Today’s News 28th November 2021

• "The Omicron Variant" – Magic Pills, Or Solving The Africa Problem?
  “The Omicron Variant” – Magic Pills, Or Solving The Africa Problem?

  Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

  Yesterday the WHO labelled the sars-cov-2 variant B.1.1.529 as a “variant of concern” and officially named it “Omicron”.

  

  This was as entirely predictable as it is completely meaningless. The “variants” are just tools to stretch the story out and keep people on their toes.

  If you want to know exactly how the Omicron variant is going to affect the narrative, well The Guardian has done a handy “here’s all the bullshit we’re gonna sell you over the next couple of weeks” guide:

  • The Omicron variant is more transmissable, but they don’t know if it’s more dangerous yet (keeping their options open)

  • It originated in Africa, possible mutating in an “untreated AIDS patient” (sick people are breeding grounds for dangerous “mutations”)

  • “it has more than double the mutations of Delta…scientists anticipate that the virus will be more likely to infect – or reinfect – people who have immunity to earlier variants. (undermining natural immunity, selling more boosters, keeping the scarefest going)

  • “Scientists are concerned” that current vaccines may not be as effective against the new strain, they may need to be “tweaked” (get your boosters, and the new booster we haven’t invented yet)

  • “Scientists expect that recently approved antiviral drugs, such as Merck’s pill, will work as effectively against the new variant” (more on this later)

  • It’s already spreading around the world, and travel bans may be needed to prevent the need for another lockdown

  We’re already seeing preparations for more “public health measures”, with the press breathlessly quoting “concerned” public health officials. We’re being told that a new lockdown won’t be necessary…as long as we remember to get boosted and wear masks and blah blah blah.

  Generally speaking, it’s all fairly boilerplate scary nonsense. Although it is quite funny that the Biden administration has already put a bunch of African nations on a travel ban list, when Biden called Trump a racist for doing the same thing in 2020.

  pic.twitter.com/AJBoDKU37p

  — Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) November 26, 2021

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

  AFRICA

  It’s interesting that the new variant has allegedly come from Africa, perhaps “mutating in the body of an AIDS patient”, since Africa has been the biggest hole in the Covid narrative for well over a year.

  Africa is by far the poorest continent, it is densely populated, malnourishment and extreme poverty are endemic across many African nations, and it is home to more AIDS patients than the entire rest of the world combined. And yet, no Covid crisis.

  This is a weak point in the story, and always has been.

  Last Summer, the UK’s virus modeller-in-chief Neil Ferguson attempted to explain it by arguing that African nations have, on average, younger populations than the rest of the world, and Covid is only a threat to the elderly. But five minutes of common sense debunks that idea.

  The reason Africa has a younger population, on average, is that – on average – they are much sicker.

  There are diseases endemic to large parts of Africa that are all but wiped out in most of the Western world. Cholera, typhus, yellow fever, tuberculosis, malaria. Access to clean water, and healthcare are also much more limited.

  And while it has been nailed into the public mind that being elderly is the biggest risk factor for Covid, that is inaccurate. In fact, the biggest risk factor for dying “of Covid” is, and always has been, already dying of something else.

  The truth is that any REAL dangerous respiratory virus would have cut a bloody swath across the entire continent.

  Instead, as recently as last week, we were getting articles about how Africa “escaped Covid”, and the continent’s low covid deaths with only 6% of people vaccinated is “mystifying” and “baffling” scientists.

  Politically, African nations have shown themselves far less likely to buy into the “pandemic” narrative than their European, Asian or American counterparts. At least two “Covid denying” African presidents – Pierre Nkurunziza of Burundi and John Magufuli of Tanzania – have died suddenly in the last year, and seen their successors immediately reverse their covid policies.

  So maybe the Omicron Variant is a way of trying to fold Africa into the covid narrative that the other continents have already fully embraced. That will become clear as the story develops.

  Of course, it’s also true that being “African” is media shorthand for being scary, relying on the deeply-seated xenophobia of Western audiences. See: “Africanized killer bees”.

  But, either way, Africa is the long game. There’s a more obvious, and more cynical, short term agenda here.

  THE MAGIC PILLS

  Let’s go back to the Guardian’s “Omicron” bullet points, above:

  • Scientists are concerned by the number of mutations and the fact some of them have already been linked to an ability to evade existing [vaccine-created] immune protection.

  • Scientists expect that recently approved antiviral drugs, such as Merck’s pill, [will work effectively] against the new variant

  The “new variant” is already being described as potentially resistant to the vaccines, but NOT the new anti-viral medications.

  Pharmaceutical giants Merck and Pfizer are both working on “Covid pills”, which as recently as three days ago, were being hyped up in the press:

  US may have a ‘game changer’ new Covid pill soon, but its success will hinge on rapid testing

  In the US, an emergency use authorisation can only be issued if there is no effective medication or treatment already available, so the vaccines not being proof against Omicron would be vital to rushing the pills onto the US market, at least.

  If Omicron is found to be “resistant to the vaccines”, but NOT the pills, that will give governments an excuse to rush through approving the pills on an EUA, just as they did with the vaccines.

  So, you bet your ass that testing is gonna be “rapid”. Super rapid. Blink-and-you’ll-miss-it rapid. Rapid to the point you’re not even sure it definitely happened. And now they have an excuse.

  Really, it’s all just more of the same.

  A scare before the new year. An excuse to make people believe their Christmas could be in peril. An exercise in flexing their control muscles a bit, milking even more money out of the double-jabbed and boosted crowd, now newly terrified of the Omicron variant, and a nice holiday bump to Pfizer’s ever-inflating stock price.

  At this point either you can see the pattern, or you can’t. You’re free of the fear machinery, or you’re not.

  There is one potential silver lining here: It feels rushed and frantic. Discovered on Tuesday, named on Friday, travel bans on Saturday. It is hurried, and maybe that’s a reaction to feeling like the “pandemic” is losing its grip on the public mind.

  Hopefully, as the narrative becomes more and more absurd, more and more people will wake up to reality.

  It has been pointed out that “Omicron” is an anagram of “moronic”.

  One wonders if that’s deliberate and they’re making fun of us.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 23:45

• Israel Moves To Ban All Foreigners From Entry Amid Omicron Variant Fears
  Israel Moves To Ban All Foreigners From Entry Amid Omicron Variant Fears

  Israel’s Knesset is set to hold a special emergency “coronavirus cabinet” late Saturday night where government officials will vote on enacting a complete closure of the country to foreign travel. The ban will tentatively be in effect for the next two weeks.

  Already Israel has banned all foreigners arriving from the majority of African countries in recent days on fears that the highly-mutated Omicron coronavirus variant, which first emerged in South Africa, could be the next deadly wave – and with the vaccine possibly doing little to stop it.

  

  The greatly tightened travel and tourist restrictions are expected to be announced late Saturday night or early Sunday. It’s expected to also include a new mandatory quarantine of three days or more for vaccinated Israeli citizens who’ve returned from traveling abroad. For unvaccinated inbound Israeli citizens the quarantine will be a week.

  The fresh travel rules come as authorities scramble to do contact tracing on exposures related to at least one confirmed Omicron case:

  Authorities are scrambling to locate 800 Israelis who may have been exposed to the new Omicron variant of COVID-19, a defense official said Saturday.

  The Health Ministry confirmed one case of the new variant in Israel, and said there were seven other suspected cases who were awaiting test results.

  Four of the suspected cases returned to Israel recently from international travel, and three had not traveled, raising fears of community transmission in Israel.

  Prime Minister Bennett ahead of the vote said the government is “preparing for any scenario.” And concerning the new still somewhat mysterious variant, the country’s interior minister said, “It looks like it might be more infectious, so we’re taking action as fast as possible.”

  Just days ago the health minister Nitzan Horowitz announced that Israelis will likely have to get a fourth shot, also as children between the ages of 5 to 11 have begun receiving the jab. Ironically the foreign tourist ban is now being re-imposed for one of the most highly vaxxed nations on earth.

  At least 80% of all Israelis 16 and older are now considered fully vaccinated.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 23:15

• Bovard Blasts The Biden Crackdown On Thought Crimes
  Bovard Blasts The Biden Crackdown On Thought Crimes

  Authored by Jim Bovard,

  The Biden administration is seeking to radically narrow the boundaries of respectable American political thought. The administration has repeatedly issued statements and reports that could automatically castigate citizens who distrust the federal government. We may eventually learn that the new Biden guidelines spurred a vast increase in federal surveillance and other abuses against Americans who were guilty of nothing more than vigorous skepticism.

  

  Biden is Nixon on steroids

  The Biden team is expanding the federal Enemies List perhaps faster than any time since the Nixon administration. In June, the Biden administration asserted that guys who are unable to score with women may be terrorist threats due to “involuntary celibate–violent extremism.” That revelation was included in the administration’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, which identified legions of new potential “domestic terrorists” that the feds can castigate and investigate.

  The White House claims its new war on terrorism and extremism is “carefully tailored to address violence and reduce the factors that …infringe on the free expression of ideas.” But the prerogative to define extremism includes the power to revile disapproved beliefs. The report warns that “narratives of fraud in the recent general election … will almost certainly spur some [domestic violent extremists] to try to engage in violence this year.” If accusations of 2020 electoral shenanigans are formally labeled as extremist threats, that could result in far more repression (aided by Facebook and Twitter) of dissenting voices. How will this work out any better than the concerted campaign by the media and Big Tech last fall to suppress all information about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the election? And how can Biden be trusted to be the judge after he effectively accused Facebook of mass murder for refusing to totally censor anyone who raised doubts about the COVID-19 vaccine?

  The Biden administration is revving up for a war against an enemy which the feds have chosen to never explicitly define. According to a March report by Biden’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “domestic violent extremists” include individuals who “take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow of the U.S. government in support of their belief that the U.S. government is purposely exceeding its Constitutional authority.” But that was the same belief that many Biden voters had regarding the Trump administration. Does the definition of extremism depend solely on which party captured the White House?

  The Biden report writers were spooked by the existence of militia groups and flirt with the fantasy of outlawing them across the land. The report promises to explore “how to make better use of laws that already exist in all fifty states prohibiting certain private ‘militia’ activity, including … state statutes prohibiting groups of people from organizing as private military units without the authorization of the state government, and state statutes that criminalize certain paramilitary activity.” Most of the private militia groups are guilty of nothing more than bluster and braggadocio. Besides, many of them are already overstocked with government informants who are counting on Uncle Sam for regular paychecks. Some politicians and pundits might like to see a new federal crime that labels any meeting of more than two gun owners as an illegal conspiracy.

  The Biden report promises that the FBI and DHS will soon be releasing “a new edition of the Federal Government’s Mobilization Indicators booklet that will include for the first time potential indicators of domestic terrorism–related mobilization.” Will this latest publication be as boneheaded as the similar 2014 report by the National Counterterrorism Center entitled “Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts”?

  The new Red Guard

  As the Intercept summarized, that report “suggests that police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as ‘Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility,’ … and ‘Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity)’ … to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies.” The report recommended judging families by their level of “Parent-Child Bonding” and rating localities on the basis in part of the “presence of ideologues or recruiters.” Former FBI agent Mike German commented, “The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical, and social-service employees to rate the communities, individuals, and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face.”

  Biden’s “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” report also declared that “enhancing faith in American democracy” requires “finding ways to counter the influence and impact of dangerous conspiracy theories.” In recent decades, conspiracy theories have multiplied almost as fast as government lies and cover-ups. While many allegations have been ludicrously far-fetched, the political establishment and media routinely attach the “conspiracy theory” label to any challenge to their dominance.

  According to Cass Sunstein, Harvard Law professor and Oba- ma’s regulatory czar, a conspiracy theory is “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” Reasonable citizens are supposed to presume that government creates trillions of pages of new secrets each year for their own good, not to hide anything from the public.

  “Conspiracy theory” is a magic phrase that expunges all previous federal abuses. Many liberals who invoke the phrase also ritually quote a 1965 book by former communist Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Hofstadter portrayed distrust of government as a proxy for mental illness, a paradigm that makes the character of critics more important than the conduct of government agencies. For Hofstadter, it was a self-evident truth that government was trustworthy because American politics had “a kind of professional code … embodying the practical wisdom of generations of politicians.”

  The rise of conspiracy theories

  In the early 1960s, conspiracy theories were practically a non-issue because 75 percent of Americans trusted the federal government. Such credulity did not survive the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Seven days after Kennedy was shot on November 22, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson created a commission (later known as the Warren Commission) to suppress controversy about the killing.

  Johnson browbeat the commission members into speedily issuing a report rubber-stamping the “crazed lone gunman” version of the assassination. House Minority Leader Gerald Ford, a member of the commission, revised the final staff report to change the location of where the bullet entered Kennedy’s body, thereby salvaging the so-called “magic bullet” theory.

  After the Warren Commission findings were ridiculed as a whitewash, Johnson ordered the FBI to conduct wiretaps on the report’s critics. To protect the official story, the commission sealed key records for 75 years. Truth would out only after all the people involved in any coverup had gotten their pensions and died.

  The controversy surrounding the Warren Commission spurred the CIA to formally attack the notion of conspiracy theories. In a 1967 alert to its overseas stations and bases, the CIA declared that the fact that almost half of Americans did not believe Oswald acted alone “is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization” and endangers “the whole reputation of the American government.”

  The memo instructed recipients to “employ propaganda assets” and exploit “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out … parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.” The ultimate proof of the government’s innocence: “Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.”

  The New York Times, which exposed the CIA memo in 1977, noted that the CIA “mustered its propaganda machinery to support an issue of far more concern to Americans, and to the C.I.A. itself, than to citizens of other countries.” According to historian Lance deHaven-Smith, author of Conspiracy Theory in America, “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited … with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” In 2014, the CIA released a heavily-redacted report admitting that it had been “complicit” in a JFK “cover-up” by withholding “incendiary” information from the Warren Commission. The CIA successfully concealed a wide range of assassinations and foreign coups it conducted until congressional investigations in the mid-1970s blew the whistle.

  “Conspiracy theory” allegations sometimes merely expose the naivete of official scorekeepers. In April 2016, Chapman University surveyed Americans and announced that “the most prevalent conspiracy theory in the United States is that the government is concealing information about the 9/11 attacks with slightly over half of Americans holding that belief.”

  That survey did not ask whether people believed the World Trade Centers were blown up by an inside job or whether President George W. Bush secretly masterminded the attacks. Instead, folks were simply asked whether “government is concealing information” about the attacks. Only a village idiot, college professor, or editorial writer would presume the government had come clean.

  Three months after the Chapman University survey was conducted, the Obama administration finally released 28 pages of a 2003 congressional report that revealed that Saudi government officials had directly financed some of the 9/11 hijackers in America. That disclosure shattered the storyline carefully constructed by the Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission, and legions of media accomplices. (Lawsuits continue in federal court seeking to force the U.S. government to disclose more information regarding the Saudi government role in the attacks.)

  Conspiracy theories a tool for control

  “Conspiracy theory” is often a flag of convenience for the political-media elite. In 2018, the New York Times asserted that Trump’s use of the term “Deep State” and similar rhetoric “fanned fears that he is eroding public trust in institutions, undermining the idea of objective truth and sowing widespread suspicions about the government and news media.” However, after allegations by anonymous government officials spurred Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, New York Times columnist James Stewart cheered, “There is a Deep State, there is a bureaucracy in our country who has pledged to respect the Constitution, respect the rule of law…. They work for the American people.” New York Times editorial writer Michelle Cottle proclaimed, “The deep state is alive and well” and hailed it as “a collection of patriotic public servants.” Almost immediately after its existence was no longer denied, the Deep State became the incarnation of virtue in Washington. After Biden was elected, references to the “Deep State” were once again labeled paranoid ravings.

  Much of the establishment rage at “conspiracy theories” has been driven by the notion that rulers are entitled to intellectual passive obedience. The same lèse-majesté mindset has been widely adopted to make a muddle of American history. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the court historian for President John F. Kennedy and a revered liberal intellectual, declared in 2004, “Historians today conclude that the colonists were driven to revolt in 1776 because of a false conviction that they faced a British conspiracy to destroy their freedom.” What the hell is wrong with “historians today”?! Was the British imposition of martial law, confiscation of firearms, military blockades, suspension of habeas corpus, and censorship simply a deranged fantasy of Thomas Jefferson? The notion that the British would never conspire to destroy freedom would play poorly in Dublin, where the Irish suffered centuries of brutal British oppression. Why should anyone trust academics who were blind to British threats in the 1770s to accurately judge the danger that today’s politicians pose to Americans’ liberty?

  How does the Biden administration intend to fight “conspiracy theories?” The Biden terrorism report called for “enhancing faith in government” by “accelerating work to contend with an information environment that challenges healthy democratic discourse.” Will Biden’s team rely on the “solution” suggested by Cass Sunstein: “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups” by government agents and informants to “undermine” them from within?

  Does the Biden administration also propose banning Americans from learning anything from the history of prior federal debacles? Nixon White House aide Tom Charles Huston explained that the FBI’s COINTELPRO program continually stretched its target list “from the kid with a bomb to the kid with a picket sign, and from the kid with the picket sign to the kid with the bumper sticker of the opposing candidate. And you just keep going down the line.” A 1976 Senate report on COINTELPRO demanded assurances that a federal agency would never again “be permitted to conduct a secret war against those citizens it considers threats, to the established order.” Actually, the FBI and other agencies have continued secretly warring against “threats,” and legions of informants are likely busy “cognitively infiltrating” at this moment.

  Permitting politicians to blacklist any ideas they disapprove won’t “restore faith in democracy.” Extremism has always been a flag of political convenience, and the Biden team, the FBI, and their media allies will fan fears to sanctify new government crackdowns. But what if government is the most dangerous extremist of them all?

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 22:45

• These Are The 35 Vehicles With The Longest Production Runs
  These Are The 35 Vehicles With The Longest Production Runs

  Over the automotive industry’s 100+ year history, companies such as Ford, Chevrolet, and Mercedes-Benz have produced some truly iconic cars.

  Whether they’re designed for excitement, luxury, or just simple transportation, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu notes that these vehicles offer a set of features that make them highly desirable to consumers. The most successful models will undergo numerous revisions over time, sometimes sticking around for many decades.

  To learn more, this graphic from Alan’s Factory Outlet lists the 35 vehicles with the longest production runs of all time. Here are the top 10 below.

  

  As we can see, successful models come in many shapes and sizes, and from a variety of manufacturers. Below, we’ll take a deeper dive to learn more about what makes these cars special.

  Ford F-Series

  Ford began selling its first pickup truck in 1925, which was essentially a Model T with a flatbed in the rear. This layout was very useful because it enabled people to transport cargo, raw materials, and other items with relative ease.

  Then, in 1948, Ford introduced the F-series pickup. The truck became one of Ford’s most well-known and profitable models, and is currently in its 14th generation.

  

  While the fundamental shape of the F-series hasn’t changed, Ford’s best-selling model owes much of its success to its constant innovation and technological improvements.

  In 2015, the F-150 became the first fullsize pickup to feature an all-aluminum body. This reduced the truck’s weight by as much as 500 pounds, resulting in better fuel economy and driving dynamics.

  Ford is also credited with bringing turbocharged engines into the mainstream (within the pickup segment). This first-mover advantage gave the F-Series a competitive edge in terms of fuel efficiency and torque.

  Chevrolet Corvette

  First introduced in 1953, the Chevrolet Corvette is regarded as America’s most iconic sports car. It has a reputation for offering similar performance as its more expensive foreign rivals, and combines unique styling elements with a successful motorsport background.

  For most of its history, the Corvette was a rear-wheel drive coupe with a V-8 engine placed in the front. It also featured pop-up headlights for several generations, but the design was eventually phased out due to stricter regulations.

  

  Chevrolet drastically changed the formula of the Corvette for its eighth generation, which launched in 2020. The engine is no longer in the front of the car, but instead, placed directly behind the occupants.

  

  This mid-engine layout results in a Corvette with significantly different proportions than its predecessors. Because a bulk of the car’s weight is now located more centrally, the C8 should (in theory) offer better traction and balance.

  Few cars have undergone such large changes to their fundamental design philosophy, but the move appears to have worked—production is far from meeting demand.

  Mercedes-Benz S-Class

  The S-Class from Mercedes is widely recognized as the global benchmark for full-size luxury sedans. Since its introduction in the 1950s, the S-Class has continuously introduced new innovations that improve comfort and safety.

  • The 1959 S-Class (dubbed W111) was the first production car with crumple zones front and rear. Crumple zones are structural elements that absorb the impact of a collision.

  • The 1978 S-Class (W116) introduced electronic anti-lock brakes (ABS). This system prevents tires from locking up under sudden braking and is included on every modern car.

  • The 1991 S-Class (W140) was the first car to feature double-glazed windows, which improves insulation while reducing road noise.

  • The 2021 S-Class (W223) introduced the world’s first rear-seat airbag.

  One of the most important aspects of a luxury car is its interior, and the S-class has come a long way since its first iteration.

  

  The interior of the latest S-Class features active ambient lighting that can visually reinforce any warnings generated by the car’s driving assistance systems. The cabin also features MBUX Interior Assist, which can read motion commands (such as hand movements) by the driver.

  The car’s center console is dominated by a single large screen—a trend that was first introduced by the Tesla Model S.

  Big Changes in Store

  Global governments have announced a ban on the sale of new gasoline cars by as early as 2030. This foreshadows a great shift towards battery power and gives automakers the opportunity to reimagine their most iconic models.

  For example, the Ford Mustang Mach-E is an all-electric SUV that borrows both the name and styling of the brand’s famous pony car. The company also recently launched an electric version of the F-150, called the F-150 Lightning.

  German brands are taking a different approach by creating a completely new range for their EV models. This includes the Audi e-tron, BMW i, and Mercedes EQ lineups. This implies that their existing gasoline-powered models could be coming to an end.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 22:15

• Americans Are Having A Lot Less Sex. Here's Why?
  Americans Are Having A Lot Less Sex. Here’s Why?

  Authored by Ross Pomeroy via RealClearScience.com,

  Americans had a lot less sex in 2018 compared to 2009, according to a new study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. The finding mirrors a downward trend also seen in many other parts of the developed world, including the UK, Australia, Germany, and Japan.

  Researchers from the Center for Sexual Health Promotion at Indiana University School of Public Health made the discovery by comparing data collected in 2009 and 2018 from participants of the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB). The NSSHB is an ongoing, representative survey of adolescents aged 14-17 and adults aged 18-49 focused on understanding sex in the United States. Participants are asked about their sexual exploits as well as various demographic factors.

  For the current analysis, lead author Dr. Debby Herbenick and her colleagues examined the responses of 4,155 individuals from the 2009 NSSHB and 4,547 individuals from the 2018 NSSHB, specifically focusing on how often they reported having penile-vaginal intercourse. The researchers also probed the frequency of other sexual behaviors like masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex.

  They found that while 24% of adults reported not having penile-vaginal intercourse over the prior year in 2009, 28% of adults reported not having intercourse over the prior year in 2018. Adolescents were also increasingly abstinent – 79% reported not having sex over the previous 12 months in 2009 while 89% reported not having sex over the previous 12 months in 2018.

  The data also permitted the researchers to estimate how often the average American adult aged 18-49 has sex each year. In 2009, it was about 63 times. In 2018, it was about 47 times.

  Both adolescents and adults also reported fewer instances of partnered masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex in 2018 compared to 2009, which surprised the researchers. They hypothesized that any decrease in penile-vaginal sex would be offset by an increase in other sexual activities. Not so. It simply seems that Americans are having less sex.

  What could explain this drought of sexual activity? The researchers put forth a number of hypotheses. They note that, compared to 2009, adolescents and younger adults are drinking less alcohol, spending more time on social media, and playing more video games.

  

  They also earn less money and are less likely to be in romantic relationships.

  “Also, more contemporary young people identify with non-heterosexual identities— including asexual identities—and more young people identify in gender expansive ways,” the researchers write.

  There’s also a simpler explanation. People may have been more prone to exaggerate their sexual habits in 2009 and are less likely to now.

  Whatever the reasons, the researchers say there’s no reason to fret about the decline. “The age-old question on how much sex is too much and how little sex is not enough comes to mind,” they write. The data is merely interesting, and they will continue to monitor it, especially watching for changes resulting from the COVID-19 Pandemic.

  *  *  *

  Source: Herbenick, D., Rosenberg, M., Golzarri-Arroyo, L. et al. Changes in Penile-Vaginal Intercourse Frequency and Sexual Repertoire from 2009 to 2018: Findings from the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Arch Sex Behav (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02125-2

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 21:45

• Is Peak Social Media Already Behind Us?
  Is Peak Social Media Already Behind Us?

  The growth of social media’s influence in our daily digital lives has been astounding over the last few years. According to figures in the latest Statista Digital Economy Compass, the global average time spent using social media platforms per day is 142 minutes in 2021 – far higher than the 90 minutes recorded in 2012.

  However, as Statista’s Martin Armstrong details below, this growth has plateaued in recent years and the latest figure even represents a year-over-year decrease of three minutes.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  So, 17 years after the birth of Facebook, is peak social media already behind us?

  This is a question analysts and investors have been pondering for a few years already. While specific platforms will experience fluctuations in user numbers, and some will become obsolete (see Myspace), the market potential still not fully unlocked in developing economies should mean that social media will be able to find at least one more gear to shift into before the peak is truly reached.

  Nevertheless, the figures don’t lie and imply that for a fair share of users, the social media shine has perhaps worn off. A trend likely accelerated by the increasing volume of evidence regarding the negative impact it can have on our mental health, as well as concerns about data collection and its vulnerability to being exploited to sew social and political instability.

  If you ask Mark Zuckerberg though, this is only the beginning of the social media story. The Meta CEO has lofty plans to build a ‘metaverse’, described by the company as “a set of virtual spaces where you can create and explore with other people who aren’t in the same physical space as you”.

  Only time will tell if we’ve really reached peak social media, or if we’re merely at the foot of the mountain.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 21:15

• Greenwald: The Cynical And Dangerous Weaponization Of The "White Supremacist" Label
  Greenwald: The Cynical And Dangerous Weaponization Of The “White Supremacist” Label

  Authored by Glenn Greenwald via greenwald.substack.com,

  Within hours of the August 25, 2020, shootings in Kenosha, Wisconsin — not days, but hours — it was decreed as unquestioned fact in mainstream political and media circles that the shooter, Kyle Rittenhouse, was a “white supremacist.” Over the next fifteen months, up to and including his acquittal by a jury of his peers on all charges, this label was applied to him more times than one can count by corporate media outlets as though it were proven fact. Indeed, that Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist” was deemed so unquestionably true that questioning it was cast as evidence of one’s own racist inclinations (defending a white supremacist).

  

  Yet all along, there was never any substantial evidence, let alone convincing proof, that it was true. This fact is, or at least should be, an extraordinary, even scandalous, event: a 17-year-old was widely vilified as being a white supremacist by a union of national media and major politicians despite there being no evidence to support the accusation. Yet it took his acquittal by a jury who heard all the evidence and testimony for parts of the corporate press to finally summon the courage to point out that what had been Gospel about Rittenhouse for the last fifteen months was, in fact, utterly baseless.

  A Washington Post news article was published late last week that was designed to chide “both sides” for exploiting the Rittenhouse case for their own purposes while failing to adhere carefully to actual facts. Ever since the shootings in Kenosha, they lamented, “Kyle Rittenhouse has been a human canvas onto which the nation’s political divisions were mapped.” In attempting to set the record straight, the Post article contained this amazing admission:

  As conservatives coalesced around the idea of Rittenhouse as a blameless defender of law and order, many on the left just as quickly cast him as the embodiment of the far-right threat. Despite a lack of evidence, hundreds of social media posts immediately pinned Rittenhouse with extremist labels: white supremacist, self-styled militia member, a “boogaloo boy” seeking violent revolution, or part of the misogynistic “incel” movement.

   “On the left he’s become a symbol of white supremacy that isn’t being held accountable in the United States today,” said Becca Lewis, a researcher of far-right movements and a doctoral candidate at Stanford University. “You see him getting conflated with a lot of the police officers who’ve shot unarmed Black men and with Trump himself and all these other things. On both sides, he’s become a symbol much bigger than himself.”

  Soon after the shootings, then-candidate Joe Biden told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Rittenhouse was allegedly part of a militia group in Illinois. In the next sentence, Biden segued to criticism of Trump and hate groups: “Have you ever heard this president say one negative thing about white supremacists?

  Valuable though this rather belated admission is, there were two grand ironies about this passage. The first is that The Post itself was one of the newspapers which published multiple articles and columns applying this evidence-free “white supremacist” label to Rittenhouse. Indeed, four days after this admission by The Post‘s newsroom, their opinion editors published an op-ed by Robert Jones that flatly asserted the very same accusation which The Post itself says is bereft of evidence: “Despite his boyish white frat boy appearance, there was plenty of evidence of Rittenhouse’s deeper white supremacist orientation.” In other words, Post editors approved publication of grave accusations which, just four days earlier, their own newsroom explicitly stated lacked evidence.

  The second irony is that while the Post article lamented everyone else’s carelessness with the facts of this case, the publication itself — while purporting to fact-check the rest of the world — affirmed one of the most common falsehoods: namely, that Rittenhouse carried a gun across state lines. The article thus now carries this correction at the top: “An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Kyle Rittenhouse brought his AR-15 across state lines. He has testified that he picked up the weapon from a friend’s house in Wisconsin. This article has been corrected.”

  

  It continues to be staggering how media outlets which purport to explain the Rittenhouse case get caught over and over spreading utter falsehoods about the most basic facts of the case, proving they did not watch the trial or learn much about what happened beyond what they heard in passing from like-minded liberals on Twitter. There is simply no way to have paid close attention to this case, let alone have watched the trial, and believe that he carried a gun across state lines, yet this false assertion made it past numerous Post reporters, editors and fact-checkers purporting to “correct the record” about this case. Yet again, we find that the same news outlets which love to accuse others of “disinformation” — and want the internet censored in the name of stopping it — frequently pontificate on topics about which they know nothing, without the slightest concern for whether or not it is true.

  Those who continue to condemn Rittenhouse as a white supremacist — including the author of The Post op-ed published four days after the paper concluded the accusation was baseless — typically point to his appearance at a bar in January, 2021, for a photo alongside members of the Proud Boys in which he was photographed making the “okay” sign gesture. That once-common gesture, according to USA Today, “has become a symbol used by white supremacists.” Rittenhouse insists that the appearance was arranged by his right-wing attorneys Lin Wood and John Pierce — whom he quickly fired and accused of exploiting him for fund-raising purposes — and that he had no idea that the people with whom he was posting for a photo were Proud Boys members (“I thought they were just a bunch of, like, construction dudes based on how they looked”), nor had he ever heard that the “OK” sign was a symbol of “white power.”

  Rittenhouse’s denial about this once-benign gesture seems shocking to people who spend all their days drowning in highly politicized Twitter discourse — where such a claim is treated as common knowledge — but is completely believable for the vast majority of Americans who do not. In fact, the whole point of the adolescent 4chan hoax was to convert one of the most common and benign gestures into a symbol of white power so that anyone making it would be suspect. As The New York Times recounted, the gesture has long been “used for several purposes in sign languages, and in yoga as a symbol to demonstrate inner perfection. It figures in an innocuous made-you-look game. Most of all, it has been commonly used for generations to signal ‘O.K.,’ or all is well.”

  But whatever one chooses to believe about that episode is irrelevant to whether these immediate declarations of Rittenhouse’s “white supremacy” were valid. That bar appearance took place in January, 2021 — five months after the Kenosha shootings. Yet Rittenhouse was instantly declared to be a “white supremacist” — and by “instantly,” I mean: within hours of the shooting. “A 17 year old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines, armed with an AR 15,” was how Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) described Rittenhouse the next day in a mega-viral tweet; her tweet consecrated not only this “white supremacist” accusation which persisted for months, but also affirmed the falsehood that he crossed state lines with an AR-15. It does not require an advanced degree in physics to understand that his posing for a photo in that bar with Proud Boys members, flashing the OK sign, five months later in January, 2020, could not serve as a rational evidentiary basis for Rep. Pressley’s accusation the day after the shootings that he was a “white supremacist,” nor could it serve as the justification for five consecutive months of national media outlets accusing him of the same. Unless his accusers had the power to see into the future, they branded him a white supremacist with no basis whatsoever — or, as The Post put it this week, “despite a lack of evidence.”

  A 17 year old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines, armed with an AR 15.

  He shot and killed 2 people who had assembled to affirm the value, dignity, and worth of Black lives.

  Fix your damn headlines.

  — Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) August 27, 2020

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

  The only other “evidence” ever cited to support the rather grave accusation that this 17-year-old is a “white supremacist” were social media postings of his in which he expressed positive sentiments toward the police and then-President Trump, including with the phrase “Blue Lives Matter.” That was all that existed — the entirety of the case — that led the most powerful media outlets and politicians to stamp on this adolescent’s forehead the gravest accusation one can face in American culture. This is really the heart of the matter: this episode vividly demonstrates how cheapened and emptied and cynically wielded this “white supremacist” slogan has become. The oft-implicit but sometimes-explicit premise in liberal discourse is that everyone who deviates in any way from liberal dogma is a white supremacist by definition.

  Within this rubric, perhaps the most decisive “evidence” that one is a white supremacist is that one supports the Republican Party and former President Trump — i.e., that half of the voting electorate in the U.S. at least are white supremacists. A subsidiary assumption is that anyone who views the police as a necessary, positive force in U.S. society is inherently guilty of racism (it is fine to revere federal policing agencies such as the FBI and other federal security forces such as the CIA, as most Democrats do; the hallmark of a white supremacist is someone who believes that the local police — the ones who show up when citizens call 911 — is a generally positive rather than negative force in society).

  ---

  An illustration of how casually and recklessly this accusation is tossed around occurred last year, shortly after the George Floyd killing, when my long-time friend and colleague, Intercept journalist Lee Fang, was widely vilified as a racist and white supremacist, first by his own Intercept colleague, journalist Akela Lacy, and then — in one of the most stunningly mindless acts of herd behavior — by literally hundreds if not thousands of members of the national press, including many who barely knew who Lee was but nonetheless were content to echo the accusation (that Lee is himself not white is, of course, not an impediment, not even a speed bump, on the road to castigating him as a modern-day KKK adherent). As Matt Taibbi wrote in disgust about this shameful media episode:

  [Lacy’s accustory] tweet received tens of thousands of likes and responses along the lines of, “Lee Fang has been like this for years, but the current moment only makes his anti-Blackness more glaring,” and “Lee Fang spouting racist bullshit it must be a day ending in day.” A significant number of Fang’s co-workers, nearly all white, as well as reporters from other major news organizations like the New York Times and MSNBC and political activists (one former Elizabeth Warren staffer tweeted, “Get him!”), issued likes and messages of support for the notion that Fang was a racist.

  Writing in New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait documented that “Lacy called him racist in a pair of tweets, the first of which alone received more than 30,000 likes and 5,000 retweets.”

  What was the evidence justifying Lee Fang’s conviction by mob justice of these charges? He (like Rittenhouse) has expressed the view that police, despite needing reforms, are largely a positive presence in protecting innocent people from violent crime; he suggested violence harms rather than helps social justice causes; and he published a video interview he conducted of a young BLM supporter complaining that many liberals only care when white police officers kill black people but not when black people in his neighborhood are killed by anyone who is not white.

  

  That such banal and commonly held views are woefully insufficient to justify the reputation-destroying accusation that someone is a white supremacist should be too self-evident to require any explanation. But in case such an explanation is required, consider that polls continually and reliably show that the pro-police sentiments of the type that caused Rittenhouse, Fang, and so many others to be vilified by liberal elites as “white supremacists” are held not only by a majority of Americans, but by a majority of black and brown Americans, the very people on whose behalf these elite accusers purport to speak.

  For years, polling data has shown that the communities which want at least the same level of policing if not more are communities composed primarily of Black, Brown and poor people. It is not hard to understand why. If the police are defunded or radically reduced, rich people will simply hire private security (even more than they already employ for their homes, neighborhoods and persons), and any resulting crime increases will fall most heavily on poorer communities. Thus, polling data reliably shows that it is these communities that want either the same level of policing or more — the exact view which, if you express, will result in guardians of elite liberal discourse declaring you to be a “white supremacist.” Indeed — according to one Gallup poll taken in the wake of the George Floyd killing, when anti-police sentiment was at its peak — the groups that most want a greater police presence in their communities are Black and Latino citizens:

  

  In the wake of anger over the Floyd and Jacob Blake cases, several large liberal cities succeeded in placing referendums on the ballot for this year that proposed major defunding or restructuring of local police. They failed in almost all cases, including ones with large Black populations such as Minneapolis, where Floyd died, precisely because non-white voters rejected it. In other words, expressing the same views about policing that large numbers of Black residents hold somehow subjects one to accusations of “white supremacy” in the dominant elite liberal discourse.

  What all of this demonstrates is that insult terms like “white supremacist” and “racist” and “white nationalist” have lost any fixed meaning. They are instead being trivialized and degraded into little more than discourse toys to be tossed around for fun and reputation-destruction by liberals, who believe they have ascended to a place of such elevated racial enlightenment that they are now the sole and exclusive owners of these terms and thus free to hurl them in whatever manner they please. It is not an overstatement to observe that in elite liberal discourse, there are literally no evidentiary requirements that must be fulfilled before one is free to malign political adversaries with those accusatory terms. That is why editors at The Washington Post published an op-ed proclaiming Rittenhouse was plagued by “deeper white supremacist orientation” just four days after its news division explicitly concluded that such an accusation “lacks evidence” — because it it permissible to accuse people of racism and white supremacy without any evidence needed.

  It is inherently disturbing and destructive any time a person is publicly branded as something for which there is no evidence. That is intrinsically something we should collectively abhor. But this growing trend in liberal discourse is not just ethically repellent but dangerous. By so flagrantly cheapening and exploiting the “white supremacist” accusation from what it should be (a potent weapon deployed to stigmatize and ostracize actual racists) into something far more tawdry (a plaything used by Democrats to demean and destroy their enemies whenever the mood strikes), its cynical abusers are draining the term of all of its vibrancy, potency and force, so that when it is needed, for actual racists, people will have tuned it out, knowing that is used deceitfully, recklessly and for cheap entertainment.

  A similar dynamic emerged with accusations of anti-semitism and the weaponization of it to demonize criticisms of Israel. It is, of course, true that some criticisms of the Israeli government are partially grounded or even largely motivated by anti-semitism — just as it is true that some championing of the local police or support for Trump grows out of racist sentiments. But the converse is just as true: one can vehemently criticize the actions of the Israeli government the same as any other government without being driven by an iota of anti-semitism (indeed, many of the most vocal critics of Israel are proudly Jewish), in exactly the same way as one can be highly supportive of the local police or Donald Trump without an iota of racism (a proposition that should need no proof, but is nonetheless highlighted by the uncomfortable fact that growing number of non-whites supporting both Trump and the police). But the cynical, manipulative weaponization of anti-semitism accusations to smear all critics of Israel has rendered the accusation far weaker and more easily dismissible than it once was — exactly as is now happening to the accusatory terms “white supremacist” and “white nationalist” and “racist,” which are being increasingly understood, validly so, not as a grave and sincere condemnation but a cheap tactic to be applied recklessly, for the tawdry entertainment one derives from public rituals of reputation-destruction.

  

  Ever since his acquittal, Rittenhouse has made a series of public statements directly at odds with the dark, hateful image constructed of him by the national press over the last sixteen months, while he was forced to remain silent by the charges he faced. He has professed support for the Black Lives Matter movement, argued that the U.S. is plagued by structural racism, and suggested that he would have suffered a worse fate if he had been Black. The same people who are smugly certain that his entire character and soul was permanently captured by that fleeting moment in a bar when he was seventeen and flashed an “okay” symbol — and who are certain that his denials that he knew what it meant or with whom he was posing are false — have, of course, scoffed at these recent statements of his as self-serving and insincere, even though they offer far greater insight into Rittenhouse’s actual views on questions of race than anything thus far presented.

  But that is the point. The political and media faction that casually and recklessly brands people as “white supremacists” the way normal people utter “excuse me” while navigating a large crowd have no interest at all in whether the accusation is true. They are devoted to reducing everyone whose political ideology diverges from their own to their worst possible moment — no matter how long ago it happened or how unrepresentative of their lives it is — in order to derive the most ungenerous and destructive meaning from it. It is a movement that is at once driven by rigorous rules resulting in righteous decrees of sin and sweeping denunciations, yet completely bereft of the possibility of grace or redemption.

  And its most cherished weapon is accusing anyone who they decide is an enemy or even just an adversary of being a white supremacist, a white nationalist, a racist — to the point where these terms now sound like reflexively recited daily prayer slogans than anything one needs to take seriously or which has the possibility to engage on the merits. For fifteen months, it was gospel in political and media circles that Kyle Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist terrorist” only for The Washington Post to suddenly announce that this claim persisted “despite a lack of evidence.”

  But that lack of evidence really does not matter, which is why that announcement by The Post received so little notice. Under the rules of this rotted discourse, evidence is not a requirement to affirm this accusation. All that is needed is an intuition, a tingly sensation, and — above all else — the realization that hurling the accusation will yield some personal or political advantage. Like all cynical weapons, it worked for awhile, but is rapidly running out of efficacy as its manipulative usage becomes more and more visible. The term is still needed as a tool to fight actual racism, but those who most vocally and flamboyantly proclaim themselves solemnly devoted to that cause have rendered that tool virtually useless, thanks to their self-interested misuse and abuse of it.

  ---

  To support the independent journalism we are doing here, please subscribe, obtain a gift subscription for others and/or share the article

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 20:45

• Christmas Tree Shortage Develops As Consumers May Pay Record Prices 
  Christmas Tree Shortage Develops As Consumers May Pay Record Prices 

  Thanksgiving is over as the holiday season ramps up. Households are beginning to transition into the Christmas spirit as they must first purchase a tree and decorate it, but due to several factors, trees (artificial and real) are in short supply.

  Christmas tree demand is rising as holiday music on the radio reminds everyone it’s time to start decorating the house. Households will have to choose between an artificial and or a real tree this year.

  

  Snarled supply chains at Southern California ports have produced a shortage of artificial trees. 

  “Every day is a fight to get containers. So, we are fighting against toy manufacturers, electronic manufacturers to get the containers. We have to pay a lot more for those containers,” said CEO of National Tree Company Chris Butler.

  Butler said US importers of artificial trees are paying ten times more this year than last year in freight costs. “Because of that, we are having to pass on some of those price increases to the consumer,” he said.

  Consumers could expect to pay a 25% premium for artificial trees versus last year due to snarled supply chains, soaring freight costs, and rising labor costs. Some retail stores and or e-commerce websites might not have adequate supplies due to shipping woes which could drive prices even higher. 

  A shortage of artificial trees could push more consumers than, on average, to purchase real trees. Many will find out there’s also a shortage of real trees. 

  The Pacific Northwest accounts for a quarter of the national tree supply, and the region’s stock is down 10% due to this past summer’s wicked heat and drought. On top of that, a 2012 drought fried many seedlings, which also have limited supplies. On average, Christmas trees grow one foot per year. Hence, Christmas trees don’t grow overnight. 

  Then there are the soaring labor and freight costs that could push real tree prices to record highs this year. In 2019, we noted real tree prices hit a record high and could surpass $100 or more this year. 

  Search trends on Google already show “Christmas tree shortage” is soaring to multi-year highs. 

  

  Please don’t wait until the very last minute, or perhaps save your money and find a much cheaper substitute tree than buy into the hype. An artificial palm tree with lights works just fine. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 20:15

• The Rise And Fall Of Aljazeera
  The Rise And Fall Of Aljazeera

  Authored by As’ad AbuKhalil via Consortium News,

  The launch of the Aljazeera television network 25 years ago this month in 1996 was a monumental event in the contemporary history of Arab media. One can easily compare it to the rise of Voice of the Arabs, the Egyptian radio broadcast founded by Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt in 1953.

  Voice of the Arabs was available on shortwave radio throughout the Arab world, spreading Nasser’s message. No book on that era is complete without a reference to that radio service. It had a tremendous impact on the formation of Arab public opinion for decades until its demise after 1967, when Egyptian media was caught lying to the Arab people about the reality of defeat during the early days of the Arab-Israeli war. The radio station that articulated the hopes of the Arab nation suddenly stood as a symbol of its incompetence and deception. No media replaced the Voice of the Arabs at the pan-Arab level until the rise of Aljazeera in 1996. Similarity between the two services ends there.

  

  Aljazeera came into existence at a time of regional political instability in the Arabian peninsula. The then emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, came to power in 1995, having overthrown his father. That family coup so disturbed the Saudi royal family that they tried to overthrow al-Thani a year later. Riyadh felt that any deviation from the established line of succession would amount to a betrayal of centuries-old traditions that have been key to stable political succession.

  (Of course, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman has violated those norms and the lines of succession to make himself the sole successor to his father, King Salman).

  Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani blamed Saudi Arabia for the 1996 counter-coup attempt and began to chart new foreign and defense policies that were directed at the Saudi threat (he justified his invitation to host U.S. troops as a protection against his powerful neighbor).

  Aljazeera, which is owned by the Qatari government, was launched with a wide parameter of expression not seen in Arab media before. To be sure, there were red lines: not much was said about oil and gas policies, nor about the monopolies of royal families and the internal politics of Qatar.

  As a guest on Aljazeera many times I can attest that the network does not accommodate views that are critical of the Qatari royal family. (My last appearance a decade ago was after I challenged the network on live TV about its preferential treatment of American officials and its attempt to suppress criticisms of Qatari foreign policy.)

  No Competitors

  Aljazeera was a huge success and it had no competitors at the time. There was the Saudi-owned media empire, MBC, which was started in London in 1991 by a brother-in-law of King Fahd as the first Arab satellite channel. It was aimed at drawing Arab audiences with silly entertainment and sports shows and with less emphasis on politics: whatever news that was allowed was strictly within the parameters of Saudi foreign policy.

  Even TV serials on MBC carry blatant political agendas: either an anti-Shiite message (Al-Faruq, on caliph `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, for example) or a blatant Zionist message in the serial Um Harun, for example. The latter was the first TV entertainment show to disseminate the Zionist agenda into Arab homes.

  Aljazeera gave Arab audiences what they had been waiting for for decades: an Arabic chat and news political channel. A debate show, which brought two opposite political views (Al-Ittijah Al-Mu’akis), was an instant hit. The show was 90-minutes long (Arab audiences don’t suffer from American short attention spans). The presenters became instant celebrities.

  Most Arab homes were tuned in to Aljazeera especially when there was a breaking story; the only alternatives to Aljazeera were regime-owned TV stations that were dogmatically propagandistic. It is not that Aljazeera was not serving a propaganda interest of the Qatari regime; but it also provided a wide margin of expression never seen before by Arab audiences.

  There was much emphasis in those early years on Saudi Arabia and the channel highlighted human rights abuses there. Not all countries were treated equally, as allies of Qatar received better coverage. But the early managers and editors of the network were secular Arab nationalists and that appealed to many Arabs throughout the world. Even Arab-Americans subscribed to the Dish Network in order to receive Aljazeera broadcasts.

  My first appearance on the network in 2001 was to speak about Saudi Arabia. The channel mixed political talk shows and very serious round-ups of news. Experienced and talented correspondents were hired and offices were established around the world. The Arab media scene had never experienced something similar, and themes about Arab unity and nationalism galvanized the audience.

  But many Arabs had complaints about the coverage:

  • the network hosted a weekly religious show with Yusuf Qardawi, a former Muslim Brotherhood preacher with very conservative views. His version of Islam was appealing to conservative Arab regimes who opposed Nasser—the man who successfully marginalized the Muslim Brotherhood around the Arab world;
  • the network was the first to host Israeli guests; officials of the Israeli government and military were regulars on political shows (they did receive tough treatment—unlike on Western shows—but the precedent was appalling to many Arabs whose sensibilities were offended in the extreme);
  • the network was increasingly getting defensive about the U.S. government and it gave ample platforms for U.S. officials to spew their propaganda. But the network’s championing of the Palestinian cause and its critical coverage of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 pleased Arab audiences (although the U.S. military responded by simply bombing Aljazeera’s office in Baghdad, which killed their chief correspondent).

  

  The U.S. government and Arab regimes became alarmed over the increasingly important role of Aljazeera. Offices were banned, but the channel’s broadcasts were hard to censor. Saudi Arabia was most concerned because Saudi dissidents (like Sa`d Al-Faqih) would appear on the channel and call for protests on certain days (surprisingly, there were people who responded to such calls under the repressive regime).

  The U.S. (in Congress and the media) became more vocal in their attacks on Aljazeera with journalists and politicians calling for its ban from US cable carriers (the U.S. government routinely bans “undesirable” channels from the U.S. without much opposition from U.S. media).

  Saudis Respond

  The Saudi government quickly scrambled to produce its own political propaganda news channel and in March 2003 – just in time to provide favorable coverage of the U.S. invasion of Iraq — Al-Arabiya TV channel was launched to serve Saudi and U.S. interests. The network had a much narrower margin of coverage and only hosted opposition figures form countries that were not aligned with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

  Aljazeera remained the leading channel although Al-Arabiya gained ground. The U.S. government was very pleased with the new Saudi channel and senior U.S. officials (including president George W. Bush) were made available for interviews, while many U.S. officials boycotted Aljazeera outright.

  It was in 2011 that the story of the decline of Aljazeera began. Prior to that in 2008, the Qatari and Saudi governments reconciled and that resulted in much tamer coverage of Saudi Arabia by the network. The Saudi government requested that Saudi opposition figures not be allowed on the network (The Emir of Qatar in 2010 informed me that the Saudi king asked him to ban me from the network).

  But the biggest change in the network’s coverage occurred in 2011, when the channel fell under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood and their affiliates. All secular Arab nationalists were pushed out of the station and new religious-oriented staff was brought in. With the beginning of the Arab uprising that year the network dropped all professional pretenses and adopted a more overtly propaganda line in calling for the overthrow of governments where change was favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood (such as in Egypt and Tunisia).

  The channel passionately urged the toppling of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, but refrained from advocating the overthrow of the King of Bahrain next door. If anything, the network supported the Saudi invasion of Bahrain to crush its rebellion.

  

  Reasons for Decline

  It was around that time that Arabs started to abandon the channel in droves.

  There are no reliable figures to document the decline of Aljazeera and the channel still claims to have a leading position among Arab media. But many factors have brought about the decline of Aljazeera:

  • the control by the Muslim Brotherhood of the network drastically undermined its professionalism;
  • U.S. pressure on Qatar softened the coverage of the U.S. The director-general of Aljazeera told me how the U.S. embassy in Doha submitted regular critical reports about the coverage of Aljazeera demanding that changes be made. In 2009, Haim Saban, the Israeli-American media mogul, tried to purchase the channel.
  • the use of Aljazeera either to first offend and then appease Saudi Arabia turned the network away from journalism and towards propaganda.
  • the rise of local channels in Arab countries damaged the ratings of all pan-Arab channels, like Al-Arabiya, Aljazeera and MBC.
  • the resort to sectarian agitation by some personalities on Aljazeera, and the pro-Taliban, pro-al-Qa’ida sympathies of some Aljazeera correspondents (like Ahmad Zaidan), hurt the image of the network with the larger Arab audience and narrowed the appeal and audience share of the channel.

  Aljazeera was one of the most interesting cases of a new Arab media in the 21^st century; it promised a break from traditional stale and rigid Arab news broadcasts but eventually failed in its mission. The early years of the network showed more professionalism in news than is seen on U.S. TV networks.

  But the Qatari government’s control of the channel would inevitably cause a conflict between its professional mission and its propaganda role. Propaganda won and the Arab public is the worse for it.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 19:45

• Philadelphia Ties Its All Time Homicide Record After Murder In Broad Daylight This Week
  Philadelphia Ties Its All Time Homicide Record After Murder In Broad Daylight This Week

  U.S. cities continued their slow transformation into complete hellscapes at the hands of liberal politicians this week when Philadelphia officially tied its all time record for annual homicides – after a woman was shot this week in broad daylight.

  The murder occurred at 7th and Jackson streets in South Philadelphia at 4:30pm on Wednesday. With more than a month to go in the year, Philadelphia’s homicide total is now even with the record it set in 1990 amidst a massive crack cocaine epidemic in the city, Philly Voice reported.

  

  The victim was a 55 year old woman who was shot three times in the chest before being transported to Jefferson Hospital, where she later died. 

  While Philadelphia Police are “currently investigating”, they have made no arrests. Investigators believe that the victim’s husband could be the suspect, and that the incident stemmed from a domestic dispute, the report says. 

  The man “casually walk[ed]” away from the crime scene, surveillance video showed. 

  “It’s a number, however, we can’t simply say because it’s the 500th, it’s any more special than any of the 499 that preceded it.” The city reached 500 homicides this afternoon. Police say video shows gunman casually walking away after killing his wife. @NBCPhiladelphia at 11pm pic.twitter.com/m9BlkHJIPc

  — Aaron Baskerville (@ABaskerville10) November 25, 2021

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

  Mayor Jim Kenney spoke out about gun violence the day before, stating: “We continue to act with urgency to reduce violence and save lives.” 

  Kenney has been pushing for state lawmakers to pass more gun laws and allow him more power to introduce new gun laws in Philadelphia. 

  Philadelphia Police Department Commissioner Danielle Outlaw commented: “We remain committed to proactively patrolling neighborhoods and encourage community members to continue to work alongside the police.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 19:15

• FBI And Other Agencies Paid Informants $548 Million In Recent Years With Many Committing Authorized Crimes
  FBI And Other Agencies Paid Informants $548 Million In Recent Years With Many Committing Authorized Crimes

  By Adam Andrzejewski, CEO/Founder of OpenTheBooks.com; originally posted in Forbes

  Federal agencies paid out at least $548 million to informants working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), in recent years, according to government audits.

  

  Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com compiled this information by reviewing federal reports. While some of the data is several-years old; it’s apparently the most recent available.

  The FBI spent an average of $42 million a year on confidential human sources between fiscal years 2012 and 2018. “Long term” informants comprised 20 percent of its intelligence relationships (source: DOJ IG 2019 report).

  The ATF employed 1,855 informants who were paid $4.3 million annually (FY2012-2015). Therefore, on average, each informant made $2,318 for the year. (source: DOJ IG report 2017).

  “One federal agency, the DEA, had over 18,000 active confidential sources assigned to its domestic offices, with over 9,000 of those sources receiving approximately $237 million in payments for information or services they provided to the DEA” (between Oct. 1, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2015, source: 2016 DOJ IG report).

  High-earning informants included an “airline employee who received more than $600,000 in less than four-years, and a parcel employee who received over $1 million in five-years.” The Inspector General at Justice who scrutinized DEA informants reported the findings.

  “During this audit, we found that, between FYs 2011 and 2015, the DEA actually used at least 33 Amtrak employees and eight TSA employees as sources, paying the Amtrak employees over $1.5 million and the TSA employees over $94,000.”

  One Amtrak employee was paid $962,615 between 2010 and 2015 to be a confidential source, which the IG called “a substantial waste of government funds.” The information provided “could have been obtained by DEA at no cost through a joint task force with the Amtrak Police.”

  While certain informants were becoming federally-minted millionaires, the  average DEA informant made much less – approximately $26,333 over a recent five-year period.

  And it appears there may be corruption, in addition to crime, in the system. In 2017, during a Congressional Oversight Committee hearing on confidential informants, then-Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) noted:

  “a court released the testimony of one confidential informant in Atlanta who received $212,000 from the DEA from 2011 to 2013. She testified she wasn’t sure why she was paid. That was her testimony. She also testified to a sexual relationship with the DEA group supervisor, who allegedly convinced the subordinates to falsify reports to justify the payments. That case is currently under review by the inspector general.”

  Authorizing “Crimes” by Informants— The DOJ Guidelines

  Federal informants often commit crimes, and often do it with the permission of their federal handlers, according to a 2015 audit by the General Accountability Office (GAO). In fact, the GAO reports:

   “Since 1980, the Guidelines have permitted agencies to authorize informants to engage in activities that would otherwise constitute crimes under federal, state, or local law if someone without such authorization engaged in these same activities. For example, in the appropriate circumstance, an agency could authorize an informant to purchase illegal drugs from someone who is the target of a drug-trafficking investigation. Such conduct is termed “otherwise illegal activity.”

  “The Guidelines include certain requirements when authorizing otherwise illegal activity and restrictions on the types of activities an agency can authorize. In particular, the Guidelines prohibit agencies from authorizing an informant to participate in an act of violence, obstruction of justice, and other enumerated unlawful activities.”

  According to Freedom of Information Act documents obtained by the Daily Dot, “In total, records obtained by reporters confirm the FBI authorized at least 22,823 crimes between 2011 and 2014.”

  Here are two examples of where the FBI has employed confidential human sources in controversial roles:

  Governor Whitmer Kidnapping Plot Case Clouded by Informants’ Roles

  In court proceedings, the feds have shared the identification numbers of 12 confidential informants involved in Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s kidnapping plot, but refused to provide recruitments methods, payments, locations, and names for all but one.

  In October 2020, Justice announced the arrest of six men who were said to be conspiring over a six-month period to kidnap Governor Whitmer. Eight others were charged under Michigan’s anti-terrorism statutes for providing material support to the plotters.

  However, as BuzzFeed News reported,

  “some of those informants, acting under the direction of the FBI, played a far larger role than has previously been reported. Working in secret, they did more than just passively observe and report on the actions of the suspects. Instead, they had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception. The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them.”

  In September, a federal judge delayed the case of the five defendants who have pled not-guilty, after their defense lawyers asked for more time to investigate the informant aspect of the case.

  January 6^th Capitol Riot Had At Least Two Embedded FBI Informants

  In September, the New York Times reported a bit of a bombshell: at least two informants embedded with the U.S. Capitol crowd were in close contact with their FBI handlers on January 6th.

  As reporter Julie Kelly at American Greatness details it, an “informant, according to ‘confidential documents’ furnished to the paper, started working with the FBI in July 2020 and was in close contact with his FBI handler before, during, and after the Capitol protest.”

  In recent Congressional testimony, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) played a video montage of a man encouraging election protestors to go into the Capitol on January 6th. Rep. Massie asked Attorney General Merrick Garland if the man was an FBI agent-provocateur.

  Garland refused to comment on an ongoing investigation. Many suspect the man was working with federal authorities before, during, and after the events of January 6^th at the U.S. Capitol Building. He, apparently, has not been arrested or charged.

  Further Reading

  • “Redacted for Public Use” “Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Management of its Confidential Human Source Validation Processes, November 2019, Department of Justice.
  • “Audit of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Management and Oversight of Confidential Informants,” DOJ IG, March 2017.
  • “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS Updates to Policy and Additional Guidance Would Improve Oversight by DOJ and DHS Agencies,” GAO, September 2015.
  • “Informing on Law Enforcement Agencies and Their Confidential Informants,” GAO WatchBlog, September 22, 2015,
  •  “Audit of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Management and Oversight of its Confidential Source Program,” DOJ IG, September 2016.
  • “Confidential Informants: Status of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s Efforts to Address a GAO Recommendation,” November 30, 2016, GAO.
  • “Use of Confidential Informants at ATF and DEA,” April 4, 2017, Hearing House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, GovInfo.
  • FBI budget,
  • “The FBI Allegedly Used At Least 12 Informants In The Michigan Kidnapping Case,” BuzzFeed News, July 12, 2021.
  • “Unreleased September 2015 document, Detailed rules for how the FBI handles informants,” The Intercept, January 31, 2017.
  • The Intercept’s FBI reports.
  • The Marshall Project, Informants: a Curated Collection of Links.
  • “Where Are the Neon-Hatted Proud Boys? American Greatness, Julie Kelly, November 8, 2021,
  • “Times Reveals FBI Role in January 6: One thing is certain; the Times’ damage-control article is just the tip of the FBI iceberg. And more proof January 6 was an inside job,” American Greatness, Julie Kelly, September 25, 2021.
  •  “FBI authorized informants to break the law 22,800 times in 4 years,” Daily Dot, August 23, 2016, Updated May 26, 2021

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 18:45

• Fauci: Omicron Probably Already In The US
  Fauci: Omicron Probably Already In The US

  Earlier today, Candace Owens asked a rhetorical question:

  “Experts” told you if you complied with lockdowns, censorship, masks and vaccinations—life would return to normal.
  “Conspiracy theorists” told you Covid was never going to end, and governments would use it to usher in a totalitarian new world order.

  Who do you believe now?

  — Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) November 27, 2021

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

  Perhaps to help anyone still on the fence with the answer, this morning Anthony Fauci, who somehow is still Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser despite having been documented funding gain of function viral research in the Wuhan Institute of Technology, the origin of the global covid pandemic, said that the world’s latest bogeyman, the omicron variant – which also moonlights as an anagram for “moronic” – may well already have arrived in the U.S.

  “I would not be surprised if it is,” Fauci said on NBC’s “Weekend Today” on Saturday. “We have not detected yet,” but when a virus shows “this degree of transmissibility” it “almost invariably ultimately is going to go essentially all over,” he said confirming yet again that there is a vast difference between the fact-based “scientific method”, which operates on actual, falsifiable hypotheses, and fact-free “scientific propaganda” whose only purpose is to facilitate an emotionally charged and unprovable political agenda, in this case the spread of “grassroots” panic – due to a variant which may or may not be worse, but let’s just only hammer the possibility that it is much, much worse to freak out the population – so when the time comes for more trillions in vote-buying (and inflation spiking) stimmies, the Biden admin will find little resistance.

  Dr. Fauci reacts to new COVID variant omicron pic.twitter.com/kLCiyDZV4K

  — Deleuze (@Kukicat7) November 27, 2021

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

  Fauci also said that travel restrictions imposed by Biden on South Africa and seven other countries in the region are a way to buy time for the U.S. to prepare defenses against the variant and shouldn’t lead to panic, which of course is hilarious in light of the full-court media press meant to do just one thing: lead to panic.

  “It seems to have spread rather rapidly in South Africa,” he said. “Its ability to infect people who have recovered from infection and even people who have been vaccinated makes us say this is something you have to pay really close attention to and be prepared for something that’s serious.”

  Questions about the omicron variant include whether it causes disease that’s more serious than infections with the earlier delta variant, he said. While It’s “conceivable” that the latest variant may diminish vaccine protection against Covid-19, existing vaccination may be able to contain it, Fauci said realizing that if he pressed the opposite, what little credibility he has left would vaporize.

  Meanwhile, South Africa’s medical chief Dr. Angelique Coetzee described the panic tidal wave spreading across western “democracies” as a “storm in a teacup,” adding that she had only seen “very very mild cases” of the variant so far. Then again, what actual scientists think is irrelevant when the propaganda Science^TM is in charge.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 18:15

• Hillary Bemoans Lack Of Media "Gatekeepers" And Spread Of "Disinformation"
  Hillary Bemoans Lack Of Media “Gatekeepers” And Spread Of “Disinformation”

  Authored by Thomas Lifson via AmericanThinker.com,

  Hillary Clinton is emerging from the shadows and pimping censorship as the solution to the Democrats’ ills.

  All this is taking place just as talk builds of Kamala Harris’s disastrous performance as veep and the Democrats’ terrible presidential electoral prospects in 2024.  Hillary’s never conceded the 2016 election, and the lust for power she’s exhibited in the past appears unabated. Something is going on that brings her back to the public spotlight.

  

  She appeared with Rachel Maddow the past week and managed to compliment Joe Biden and push for censorship.

  In the following four-and-a-half-minute segment, she even turned a complaint from Maddow about YouTube censoring videos in Russia at the behest of the political authorities there into a what sounds like a plea for such censorship here, in the guise of fighting “disinformation” that has prevented Joe Biden from getting all the credit he deserves.

  Seriously: she actually said that.

  …because of the way we are getting our information today, and because of the lack of gatekeepers and people who have a historic perspective who can help us understand what we are seeing, there is a real vulnerability in the electorate to the kind of demagoguery and disinformation that, unfortunately, the other side is really good at exploiting…

   

  Hat tip: Reclaimthenet

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 17:45

• Flash Mob Looting "Will Continue" Across Country: Former Police Commissioner
  Flash Mob Looting “Will Continue” Across Country: Former Police Commissioner

  Flash mob looting is now a ‘thing’ in major US cities. First it was San Francisco Louis Vuitton, Burberry and Yves Saint Laurent stores. Then it was a Walnut Creek Nordstrom – followed by a Canoga Park Nordstrom in Southern California.

  

  According to former Philadelphia police commissioner Charles Ramsey, large groups of people storming high-end retail stores is ‘here to stay’ and is going to get worse.

  “This is something now that I really unfortunately think is going to spread,” Ramsay told CNN in a Thursday interview, adding: “Right now it’s in California, but it will spread, there’s no question about it.”

  The former official said he saw a similar pattern in Philadelphia a few years ago when groups of up to 20 teenagers and young adults would run into department stores and grab as many items as the could. For reference, a group of around 80 people ransacked the Walnut Creek Nordstrom.

  “It was really, really difficult to get a handle on it,” said Ramsay. “What we found was, one, it was being organized through social media. So one of the things we started doing is paying close attention to social media.”

  Ramsay pointed to lax punishment as one cause – saying it’s “very, very minamal,” and “In most cases, it’s a misdemeanor. Some [district attorneys] flat out said they will no longer prosecute shoplifting.”

  “This is not shoplifting, this is something far worse than shoplifting.“

  Watch:

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 17:15

• Goldman Slams Omicron Panic: "This Mutation Is Unlikely To Be More Malicious; No Reason For Portfolio Changes"
  Goldman Slams Omicron Panic: “This Mutation Is Unlikely To Be More Malicious; No Reason For Portfolio Changes”

  One look at the ridiculous plunge across asset markets on Friday, which sent oil into one of its biggest tailspins in history (which as Goldman calculated would only make sense if the Omicron lockdowns are twice as bad as anything observed so far), and one would think that the Omicron variant – which as Edward Snowden so aptly put it “sounds like the name of an 80s movie’s evil Robot King” (of course, the WHO had no choice but to skip the Xi variant, located right before Omicron in the Greek alphabet for obvious propaganda reasons) – is several times more aggressive and far more deadly than the Delta or any other Covid variant to date. Neither is the case, and in fact, as even Tom Peacock, one of the original Imperial College narrative-setters admitted, “it may turn out to be an odd cluster that is not very transmissable.”

  Alas, that would not help politicians who kill a lot of birds with just one brand new and “horrifying” variant, including getting a carte blanche for trillions in new vote-buying stimmies, enforcing even more ruthless and authoritarian government restrictions a dream come true for all liberal fans of big government, and most importantly forcing another round of mail-in ballot elections one year from today. 

  And yet, perhaps the pandemic apocalypse is not just around the corner. On one hand, Angelique Coetzee, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association said today that “the new Omicron variant of the Coronavirus results in MILD disease, WITHOUT prominent symptoms.” On the other, none other than the most important bank on Wall Street – Goldman “Vampire Squid” Sachs – which sets the narrative that all other banks dutifully follow, has decided that it’s not worth starting a panic crash over this mutation and in a note published late on Friday writes that “this mutation is unlikely to be more malicious and that the existing vaccines will most likely continue to be effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths” and as a result, while Goldman “would monitor the situation in Gauteng closely over the next month, we do not think that the new variant is sufficient reason to make major portfolio changes.“

  Translation: brace for a face-ripping rally come Monday when carbon-based traders finally take over from the idiot algos.

  Below are more details from Goldman’s London trader Borislav Vladimirov who penned his “Initial thoughts on risks from the B.1.1.529 variant and market implications.”

  Main points

  • While we do not have sufficient information to forecast a global B.1.1.529 wave, a high rate of transmission almost inevitably leads to a variant’s dominance.
  • Nevertheless, the South Africa NICD (link to their Q&A here) note that this mutation is unlikely to be more malicious and that the existing vaccines will most likely continue to be effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths. The current PCR and antigen tests are expected to continue to identify the mutation.
  • As such, while we would monitor the situation in Gauteng closely over the next month, we do not think that the new variant is sufficient reason to make major portfolio changes.
  • Having said that, given the time of the year and liquidity as well as policy risks in December, investors could consider short term hedges for growth sensitive risky assets.

  We would start from what we know:

  • The variant has a large number of mutations
  • It has the P681 H spike protein mutation associated with the higher transmissibility of Delta
  • Currently no unusual symptoms have been reported following infection with the B.1.1.529 variant and as with other variants some individuals are asymptomatic.
  • It is easy to identify and hence monitor – The B.1.1.529 lineage has a deletion (△69-70) within the S gene that allowed for rapid identification of this variant in South Africa and will enable continued monitoring of this lineage irrespective of available sequence data.
  • Most likely current PCR and Antigen test will continue to identify it well.

  Potentially high transmissibility has triggered market concern:

  • It is gaining pace rapidly sequencing  90% of new cases just 2 weeks since emergence. For comparison the Delta needed 3 months to reach that intensity. This is the most concerning data point that has attracted market attention.

  

  • One caveat is that the fast acceleration data could be skewed by location. The virus is spreading in Gauteng which is the largest and most densely populated province of SA. (15.2mio people with population density that is 17.3x higher than the country average)
  • The level of restrictions in SA at the moment (measured by the government stringency index) is low (relative to Israel or Austria for example, see chart below). This can be helping faster spread that isn’t necessarily driven exclusively by the virus characteristics

  

  • Cases of B.1.1.529 have been identified in Botswana, Israel and Hong Kong. If the variant is highly transmissible, it is most likely that it will eventually spread despite travel restrictions.

  What we still do not know…

  • We have no information on the variant’s impact on hospitalizations and mortality. A careful monitoring of the Gauteng data over the next two weeks is essential.
  • There are reports that two of the cases were fully vaccinated. This is a very small sample to make any conclusions and we do not know for how long the patients were vaccinated. What we know from Delta is that antibody levels wear off between 6 and 9 months after the second vaccine and that while the vaccines are less effective in preventing infection, they are still highly effective in preventing hospitalization and death. For the time being there is no reason to believe that this variant will be different in that respect.
  • Will the Pfizer pill be effective against the new mutation?
  • Is the European wave driven by the new variant?
  • While the new variant could be present in Europe, the rapid rise in cases is driven by the Delta variant (see information below)
  • The European data comes with about a month delay from sequencing time so we should know more by the third week of December (unless the process accelerates due to the attention on the new variant)
  • Efforts to limit the current Delta wave in a number of European countries could help preventing the spread of B.1.1.529, if already present.

  Is the above a reason to be concerned?

  • A very broad press focus in the past 24h has received high market attention.
  • It will take weeks before we get additional official information and scientific evidence about the potential risks.
  • This comes at a time when investors have been surprised by some of the lockdown measures announced in Europe
  • And also when real growth is likely to fall meaningfully on higher inflation (even though nominal growth is likely to stay well above average)
  • At this time of the year positions in risky assets, especially after strong YTD gains, could be vulnerable to short term corrections (ie 2018 template)
  • Travel restrictions will delay the process of logistics network normalization which would imply that the supply capacity constraints easing anticipated for H2-2022 might take longer to materialize.
  • Meanwhile, monetary policy has recently shifted gears to signal faster removal of accommodation which could add to a short-term risk aversion into the December FOMC.  

  Conclusion: while we do not have sufficient information to forecast a global B.1.1.529 wave, a high rate of transmission almost inevitably leads to a variant dominance. Nevertheless, we can have reasonable degree of confidence that this mutation is unlikely to be more malicious and that the existing vaccines will most likely continue to be effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths. As such, while we would monitor the situation in Gauteng closely over the next month, we do not think that the new variant is sufficient reason to make major portfolio changes. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 16:59

• Mexican Authorities List Conditions To Reboot "Remain In Mexico" Program
  Mexican Authorities List Conditions To Reboot “Remain In Mexico” Program

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

  Mexican authorities have laid out a series of conditions for reviving the “Remain in Mexico” program, the Trump-era framework under which asylum-seekers were returned to Mexico to await the processing of their claims, with the development coming in context of the Biden administration’s plans to reinstate the policy following a court order.

  

  Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said in a Nov. 26 announcement that talks have “intensified” with the United States on rebooting the program, known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), but that Mexican authorities are waiting for a formal response from the Biden administration on a number of concerns.

  “The government of Mexico … has raised various concerns of a humanitarian nature regarding the asylum procedure in the United States,” the ministry said, adding that it has “highlighted the need to improve conditions for migrants and asylum seekers, so that they have better legal advice” regarding the processing of their clams, which Mexico said, “must be carried out as expeditiously as possible.”

  One of the conditions is for the United States to accelerate development programs for southern Mexico and Central America in order to address the root causes of migration.

  Another is for Washington to offer individuals deported under the MPP program medical care and vaccination against COVID-19 “to protect their right to health and prevent the spread of COVID-19 in communities on both sides of the border.”

  Mexico has also requested that the United States respect designated return points, taking into account local security conditions and the capacity of Mexican authorities “to provide adequate care to migrants.”

  Another “essential” request is for Washington to provide funding for shelters and non-government organizations “in order to improve conditions for migrants and asylum seekers in a substantive way.”

  The demands come as talks between the two countries continue on reimplementing the MPP program after a court in August ordered that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reverse its June decision to halt the policy.

  “In compliance with the court order, we are working to reimplement MPP as promptly as possible,” DHS spokesperson Marsha Espinosa told Axios.

  ”We cannot do so until we have the independent agreement from the Government of Mexico to accept those we seek to enroll in MPP,” Espinosa added.

  “We will communicate to the court, and to the public, the timing of reimplementation when we are prepared to do so.”

  The Biden administration is facing an unprecedented surge in illegal immigration that critics say is fostered by its lax enforcement policies, including halting MPP and curtailing the use of Title 42, which is used to expel illegal immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 16:45

• "You Should Absolutely Not Buy One": CNet Thrashes Tesla's Model Y In Scathing Review
  “You Should Absolutely Not Buy One”: CNet Thrashes Tesla’s Model Y In Scathing Review

  The rave reviews for Tesla’s Model Y keep coming in…

  Call the vehicle “critically flawed”, CNet has joined Consumer Reports in publicly thrashing Tesla in a review of the company’s Model Y.

  Reviewer Tim Stevens, who is likely to become Elon Musk’s next target on social media, penned the scathing review late last week. He reviewed a Model Y about three months after CNet purchased one. 

  The car got a 6.7 out of ten in a review that Stevens admits up front will “not be good.”

  “You should absolutely not buy one,” he starts off by saying.

  He takes exception with the car’s sole visual panel, stating: “…looking at the Autopilot status and navigation prompts means having to gaze well down toward the bottom of that display. That means taking your eyes a long way from the road. A simple gauge cluster or heads-up display would solve the issue, but none are available, a curious omission on a car costing this much.”

  He then critiques the white interior, which he says after three months is “picking up a distinct blue hue from denim, while the rear seat is absorbing black dye from the seat cover I was using to protect the upholstery from my dog”.

  

  The fabric feels “rubbery at best,” he writes.

  Stevens then takes massive exception with the car’s autonomous features:

  “I can’t conclusively say that it’s because of the missing radar, but I can say that our Model Y is bad at detecting obstructions ahead. Really, really bad. The big issue is false positives, a problem that has become known as “phantom braking” among Tesla owners. Basically, the car often gets confused and thinks there’s an obstacle ahead and engages the automatic emergency braking system. You get an instant, unwanted and often strong application of the brakes. This is not a problem unique to Teslas. I’ve experienced it on other cars, but very, very rarely. On our Model Y this happens constantly, at least once an hour and sometimes much more often than that. In a single hour of driving I caught five phantom braking incidents on camera, two hard enough to sound the automatic emergency braking chime. 

  This is a massive problem. It happens on both the highway and on secondary roads, any time the cruise control is engaged even without Autosteer. It means the car’s cruise control is patently unsafe, which means the entirety of Autopilot is unsafe. And that means the car itself is unsafe.”

  In addition to phantom braking, Stevens complaints that water accumulates in the Model Y trunk and that the tail lights start fogging. 

  He says the Model Y simply “isn’t that wonderful”, adding that the phantom braking issue is a “complete deal-breaker.”

  “I must recommend against the Model Y,” he concludes. “Spend your money elsewhere.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 16:15

• PM Johnson Unveils Measures To Fight Omicron COVID Variant In 76% Vaxx'd UK
  PM Johnson Unveils Measures To Fight Omicron COVID Variant In 76% Vaxx’d UK

  Update (1420ET): British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced Saturday a series of “temporary and precautionary” health measures to contain the spread of the Omicron coronavirus variant. 

  Speaking at a press conference, Johnson told reporters anyone entering the UK would have to receive a negative PCR test. 

  WATCH LIVE: COVID-19 press conference (27 November 2021)

  Speakers:

  🔵 Prime Minister @BorisJohnson

  🔵 Sir Patrick Vallance, @UKScienceChief

  🔵 Prof Chris Whitty, @CMO_England https://t.co/j29bqPuHPs

  — UK Prime Minister (@10DowningStreet) November 27, 2021

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

  He said regardless of vaccination status, anyone suspected of Omicron must isolate for ten days. Face masks will be mandatory in shops and on public transportation but not in restaurants. At the moment, 76% of the population is vaccinated. 

  

  The new measures come as all flights from a growing list of countries in Africa, including South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Eswatini, Zimbabwe and Namibia (soon to include Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Angola), have been suspended to prevent further spreading of the virus.

  Johnson described the measures as “temporary and precautionary” that will allow health experts to assess the situation. 

  The prime minister said: “Our scientists are learning more hour by hour, and it does appear that Omicron spreads very rapidly, and can be spread between people who are double vaccinated.” 

  “There is also a very extensive mutation which means it diverges quite significantly from previous configurations of the virus, and as result, it might — at least in part — reduce the protection of our vaccines over time,” he said.

  Johnson said the policies would be re-evaluated in three weeks just before Christmas. 

  Two cases of Omicron have already been confirmed in the UK. Cases are spreading in Europe. One of the most serious is in the Netherlands, where 61 people tested positive for COVID-19 after arriving on two flights from South Africa on Friday. 

  * * * 

  Two infections with the new Omicron variant (also known as B.1.1.529 COVID-19 variant) have been detected in the U.K., according to the health secretary. 

  Health Minister Sajid Javid tweeted Saturday that the U.K. Health Security Agency has been notified about two U.K. cases of the Omicron variant. He said, “the two cases are linked and there is a connection with travel to southern Africa,” adding “these individuals are self-isolating with their households while further testing and contact tracing is underway.”

  Javid said one infection was detected in Chelmsford, Essex, and another in Nottingham. He said, “as a precaution, we are rolling out additional targeted testing in the affected areas,” calling the infiltration of the new coronavirus variant “a fast-moving situation.”

  He added, “We are taking decisive steps to protect public health.”

  The health secretary announced that four countries – Angola, Mozambique, Malawi, and Zambia – will be added to the “red list,” effective from 0400 local time Sunday. Anyone returning from these countries must isolate for ten days and receive “PCR tests.” 

  Last week, scientists first detected the new variant in Botswana and then in South Africa. It has since spread to other countries, including Israel, Hong Kong, and Belgium, prompting officials in Europe, Asia, and North America to restrict travel from Africa. 

  Citi analyst Andrew Baum spoke with Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, about the new variant, who said laboratory tests are underway and could take up two weeks to decide whether a reformulation of the COVID-19 vaccine is needed. If so, Bourla said it could take 100 days to develop a novel variant vaccine to combat Omicron. 

  Courtesy of Bloomberg’s James Ludden, here are the latest updates on the latest COVID scare:

  U.K. Reports Two Cases of Omicron Variant (9:16 a.m. N.Y.)

   The U.K. has confirmed two cases of the new Covid-19 strain omicron. “The two cases are linked and there is a connection with travel to southern Africa,” Health Minister Sajid Javid said on Twitter. The individuals and their households — one in Chelmsford and one in Nottingham — are self-isolating and contact tracing is ongoing, according to the U.K. Health Security Agency

  German Scientists Urge Immediate Restrictions (8:03 a.m. N.Y.) 

  The German National Academy of Science Leopoldina is urging the government to implement stringent contact restrictions immediately for a few weeks to combat the pandemic and address the Omicron variant. These bans must also cover vaccinated people and those who recovered from an infection. The government also must make vaccination mandatory over the coming months, the academy said in a statement on its website.

  Highly Probable Omicron Is in Germany (6:21 p.m. H.K.)

   It’s “very likely” the new coronavirus strain, omicron, has arrived in Germany, a state official said Saturday. A traveler returning from South Africa on Friday night showed several symptoms typical of the new variant, Kai Klose, minister of social affairs in the German state of Hesse, said on Twitter without providing more detail. While the virus sample hasn’t been sequenced, there’s a “high level of suspicion” that the person has the new strain, Klose said. The traveler has been isolated at home.

  Modi Wants to Review Easing of Travel Rules (6:02 p.m. H.K.) 

  Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked Indian officials to review plans for the easing of international travel restrictions after the emergence of the new omicron variant. India needs to be “proactive in light of the new variant,” Modi said during a meeting on the Covid-19 situation and the pace of vaccinations in the country. On Friday, the Press Trust of India cited the civil aviation ministry as saying scheduled international flights to and from India will resume starting Dec. 15.

   Dutch: 61 Flyers From S. Africa Test Positive (5:49 p.m. H.K.) 

  Sixty-one people arriving in the Netherlands on separate flights from South Africa tested positive for the coronavirus and were in isolation Saturday, the A.P. reported. Further tests are underway to determine if any of those who arrived at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport are infected with the new omicron variant. The planes arrived in the Netherlands on Friday shortly after the Dutch government imposed a ban on flights from some southern African nations following discovery of the new variant.

  New Zealand, Australia Tighten Borders (4:17 p.m. H.K.) 

  New Zealand joined Australia in banning entry to travelers from nine African countries in an effort to protect against the new omicron variant. The restrictions start Sunday night but don’t apply to returning citizens, Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said. New Zealanders returning from those nations are required to undergo testing and a 14-day managed isolation period, he said. Earlier, Australia said direct flights from South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho, Eswatini, the Seychelles, Malawi and Mozambique were being suspended, Health Minister Greg Hunt said. Returning citizens and their dependents who have been in any of those countries in the past 14 days must enter supervised quarantine on arrival.

  Thailand Bars Entry From Eight African Nations (2:38 p.m. H.K.) 

  Thailand will ban entry from eight southern African nations from Dec. 1, after Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-Ocha ordered agencies to step up vigilance against the new omicron variant. Arrivals from Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe will be forbidden, said Opas Karnkawinpong, director general of the Disease Control Department.

  N.Y. Governor Declares State of Emergency (8:35 a.m. H.K.) 

  New York Governor Kathy Hochul declared a state of emergency on Friday due to a rise in the state’s Covid cases and the threat of the omicron variant. She said the variant hasn’t yet been detected in New York but she decided to sign an executive order to allow the health department to limit non-essential, non-urgent procedures at hospitals and acquire critical supplies more quickly. The order takes effect Dec. 3 and will be re-assessed Jan. 15.

  CDC Concerned Vaccines May Not Work Well (5:49 a.m. H.K.)

   Based on omicron’s mutation profile, partial immune escape is likely, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control said in a threat assessment report Friday. The E.U.’s health agency is among the first official authorities to acknowledge that vaccines may not work well against the new strain. The ECDC pushed authorities to “urgently” reinforce pandemic restrictions, avoiding travel to affected areas, and the vaccination of holdouts.

  U.S., Canada Curb Travel From Southern Africa (2:05 p.m. N.Y.) 

  President Joe Biden’s administration will restrict travel from South Africa and seven other countries starting on Monday, according to senior administration officials. In addition to South Africa, they include Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Lesotho, Eswatini, Mozambique and Malawi. The policy doesn’t apply to American citizens and lawful permanent residents, though they must still test negative prior to travel to the U.S. Canada is banning the entry of foreign nationals who have traveled through southern Africa in the last 14 days.

  As anyone who works in P.R. and or marketing knows, global elites need to keep their COVID narrative fresh, relevant and scary. We urge everyone to read what we know so far about variant in Friday’s note titled “A Scared Nu World: Here’s What We Know About The COVID “Omicron” Strain.”  

  Here’s a possible guide of what could happen next:

  

  Remember, U.S.’ top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, did say months ago that the U.S. may face a “dark winter.” How long until he blames the unvaccinated? 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 15:55

• Peter Schiff: The 'Devil You Know' Is Still A Devil
  Peter Schiff: The ‘Devil You Know’ Is Still A Devil

  Via SchiffGold.com,

  On Monday, President Joe Biden reappointed Jerome Powell to head up the Federal Reserve and nominated Lael Brainard to serve as the vice-chair. In his podcast, Peter Schiff talked about Biden’s decision, the markets’ reaction and what the Fed will (or will not) do moving forward. Ultimately, Peter said the devil you know is still a devil.

  

  Peter predicted Biden would stick with Powell. He said there was no political upside for him to do otherwise.

  If something happened, something goes wrong, which something is going to go wrong most likely — so, it’s going got hit the fan — and if it hit the fan with Brainard at the helm, well, Biden would own it. People could say, ‘Oh, the reason the economy went off a cliff, the reason that inflation is running out of control, it’s all because you put Brainard in as Fed chairman.’ Whereas, if everything falls apart under Powell’s watch, well, Biden can simply say, ‘It’s not my fault. Powell was Trump’s guy. I just left him in power because he was already there and there was bipartisan support.’”

  If things go well under Powell, Biden can take credit, saying, “Hey, I renominated him.”

  Peter said the crazy thing about the announcement, which was entirely predictable, was the market reaction. In the two days after the announcement, gold sold off by over $60 dollars and fell back below $1,800 an ounce. Silver took an even bigger hit, down about $1.25. Meanwhile, there was a big rally in the dollar index and bond yields went up. Peter said it makes no sense.

  All of a sudden, Powell, the guy who’s been there the entire time, almost four years, the architect of this reckless monetary policy, zero percent interest rates, huge quantitative easing, inflation is transitory, there’s nothing to worry about — the same guy who brought us to this inflation party — we’re going out with the same guy again and everybody now is celebrating that somehow this massive dove has become a hawk. All of a sudden, everybody is excited that Powell is going to fight inflation in his second term.”

  What makes people think Powell is suddenly going to become an inflation warrior? He hasn’t fought it at all up to this point.

  He spent his first term lighting inflation fires. Why anybody believes he’s going to put out those fires in his second term is beyond me.”

  The reaction in the gold market was particularly puzzling. Just a couple of days ago, people were buying gold because they were worried about inflation. The yellow metal pushed above $1,850 after October CPI came in much hotter than expected.

  One of the main reasons to be worried about inflation was because Powell was chairing the Federal Reserve. And Powell had made clear that the Fed is doing nothing about inflation. They think it’s transitory anyway. … If you were worried about inflation and you were buying gold a couple of days ago, why are you suddenly no longer worried about inflation and dumping your gold?”

  Sure, Brainard would have likely directed a slightly looser monetary policy than Powell. But she’s not that much more dovish than Powell.

  Powell’s not a hawk. And so, simply because we didn’t replace one dove with an even bigger dove doesn’t mean the dove that’s still there is going to turn into a hawk and suddenly start fighting inflation. He’s not.”

  If anything, the makeup of the FOMC will be even more dovish now than it was before with Brainard serving as vice-chair.

  If you were worried about inflation and the current FOMC, you should be even more worried, or slightly more worried as a result of this change than you are right now. Yet the market is acting as if everything has changed and we’re going to have this tough on inflation Fed.”

  After the announcement, Biden, Powell and Brainard spoke to the press. All three talked about fighting inflation. Peter said he thinks the articulation of that commitment got everybody thinking that the central bank is now serious about the inflation problem. None of this makes sense

  Politically, they have to say they’re against inflation because inflation is all over the news. It’s what everybody is complaining about. So, even if they have no intention of doing anything about it, they have to at least create the pretense that that’s what they’re going to do. So, you wouldn’t expect anything less. But even if, as a result of this tough talk on inflation, they actually do taper a little bit quicker and raise rates a little bit sooner, who cares? Because even a quicker pace is meaningless in the face of what’s going on.”

  Even using the government numbers, inflation is running at around 7%. It would likely be double that using real numbers.

  In order to rein in this inflation in the 1970s, or by 1980, rates had to go to 20%. All we’re talking about is a couple of rate hikes. We won’t even raise rates up to 1%. So, why should this make any difference to an inflation rate this high? If you could fight inflation with 1% interest rates, well, why didn’t we do that in the 1970s? It’s because you can’t — especially when inflation is already as bad as it is right now. And by the way, it will be even worse by the middle of 2022 when they finally get around to supposedly raising interest rates — if they actually do it.”

  Meanwhile, during the taper, the Fed will still be doing quantitative easing. That, by definition, is creating even more inflation.

  You can’t put out a fire by pouring less gasoline on it. Because any gasoline you pour on the fire is going to make it bigger. That’s all the Fed is claiming it’s going to do.”

  To truly fight inflation, the Fed actually needs to tighten. It needs to shrink its balance sheet and shrink the money supply. It’s not talking about doing that.

  On top of that, Biden needs the Fed to keep inflating and monetizing the deficits in order to pay for all of his massive spending plans.

  If the Fed tapers to zero, there’s no way the private sector would finance all these deficits without the help of the Fed. I don’t know why no one has put two and two together — that what the Fed is promising is impossible.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/27/2021 – 15:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest