like a magnet, the attraction of which was in direct proportion to the potential votes at stake.

  The Highly Regulated Free Market

  So successful were FDR and his successors in saving capitalism that finding something today that isn’t taxed, regulated, subsidized, cartelized, forbidden, mandated, or bound like a mummy in endless red tape is a near impossibility. We can get a feel for the massive number of regulations the market is subjected to on the federal level alone by browsing the electronic version of the Code of Federal Regulations, updated daily by the Office of the Federal Register. Joe Biden, as president, has the whole economy in his hands. As Higgs points out, with passage of “the National Emergencies Act (1976) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (1977), nearly all economic liberties in this country exist at the sufferance of the president. If he decides to take over the economy, he possesses ample statutory power to do so.”

  What was once an economy with a strong element of freedom has become an economy of rent-seeking special interests, or as Albert Jay Nock expressed it, people using politics to gain an “uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others.” In accordance with Garet Garrett’s thesis of a revolution within the form and the word, the old names have been quite useful for getting people to look the wrong way, as we saw in 2008 when George W. Bush announced he was abandoning free-market principles to save the free market.

  The forgotten man of the Depression, whether Charles Sumner’s or FDR’s, was fearful, and considering the intellectual ammunition at his disposal, it’s easy to see why. But what can one say about today? Should people be fearful of the economic mess governments have created? Not necessarily. More people are beginning to understand, if only vaguely, that politics has brought the roof down, and that a sound economy is impossible without something politically indifferent supporting it: sound money.

  Austrian critics are debunking the claims about gold’s role in the Great Depression, pointing out that the straw-man gold exchange standard of the 1920s and early 1930s was another government solution destined to collapse. Ben Bernanke’s statement that the longer a country remained committed to gold, the deeper its depression and the later its recovery is being seen as grossly misleading, at best.

  (Earlier in his commentary Bernanke explained that the gold standard of the 1920s was a reconstituted version of the gold standard that had endured prior to World War I. Abandoning a pseudo–gold standard makes sense only if an honest monetary system replaces it. As it was, the country moved from one controlled system to one much worse.)

  Unlike the poor souls of the Depression era, anyone on planet earth who is wired and can read English (and certain other languages) can access a vast literature of economic theory, applications, and criticism from an Austrian School perspective at Mises.org. It would be impossible to deal with today’s misinformation without the many works of Austrian analysis, most of which are accessible to a lay audience. In their absence we could well be the fearful captives of an FDR simulator like Joe Biden.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 21:00

• Rents Are Plunging In These Major U.S. Cities
  Rents Are Plunging In These Major U.S. Cities

  As everybody knows, during the early phase of the pandemic, both single-family and multifamily rental prices surged, fueled by the shift to remote work and changing migration trends – not the least of which was getting the hell out of the city by any means necessary…

  But, as CNBC/NBC now notes, the dynamics affecting rental prices have since shifted.

  Multifamily rents in April dropped by 0.8% compared to the same month last year, according to Apartment List data. This decline was triggered by a significant influx of new units hitting the market, with additional developments expected.

  Despite this downturn, apartment rents experienced a marginal increase of 0.5% for the third consecutive month. This growth is modest, especially considering that rents typically start to climb in the spring.

  This year’s increase is not only smaller than usual but also less than the growth observed in the previous month, bringing the national median rent in April to $1,396.

  A report by Apartment List said: “This is typically the time of year when rent growth is accelerating heading into the busy moving season, so the fact that growth stalled this month could be a sign that the market is headed for another slow summer.”

  In fact, the report says that apartment vacancies have reached a peak not seen since August 2020, climbing to 6.7% as of March. While the issuance of new multifamily building permits is decelerating, the volume of units currently under construction remains near an all-time high, and last year witnessed the highest number of new apartments entering the market in more than three decades.

  On the other hand, single-family rents have exhibited more resilience, showing a 3.4% increase in March year-over-year, as reported by CoreLogic. However, this growth rate is gradually decreasing as build-for-rent companies continue to add more supply to the market.

  

  According to the National Association of Home Builders’ analysis of Census data, construction began on approximately 18,000 single-family homes designed for rent in the first quarter, up 20% from the first quarter of 2023.

  Over the past year, 80,000 such homes have started construction, marking a nearly 16% increase from the previous year.

  This robustness in single-family rents suggests that many potential homebuyers, deterred by rising mortgage rates—now back over 7%—and climbing home prices, are opting to rent houses instead.

  For the first time in 14 years, single-family attached homes, such as townhomes, have experienced a year-over-year rent decrease, highlighting a shift in the rental market dynamics

  • In the nation’s 20 largest cities, Seattle reported the highest annual increase in single-family rents at 6.3%, followed by New York at 5.3% and Boston at 5.2%.

  • On the decline were Austin, Texas with a 3.5% decrease, Miami with a 3.2% drop, and New Orleans, falling 1.4%.

  Molly Boesel, principal economist for CoreLogic, added: “U.S. single-family rent growth strengthened overall in March, though some weaknesses are revealed in the latest numbers. Overbuilt areas, such as Austin, Texas, continued to soften, decreasing by 3.5% annually in March.”

  She added: “The decrease in the attached segment is being driven by a subset of markets, mostly in Florida, but including Austin and New Orleans. As multifamily apartments are being completed, some markets are gaining rental supply, which competes with the attached segment of the single-family rental market.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 20:40

• Lula's Brazil: A Cautionary Tale For Free Speech In The West
  Lula’s Brazil: A Cautionary Tale For Free Speech In The West

  Authored by Paulo Figueiredo via The Epoch Times,

  The notion of censoring political opponents is as old as civilization itself. Throughout history, countless governments have employed this tactic to silence dissent and maintain their grip on power. From ancient Rome to modern-day dictatorships, the suppression of free speech has been a hallmark of authoritarian rule. Even today, censorship remains a pervasive force in countries such as China, where the Great Firewall restricts access to information; North Korea, where the state maintains an iron grip on all forms of media; and Russia, where journalists and activists face severe consequences for speaking out against the government.

  However, in the West, the Enlightenment ideas championed by British thinkers like John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Thomas Paine paved the way for a radical departure from this oppressive tradition. Their writings, which emphasized the importance of individual liberty and the free exchange of ideas, inspired the groundbreaking “American experiment.” The adoption of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which unequivocally protects freedom of speech, marked a turning point in human history. This bold move proved successful, as greater freedom of expression fostered innovation, enhanced legal security, improved government accountability, and ultimately led to increased prosperity.

  The Western world took notice and followed suit, giving rise to the so-called “Free World.” In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, enshrining the right to freedom of expression for all. While this development was not without its challenges—as it allowed for the dissemination of harmful and malicious ideologies like Nazism and communism—the consensus remained that the spread of bad ideas posed a lesser threat than the dangers of censorship. As the famous saying goes, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

  However, this trend is now reversing at an alarming rate. In a recent hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski warned of an escalating trend of censorship in countries once considered bastions of free speech. He cited examples such as France, where the government has cracked down on so-called “hate speech,” and Germany, where social media companies face hefty fines for failing to remove “illegal content” within 24 hours. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have also introduced controversial laws that could stifle free expression.

  But perhaps the most egregious example of this troubling trend is Brazil. According to Elon Musk, no country where X (formerly Twitter) operates experiences a worse state of censorship than Brazil, a nation until recently regarded as the largest liberal democracy in the Southern Hemisphere. Since 2019, the powerful Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, now infamous, has been conducting his investigation dubbed the “Fake News Probe.” This probe has targeted hundreds of individuals, most recently including Elon Musk himself, for allegedly spreading “disinformation.”

  

  The consequences of this investigation have been severe. Numerous people, including journalists like me, have had their social media accounts blocked, passports revoked, and financial assets frozen.

  Others have faced even harsher fates, including imprisonment—all under the guise of “combating disinformation” and “protecting democracy.”

  Glenn Greenwald, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and co-founder of The Intercept, has been one of the most vocal critics of this crackdown. In a recent article, he wrote, “The level of repression and censorship in Brazil is staggering. It’s a country that has really become a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked power and the erosion of civil liberties.”

  When leftist Lula da Silva resumed the Brazilian presidency in 2023, he realized that, thanks to the precedent set by Justice Moraes, he now wielded censorship powers he did not possess during his first two terms (2003–2010).

  He gained the ability to criminally prosecute any speech that contradicted the government’s narrative. This became evident in the aftermath of this month’s devastating floods in southern Brazil, a catastrophe surpassing the impact of Hurricane Katrina in the United States.

  As government aid was delayed, federal agencies displayed immense incompetence, and bureaucratic hurdles even led to fines being imposed on trucks carrying donations from civil society, information and videos exposing these facts began to circulate on social media and some news outlets. Independent journalists and opposition politicians, such as Congressman Eduardo Bolsonaro, shared these videos and information, only to be met with Lula da Silva’s response, labeling the criticism as “fake news” and “disinformation” amid a calamitous situation. The Brazilian government ordered the Federal Police to open an investigation into the matter, targeting even members of Congress.

  The Brazil of Lula da Silva and Justice Moraes serves as a stark reminder to the world of a lesson that should have been learned long ago: It is foolish and naive to believe that censorship will be “temporary” or “restricted.” Once a government succeeds in establishing a Ministry of Truth and dictating what can and cannot be said, it will inevitably use these powers to silence any genuine opposition. When governments arrogate to themselves the power to determine what is true and what is false, they open the door to tyranny. It is a slippery slope that leads inexorably to the suppression of dissent and the erosion of democracy. Until recently, this was a point of consensus among liberals and conservatives alike. It appears that is no longer the case.

  For in the immortal words of George Orwell, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” The events unfolding in Brazil should serve as a warning to us all.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 20:20

• NYC Tourists Expected To Generate $4.9 Billion In Tax Revenue For The City
  NYC Tourists Expected To Generate $4.9 Billion In Tax Revenue For The City

  While residents and businesses continue to pour out of New York City in favor of tax-friendlier locations, tourists appear to be doing all the heavy lifting in helping the city raise tax revenue. 

  Now, revenue generated by tourists is higher than it was pre-pandemic, with Bloomberg reporting that the 62.2 million people who visited New York City last year were expected to post a record $4.9 billion in sales and other tourism-related tax revenue.

  This marks a 16% hike from 2020, which has been driven by – you guessed it – higher prices. 

  The pandemic, which started in early 2020, severely impacted New York City, collapsing the office and retail sectors and driving many residents to relocate to the suburbs or other states. However, the city has been witnessing a gradual economic revival, marked by the return of visitors to Broadway, museums, and other attractions, Bloomberg writes.

  Despite initial hopes by tourism officials to exceed pre-pandemic visitor numbers this year, a slower recovery in international travel has postponed these expectations to 2025. By then, the city anticipates welcoming 68 million visitors, according to state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.

  

  International tourists, who constitute about 20% of the city’s annual visitors, saw a dramatic 82.2% decline in 2020, dropping to 2.4 million mainly due to severe travel restrictions and a significant decrease in visitors from China, where the virus first emerged. Last year, this number recovered to 11.6 million, though it remains 14.1% lower than pre-pandemic levels.

  Domestically, U.S. tourists have been the main drivers of the recovery, with 50.6 million visiting the city last year, a 7% increase over 2022. However, business travel, including both domestic and international, is rebounding more slowly than leisure travel. It decreased to 400,000 in 2021 from 3.4 million in 2019, and has since climbed to about 2.3 million, the report says. 

  Furthermore, the New York City tourism sector is still experiencing a shortfall of approximately 30,000 jobs, down 10.4% from its pre-pandemic strength, as per DiNapoli’s report.

  Despite these challenges, New York continues to be the premier U.S. tourist destination. In 2023, it led with 33 million overnight visitors, outpacing Las Vegas and Los Angeles, which attracted 26 million and 21 million overnight visitors respectively.

  DiNapoli concluded: “The industry’s full recovery won’t be complete until we see a full return of international and business travelers. Our city and state leaders need to focus on keeping New York a desirable and safe destination for individuals and families from around the world.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 20:00

• No, Artificial Intelligence Will Not Solve All Problems
  No, Artificial Intelligence Will Not Solve All Problems

  Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

  The famed historian and epidemiologist John M. Barry just threw out a trope that has become unbearably popular today. He predicted that in the future, artificial intelligence (AI) will make it possible to more perfectly enact pandemic lockdowns and develop vaccines.

  “Artificial intelligence will perhaps be able to extrapolate from mountains of data which restrictions deliver the most benefits—whether, for example, just closing bars would be enough to significantly dampen spread—and which impose the greatest cost,” he writes.

  “AI should also speed drug development.”

  Maybe if you are an expert in anything these days and write in The New York Times, this is just what you say today to seem hip and with it, even if you have no idea what you are talking about. That’s the most likely reason.

  Even so, this constant invocation of AI as the future solution to all problems is getting extremely annoying.

  

  Can you imagine a world in which AI demands that your favorite local watering hole needs to shut? I can easily imagine it. I can also imagine local media citing AI as the final authority such that no human arguments can get in the way.

  There is nothing new under the sun.

  Every time a fancy new technology appears on the horizon, the experts emerge from the firmament to assure us that it will solve every human problem in the future.

  And they always advocate that it be made the core of government policy, thus fixing all the problems with government that everyone has known from all ages. Thanks to this brilliant thing, it will be different this time.

  This is exactly what happened with computers, starting in the mid-1950s once they became available. The new claim was everywhere: Computers would make the central planning called socialism possible. This claim was conjured up as an answer to an intractable problem that had vexed intellectuals since the 1920s.

  Here is a bit of background on that controversy. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, socialists were running around saying that they could rework economic life in a way to make all things function more efficiently and with even greater economic growth once we got rid of capitalistic systems.

  In 1922, Ludwig von Mises posed a very serious problem to the theory. If you collectivize the capital stock, you eliminate trading across the board for all capital goods. That means that none will carry a market price that signals relative scarcities. Without those, you cannot have accurate accounting. Without that, you will not gain a precise reading of profits and losses, so you will have no idea if what you are doing is efficient or wildly wasteful.

  Not only that, you won’t have any clue of how to produce anything with any kind of effectiveness. You will end up just barking orders in an economic environment of pure chaos. “There is only groping in the dark,” he wrote. In short, the whole society will fall apart.

  The socialists were confounded by the critique. In fact, they never really answered it in any compelling way. Not only that but the reality of communism in Russia seemed to confirm as true everything that Mises said. The “war communism” imposed by Vladimir Lenin achieved nothing but starvation and waste. In short, it was a total disaster.

  That didn’t mean that the attempt to centrally plan economies went away. Instead, they just kept trying. But following World War II, they had a fancy new tool: the computer. We don’t need market-generated prices anymore. Now we only need to plug in resource availability and consumer demand into the computer and it will spit out the answer concerning how much to produce of what and how.

  Oddly, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, who was very keen to get the economy actually making stuff that was useful to people, trusted these new fools and attempted the solution of asking the computer for answers to problems. You don’t need to be told the results. It didn’t work. The computer was, and is always, garbage in and garbage out. There is simply no substitute for market prices generated through the roil and toil of trading and price discovery.

  Sadly, it took many decades for people to finally concede that Mises was right all along.

  But no lessons last forever in a world where human arrogance runs rampant. So now we are being lectured that artificial intelligence will solve all the problems associated with pandemic planning that we discovered from 2020 to 2022. Don’t worry about it! We’ll just ask ChatGPT what to do!

  The same problem presents itself: garbage in and garbage out.

  Mr. Barry’s idea is that we simply plug in seroprevalence levels in a community, hoping to get a picture of disease spread, along with transmission and infection fatality rates, and AI will reveal the costs and benefits of shutting things down. Will it generate the right answer? No, because there is no one answer, not for communities and not for individuals.

  The costs of shutdowns will be more seriously felt, for example, by the bar owner than the patron. The supposed benefits cannot be summed up as failing to get infected since exposure (and not just vaccination) is a path toward immunity. There are conditions in which exposure offers a better risk-benefit ratio than waiting for a vaccine, especially one that does not work.

  Plus, we found out last time that we have no real way to get an accurate read on exposure, certainly not with PCR exams that measure the presence of particular pathogens and not actual sickness. And the testing itself is a problem: People despise the tests today, and rightly so. The only need to test is if you are sick, and only then to better guide the appropriate response. We have never imposed population-wide testing in order to know whether and to what extent to lock down whole populations.

  In so many ways, the epidemiological models that imposed lockdowns on us in 2020 and following were born of the same primitive analytical tools that drove central planning models in the 1950s. In them, everything seems to work perfectly on paper. The trouble comes when you try to impose the same models on real life. The data is incomplete and inaccurate, the assumptions about spread are wrong, and the mutations in the pathogen will typically outwit the planners’ intentions.

  In other words, pandemic planning fails for the same reasons that central economic planning fails. The world is too fast-moving and complicated for the models to capture and control all of the necessary conditions. But admitting that is not usually the habit of governments and their intellectual advisers. They cannot stand to confess their own ignorance, impotence, and incompetence in the face of real-world conditions.

  As a result, we now have the pandemic planners toying with the idea that AI will save their bacon, following a catastrophic experience in letting them have their way last time. The truth is that the next pandemic plan will fail just as badly as the last one, no matter how many computer programs the planners throw at the problem. The real pathogen among elite government planners and intellectuals has a much deeper root: The problem is hubris.

  AI has its uses, but substituting for actual human action and intelligence is not one of them. It can never happen. If we attempt that—and surely we will—the result will be disappointing at best.

  F.A. Hayek said that economic planning by government embodies a pretense of knowledge. That’s nothing compared with the ambition of governments throughout the world to control and manage the whole of the microbial kingdom. There is nothing that AI can do to achieve that. And like communism, the attempt only creates nothing but destruction.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 19:40

• Penn Protestor Who Claims She Was Left 'Homeless' Is Daughter Of Affluent Celebrity Game Show Host
  Penn Protestor Who Claims She Was Left ‘Homeless’ Is Daughter Of Affluent Celebrity Game Show Host

  One Penn encampment student who claimed to have been left ‘homeless’ by the administration’s ‘violence’ has been found to be the daughter of a jet-setting, caviar eating business owning parents. 

  University of Pennsylvania sophomore Eliana Atienza was placed on mandatory leave for participating in an encampment on Penn’s campus, according to the Free Beacon.

  She then went on to tell the Philadelphia Inquirer that she was the real victim, and that she had been left homeless with no family in the United States to turn to. 

  In an Instagram post, she wrote: “I live on campus. The university has barred me from entering. In other words—the university has made me houseless.”

  

  “I am also an international student. The University knows this,” she added. “This is their weapon. So disappointed to be attending an institution that resorts to administrative violence.”

  But it turns out her father is “Kuya Kim,” who the Free Beacon called “a celebrity television presenter who has hosted the country’s most popular morning and game shows.”

  It was also reveled that her grandfather is a notable Filipino politician Lito Atienza. He held the position of deputy speaker in the country’s House of Representatives until 2022, at which point he entered the vice presidential race alongside boxing legend Manny Pacquiao.

  Atienza’s mother, a graduate of the Wharton School, is the founder and former head of the Chinese International School Manila, a private K-12 school.

  Meanwhile, Atienza’s father is unapologetic about displaying his affluence. He recently posted photos on Instagram from a luxurious first-class flight featuring caviar service and a full shower.

  

  Recognized as one of the Philippines’ most familiar TV personalities by British magazine Tatler, he has also televised tours of his home, highlighting his unique collections which include dinosaur eggs, mid-century modern chairs, and vintage motorcycles, featuring two BMWs from World War II.

  Atienza herself also recently posted photos of a trip she took to Antarctica.

  

  Atienza, an environmental studies major, became a prominent figure in the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” that disrupted campus life for over two weeks.

  Earlier in the month, she was among the students who engaged in negotiations with interim president Larry Jameson to dismantle the encampment, as reported by the Inquirer.

  Atienza rejected Jameson’s tentative offers, criticizing them as mere promises to “look into the feasibility” of divesting from Israel by entangling student protesters in “endless meetings and task forces and discussions and committees.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 19:20

• Political Consultant Faces $6 Million Fine For Fake Biden Robocalls
  Political Consultant Faces $6 Million Fine For Fake Biden Robocalls

  Authored by Jana Pruet via The Epoch Times,

  New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella announced on Thursday that Steven Kramer had been indicted on more than two dozen charges for allegedly sending artificial intelligence-generated robocalls mimicking President Joe Biden’s voice to voters ahead of the New Hampshire presidential primary earlier this year.

  “New Hampshire remains committed to ensuring that our elections remain free from unlawful interference, and our investigation into this matter remains ongoing,” Mr. Formella said.

  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed a $6 million fine for Mr. Kramer, 54, a Louisiana-based political consultant who is indicted on 13 counts of felony voter suppression and 13 counts of misdemeanor impersonation of a candidate.

  “The Federal Communications Commission will separately be announcing an enforcement action against Mr. Kramer based on violations of federal law,” the attorney general continued. “I am pleased to see that our federal partners are similarly committed to protecting consumers and voters from harmful robocalls and voter suppression. I hope that our respective enforcement actions send a strong deterrent signal to anyone who might consider interfering with elections, whether through the use of artificial intelligence or otherwise.”

  Mr. Kramer has admitted to orchestrating the AI-generated voice similar to the president’s and using the phrase ‘What a bunch of malarkey’ in the call that was sent to thousands of voters.

  

  The voice also falsely suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting ballots in the general election in November.

  Voters who received the robocall message were allegedly asked to “save [their] vote for the November election.” The message also stated, “[y]our vote makes a difference in November, not this Tuesday,” according to the attorney general’s office.

  “We will act swiftly and decisively to ensure that bad actors cannot use the telecommunications networks to facilitate the misuse of generative AI technology to interfere with elections, defraud consumers, or compromise sensitive data,” Loyann Egal, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau chief, said in a statement.

  The charges were filed across four counties, including Rockingham, Belknap, Grafton, and Merrimack, based on the residence of the thirteen identified voters who received the robocalls.

  Telecom Company Also Faces Fine

  In a separate announcement, the FCC proposed a $2 million fine in a “first-of-its-kind enforcement action” against Lingo Telecom, the company accused of transmitting the robocalls, for violating federal caller identification authentication rules.

  “Two days before the New Hampshire 2024 presidential primary election, illegally spoofed and malicious robocalls carried a deepfake audio recording of President Biden’s cloned voice telling prospective voters not to vote in the upcoming primary,” the FCC said on Thursday. “The inaccurate and misleading calls also transmitted the caller ID number of an unknowing local political operative.”

  Texas-based Lingo Telecom is accused of not applying protocols to verify the accuracy of the customer’s information and failing to use certain standards mandated by the commission that serve as a “digital identifier for each call to empower tracebacks of suspicious calls, inform robocall blocking tools, and support more reliable caller ID information for consumers.”

  “We will hold providers accountable for failing to know their customers and for failing to uphold the rules we have in place to protect the American public,” Mr. Egal said.

  In February, the FCC issued a cease-and-desist letter against the telecom company, demanding it “immediately stop supporting unlawful robocall traffic on its networks.”

  FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said that the FCC is working with attorneys general nationwide to combat the use of AI in spreading false information.

  “Consumers deserve to know that the person on the other end of the line is exactly who they claim to be,” Ms. Rosenworcel said in a statement earlier this year. “That’s why we’re working closely with State Attorneys General across the country to combat the use of voice cloning technology in robocalls being used to misinform voters and target unwitting victims of fraud.”

  The investigation into the AI-generated robocalls impersonating President Biden, including other possible responsible parties, remains ongoing.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 19:00

• Putin Wants Ceasefire Which Freezes Current Lines In Ukraine
  Putin Wants Ceasefire Which Freezes Current Lines In Ukraine

  President Vladimir Putin is offering a ceasefire with Ukraine and its Western backers to end what has long been a full-fledged proxy war. But it’s unlikely to be agreed to by Kiev as he reportedly wants to freeze current positions.

  “Putin can fight for as long as it takes, but Putin is also ready for a ceasefire – to freeze the war,” a senior Russian source said to be close to the Russian leader told Reuters. If it happened, Putin would most certainly present this as ‘victory’ to his people and to the world.

  

  Putin himself told a press conference Friday that peace talks with Ukraine should be renewed, but they “must reflect realities on the ground.“

  Reuters writes that “Three of the sources, familiar with discussions in Putin’s entourage, said the veteran Russian leader had expressed frustration to a small group of advisers about what he views as Western-backed attempts to stymie negotiations and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s decision to rule out talks.”

  Any scenario which sees current lines frozen would mean Ukraine would have to cede substantial chunks of four Ukrainian regions. And in Kharkiv, for example, where a new Russian offensive is taking place, the border has been moved deeper into Ukrainian territory over the last weeks.

  But Zelensky has repeatedly ruled out ceasefire negotiations with Moscow so long as Putin remains in power, calling this “impossible”. 

  The fact that the US just recently passed Biden’s $61 billion in new defense aid for Ukraine also provides less incentive for Zelensky to come to the table, even if Ukraine continues losing many troops.

  Ukraine media and officials have charged that any Putin ceasefire offer is in the end a ploy meant to buy time to reenforce and resupply his troops, and to solidify current battlefield gains.

  If the lines were frozen today, what would it look like? Forbes outlines:

  • Russia occupies about 18% of Ukraine, including parts of the country’s four southeastern regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson—according to the Council on Foreign Relations, a U.S.-based think tank.

  • Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told Reuters Russia did not want “eternal war,” adding Russia would not return territory in those four regions to Ukraine because they are now a permanent part of Russia.

  • Three sources suggested Putin would be against further advances into Ukraine because it would require another nationwide mobilization, after a previous call-up resulted in a dip in popularity for Putin.

  

  Putin is now said to be of the view that “gains in the war so far were enough to sell a victory to the Russian people.”

  According to more from the new Reuters report, “the sources said that Putin, re-elected in March for a new six-year term, would rather use Russia’s current momentum to put the war behind him. They did not directly comment on the new defense minister.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 18:40

• House Republicans Take Aim At Biden Energy Policies, Vow To Install "Different Vision" In 2025
  House Republicans Take Aim At Biden Energy Policies, Vow To Install “Different Vision” In 2025

  Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times,

  The Republican-led House Oversight and Accountability Committee staged its 15th review in the last 15 months of the Biden administration’s energy policies during a two-hour May 23 hearing that Democrats say was orchestrated more as a forum for election-year rhetoric than for a sober assessment of energy policy and Department of Energy (DOE) spending proposals.

  

  DOE Secretary Jennifer Granholm was grilled over administration plans to domestically source critical minerals, adopt conservation standards for appliances, advance commercial nuclear power, restore the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, boost electric grid reliability, provide billions in subsidies for renewable energies, its liquid natural gas (LNG) export-permit “pause,” and even how it deals with UFO sightings around power plants.

  Much of Ms. Granholm’s give-and-take with panelists was more semantics than substance, such as lengthy exchanges with Reps. Clay Higgins (R-La.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), and Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) on whether the administration’s January “pause” in new LNG export permits is, in effect, a “ban.”

  Under the Natural Gas Act’s (NGA) Section 3, the DOE is required to review applications for import or export of natural gas, including LNG, to or from a foreign country and approve those deemed “consistent with the public interest.”

  Advances in fracking spurred a natural gas boom. Before 2016, the U.S. did not export LNG. By 2023, it was the world’s top LNG exporter. This year, LNG exports will top 12 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) and are expected to increase to 14 Bcfd in 2025—all records, Ms. Granholm said, noting repeatedly that the “pause” does not affect operating and already approved LNG exports.

  “By the time all authorized projects currently under construction are complete later this decade, our export capacity is set to reach over 26 Bcfd, more than double our current level of exports,” she said. “The United States will have more LNG export capacity than any other country by more than 40 percent, even taking into account announced capacity additions in other countries.”

  Mr. Higgins and other panel Republicans said the DOE overstepped its statutory authority in unilaterally ordering a permitting pause to determine if increasing LNG exports serves “the public interest” in ensuring ample domestic supply keeps prices competitive and maintains the administration’s overriding goals in reducing carbon emissions.

  “Why have you issued a long-term ban on export permit approvals prior to determining whether or not exporting LNG is within the public interest?” he asked.

  “Number one, we have not issued a ban. Number two, it is not long-term. It is a pause to update our assessment,” Ms. Granholm said. “The assessment will be done by the first quarter of next year. It is not a ban, sir.”

  “It is a ban,” Mr. Higgins said, claiming he was “not going to get a straight answer” from the secretary, “which is not a bad answer,” and read into the record the NGA’s Section 3, which states DOE “shall issue such an order upon application unless, after opportunity for a hearing … that the proposed exportation or importation will not be consistent with the public interest.”

  There was no such hearing or determination, he said, so the NGA’s language states, by default, that export permits “shall be” issued unless deemed not in the public interest in a hearing. The Obama administration conducted a similar 2014-15 assessment without pausing permits, he added.

  “You do not have the authority, nor the precedence, to take the actions that you have, indeed, taken,” Mr. Higgins said. “This pause jeopardizes billions of dollars of interest, American jobs, American families, and a clean reliable energy source that contributes to our national security and energy security and world security by allies. This is yet another illegal action by the Biden administration being forced upon we the people.”

  Ms. Granholm said under NGA’s Section 3, the sharp increase in LNG exports provides the statutory authority to conduct a “public interest” review, repeating again it will be done by February 2025 and does not affect any permits already approved.

  “You have put in a pause and you saying it’s in the ‘public interest,’” Mr. Donalds said. “But you can’t really identify what the ‘public interest’ is because it’s in the ‘public’s interest’ for prices to go down. It is in America’s ‘public interest’ to limit the ability of the Russian regime to earn more money on the open market with their resources. Wouldn’t you agree with that?”

  No, Ms. Granholm said. Determining “public interest” is what the review is about, she said.

  “I would argue, madam secretary, that the pause that you are doing is against the law because you have not finalized your parameters, what you’re looking at” in defining “public interest,” Mr. Donalds said. “You do need to execute the permits that are waiting.”

  A model of an LNG tanker is seen in front of the U.S. flag in this illustration taken May 19, 2022. (Dado Ruvic/Reuters)

  Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said Republicans were asking the same questions they’ve asked for months, with this hearing more about campaign sound bites than a substantive discussion on energy policy.

  What impact will the pause have on current LNG exports into “the foreseeable future?” Mr. Raskin asked, hoping to “restore some sense of proportion and reality to the conversation.”

  “It has absolutely no impact on any exports happening now,” Ms. Granholm said. “We have authorized 48 billion cubic feet of export of liquefied natural gas—48 billion. That is three times what we are currently exporting. We have authorized another 22 billion (cubic feet)” for export from terminals and projects under construction.”

  The “oversight” hearings aren’t about accountability, efficiency, and cost-savings, Mr. Raskin said, but to provide forums for Republicans to tout opposition to the Biden administration’s “war on energy’” and make “convoluted rhetorical claims” that make for good campaign sound bites, but not for thoughtful discussion.

  But elections have consequences, and winning the House in the 2022 midterms put GOP chairs in committees, and they will tort their opposition to the Biden administration’s “green energy obsession” as often as they can.

  Committee chair Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) said Republicans, not Democrats, are seeking substantive answers to energy policy questions that have dominated Congress since President Joe Biden assumed office in January 2021.

  Expect more such hearings into fall, he said.

  “While Democrats politicize energy and target American producers,” gasoline prices and electricity costs have increased by 30 percent since 2021, he said.

  “Congressional Republicans share a different vision for America’s energy future,” Mr. Comer said. “We will not stand by silently about as an administration subverts America’s energy independence and demonizes this critical industry.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 18:20

• DARPA And DoD-Backed AI Chip Company Seeks To Raise $70 Million
  DARPA And DoD-Backed AI Chip Company Seeks To Raise $70 Million

  It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that DARPA is hurriedly throwing in with the ongoing AI trend…

  In fact, Bloomberg reported this week that the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is looking for an additional $70 million to help further its “quest to develop an ultra-efficient chip for artificial intelligence technology”.

  It is backing a company called EnCharge AI Inc., which seeks to build chips specifically suited for AI.

  The company is pioneering in-memory computing—a technology mainly theoretical until recently that could significantly reduce the energy consumption of AI processing chips. It started from work conducted at Princeton. 

  CEO Naveen Verma, who is also a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Princeton, noted that EnCharge was launched with substantial support from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the DOD.

  The report says that this technology has the potential to perform data processing directly where it is stored, thereby conserving energy by eliminating the need to move data across different components.

  EnCharge is not alone in its research; major firms like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Intel Corp., and Samsung Electronics Co. are also exploring similar advancements.

  

  Currently, the U.S. government, emphasizing a shift towards boosting American manufacturing, has shown significant interest in such innovations, providing over $23 million in funding to EnCharge, with additional private investment nearing double that amount from entities including Raytheon Technologies’ venture arm.

  This is part of a broader initiative backing startups and enhancing the domestic production capabilities.

  In addition to the technology’s appeal to private sector firms, the U.S. government sees crucial applications in defense, particularly for running AI-driven military applications in power-constrained environments such as remote areas and aircraft, Verma explained.

  EnCharge is preparing for its next investment round and is in pursuit of strategic investors, although Verma did not disclose specifics about the funding discussions or the company’s valuation.

  The startup has already started deploying its chips, which are tailored not for training AI models like those of OpenAI or Anthropic, but for applications utilizing these models for predictive tasks.

  With a workforce of 50, EnCharge anticipates launching products manufactured by TSMC in the coming year and currently has customers evaluating its technology.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 18:00

• The Doom Of The Total State
  The Doom Of The Total State

  Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

  We’ve been waiting for the big thoughts on the meaning of it all. Where does the crisis of our times fit into the historical trajectory? What does it all imply for how we should think about politics, culture, society, our lives, and our futures? A frustrating part of current intellectual life is that too few dare even to think much less write such big thoughts.

  I truly crave them. My own work, particularly my latest book “Life After Lockdown,” is fine but I’m not up to the task I hope for from others.

  This is why I’m absolutely thrilled by Auron MacIntyre’s wonderful new book “The Total State.” The author fully understands the essential dynamics of our time, including the calamitous failure of the great war on the virus. It’s not a book of epidemiology, thank goodness, but of sociology, history, and political theory. Therefore, he doesn’t miss the essential class element behind the disaster.

  As he clearly states, the COVID experience was all about the rights and privileges of the professional managerial class in government, media, and large corporations. They rigged the response to the virus in a way that maximized their safety and income, while exploiting those without power to serve their every need.

  

  The slogan was “We are all in this together” but the reality was of the working class stepping up to deliver goods and services to the elite classes until the vaccine could arrive. Then the new shot was forced on all those who had bravely faced the pathogen in order to get them biologically clean before being integrated back into society.

  The author gets this entirely correct, and I’m thrilled for it because so few authors do. But it is just a piece of his larger analysis, which is quite challenging. The essence of the thesis is in the subtitle: “How Liberal Democracies Become Tyrannies.” His view is not that they might, or can, or are in danger of becoming so with the wrong policy decisions. The thesis here is more bold than that. He says that they will and they must.

  Wow. Intrigued? I certainly was when I began the journey of this book.

  I read as someone with a classical liberal heart, a person with warm feelings for all the great Enlightenment thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries, a partisan fan of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, a person with tremendous affection for the achievements of the freedom project of the last several centuries but also a person deeply saddened by what’s become of it.

  MacIntyre does not hold that view. Not at all. He believes that the liberal project of the 17th and 18th centuries were the product of rationalistic arrogance, the belief that whole societies and cultures could be cajoled into a single model of organization by virtue of pieces of parchment, governmental architectures, slogans about human rights, and strict models of what defines the very notion of freedom and progress.

  He attempts to map out how the freedom of past centuries gradually mutated into the total state of today, a political order in which the entrenched and global bureaucratic elite face no limits to their power and ambition. He is not even slightly shocked that the center of the empire is the United States simply because the U.S. was the most successful deployment of the liberal democracy in history, and hence the one most vulnerable to the trajectory of arrogance, corruption, decadence, bloat, and hegemonic imposition without limit.

  Still intrigued? Read on.

  The journey begins with the neglected genius of Bertrand de Jouvenel, who traces the origins of freedom not with big declarations of human rights and democracy for all but with the insistence on the part of cultural centers for independence from state power. In European history, it was the minor royals, the landed gentry, the multigenerational centers of wealth and enterprise, and the keepers of faith that formed the real resistance to state power.

  De Jouvenel further argues that it is precisely these robust institutions of cultural and social power that keep state power at bay in a way that individuals on their own never could. When they die out, everyone becomes vulnerable to pillaging but higher powers. In his view, the sloganizing around individual rights and infinite choice and progress is but a masquerade that hides a power grab. When these mediating institutions are weakened, state power only grows.

  You might recognize this outlook as conventional old-world Tory theory, one that is anti-liberal at its core. That seems true in some respects but the journey has only begun as our author takes us through a highly competent tour of thinkers I doubt most students have encountered in generations, simply because they have been smeared as reflexively right-wing: Joseph de Maistre, Gaetano Mosca, Carl Schmitt, Vilfredo Pareto, James Burnham, and Samuel Francis.

  I will just say plainly that these thinkers are not my cup of tea. I’ve been severely critical of all of them for reasons I don’t need to explain here. That said, we must admit the following. Together they have provided the single most powerful attack on liberalism classically understood that has ever been marshaled. It’s not even obvious to me that it has been sufficiently answered by anyone, unless I’m missing something.

  The critique is this.

  Liberalism is a form of rationalism, one born of intellectuals rather than real human experience, a construct involving definitive propositions about how life should be conducted that is necessarily imperial in that it overrides the aims, ethos, and operations of all other organic institutions in society. It says, in essence, that you must think this way or hit the highway. In so doing, it tramples on religious traditions, familial aspirations, local folkways, tacit knowledge born of long experience, norms and manners of local communities, and diminishes the role of mediating structures in the social order.

  Liberalism, in this view, is a managerial project—like an architectural blueprint drawn up by someone who has only studied but never built anything—one requiring expertise to administer and hence experts and bureaucrats at all levels of society. But the people who inhabit these positions are relatively detached from the social order they presume to manage and hence their decision-making and interests are necessarily less knowledgeable and humane than they otherwise would be if people were truly left to their own devices.

  The critique is deepened by the observation that liberalism as a philosophy is necessarily devoid of genuine meaning of the sort that traditional religion seeks to provide. It extols the inherent glory of material achievement and progress but offers no real solace when it turns out—as it always does—that success alone does not fulfill deep human longings.

  In that sense, his view is that democratic liberalism is a false god that always fails. Having robbed people of a moral and faith-based center, liberalism is well-positioned to invade lives and communities with bureaucratic management while promoting dependency and arbitrary power.

  The author uses all the modern crises to illustrate his point: the COVID disaster, the U.S. proxy war with Russia, the imperialism of world bureaucracies, the hegemony of the administrative state and the impotence of the judiciary to control it, and so on.

  If all of this sounds dreadful—and it does indeed—there is some light on the other side: he predicts that the total state of the 21st century is destined to fail.

  “Liberal democracy made assumptions about human nature that were false. It outran the consequences for a long time because it was able to amass an unprecedented amount of wealth and power, but eventually the bill always comes due. Constitutions are not eternal guardians of the political will and states do not become objective and self-governing machines simply because rules get written down on a piece of paper. Man has not moved beyond either religion or politics. Questions of faith and sovereignty will continue to sit at the core of the human experience, just as they always have. Matters of meaning, identity, and existential conflict cannot be removed by the promise of cold objective reason and credentialed experts.”

  In this prediction, I sense that he is correct. The world state cannot work. The total state cannot work. The resistance of administrative totalitarianism is growing, as the population grows ever more impoverished, subjected, and inflamed in fury against the overlords who are not in hiding any longer. We know who they are. They are parading on TV every night, like a scene from District One in “The Hunger Games.”

  This is truly unsustainable.

  MacIntyre ends his book with some speculations about how all of this will unfold. His speculations are well thought out.

  Having mapped all of this out, I feel the need to register fundamental disagreement. I simply cannot accept his big theory. In fact, I see the whole apparatus as an unnecessary overreach. Liberalism is wholly defensible, not as an imperial and rationalistic product of intellectuals but as a simple aspiration for a society that can manage itself complete with mediating institutions, traditions, familial dynasties, and a state that is nearly invisible to daily life, something like what the United States experienced under the Articles of Confederation.

  I’m not nearly as pessimistic as he is about the whole liberal project. As an answer, I might propose the writings of Benjamin Constant, Adam Smith, and Lord Acton, while admitting that I do long for a longer and more pointed refutation of the tradition of thought that has so heavily informed this book. That said, I truly hope everyone will read this, and ironically hope you can learn from it while rejecting the darker features of the work.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/24/2024 – 17:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest