- Taliban Ask Turkey For Help To Run Chaotic Kabul Airport
Taliban Ask Turkey For Help To Run Chaotic Kabul Airport
The chaotic airport is currently the locus of unprecedented chaos (not to mention a makeshift, and temporary, US embassy), but Afghanistan’s new rulers, the Taliban, are already looking beyond Aug 31 when the US is scheduled to evacuate its domestic presence, and according to Reuters they have asked Turkey for “technical help” to run the Kabul airport even as they demand that Ankara’s military also withdraw fully by the end-August deadline.
Crowds of people are seen on the tarmac at Kabul’s airport in Afghanistan August 16, 2021 The conditional request by the Islamist Taliban leaves Ankara – a current NATO member – with a difficult decision over whether to accept a hazardous job, a Reuters source said.
The mainly Muslim Turkey was part of a NATO mission in Afghanistan and still has hundreds of troops at Kabul airport. The officials say they are ready to withdraw at short notice. But President Tayyip Erdogan’s government has said for months that it could keep a presence at the airport if requested.
“The Taliban have made a request for technical support in running Kabul airport,” a senior Turkish official confirmed, adding however that the Taliban demand for all Turkish troops to leave would complicate any prospective mission. After the Taliban seized control of the country Turkey offered technical and security assistance at the airport.
“Ensuring the safety of workers without the Turkish Armed Forces is a risky job,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Talks with the Taliban on the issue were ongoing and, in the meantime, preparations for a troop withdrawal had been completed, he said.
Reuters notes that it was unclear whether Turkey would agree to give technical assistance if its troops were not there to provide security. Another Turkish official said a final decision would be made by the Aug. 31 deadline for foreign forces to leave the country and end a 20-year military involvement in Afghanistan.
Keeping the airport open after foreign forces hand over control is vital not just for Afghanistan to stay connected to the world but also to maintain aid supplies and operations. “It’s going to be a critical lifeline for the humanitarian action in Afghanistan,” Mary Ellen McGroarty, World Food Programme director in Afghanistan, said last week.
That said, even if the Taliban manage to keep the airport open – it’s not immediately clear just how vibrant the Afghani tourism industry will be for the foreseeable future – the country faces a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, not to mention capital controls, economic collapse, hyperinflation, and a defunct currency. Since Turkey has experience with all of these, maybe Erdogan should just take over as lead economic advisor to the country.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/26/2021 – 02:45 - Will Ukraine Face The Same Abandonment After US Exit From Afghanistan?
Will Ukraine Face The Same Abandonment After US Exit From Afghanistan?
Authored by Johanna Ross via Southfront.org,
Ukraine is ‘almost a member of the EU’ and ‘almost a member of NATO’ President Zelensky proudly declared of late.
The word ‘almost’ is pertinent here, because seven years after the Maidan revolution, Ukraine is still a substandard democracy, and far from reaching the basic democratic standards required for entry to either of these blocs.
America is good at making promises but not so good at keeping them.
Indeed Ukraine is ‘almost’ in so many senses of the word. The President himself ‘almost’ speaks Ukrainian (Russian is his native tongue). Ukraine is ‘almost’ a reliable geopolitical partner for Europe and the US. Most importantly, the country is ‘almost’ a democracy but sadly lacking the freedom of speech and language rights which a liberatarian state would possess.
In fact, since the 2014 Maidan revolution, the western-backed coup which saw the Yanukovych government toppled, Ukraine has fallen under a dark cloud. Far from the bright, positive European future promised by proponents of Maidan, Ukraine has been drenched in ethnic conflict as the authorities have attempted to de-Russify the country and erase any sign of Russianness.
Those opposed to the Maidan revolution of 2013 predicted this would happen. Rumours began to spread at the time that Ukrainian nationalists would threaten the rights of ethnic Russians and in particular their right to speak in their native tongue, but these fears were not acknowledged by the West, and went unreported in the western media. Instead, reports of neo-Nazis in Ukraine and extreme nationalism were dismissed as Russian propaganda. But facts cannot be ignored and the fact remains that a law was passed in 2019 to force all Ukrainian citizens to speak Ukrainian, despite a third of Ukranians stating that Russian is their native language.
This crackdown on speakers of Russian language is exactly the type of ethnocultural cleansing that provoked the people of Crimea and East Ukraine to rise up against the Ukrainian authorities, leading to the reunification of Crimea with Russia and the formation of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Not that this is recognised at all in the West, which has insisted and continues to insist that only Russia is to blame for the ethnic and territorial divisions which have occurred since the coup. The oldest strategy in the book – the ‘divide and rule’ tactic – has been very effective in Ukraine, and as usual with western foreign policy interventions, it is the ordinary people of these occupied nations that suffer from the geopolitical games being directed from those seated in Washington.
And yet, despite all the grand ideas for Ukraine promised by western politicians over the years, the country continues to crumble and fall into an abyss of economic recession and social turmoil. Instead of receiving robust support from the US and EU, it has become increasingly isolated, particularly since the successful Putin-Biden summit. The military buildup in East Ukraine in May earlier this year which provoked Russia to gather its forces along the border, was a real test of just how far Washington was prepared to go to defend Ukraine: not far at all.
This change in attitude was further emphasised by the US’ changed rhetoric on Nord Stream 2, and more recently by Angela Merkel’s visit to Moscow and Kiev. Lambasted by the Ukrainian media, Angela Merkel has now become something of a bête noire for Zelensky as she, as usual, pursues Germany’s national interest with the completion of Nord Stream 2. Many in the anti-Russian commentariat have criticised Merkel’s positive meeting with Putin with some pointing out that not only did she visit Russia before Ukraine, but also has no plans to accept Kiev’s invitations to Ukrainian Independence Day celebrations or attend the Crimean Platform event which took place on Monday (a gathering aimed at reuniting Crimea with Ukraine).
If Kiev had any doubts about the nature of Washington’s commitment to Ukraine, all it has to do is look at the way it has abandoned Afghanistan in recent days. When it no longer becomes viable, the US, like any corporate giant, shuts up shop. Even after 20 years of fighting and fine words of turning Afghanistan into a flourishing democracy, when it no longer suited them, the Americans abruptly turned their back on the country and the many citizens who collaborated with them. It doesn’t bode well for Ukraine as a vassal state of the US.
Ukraine’s current position is untenable. A prosperous, optimistic, free, democratic country cannot be built on ethnic division, russophobia, fascism, and the slogan ‘death to the enemy’. The purging of pro-Russian politicians, the shutting down of opposition media, the interrogation of artists by the security services, are all signs that the country is locked in an authoritarian regime, and one which the US supports. And yet, just like that, Ukraine could also be abandoned in a flash, like Afghanistan, left buried under the pile of rubble the US helped to create. It will take time, but Ukraine’s only hope is to accept its shared cultural heritage with Russia, and recognise the rights of its Russian-speaking citizens in order to resolve the civil war. It can reject its historical ties with Russia, but a nation which denies its past has no future.
* * *
You can follow the author on Twitter.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/26/2021 – 02:00 - Vaccine Mandates & The "Great Reset"
Vaccine Mandates & The “Great Reset”
Authored by Philipp Bagus via The Mises Institute,
Pressure on the unvaccinated grows. While the vaccinated in some countries are getting back some of their freedoms taken away by the covid interventions, the unvaccinated are not so well off. They are being targeted for discrimination. Access to public spaces and traveling is being made more difficult for them. In some countries there is even mandatory vaccination for some professions.
But why is the vaccination campaign so important to governments that they are increasing the pressure to such an extent? And who has an interest in the global vaccination campaign?
To answer these questions, it is necessary to analyze the prevalent vaccination narrative and ask who benefits from it.
In doing so, the alliance of interests between the state, the media, the pharmaceutical industry, and supranational institutions must be addressed.
Let us start with the pharmaceutical industry.
It has an obvious economic interest in the vaccination campaign. It makes enormous profits from widespread vaccination.
What about the state?
In the covid-19 crisis, politicians have systematically amplified fear and hysteria. This was no accident and is unsurprising, for the state builds its raison d’être on the argument that it protects the population from internal and external dangers. The state is built upon fear. The narrative is that without the help of the state, the citizen would be defenseless against hunger, poverty, accidents, war, terrorism, disease, natural disasters, and pandemics. It is, therefore, in the state’s interest to instill fear of possible dangers, which it then pretends to resolve, expanding its power in the process. A relatively recent example is the restriction of civil liberties in the US in response to the threat of terrorism after the 9-11 attacks and the second Iraq war. Similarly, it was in the interest of governments to purposefully instill fear and portray covid-19 as a unique killer virus in order to expand state power to an extent unknown in peacetime at the expense of citizens’ fundamental rights.
When the corona crisis started and not much was known about the virus’s potential danger politicians were faced with an asymmetric payoff. If politicians underestimate a danger and do not react, they are held responsible for the underestimation. They lose elections and power. Especially if they can be blamed for deaths. Photos of mass burials aside, the consequences of underestimating danger and failing to act are politically fatal. In contrast, overestimating the danger and taking decisive action are politically much more attractive.
If it really is an unprecedented threat, politicians are celebrated for their tough measures such as lockdowns. And politicians can always argue that without their decisive action, there would indeed have been a disaster. If the measures ultimately turn out to have been exaggerated because the hazard was not so great after all, the possible negative consequences of the measures are not as directly associated with the politicians as the photos of mass burials, because these consequences are more indirect and long term. The indirect and long-term health costs of lockdowns include suicides, depression, alcoholism, stress-related illnesses, earlier deaths from canceled surgeries and screenings, and a generally lower standard of living. However, these costs are not directly associated with the drastic interventions and blamed on the policy. Many of these consequences will occur after the next elections or even later and are not visible. For instance, we cannot observe to what extent a higher standard of living would have increased life expectancy. And if someone dies six years from now from alcoholism or depression developed in the wake of lockdowns, most people probably will not make the lockdown politicians responsible, and if they do, these politicians will possibly already be out of office. Thus, it is in the interest of politicians to overestimate a threat and overreact.
In order to justify and defend the harsh measures such as lockdowns that are so attractive to politicians, it is necessary to stir up fear. When politicians stoked fear and hysteria during the covid-19 crisis, implementing highly restrictive measures such as lockdowns, the damage to the economy and social fabric was immense. Yet a society cannot be cannot be locked down forever, as the costs keep rising. At some point, it must exit lockdown and return to some normality. However, how can one at the same time stir up fear of the threat of a killer virus and return to normalcy?
The way out is vaccination.
With to the vaccination campaign the state can stage itself as the savior from the great danger. The state organizes vaccination for its citizens and gives the vaccinations to the citizens for “free.” Without this “vaccination rescue” and in a permanent lockdown, the negative economic and social consequences of the restrictions on civil rights would be so great that resentment among the population would continue to grow and ultimately unrest would threaten. So, sooner or later, the lockdown must be ended. If, however, the state authorities were to back out of the lockdowns and restrictions without further explanation and imply that the danger was not so great after all and that the restrictions were an exaggeration and a mistake, they would lose a great deal of support and trust among the population. Consequently, from a governmental perspective, a good and face-saving “exit scenario” from the most severe restrictions is needed, and the vaccination campaign provides it.
Through state-provided vaccination, the state can continue to hold on to the narrative of the great threat and still get out of the lockdown. At the same time, it can pass itself off as a savior that is making somewhat more normality possibly through vaccination. To do this, it is necessary that as large a proportion of the population as possible also get vaccinated, because if only a fraction of the population gets vaccinated, the vaccination campaign cannot be sold as a necessary step toward opening up. Thus, it is in the state’s interest to get a major part of the population vaccinated.
If this strategy works, the state will have set a precedent, expanded its power, and also made citizens more dependent. Citizens will believe that the state has rescued them from a mortal predicament and that they will need its help in the future. In return, they will be willing to give up some of their liberties permanently. The announcement that a state-organized annual vaccination booster is needed will perpetuate the citizens’ dependence.
The mass media have fallen in line and actively support the vaccination narrative.
The state and mass media are closely linked. Framing by the leading media and targeting the population have a long tradition. Already in 1928 Edward Bernays advocated the intelligent manipulation of the masses in his classic book Propaganda. In modern states, the mass media help to construct popular approval for political measures such as in the case of covid-19.
The mass media’s support of the state is due to several reasons. Some media are directly owned by the state, others are highly regulated or require state licenses. Furthermore, media houses are staffed with graduates from state educational institutions. In addition, especially in times of crisis, a good connection to the government offers advantages and privileged access to information. The willingness to carry the state’s fear narrative also comes from the fact that negative news and the exaggeration of dangers bring attention.
In the corona crisis, the one-sided media coverage that proliferated through social media and muted critical voices contributed to fear and panic and created great psychological stress among the population. However, it is not only negative news that is attractive to the media; the narrative of the state rescuing the population from a major crisis also sells well. Thus, the vaccination narrative plays into the hands of the mass media.
In addition to nation-states, the media, and pharmaceutical companies, supranational organizations also have an interest in ensuring that the world’s population is vaccinated.
Supranational organizations are actively pursuing an agenda in which global vaccination campaigns play an important role. These organizations include the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations (UN), the EU, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Health Organization (WHO), which are closely interconnected.
Some of these organizations have set as their goal a great reset, or a great transformation. In the areas of pandemic and climate protection, gender, migration, and the financial system, these organizations want to find coordinated answers for the benefit of all people worldwide. They emphasize shared responsibility and global solidarity. The central control of vaccination, climate change, and financial and migration flows bears the hallmarks of a new world order. For example, the theme of the 2019 annual meeting of the WEF was “Globalization 4.0: Shaping a New Global Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Another example of supranational planning is the UN’s “Global Compact for Migration.” At the national level, these radical ideas are supported, as shown by the German Advisory Council on Global Change’s Welt im Wandel – Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation (World in transition: Social contract for a great transformation) policy paper.
Raymond Unger (2021, pp. 84–89) sees this drive for supranational planning as part of a culture war envisioned by Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse. A global management of opinion and outrage is combined with scenes of fear and horror, especially in the fields of climate change and corona, to establish a new socialist world order. In fact, the WHO, the IMF, and the UN are led by former communists. The WEF is financed by global companies, including the pharmaceutical industry and the big tech companies. The WEF, for its part, significantly finances the UN’s 2030 Agenda. The WHO is also significantly funded by pharmaceutical companies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which spearheads global vaccination campaigns. During the covid-19 crisis, the pharmaceutical industry also exerted its influence on the WHO. And the IMF only aided nation-states if they complied with WHO recommendations.
These interconnected supranational organizations see the covid-19 crisis as an opportunity to advance their agendas. The UN policy paper Shared Responsibility, Global Solidarity: Responding to the Socio-economic Impacts of COVID-19 views covid-19 as a turning point for modern society. The intention is to seize the opportunity and act in a globally coordinated manner. The major tech companies support these agendas. They are also members of the WEF and censored disagreeable information related to covid-19 on their platforms (Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook), just like the mass media. Videos critical of vaccination are particularly quickly deleted on YouTube.
The title of a keynote speech by IMF director Kristalina Georgieva, “From Great Lockdown to Great Transformation” also underscores the idea that supranational organizations want to use the corona crisis for their agendas. Klaus Schwab, founder of the WEF, argues that the covid-19 crisis represents a “rare opportunity” to “lay new foundations for our economic and social systems.” In COVID-19: The Great Reset, coauthored with Thierry Malleret, Schwab speaks of a defining moment and claims a new world will emerge. According to Schwab, it is time for a fundamental reform of capitalism.
Thus, the globally coordinated vaccination program can be interpreted as a building block in a supranational strategy of a great reset.
Global vaccination structures are being established that can be used for subsequent global vaccination campaigns. From the perspective of advocates of a great reset, globally coordinated covid-19 vaccination underscores the need for global structures and organizations that can then be used for other global purposes, such as effectively combating “climate change” and pushing for a great reset. In short, the state, the media, the pharmaceutical industry, and supranational organizations are closely intertwined and have a common interest in the vaccination narrative.
From this perspective, the mounting pressure on the vaccine-free is unsurprising.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 23:40 - Uranium: Powering The Cleanest Source Of Energy
Uranium: Powering The Cleanest Source Of Energy
The world’s energy needs are growing with its population. However, as Visual Capitalist’s Govind Bhutada details below, achieving a net-zero carbon economy while meeting our growing energy needs requires a larger role for clean, sustainable, and reliable sources. Nuclear is one such energy source.
The above graphic from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust highlights how uranium is powering one of the cleanest and most reliable sources of energy in nuclear power.
The Cleanest Energy Sources
Although all energy sources have tradeoffs, some are better for the environment than others.
To find the cleanest sources of energy, Our World in Data calculated CO2-equivalent emissions per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity generated over the lifecycle of power plants for different energy sources. This includes the footprint of raw materials, transport, and construction of power plants.
It’s not surprising that coal, oil, and natural gas plants emit much more greenhouse gases than their renewable and non-renewable counterparts. In fact, emissions per GWh from coal power plants are roughly 273 times higher than nuclear power plants.
Hydropower offers a cleaner and renewable alternative to fossil fuels, however, the concrete and materials used in dam construction contribute to emissions. Furthermore, the decomposition of underwater vegetation in reservoirs also releases methane and carbon dioxide into the environment. Still, emissions per GWh from hydropower are around 24 times lower than coal.
Solar and wind are often the most mentioned energy sources when it comes to the clean energy transition. However, their energy densities are lower than fossil fuels and as a result, they often require more units to generate the same amount of power. For example, generating one GWh of electricity can take more than three million photovoltaic panels, or 412 utility-scale wind turbines. Constructing these massive solar and wind farms adds up to a relatively large material footprint and consequently, GHG emissions.
This is where nuclear power comes in.
Why is Nuclear the Cleanest Source of Energy?
Nuclear power plants use fission to generate electricity without any combustion, avoiding emissions from the process of electricity generation. What’s more, on average, it only takes one typical nuclear reactor to generate one GWh of electricity. The power generation capacity of nuclear reactors is largely due to the high energy density of uranium and nuclear fuel.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, a single, eraser-sized uranium pellet contains the same amount of energy as 120 gallons of oil or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. This allows nuclear power plants to generate large amounts of electricity efficiently, making them one of the cleanest energy sources per GWh of electricity produced.
Nuclear’s Role in the Clean Energy Transition
Nuclear power offers several advantages in the transition to clean energy.
Besides being carbon-free and sustainable, nuclear power is also one of the most reliable and safest sources of energy. In fact, nuclear plants in the United States have a capacity factor of 92.5%, which means that they run at maximum capacity for almost 93% of the time during a year.
As one of the cleanest, most powerful, and reliable sources of energy, nuclear power could play a key role in helping countries achieve decarbonization goals in the fight against climate change.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 23:20 - Untruths & Consequences
Untruths & Consequences
Authored by Eric Utter via AmericanThinker.com,
To any sane person, it appears our elites and their media sycophants are engaging in an unprecedented preposterous statement tournament.
They must get up every day, snicker once or twice, and try to think of the most ridiculous, least verifiable piece of ludicrous prevarication they can attempt to pass off as truth.
And why shouldn’t they? A significant percentage of Americans seem willing to believe anything at all.
So President Biden says there are no Americans trapped in Kabul. All right, now tell us the one about the three bears. His press secretary, Jen Psaki, says we need to get the military out of Afghanistan first, so we don’t risk anyone getting hurt. Yes, forget about the thousands of American civilians trapped in Kabul. Ignore the pictures of mothers throwing their babies over fences. Um, Jen, we send our troops to places specifically to confront danger and instability…and often to fight the bad guys. That’s why, unlike civilians, they are armed to the teeth and wear body armor. That’s why they have attack helicopters, A-10 Warthogs, missiles, rocket launchers, grenades, and submachine guns. Or used to, before the Biden administration decided to donate them to the Taliban. But we are told we can trust the Taliban, that its members are turning over a new leaf. (Perhaps moving from the 8th century to the 9th century?)
We are told the vaccines work wonderfully and are totally safe. And then told we need to start wearing masks again. And that hospitals are filling up again. And that we need a “booster” shot. We are virtually assured the coronavirus didn’t come from a laboratory in Wuhan. Until we were told that it might very well have come from a laboratory in Wuhan. But, Biden says, the Chinese are
Hunter’sour friends., and Iran, too, poses no serious threat.Then the Los Angeles Times trots out a headline averring: “Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy. You’ve been warned.” Gee, Times, thanks for the tip. Does it make sense, though, that a Black man is the spokesperson for white supremacy? Apparently, this is not your grandfather’s White supremacy movement. (Were there many Black Imperial Wizards in the Ku Klux Klan?) I mean, did the rank and file not notice that their precious White supremacy organization was filling up with Black folks? If they did and didn’t care, and if they like Larry Elder, they really aren’t particularly racist, are they? Have they just not been paying attention, or have they gone soft? Or maybe there isn’t that big of a problem here, and everyone can just settle down and go home.
What can be said with certainty is that “The Los Angeles Times is the face of media idiocy.”
It has been said over the decades that Americans have lost their innocence, that we are terribly jaded and cynical. The past few years have proved that this, too, is incorrect. A disheartening number of Americans have bought the lies of the government and media that despise them:
-
“Trump colluded with Russia!”
-
“The 2020 election was the fairest of them all.”
-
“Kamala Harris will be a great vice president.”
-
“Hunter is the smartest guy I know.”
-
“It’s all Trump’s fault.”
The United States was founded on a healthy — and historically deeply warranted — distrust of government.
Today, the only thing many Americans are skeptical about is the truth.
Past this point, no free republic, indeed no viable society, can long continue.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 23:00 -
- Who The Public Thinks Bears Responsibility For The Taliban Takeover?
Who The Public Thinks Bears Responsibility For The Taliban Takeover?
A poll by CBS and YouGov shows that most Americans think the Afghan government and army carry a great share of the responsibility for the Taliban takeover, but, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes below, many survey participants also put considerable blame on Presidents Biden and Trump.
You will find more infographics at Statista
A quarter of Americans believe that former President Donald Trump carries a lot of the responsibility for Afghanistan falling back to the Taliban before the withdrawal of U.S. troops was even complete. In February 2020, Trump and the Taliban had signed an agreement to withdraw all U.S. and NATO troops in 2021. Current
President Joe Biden, who followed through with the commitment, was seen as having a lot of responsibility for the developments in Afghanistan by 36 percent of respondents, signaling that a good amount of people believe he shouldn’t have heeded his predecessor’s pledge.
In total, 86 percent and 72 percent of respondents said that Biden and Trump, respectively, carried any of the blame for the Taliban takeover.
Only 37 percent of survey participants said that they disapproved of the 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan – out of these, 55 percent said that troops should have stayed, while 70 percent said that the removal should have been handled better. Furthermore, 67 percent believed Joe Biden has no clear plan for evacuating American civilians from the country. 81 percent of respondents said interpreters and other local employees of the U.S. military and government should be aided in coming to the U.S.
Finally, we note that the survey was taken between August 18-20th, which is well before this week’s clusterfuck really accelerated.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 22:40 - Luongo: Kabul 'Planned Chaos'? Who Does Davos Turn To After Biden?
Luongo: Kabul ‘Planned Chaos’? Who Does Davos Turn To After Biden?
Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,
With the collapse of Afghanistan and the clear inability of Joe Biden to handle the situation the clock is winding down quickly on The Davos Crowd to figure out how to keep things from going completely off the rails.
Opposition to mandatory vaccination and the public use of private medical data is rising far quicker than they anticipated. It’s exposing the extent of the uselessness of the people installed by them in places of power around the world to effect the Great Reset.
From New Zealand to Canada, France to the White House, Davos thought they could basically pull an Emperor Palpatine and just ‘make The Great Reset legal’ and it would all work itself out. That is clearly not happening.
The stories coming out of Australia are as deeply disturbing as Biden’s bungling the retreat from Afghanistan. It highlights how quickly petty tyrants have turned into inhuman killers of the defenseless, i.e. rescue dogs in Australia.
But, then again, this is the fundamental problem with collectivists of all types. They hate those things they want to protect. The same people criminalize ‘animal abuse’ then lobby for, fund and create through taxes doggie concentration camps at the local county run shelter.
Life to them is cheap. So cheap that they abstract the value of it to zero in order to justify their lust to rule over others, masking their fear of a hostile and unpredictable world. What’s being done to dogs in New South Wales will escalate to unvaxxed humans if this isn’t stopped in its tracks.
Once the dehumanization starts it doesn’t end until the tyrants are overthrown and defeated. Moreover, when one group is pushed to the brink of extinction that puts them in the position to fight back harder than they have ever fought back before.
Existential threats are like that.
So, heaven help the tyrants Down Under, because there is a special place in Dante’s EZ-Bake Oven (H/T Dennis Miller) for people who gas rescue dogs.
To Every Season, Churn, Churn, Churn
The point of this is that this rising opposition to the New Normal as promoted by Davos is forcing an acceleration of their plans. I’ve talked about this before. And when you see a 180 degree shift in a media narrative you have to take it seriously.
Because it means something significant has changed.
The media and most of D.C. has turned on Biden in a complete 180, just like they did on the COVID-9/11 lab leak theory once it became useful for Davos to do so and Dr. Fauci was caught by Rand Paul red handed lying to Congress.
Now, I believe strongly that the mess in Kabul was planned chaos.
It was designed to make the U.S. look like a bunch of bungling morons. I’ll lay aside, for now, the reality that the messy pull-out from Afghanistan was meant to sow chaos there, leaving behind billions in weapons to re-arm ISIS/Al-Qaeda to snipe at the Taliban and frustrate their ability to form a government.
Biden has been set up to take the blame for this. He’s neither prepared for it nor even capable of processing the speed at which this is happening. It’s almost like he’s as lost in The Churn from James S.A. Corey’s The Expanse series as the rest of us have been. To remind you …
… The Churn is that moment when, “the rules of the game change.” Which game?
Amos: {from The Expanse} “The only game. Survival. When the jungle tears itself down and builds itself into something new. Guys like you and me, we end up dead. Doesn’t really mean anything. Or, if we happen to live through it, well that doesn’t mean anything either.”
Embedded in Amos’ idea of The Churn, however, is that while the rules change, society itself keeps on keeping on. So many people right now are trying to analyze the political situation in terms of The Churn, the normal ebb and flow of who has the upper hand in the power struggle.
So, from where I’m sitting the game has changed and who has the upper hand is the key to our surviving it or not.
Back to Biden, because he clearly isn’t a guy who will survive this. If he hadn’t spent his one lifetime in service of the most venal forms of corruption I’d almost feel sorry for him because elder abuse is an awful reflection on any society, just like gassing rescue dogs is. But, like I said, we’re dealing with people who have no soul, no center and only the unquenchable envy that resides in those without those things searching for meaning in their meaningless existence.
So, Biden is not long for this life in the public eye. He is quickly being pushed out of the picture, another dog put down to pave the road to global serfdom.
I Think I’m Turning Euro-cheese
Now, in contrast, have you noticed how the UK, France and Germany are all getting the big pass on getting their people out of Kabul even though they were in the know about the situation there?
Have you noticed the desperate bleats from people like Tony Blair and EU Foreign Minister Josef Borrell about the loss of Afghanistan?
Obviously, this is meant to distract from rising civil unrest at home, but the real takeaway is to further divide Europe from the US on everything
In their power-soaked, globalism-addled minds, how can Davos’ ideas survive if it can’t milk the U.S. tax-cow to spend trillions on protecting their interests in central Asia?
Boris Johnson’s government just voted to hold Biden in contempt for his Afghanistan debacle.
Biden’s team mismanaged the Afghanistan retreat knowing full well what was likely to happen. The knives are already out for his National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
Macron, Merkel, the truly feckless British all knew the situation in country. Admitting Biden’s failure in Afghanistan is the one thing neocons and neoliberals truly agree on.
So their turning on him through the media reveals clearly the rules of the game have changed again.
At the same time, Alex Mercouris was correct in his assessment that Kamala Harris is also being sidelined because she’s not in Afghanistan or at least overseas coordinating with these foreign allies to work through the situation and get the Americans trapped there out.
She’s in Singapore and Vietnam getting hammered by the press and laughing about Americans being left behind.
What’s on display here is the tired old narrative, “We do everything better than the Yanks.” This also helps lessen the blow to the cognitive dissonance the Leftards are going through as this thing falls apart. They are rapidly coming to the conclusion that they ‘elected’ a sundowning fungus for President over a guy they hated for no other reason than because they were told by the very architects of this Afghanistan tragedy that he was a Nazi.
The programming is deep folks, on both sides of the political aisle.
There are plenty waking up but it may not be enough before everything explodes. I’m serious now.
We are in the early moments of stage-managing Biden’s exit speech. But since we’ve also entered into a new game, the old rules don’t necessarily apply.
The big question now is, what happens next?
Kamala Chameleon
I have to believe Davos has already calculated what their best course of action is. I’m going to start by stating I don’t think Kamala Harris is the answer for them, unless the goal is for the next president to be so thoroughly hated by an angry, confused America that the country literally tears itself in two.
The problem is she may be the biggest problem they have now, because she’s not on anyone’s team but Team Harris and I think that’s why she’s in Singapore now to see if she can curry the right favors and be allowed to take over.
Getting rid of Biden will not be difficult at this point.
So, Harris, while she is hated by everyone, is also uniquely unqualified for the job as president. That being said, she’s not unqualified at being a schemer and a power-seeker. She and Obama must get along famously.
That said, I’m sure she’s game-planned out her course to the Presidency even if Davos, who, in my read, may want something different. Someone in these post-Churn times who is more predictable.
If public outrage over Afghanistan reaches any kind of fever pitch, because of, say, Benghazi-like images of Americans getting shot and dragged through the streets of Kabul blaring nightly on what passes for news in the U.S., then Biden will have to resign.
If we add in definitive proof through the audits that the Democrats cheated in the election during this, then we have maximum chaos and Harris doesn’t survive that either. Remember, Davos used the pivot on COVID-9/11’s origin to foment anti-China sentiment in the U.S.
Using the audits to pivot and delegitimize Harris at the same time seems both in character and very possible.
Now why wouldn’t that mean a restoration of Trump? Well, has the Supreme Court done anything notable since Davos put their full-court press on last summer?
When I say I think the U.S. is being liquidated, I’m serious folks.
I don’t see Kamala Harris, the ultimate political diversity hire, surviving that. In fact, the Democrats would be in complete disarray if the audits began causing real ground-level unrest. The mid-terms are already a lost cause. So, time is of the essence to get this operation done.
Maybe I’m being too reductionist here as Harris has plenty of cards to play within the Democratic party apparatus, but only if her position is considered legitimate and only if the Democrats are more than two steps ahead of the lynch mob.
25th Amendment Nervous Breakdown
That said, if we see a 25th Amendment challenge to Biden’s competence then all roads lead to President Harris, it’s the way the 25th reads, unless there’s no Vice-President. Harris would have to resign first, and she’s done nothing that would prompt that. In fact, her distancing herself from Afghanistan is the smartest move I’ve seen her make.
That leads to the expected scenario which is Harris ascends to the Presidency and likely choosing Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be Vice-President and President of the Senate. To get her confirmation through Nancy will make a deal with Mitch McConnell and that’s that. It’ll be a good deal for the Republicans.
Nancy gets the gold ice cream freezer and two more years in D.C. versus the one year left on her likely last term in Congress. At the same time, McConnell knows he’s neutering her when the Republicans win the mid-terms (assuming they happen at all). She lives the dream as the 2nd female Vice-President.
But, if Biden steps down in disgrace because of the combination of election fraud, Afghanistan and something else we haven’t game planned out yet, then Harris will have to go with him.
At that point things get weird. Going through the list of Democrats who could fit the bill available under that scenario is problematic because it’s so short it’s practically non-existent.
And if Harris is going to resign as well under threat of impeachment, then Biden’s last act as president would be to appoint a new vice-president per the 25th Amendment. resigned before Nixon did, which allowed him to nominate Gerald Ford who was confirmed, took office and pardoned Nixon.
Here are the relevant portions of the 25th Amendment.
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
So, if history repeats and Biden resigns alongside an unacceptable-to-Davos Harris then Biden’s last act will be to nominate a new Vice-President who then assumes the Presidency. And here I contend that Nancy Pelosi will not become the first female president.
They need someone competent to run things, young enough to last through the term and, most importantly loyal to Obama and Davos. This person cannot spark revolt from the normies nor be overtly partisan to those in ‘Flyover Country.’
The goal is a neutral person who no one has a strong opinion on but who is well-versed in the ways of things which matter.
Hillary is out. She’s depreciated goods. Davos has no use for her.
Pelosi is out because she would never survive a majority vote of the Senate. Mitch McConnell, who would see this as the ultimate opportunity to break the Democrats permanently for the next generation, might actually smile.
I don’t even see her wanting the job at this point. She’s got ice cream dreams.
So who does that leave? No one who ran for President in the primaries. They were all clowns, except for Tulsi Gabbard of course, but she’s out of politics in a rare showing of humanity by someone who spent time in D.C. The rest were chosen specifically to get us to a Biden/Harris or Harris/BetaCuck ticket.
This person can, however, be wholly unacceptable in the same corners of the U.S. population which is already being herded into the status of “domestic terrorist” and “sub-human semi-citizens”… that’d be libertarians, constitutionalists, refuse to get the vaccine and who see globalism for the corporatist nightmare it truly is…. in short, people like you reading this article.
Mitch McConnell would love nothing more than to stick it to us after what happened on January 6th. He gets to play kingmaker of a ‘neutral’ candidate.
Dammit, Janet Davos Loves You!
So who is this person? The answer came to me in a flash while replying to someone on Twitter and I’m ashamed to admit it took me this long to see it.
The answer, of course, is Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. Ticks all the boxes.
Female, seemingly apolitical, knows her way around Washington, former head of the Fed and a Davos troll to the tips of her fingernails.
And, just to put the cherry on top of this theory, she is the only person who could credibly stand up to Jay Powell at the Fed who has clearly gone off the Davos reservation by defending the dollar and the Fed. Per my last article, if the Fed is truly fomenting a dollar crisis to reassert its primacy in the pantheon of central banks, then Yellen would be the one person who would complete the Davos coup by firing Powell, neutering the Fed and ending the chaos created by Biden.
Davos has to reassert control here and restore our faith in The Churn. Yellen is just the person to make sure all of that happens.
I know what you’re thinking, though, it seems a stretch to put an unelected central banker at the head of a powerful country? What are you smoking, Tom?
I told you the Central Bankers were coming!
So, expect President Yellen in the next six months, effectively appointed by Davos like Mario Draghi was appointed in Italy. They don’t have a lot of time to pull any of this off, no less getting Biden out of office.
With President Yellen, the central banker takeover of the West would be complete with this arrangement. I don’t know if it’d work out the way Davos plans, but it’s the cleanest solution to their current problem I see.
For this reason alone, I think this is the most likely scenario as things are quickly escalating with Biden.
If you don’t like it, there’s a dog kennel with your QR code on it.
* * *
Join My Patreon if you hate being churned.
Donate
BTC: 3GSkAe8PhENyMWQb7orjtnJK9VX8mMf7Zf
BCH: qq9pvwq26d8fjfk0f6k5mmnn09vzkmeh3sffxd6ryt
DCR: DsV2x4kJ4gWCPSpHmS4czbLz2fJNqms78oE
LTC: MWWdCHbMmn1yuyMSZX55ENJnQo8DXCFg5k
DASH: XjWQKXJuxYzaNV6WMC4zhuQ43uBw8mN4Va
WAVES: 3PF58yzAghxPJad5rM44ZpH5fUZJug4kBSa
ETH: 0x1dd2e6cddb02e3839700b33e9dd45859344c9edc
DGB: SXygreEdaAWESbgW6mG15dgfH6qVUE5FSETyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 22:20 - Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray Reduces Covid-19 Viral Load By 95% Within 24 Hours: Study
Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray Reduces Covid-19 Viral Load By 95% Within 24 Hours: Study
A well known antimicrobial, Nitric Oxide, has been found to rapidly reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load, knocking it down by 95% within 24 hours, and 99% within 72 hours, according to a recent study by researchers funded by England’s NHS foundation trust and SaNOtize Research & Development Corporation – a Canadian biotech company currently conducting Phase II trials of a nitric oxide nasal spray.
A group of 80 adults (18-70 years) with confirmed (Alpha strain) Covid-19 infections were divided into two groups, with half receiving nitric oxide nasal spray (NONS) that were self-administered 5-6 times daily for 9 days.
The goal of the nasal spray is to kill the virus present in the upper airways – preventing it from incubating and making its way to the lungs.
The study found that mean viral load was significantly lower in the NONS group by a factor of 16.2, in what the study’s authors described as an “accelerated decrease,” while nearly half of those who completed a post-study questionnaire reported feeling better vs. 8% of the placebo group.
Mean SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentration was lower on NONS by a factor of 16.2 at days 2 and 4. A rapid reduction (95%) in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load was observed within 24 hours, with a 99% reduction observed within 72 hours with NONS treatments. -Clinical efficacy of nitric oxide nasal spray (NONS) for the treatment of mild COVID-19 infection.
What’s more, there were no serious adverse reactions from the nasal spray.
“Treatment with NONS in this trial was found to be effective and safe in reducing the viral load in patients with mild, symptomatic COVID-19 infection,” reads the study. “Patients in the NONS treatment arm demonstrated viral loads, as determined from PCR testing of nose and throat swab sampling, that were lower at days 2 and 4 by a factor of 16.2 than those on placebo, and symptom resolution was also found to be faster on NONS treatment than on placebo in this study.”
Lower SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads in patients with NONS may be beneficial in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. It has been described that higher viral loads in patients with SARS-CoV-2 earlier than SARS-CoV may have contributed to greater difficulties in reducing the onward transmission. Furthermore, it has been observed that the risk of symptomatic COVID-19 was associated with the SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels of contacts and incubation time was shortened in a dose-dependent manner.
Accelerated SARS-CoV-2 clearance with NONS may reduce symptom duration, decrease infectivity period, reduce hospital admissions, and lower disease severity. Consequently, this study could be used as supporting evidence for emergency use of NONS for patients with mild COVID-19 infection.
According to SaNOtize, researchers from Utah State University were able to kill 99.9% of SARS-CoV-2 in a petri dish within two minutes.
The company, whose board includes Prof. Ferid Murad of Stanford University – who won the Nobel Prize in 1998 for discovering the properties of nitric oxide, signed an agreement with Indian biotech Glenmark earlier this month to manufacture, market and distribute NONS throughout Asia, including Singapore, Malaysia Hong Kong, Taiwan, Nepal, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste and Vietnam.
According to SaNOtize Chief Science Officer, Dr. Chris Miller, the nasal spray is a ‘post-exposure’ prevention akin to hand sanitizer.
“If you are outside, around people, and could be infected, you could use the spray and reduce the number of viruses in the nose, before it is becoming a full-blown infection. We have shown that even when people have a very high load of virus, the spray can significantly reduce the viral load,” Miller said in May.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 22:00 - In Massive Propaganda Onslaught, Media Ignores The Real "Catastrophe" Of Afghanistan
In Massive Propaganda Onslaught, Media Ignores The Real “Catastrophe” Of Afghanistan
Authored by Michael Tracey via Substack,
In September of 2017, an obscure government official stood before a small audience at an obscure think tank and described a catastrophe that was unfolding. “Obscure” to the average citizen, that is — but not at all obscure to the “insiders” and journalists who attend these sorts of gatherings in DC, or sign up for the pertinent email lists, or read acronym-filled trade publications.
It was only a few weeks earlier that a president, his first year in office, had been persuaded by “the adults in the room” — those sagely Generals again — to authorize yet another escalation in a war these “insiders” largely knew was unwinnable. Curiously, the “adult” decision always seems to entail prolonging fatally doomed military interventions, as though that were the obviously sober and mature course of action. This same ritual had also occurred with the previous president his first year in office, albeit with even more catastrophic consequences.
The obscure government official, reserved in his manner but about as candid could be expected under the circumstances, relayed a few anecdotes:
“One US officer,” he said, “watched TV shows like COPS and NCIS to learn what he should teach Afghan police recruits.”
That would be a reference to the Afghan National Police, one of the country’s US-subsidized security forces which just evaporated this week.
The official continued:
“We heard horrible stories about the widows. Of Afghan soldiers. Who have to give sexual favors in order to get the pension benefits.”
That would be a reference to the Afghan National Army, another one of the country’s US-subsidized security forces which just evaporated this week.
“Would any American put up with that?” the official asked.
“So we’re trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. We first got to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan security forces.”
The official in question is John F. Sopko. He is the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) and has occupied that role since 2012. Despite his obscure public profile, everyone in DC with any significant policy interest in Afghanistan knows him. He is required to audit and assess American-led state-building efforts in Afghanistan, and for the past nine years the reports he’s published have grown increasingly dire. I’ve been subscribed to his email list for a long time. The pundits and politicians who now flood US and international TV airwaves decrying the Afghanistan withdrawal as one of history’s greatest catastrophes — do they subscribe?
Because if not, they likely would’ve missed SIGAR’s final report. It was released just this month.
And here is Sopko’s ultimate conclusion — after nine years on the job with the most birds-eye holistic view of the US Government’s engagement in Afghanistan — about the overall nature of such “reconstruction” efforts:
1. They are very expensive. For example, all war-related costs for US efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan over the last two decades are estimated to be $6.4 trillion.
2. They usually go poorly.
3. Widespread recognition that they go poorly has not prevented US officials from pursuing them.
4. Rebuilding countries mired in conflict is actually a continuous US government endeavor, reflected by efforts in the Balkans and Haiti and smaller efforts currently underway in Mali, Burkina Faso, Somalia, Yemen, Ukraine, and elsewhere.
5. Large reconstruction campaigns usually start small, so it would not be hard for the US government to slip down this slope again somewhere else and for the outcome to be similar to that of Afghanistan.
If you detect a bit of morbidly dry humor in that summation, you’re not alone.
Can someone explain why the policy warned about over and over again by Sopko — the futility of which was known to all the relevant actors in the US policy-making apparatus — is not what’s being portrayed in wall-to-wall corporate media coverage as a “catastrophe”?
Why aren’t his outlandishly damning anecdotes about the utter incapacity of the Afghan security forces — anecdotes Sopko relayed in 2017 to anyone who would listen — being presented as emblematic of a “catastrophically” flawed policy in Afghanistan?
Why wasn’t it declared “catastrophic” when the war was escalated by presidents of both parties, even as these fatal flaws were meticulously documented in the public domain?
Why is it only a “catastrophe” when the underlying policy — a failure of epic proportions — is belatedly terminated?
Doesn’t it seem strange that what the public’s being told is truly “catastrophic” about US policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan is that the US is finally withdrawing, thus putting an end to the policy the Government’s chief investigator was screaming from the hilltops was completely farcical?
US military personnel were training Afghan police by watching dopey American TV shows. The same police force whose collapse we’re now supposed to be mystified by; a collapse which gave rise to circumstances where US withdrawal could not be conducted with the pristine “orderliness” that politicians and TV commentators are flamboyantly demanding.
You’re suddenly outraged about the precise operational details of US policy in Afghanistan… but only as it pertains to the long-delayed evacuation mission? Not so much about the operational details which led to a situation where widows of Afghan soldiers had to perform sex acts to get their dead husband’s pension? We’re supposed to be surprised that this appears to have sapped the will of these soldiers to resist a Taliban offensive — thus giving the US withdrawal suboptimal “optics”?
Why isn’t having engaged in this intervention for so long, despite full knowledge of its foundational lunacy, what harms American “credibility” or undercuts its “reputation”? Why is the withdrawal — but not the war itself — provoking such sustained shrieks of “catastrophe”?
Some of the most esteemed journalists in the world are proclaiming this the worst US foreign policy fiasco since World War II. Worse, you know, than the fiasco of the war itself. Or Iraq. Or Vietnam. How did we lumber into this upside-down Bizarro World?
Well, here’s one theory.
Because as much as the elite political and media class wants to act like they’re on board in theory with “ending endless war,” they’re more than happy to abandon that pretense at a moment’s notice if the “optics” look bad, or if there are cheap partisan points to be scored, or if there are fake “experts” on call (many of whom just happen to have direct personal, reputational, and financial investment in the failed war).
They’ll posture as sympathetic to the “war-weariness” of the public, but then, when that “weariness” actually culminates in the cessation of a war, they go completely nuts. Maybe because they’ve benefitted, one way or another, from the status quo. And they wouldn’t much mind, as Sopko warned, if the whole process repeats itself sometime in the near future. That $6.4 trillion squandered over 20 years didn’t put a dent in their pockets.
And you wonder why it’s such a rarity for “endless wars” to actually “end”?
* * *
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 21:40 - Federal Judge Pulls Permits For ConocoPhillips Oil Project Due To Impact On "Climate Change And Polar Bears"
Federal Judge Pulls Permits For ConocoPhillips Oil Project Due To Impact On “Climate Change And Polar Bears”
A federal approval of a multi-billion oil project that would have been built in Alaska was thrown out by a judge last week who claimed the government didn’t assess the project’s impact on climate change and polar bears before approving the permits.
The project, called the ConocoPhillips Willow project, was backed by both the Biden and Trump administrations. It was also backed by “wide support” from Alaskan political leaders, according to the Wall Street Journal.
But that didn’t stop U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason from ruling that the Bureau of Land Management didn’t account for greenhouse gasses that the project would produce.
The judge wrote: “As to the errors found by the Court, they are serious.”
ConocoPhillips will now head back to the drawing board and “evaluate its options”, according to the report.
Despite the project getting the backing of the Biden administration, the company knew it had a long road of legal challenges (in an unfavorable PR climate for oil & gas names) to deal with.
The project was supposed to be a 160,000 barrel-per-day, 30 year project that would drill in the federal government’s National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had slowed the project this year, despite the Trump administration offering its final approval of the project in October.
Alaska governor Mike Dunleavy said: “Make no mistake, today’s ruling from a federal judge trying to shelve a major oil project on American soil does one thing: outsources. This is a horrible decision.”
Jeremy Lieb, an attorney with Earthjustice, who brought the case on behalf of other plaintiffs, said: “We are hopeful that the administration won’t give the fossil fuel industry another chance to carve up this irreplaceable Arctic landscape with drilling rigs, roads, and pipelines. We should keep Arctic oil in the ground if we want a livable planet for future generations.”
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 21:20 - "Get The F*ck Out!": Antifa Attacks Female Reporter In Portland
“Get The F*ck Out!”: Antifa Attacks Female Reporter In Portland
Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News,
This past Sunday, while covering a protest in Portland, Oregon for our video partner News2Share, a reporter named Maranie Staab was attacked by members of an Antifa-affiliated group. After complaining about a report she’d done in Colombia in conjunction with TK News, they maced her, shot paint at her, and threw her to the ground.
The backdrop for this scene was explained to TK readers this past weekend in our latest episode of “Activism, Uncensored” called “The Great American Fistfight.” After a series of violent street clashes between left and right activists in Los Angeles, right-wing protesters planned a “United We Win” rally in Portland, Oregon for this past weekend. Antifa and left-wing groups pledged to “defend Portland from racist fascists.” News2Share’s Ford Fischer predicted violence, and he unfortunately turned out to be right.
The exact sequence of events will be detailed in a longer report Ford has coming — the whole day turned out to be a mess, replete with violent confrontations and ending with an exchange of gunfire, in which a right-wing protester fired first (a Black Bloc protester returned fire but was not apprehended). Staab, it should be noted, was also first sprayed with WD-40 by a right-wing protester. But the more serious incident took place later.
In the relevant sequence, an Antifa-affiliated protester called Staab a kutta (a Hindi word meaning, “dog,” apparently) and “slut.” Then the masked protester demanded that press “get the fuck out” and stop filming, pointing in Staab’s face and making the following bizarre comment about a story we ran in July called “Colombia in Chaos”:
You fucking endanger people by flying to fucking Colombia and endangering everyone by opening them up to Covid!
Beyond the total incoherence of that comment generally, calling a woman a name like “slut” obviously flies in the face of what antifascist protesters generally claim to be their beliefs about things like misogyny. In any case, Staab then approached the protesters without her cameras out to try to talk things through, at which point they tossed paint at her, maced her, and threw her to the ground. Eventually, they also smashed both her iPhone and the lens for her digital camera. “Out!” they screamed. “How many fucking times do we have to tell you?”
In the coming longer video report on this site, viewers will see that the idiocies of Sunday ranged far and wide, with no shortage of violence from the Proud Boys and other rightist groups that showed up that day. However, only one group saw fit to attack a videographer, and I think it’s time the wider press took more notice, because this is not an aberration with this type of activist.
Having encountered Antifa-type protesters in the past, my impression was always that they were neither organized nor terribly numerous, and I always found them more ridiculous than threatening. I too have had the experience of being ordered not to photograph or film Antifa protesters, instructions that always made me wonder about the intelligence level of these people.
Yes, putting masks on prevents you from being identified, but it doesn’t confer the right of invisibility. Also, if you show up at a publicly-announced protest in a public place in broad daylight dressed like GWAR roadies or extras to a Terry Gilliam movie and start smashing things, one really has to wonder about the sincerity of your commitment to anonymity. Someone is going to film you, whether it’s the right-wing counter-protesters on the other side or the police, and in the case of the press, it’s actually their job to do it in a responsible way. You have a right to wear a mask, they have both the right and the obligation to film you, that’s how this works.
Nonetheless, antifascist protesters have taken their absurd demands of non-coverage quite far in the past, making lists of protester-approved media and going after reporters and videographers from papers like local CBS and ABC affiliates as well as the Washington Post, NPR, the Toronto Sun, and others. Their rationale is that filming hurts their cause by making them vulnerable either to arrest or doxing, a dubious concept one could argue on multiple levels, but again, that’s what masks are for. Moreover — and I know this can be a hard concept — cameras generally help public protests, with the exception being when activists behave stupidly or unattractively in public. If you don’t do things like knock female reporters to the ground, you’re probably not going to end up dealing with negative press.
By general assent many mainstream outlets and politicians have taken the position that “Antifa” doesn’t exist, with outlets like Vanity Fair writing pieces like “Sure looks like the right’s Antifa boogeyman doesn’t exist,” and people like Jerrold Nadler calling Antifa violence a “myth.” It does seem to be true that there is no “Antifa” in the sense of a nationally organized phenomenon, and they certainly are not the threat Donald Trump claims they are, but that doesn’t mean they are a completely harmless non-entity either. Too many news outlets have respected the desire of such protesters to remain invisible when they behave atrociously, and this is one of those cases.
If the protesters from this past weekend had any integrity, they would come forward and start with an apology. There’s no excuse for attacking press, especially when your modus operandi is moronic attention-grabbing public stunts. I’ll let Ford and News2Share tell the rest of this story, but to say I’m furious about the events of this weekend would be an understatement. It also doesn’t say a lot about the ethics of mainstream press outlets that they let behavior like this go without comment. How is any of this “progressive”?
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 21:00 - As Anger Rises Over Soaring Inflation, Brazil's Bolsonaro Backs Central Bank Chief
As Anger Rises Over Soaring Inflation, Brazil’s Bolsonaro Backs Central Bank Chief
Runaway inflation in the US may be “transitory” – at least according to pundits, experts and central bankers – but in Brazil, where CPI just the highest since 2016 at 9% despite the central bank’s earnest efforts to tame soaring prices, nobody harbors such delusions. It’s getting so bad that Brazil’s inflation problem is starting to dent the popularity of the country’s president, Jair Bolsonaro who according to Bloomberg is “growing uneasy about Brazil’s inflation in the run-up to general elections next year”, but despite his public complaints about rising prices, he won’t interfere with the central bank, Bloomberg reported citing five sources.
On Friday, the Associated Press reported that Bolsonaro has privately regretted signing a law that gave formal autonomy to the central bank and has considered interfering with the institution. The president’s chief of staff, Ciro Nogueira, denied the report in a series of posts on Twitter in which he called the episode an “imaginary bonfire.”
Still, where there is a bonfire, imaginary or otherwise, there is smoke, and Bolsonaro has for months complained about rising fuel and cooking gas prices that are eroding his popularity. While inflation is running at an annual rate of almost 9%, fuel costs have soared 44% over the past 12 months, hurting some of the president’s main backers including truckers (as a reference, US inflation isn’t that much lower, but in America anger over rising prices is far more subdued due to stimmies which have made the impact of inflation less noticeable for now).
When a social media follower complained about the price of gasoline over the weekend, the president tried to divert responsibility saying state governors tax fuels too much.
But while Bolsonaro has kept the public discourse civil, his discontent behind closed doors runs deeper. He was particularly annoyed by remarks made by Campos Neto last week during a Council of the Americas event in which the central banker linked an increase in inflation expectations to political infighting, Bloomberg reported although adding that those complaints are part of the president’s “mercurial personality” – a term the media giant never used when describing Donald Trump – and show no intention to intervene in the way the central bank works, nor to make changes in the economic team at the moment, the sources said.
For his part, central bank chief Roberto Campos Neto remains highly regarded within the Bolsonaro administration and also has the backing of key congressional allies, including lower house Speaker Arthur Lira. Campos Neto has been under pressure to bring inflation down after an ultra-hawkish monetary policy did little to improve expectations. After four aggressive interest-rate hikes since March and another one planed for September, inflation expectations for 2022 are still wildly above next year’s 3.5% target.
Furthermore, even if Bolsonaro wanted to fire Campos Neto, he would have to find a way to bypass the bank’s new autonomy law. The legislation, approved by congress earlier this year, establishes that central bank board members can’t be removed before the end of their mandates; Campos Neto’s term finishes on the last day of 2024.
Brazil’s Supreme Court was expected to rule on Wednesday on a case that questions the constitutionality of that law, but the institution delayed a ruling on the constitutionality of the law, which investors view as a key piece of legislation considered by investors as a victory for monetary policy making in Latin America’s largest economy. The justices are discussing a case brought to the court by two opposition parties that claim the original proposal should have been introduced by the nation’s president, and not by lawmakers as it was. Two of them had voted – one against and the other for upholding the law – when chief Justice Luiz Fux adjourned the session, saying it will resume Thursday.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 20:40 - "Killing For The Sake Of Killing": Pilots Leak Footage Showing Deadly Drone Strikes Against Unarmed Afghans
“Killing For The Sake Of Killing”: Pilots Leak Footage Showing Deadly Drone Strikes Against Unarmed Afghans
A group of American drone pilots has leaked footage of “nihilistic” and “punitive” drone strikes in Afghanistan that took place in 2019, and involved the killings of a child and an innocent adult civilian. One soldier described the events depicted in the footage as “killing for the sake of killing.”
It’s just another sad commentary on the barbarity with which the American armed forced treated the Afghans, which ultimately aided Taliban recruitment and helped the group regain control of the country after 2 decades of guerilla warfare.
The footage, published on Tuesday as part of an investigation by military news outlet Connecting Vets, shows how the US eventually “relaxed” its rules of engagement as part of a strategy to pressure the Taliban into surrender.
Some drone operators interviewed by Connecting Vets claimed the loosened rules around air strikes served “no point” and didn’t “make a difference”. One pilot even claimed that it was “killing for the sake of killing.” The strikes also reportedly killed far more civilians than the Pentagon has admitted.
Not only were Afghans targeted with lethal strikes for using or touching a radio, but DOD would kill people if a Scan Eagle pilot thought maybe he saw an antenna sticking out from under his clothes for a moment, or caught (maybe) a glimpse of a tac vest.https://t.co/5ez5wjoJ74 pic.twitter.com/cfO2ji6DuM
— Jack Murphy (@JackMurphyRGR) August 24, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
It is not like they had developed targeting packets based on intelligence, they never even knew the names of the people they were killing. Rather, these Afghans met a “target engagement criteria” in Helmand during 2019 that marked them for death.
— Jack Murphy (@JackMurphyRGR) August 24, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
It was a tactic developed to fight ISIS in Iraq, an enemy Army that occupied cities but then this template was brought to Afghanistan and used for a maximum pressure campaign against the Taliban during the Doha negotiations.
— Jack Murphy (@JackMurphyRGR) August 24, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
One of the drone pilots told me they would fly into new grid squares each day and watch from above, “waiting for them to fuck up,” so they could drop a hellfire missile on someone.
— Jack Murphy (@JackMurphyRGR) August 24, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Contrast with this interview I did w/ a Green Beret at the 2015 battle of Kunduz wherein commanders were too scared to drop a bomb on a Taliban tank in the city.https://t.co/QLRUpHFJ64
— Jack Murphy (@JackMurphyRGR) August 24, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Another soldier described how he accidentally killed a child and two innocent men when their motorbike veered into the path of an incoming hellfire missile: “My productivity today was derailed. We killed two innocent men and a charger [military slang for a child]. They were on a motorcycle and by dumb luck drove into the same intersection as our target as the hellfire [missile] struck.”
A military official involved in the operation corroborated the man’s account when he spoke to the site on condition of anonymity. While the Afghan with the radio who they were originally targeting – whose name or connection to the Taliban was never discovered – drove off through the smoke like a “Bond villain,” the official said the “two adults and a toddler on the other motorcycle…were killed right off.”
Barack Obama vastly expanded the use of armed drones for counterterrorism during his time in office, leading to killing roughly 3,797 people in various countries. Part of the problem, the soldiers said, is that the military has shifted from using intelligence-driven targeting, to a more aggressive target-acquisition criteria based on what an individual might be carrying – a weapon, or a suspicious looking radio or some other instrument of terror.
To put it directly, when it comes to waging war by drone, it looks like the Biden Administration has picked up where President Obama left off.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 20:20 - Tropics Heat Up As New Storm Likely To Form In Caribbean With Sights On US Gulf Coast
Tropics Heat Up As New Storm Likely To Form In Caribbean With Sights On US Gulf Coast
The National Hurricane Center (NHC) monitors three tropical disturbances on Wednesday, with one in the Caribbean Sea and two in the Atlantic Basin.
NHC Miami is closely watching Disturbance 1 over the eastern Caribbean Sea, which could form into a tropical depression by the late weekend as it enters the Gulf of Mexico. Forecasts show formation chances over the next 48 hours is 40%, but over the next five days, the figure is 80%.
A broad area of low pressure is expected to form over the southwestern Caribbean Sea during the next day or so from a tropical wave currently located over northwestern Colombia and the south-central Caribbean Sea. Environmental conditions are forecast to be conducive for development, and a tropical depression is likely to form late this week or over the weekend while the system moves west-northwestward to northwestward over the northwestern Caribbean Sea. The disturbance is expected to move near or across the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico on Saturday, and move into the western Gulf of Mexico by Sunday where conditions could be favorable for additional development to occur.
* Formation chance through 48 hours…medium…40 percent.
* Formation chance through 5 days…high…80 percent.
It’s still too early in the development of the low-pressure system over the eastern Caribbean Sea to forecast the impacts the system may have next week in the western Gulf Coast. However, The Weather Channel suggests “interests from Louisiana and Texas to Mexico should monitor its progress closely the next several days until the forecast comes into greater focus.”
The Weather Channel models a cone of uncertainty for Disturbance 1 that shows it may hit the Yucatán Peninsula. Last week, Hurricane Grace made landfall near Cancún.
The next two storms will be named Ida and Julian. The other disturbances are in the Atlantic Basin and appear not to be a threat at the moment.
What’s unclear is the storm’s intensity and trajectory in the coming days when it reaches the southern Gulf of Mexico.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 20:00 - Watch: Tucker Carlson Warns "Elitist Authoritarians" Are Intent On Making Us All "Shut Up And Obey"
Watch: Tucker Carlson Warns “Elitist Authoritarians” Are Intent On Making Us All “Shut Up And Obey”
Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,
Fox News host Tucker Carlson issued a stark warning Tuesday, emphasising that “we’re seeing now what happens when countries tolerate authoritarians, even for a moment” as people worldwide are being told to submit to increasingly draconian “rules” in the wake of the pandemic.
Carlson noted:
“Has there ever been a clearer window into the society they’re trying to build? Our formerly middle-class nation now has a serf class. They’re the ones wearing the masks, being forced to take drugs they don’t want, being told not to communicate with one another, except through digital channels the Democratic Party controls.”
He continued,
“We now have two groups of Americans, not a broad middle. The favored and the unfavored. The saved and the damned. The vaccinated and the unvaccinated. That’s how the architects of all this see the country.”
Carlson also pointed to former NSA head Michael Hayden’s assertion that Trump supporters should be sent to Afghanistan to die.
“That’s how contemptuous they feel about you,” Carlson noted, adding “Shut up and fetch another glass of Riesling, serf. And be sure not to breathe on me, or you’ll be deported.”
“These are bad attitudes and are accelerating. How far can this go, you wonder?” he questioned.
Carlson also described some of the insane policies being put into place in Australia and New Zealand, describing them as akin to North Korea.
Watch:
https://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=6269226001001&w=466&h=263Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
* * *
Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 19:40 - White House Slams 'Soulless' Blackwater Founder Erik Prince Charging $6,500 For Kabul Evac Flight
White House Slams ‘Soulless’ Blackwater Founder Erik Prince Charging $6,500 For Kabul Evac Flight
Media coverage of Afghanistan has been widely centered on the thousands of Americans and Afghans who are leaving Kabul Airport on military transport jets. With the Aug. 31 deadline looming, of when U.S. military forces must withdraw from Afghanistan or face severe consequences from the Taliban (who are now armed with U.S. weapons), defense contractor and Blackwater founder Erik Prince has found a way to profit off the dire situation.
The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Prince guarantees people a seat on a charter flight out of the wartorn country for $6,500. An extra fee will apply if defense contractors extract people from their homes for safe passage to Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. WSJ wasn’t clear on how much the extraction would cost.
Prince’s services come as U.S. citizens and Afghan allies are scrambling for the exits of the Taliban-controlled country.
Other defense contractor companies are offering similar services, and some are even offering ground travel out of the country, and of course, all for a hefty fee.
Private rescue efforts are increasing as the U.S. military struggles around the clock to evacuate tens of thousands of people. Approximately 19,000 people have been evacuated from the country between early Tuesday and early Wednesday. White House officials are saying a total of 82,300 people have left the country.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki condemned Prince’s actions, telling reporters during her Wednesday press briefing:
“I don’t think any human being who has a heart and soul would support efforts to profit off of people’s agony and pain if they’re trying to depart a country and fearing for their lives,” adding that “we are evacuating people free of cost because that is the right step to take and certainly we wouldn’t be supportive of profiting off people who are desperate to get out of a country.”
.@PressSec Jen Psaki on Erik Prince offering to fly people out of Kabul for $6,500 each: “I don’t think any human being who has a heart and soul would support efforts to profit off of peoples’ agony and pain as they’re trying to depart a country.” https://t.co/qBPWqi4QvV pic.twitter.com/EV2L9QP8c3
— The Hill (@thehill) August 25, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Biden warned Tuesday there was an “increasing risk” of a terror attack by ISIS fighters but maintained evacuations are going as plan and the U.S. will abide by the Aug. 31 deadline of complete withdraw.
Meanwhile, Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid told Afghan citizens not to leave the country. He said, “the Afghans leaving, we are not going to allow that, and we are not even happy about it.”
New Taliban checkpoints have made rescue efforts even harder for U.S. citizens and Afghan allies attempting to traverse city streets or highways to make their way to the airport.
Warren Binford, a law professor at the University of Colorado, called the evacuation “a massive underground railroad operation where, instead of running for decades, it’s literally running for a matter of hours or days.” He described the evacuation at the airport as “total chaos.”
“There is no way with the numbers of people on the ground that we will be able to get everybody out by Aug. 31,” said Alex Plitsas, a U.S. Army combat veteran working on rescue operations in Afghanistan.
There’s no word yet if an extension of the withdrawal deadline will be seen. What’s worse is that Americans and Afghan allies will likely be left behind if the pullout happens at the end of this month.
However, the actual number of Americans still in the country remains fuzzy. Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed about 1,500 Americans are awaiting to be evacuated as of Wednesday.
Days ago, the US State Department texted a “final message” for those stranded in the country, alerting them that they would be “without assistance,” but minutes later was deleted.
Pentagon has stepped up extraction efforts with helicopter rescue missions that took troops significantly outside the airport and into the city on Wednesday.
Whatever happened to the military motto: “No man left behind”? Or what about no American or ally left behind??
Suppose the withdraw deadline isn’t extended and troops pull out. In that case, the Taliban will be on a hunting spree using left behind U.S. military biometric devices to search for Americans and Afghan allies.
Maybe Prince’s defense firm should create an Uber-style evacuation app where defense contractors can offer their extraction expertise to those who are stranded.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 19:20 - Greenwald: The Bizarre Refusal To Apply Cost-Benefit Analysis To COVID Debates
Greenwald: The Bizarre Refusal To Apply Cost-Benefit Analysis To COVID Debates
Authored by Glenn Greenwald via greenwald.substack.com,
Gerald Josseph Trujillo Martinez watches a video on his tablet while his mother Ana Gabriela Martinez teaches a class inside their home in Matamoros, Mexico on May 25, 2021 (Photo by SERGIO FLORES/AFP via Getty Images) In virtually every realm of public policy, Americans embrace policies which they know will kill people, sometimes large numbers of people. They do so not because they are psychopaths but because they are rational: they assess that those deaths that will inevitably result from the policies they support are worth it in exchange for the benefits those policies provide. This rational cost-benefit analysis, even when not expressed in such explicit or crude terms, is foundational to public policy debates — except when it comes to COVID, where it has been bizarrely declared off-limits.
The quickest and most guaranteed way to save hundreds of thousands of lives with policy changes would be to ban the use of automobiles, or severely restrict their usage to those authorized by the state on the ground of essential need (e.g., ambulances or food-delivery vehicles), or at least lower the nationwide speed limit to 25 mph. Any of those policies would immediately prevent huge numbers of human beings from dying. Each year, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world,” while “crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54.” Even with seat belts and airbags, a tragic number of life-years are lost given how many young people die or are left permanently and severely disabled by car accidents. Studies over the course of decades have demonstrated that even small reductions in speed limits save many lives, while radical reductions — supported by almost nobody — would eliminate most if not all deaths from car crashes.
Center for Disease Control, 2020 Given how many deaths and serious injuries would be prevented, why is nobody clamoring for a ban on cars, or at least severe restrictions on who can drive (essential purposes only) or how fast (25 mph)? Is it because most people are just sociopaths who do not care about the huge number of lives lost by the driving policies they support, and are perfectly happy to watch people die or be permanently maimed as long as their convenience is not impeded? Is it because they do not assign value to the lives of other people, and therefore knowingly support policies — allowing anyone above 15 years old to drive, at high speeds — that will kill many children along with adults?
That may explain the motivation scheme for a few people, but in general, the reason is much simpler and less sinister. It is because we employ a rational framework of cost-benefit analysis, whereby, when making public policy choices, we do not examine only one side of the ledger (number of people who will die if cars are permitted) but also consider the immense costs generated by policies that would prevent those deaths (massive limits on our ability to travel, vastly increased times to get from one place to another, restrictions on what we can experience in our lives, enormous financial costs from returning to the pre-automobile days). So foundational is the use of this cost-benefit analysis that it is embraced and touted by everyone from right-wing economists to the left-wing European environmental policy group CIVITAS, which defines it this way:
Social Cost Benefit Analysis [is] a decision support tool that measures and weighs various impacts of a project or policy. It compares project costs (capital and operating expenses) with a broad range of (social) impacts, e.g. travel time savings, travel costs, impacts on other modes, climate, safety, and the environment.
This framework, above all else, precludes an absolutist approach to rational policy-making. We never opt for a society-altering policy on the ground that “any lives saved make it imperative to embrace” precisely because such a primitive mindset ignores all the countervailing costs which this life-saving policy would generate (including, oftentimes, loss of life as well: banning planes, for instance, would save lives by preventing deaths from airplane crashes, but would also create its own new deaths by causing more people to drive cars).
While arguments are common about how this framework should be applied and which specific policies are ideal, the use of cost-benefit analysis as the primary formula we use is uncontroversial — at least it was until the COVID pandemic began. It is now extremely common in Western democracies for large factions of citizens to demand that any measures undertaken to prevent COVID deaths are vital, regardless of the costs imposed by those policies. Thus, this mentality insists, we must keep schools closed to avoid the contracting by children of COVID regardless of the horrific costs which eighteen months or two years of school closures impose on all children.
It is impossible to overstate the costs imposed on children of all ages from the sustained, enduring and severe disruptions to their lives justified in the name of COVID. Entire books could be written, and almost certainly will be, on the multiple levels of damage children are sustaining, some of which — particularly the longer-term ones — are unknowable (long-term harms from virtually every aspect of COVID policies — including COVID itself, the vaccines, and isolation measures, are, by definition, unknown). But what we know for certain is that the harms to children from anti-COVID measures are severe and multi-pronged. One of the best mainstream news accounts documenting those costs was a January, 2021 BBC article headlined “Covid: The devastating toll of the pandemic on children.”
The “devastating toll” referenced by the article is not the death count from COVID for children, which, even in the world of the Delta variant, remains vanishingly small. The latest CDC data reveals that the grand total of children under 18 who have died in the U.S. from COVID since the start of the pandemic sixteen months ago is 361 — in a country of 330 million people, including 74.2 million people under 18. Instead, the “devastating toll” refers to multi-layered harm to children from the various lockdowns, isolation measures, stay-at-home orders, school closures, economic suffering and various other harms that have come from policies enacted to prevent the spread of the virus:
From increasing rates of mental health problems to concerns about rising levels of abuse and neglect and the potential harm being done to the development of babies, the pandemic is threatening to have a devastating legacy on the nation’s young. . . .
The closure of schools is, of course, damaging to children’s education. But schools are not just a place for learning. They are places where kids socialize, develop emotionally and, for some, a refuge from troubled family life.
Prof Russell Viner, president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, perhaps put it most clearly when he told MPs on the Education Select Committee earlier this month: “When we close schools we close their lives.”
The richer you are, the less likely you are to be affected by these harms from COVID restrictions. Wealth allows people to leave their homes, hire private tutors, temporarily live in the countryside or mountains, or enjoy outdoor space at home. It is the poor and the economically deprived who bear the worst of these deprivations, which — along with not having children at all — may be one reason they are assigned little to no weight in mainstream discourse.
“The stress the pandemic has put on families, with rising levels of unemployment and financial insecurity combined with the stay-at-home orders, has put strain on home life up and down the land,” the BBC notes. But even for adults and those who are middle-class and above, severe and sustained isolation from community and life is bound to produce serious mental health harms, as two mental health experts I interviewed all the way back in April, 2020, warned.
None of this is to say that these are easy calculations. How COVID deaths or hospitalizations are weighed against the grave harms from anti-COVID restrictions is a complex question, one that almost certainly yields different answers in different countries and cultures. It may even yield a different policy answer in the same country as the virus and the social conditions which COVID produces evolve. One can debate how the contagiousness of COVID compares to the huge number of people who lose their lives or ability to lead healthy lives every year (so often, this argument is met with the more or less accurate but irrelevant distinction that COVID is contagious while car accidents are not: how does that bear on one’s willingness to endorse road policies (such as allowing driving cars at high speeds) that will inevitably kill large numbers of people or one’s refusal to consider the countervailing costs of anti-COVID measures?).
Put another way, this is not an argument in favor of or against any particular policy undertaken in the name of fighting COVID. What it is, instead, is an attempt to highlight the pervasive and deeply misguided refusal to assign any costs to the harms caused by anti-COVID policies themselves.
Perhaps this irrational mindset is explainable by the fact that COVID hospitalizations and deaths are more dramatic than the more insidious, lurking harms from sustained life disruptions. Perhaps the rapidly declining rates of child-rearing in the West make it more difficult to observe or care about the damage all of this is doing to the developmental abilities and mental health of children. Perhaps other factors — from a psychological desire for parental protection in the form of authoritarian power or a warped sense of “safetyism” — is rendering any cost-benefit analysis morally unacceptable. None of those speculative theories, however, accounts for the virtually unanimous refusal to consider a ban on cars or a 25 mph nationwide speed limit; that willingness to sacrifice huge numbers of lives by opposing life-saving automobile policies seems driven by the inconvenience such policies would impose on particular groups of people.
Whatever is true about motives, what is unacceptable — sociopathic, really — is the insistence on assigning severe costs to just one side of the ledger (harms from COVID itself) while categorically refusing to recognize let alone value the costs on the other side of the ledger (from severe, enduring anti-COVID disruptions to and restrictions on life). Given the reflexive rage that is produced when one tries to make this argument — what immediately emerges are accusations that one is indifferent to COVID deaths — I wanted to walk through the evidence and rationale demonstrating why this approach is reckless, immoral and irrational. That is the argument I examine in both this article and in the 30-minute video I produced for Rumble (which you can view on the player below, for now in a YouTube format, pending Substack’s enabling of the embedding of our Rumble videos).
(Note that this is the first video we produced in our new studio; we are aware that the studio lighting still needs serious adjustments (though the audio is now perfected); and we will soon provide transcripts for all videos we produce which exceed ten minutes for those who prefer to read rather than watch).
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 19:00 - Scientists Race To Unlock Mysteries Of "COVID Resistance" Seen In Small Number Of People
Scientists Race To Unlock Mysteries Of “COVID Resistance” Seen In Small Number Of People
Like with virtually every other virus (including HIV), it appears a tiny fraction of the human population are mysteriously immune to the virus. And after a nearly two-year pandemic, scientists are starting to confirm cases of this type of resistance as they seek to study it and learn more about the virus.
Specifically, one scientist in Brazil who has been studying genetic viral immunity (the theory is that the key to the immunity lies within the individual’s genetic makeup) for years turned her attention to COVID at the beginning of the pandemic. For a study, she managed to gather 100 couples experiencing “discordant” COVID infection (a “discordant” infection occurs when COVID infects one partner, but not the other, despite them being physically intimate and sharing the same living quarters) to test their DNA, Stat News reports.
There’s a difference between patients who are resistance to the virus, and patients who become infected, but are asymptomatic. For many healthier patients, their immune systems will spontaneously clear the irus shortly after infection, preventing them from developing the actual disease that is COVID. These people will typically test positive when tested for antibodies.
Patients who have viral resistance clear the virus before SARS-CoV-2 enters the body’s cells, preventing infection entirely.
The Brazilian scientists aren’t the only team studying viral resistance as it pertains to COVID. A team of scientists at NYU and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai were the first to report finding genes potentially involved in COVID resistance. During the research, the scientists used a CRISPR genome editing technology to disable each of 20,000 human genes in lung cells before exposing them to SARS-CoV-2. Most of the cells died within a few days. “Anything that lives,” one of the scientists explained, “is clearly missing something essential for a virus, and so potentially has a significant gene mutation.”
In theory, this discovery could help with the development of a genetic therapy that would work by inhibiting the genes that assist with facilitating infection.
In January 2021, the group published a paper in Cell, reporting that RAB7A, a gene important for the movement of cargo from inside the cell to the cell surface, topped their quantitative ranking of genes the coronavirus can’t do without. Inhibiting RAB7A reduces SARS-CoV-2 infection by ensuring ACE2 receptors are retained inside the cell, making them unavailable as the required point of attachment for the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (which attaches and then enters the cell).
Although mutations in RAB7A are very rare, according to Sanjana, drugs that inhibit this gene or others required for viral infection could, in theory, be used as a treatment or even be used as a post-exposure prophylactic.
“Amazingly,” Sanjana said, “we found many genes whose loss reduces viral infection. For a subset of these, we identified existing drugs that can be repurposed to inhibit these genes. Some of them are already FDA-approved.”
To be sure, it’s not clear yet whether this discovery will lead to the development of a related therapeutic. A genetic mutation that blocks HIV infection was discovered years ago, yet no pharmaceutical company as found a workable way to make people resistance to HIV.
Pfizer, Moderna and other vaccine purveyors have plenty of reason to oppose development of a gene-therapy cure for COVID, since it might undermine their vaccine business.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 18:40 - New Rules From Treasury Department: Free Rent If You Attest You Need It
New Rules From Treasury Department: Free Rent If You Attest You Need It
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,
To speed up disbursement of allocated but unused rental assistance, the Treasury Department today announced new rules.
New Rules
Over 90% of the rent assistance money allocated to prevent evictions and halt evictions is still unused.
Meanwhile evictions remain halted in many states while landlords go unpaid.
Today the Treasury Department announced Seven New Policies to Encourage State and Local Governments to Expedite Emergency Rental Assistance.
-
Self-attestation can be used in documenting each aspect of a household’s eligibility for ERA, including with respect to: a) financial hardship, b) the risk of homelessness or housing instability, and c) income
-
During the public health emergency, state and local ERA programs may rely on self-attestation alone to document household income eligibility when documentation is not available.
-
State and local grantees may advance assistance to landlords and utility providers based on estimated eligible arears.
-
State and local grantees may enter into partnership with nonprofits to deliver advance assistance to households at risk of eviction while their applications are still being processed.
-
Grantees may make additional rent payments to landlords that take on tenants facing major barriers to securing a lease, including those who have been evicted or experienced homelessness in the past year.
-
Past arrears at previous addresses may be covered. To remove barriers a household may face in accessing new housing if they have outstanding debt in collection, Treasury’s guidance makes clear that state and local grantees may—at an eligible tenant’s request—provide assistance to cover remaining rental or utility arrears at a previous address.
-
A tenant’s costs associated with obtaining a hearing or appealing an order of eviction may be covered with ERA funds as an eligible “other expense.”
Landlords Unpaid
Many landlords have not been paid since March of 2020. That’s 17 months of unpaid rent while some squatters take advantage.
There is no provision for landlords to file.
On July 29, I commented At Least 12 Million Face Eviction as Moratorium Ends.
And despite the Supreme Court clearing the way for more evictions, many states extended moratoriums.
As long as eviction moratoriums continue, many tenants do not give a damn. I also suspect a lot of fraud. Why work or pay rent if you don’t have to?
* * *
Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/25/2021 – 18:20 -
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
