- London Somalis Sending Teens Back To Africa To Escape Stabbings
Hundreds of British Muslims of Somali descent are sending their teenage children back to East Africa in order to avoid injury or death via stabbing, according to the BBC.
London has experienced 51 stabbing deaths in 2019, while the UK overall has seen 100. According to the report, 8% of victims have been of Somali heritage.
Via the Daily Mail The Somali teens, meanwhile, say that they feel much safer in Africa despite the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth office advising citizens against traveling to Somalia, as well as threats of terrorism across Kenya (It probably helps if one is a practicing Muslim). Somalia was named the 13th most dangerous country in the world last year by the Foreign Office.
The BBC‘s Victoria Derbyshire interviewed one Somali mother, Amina, who told the network how her 15-year-old son was stabbed four times, just 17 days after his year-long stay in Somalia.
“They damaged his bladder, his kidneys, his liver. He’s got permanent damage,” she said, adding “He was safer there [in Somaliland] than he was here, 100 per cent more safe than in London.”
According to Islington mayor Rakhia Ismail – a Somali immigrant to London and mother of four – some areas of the city are not safe for young people. She estimates that 40% of UK Somali families are taking their children back home.
Dr Fatumo Abdi – a mother of Somali origin – said parents were struggling to know how to react to knife crime.
“This is not something they’ve encountered before. But we know living here in Britain, the context is Britain. This is a British problem and it’s a problem that we’ve fallen into.
“It’s not the answer but these are desperate parents.”
She believes poverty, inequality and exposure to violence are big factors as to why young people fall into criminality.
“Our communities are living in very poor disadvantaged areas with poor educational attainment. All these things affect how our children move through the world.” –BBC
And as the Daily Mail points out, there have been an average of two murders per day in the UK – the highest level in a decade.
Somali mentor Jamal Hassan explained to BBC that parents will do anything to protect their children.
“If it means that child doesn’t finish school, college, university or he will not have a good job by the time you come for them the future is not really important. What is important is that child’s life.”
Via the Daily Mail 21-year-old ‘Yusuf’, who grew up in London, told Hassan that he moved to Nairobi because he was seeing people getting stabbed “every other day,” adding “There are people in my neighbourhood, someone who I really knew, who lost his life.”
One mother who sent her child to Africa in a bid to avoid London’s knife crime said she can now sleep at night knowing that the police sirens she hears have nothing to do with her son.
London’s latest stabbing comes just two days after a 23-year-old was knifed multiple times in Tower Hamlets at 4.30pm in the afternoon.
He was the 50th victim so far this year – and it was the eighth murder in the capital this month as Britain struggles to get to grips with a knife epidemic. –Daily Mail
- The Welfare State Is Tearing Sweden Apart
Authored by Jon Nylander via The Mises Institute,
Swedes do not toil under a Communist yoke. We are thankfully a market oriented society, and particularly in rural areas, Swedes are ruggedly individualistic and responsible citizens. But we do have an enormous welfare state with which to contend — and it poisons our nation much in the same manner that full blown communism would; if perhaps not to the same degree. Doubtlessly; it sets the stage for some rather dystopian developments, both in terms of its steady consumption of productive capabilities — but also in its toxic effects on our culture. On top of this, Sweden has accepted a considerable amount of immigrants (to put it mildly) from cultures that differ wildly from the Swedish. In this text I will take a look at the welfare state through the prism of Sweden’s current multicultural challenge.
First and foremost, is multiculturalism a good thing? When multiculturalism emerges through voluntary interactions it is apparently valuable — otherwise it would not occur in a free society as it so often does. Again: in the marketplace there is, over time, the beautiful possibility that the identity of the tribe expands by including, assimilating and adapting to previously unknown things. Adaptation and cultural appropriation by means of voluntary associations cannot be a bad thing! But in such a situation; isn’t multiculturalism a misnomer? I would rather call it an emergent convergence towards a shared culture, in a pace that participants set. All in all: a desirable thing, especially compared to the alternatives.
Forced multiculturalism, on the other hand, increases polarisation and tribalism along the most basic, and most easily recognised dividing lines. In times of flux; easily distinguishable traits tend to become elevated and adored, uplifted to a place of high honour. They become a substitute for truly shared cultural values and norms, which under healthy circumstances are necessary for cooperation. In times of rapid and involuntary change; they become a superficial false bulwark against the unknown. Instead of engaging in market opportunities across divides, we tend to spend time fortifying our positions. Craving security, we start leaning towards the totalitarianism of simplistic purism.
Forced associations, such as outright invasion and conquest, will fuel embitterment and conflicts along cultural/ethnic lines and maybe even usher in the rebirth of old conflicts. The welfare state is another type of attack vector in the a matrix of forced associations — it merely has different particular properties. The end result is the same: people that do not wish to tango are forced to jot each other down for the next dance.
Spontaneously emergent cultural change through win-win situations on the one hand, and forced associations on the other, are two radically different ways in which societies evolve. These mechanics often overlap in history. In any given situation it may be hard to untangle which has primacy.
When a welfare state offers upkeep and support to large quantities of people from cultures that differ enormously from the predominant culture, despite the wishes of the current residents — we have a clear cut case of forced association — a powderkeg that inevitably will get packed with resentment. People who would like nothing better than for the whole thing to blow up will inevitably start to congregate, with torches at the ready. Cultural homogeneity to some degree smooths over and props up the inherent fault lines that ripple underneath any redistributive scheme, while cultural heterogeneity rapidly exposes fissures. Why is this exactly?
E Pluribus Unum
In his 2007 study “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century,” liberal Harvard sociologist Robert D. Putnam showed that there is an inescapable correlation between diversity and social distrust. He also concludes that racism seems to have very little to do with it. He shows that people living in multi-facetted communities tend to distrust their neighbors, regardless of their skin colour, and that they tend to pull back from even close friends. They expect the worst from society and its leaders. They volunteer less, give less to charity, vote less and agitate more for social reforms – but have less faith in any positive outcomes from those reforms. People living in ethnically or culturally diverse areas appear to retract, like turtles into their shells..
Putnam himself appears to be no great fan of his own findings, and his study is replete with well-tempered and stringent attempts to poke holes in his own conclusions. But no, multiculturalism seems to have an unbending negative impact on civil society.
That a Harvard Professor needs to spend years to reach such an obvious conclusion is baffling. In homogenous communities, there is more trust and more social capital. People who share language, tradition, religion, institutions and history can cooperate more easily and work through disputes without resorting to violence or furtively eyeing the categorical abilities of the state.
People who do not share language, tradition, religion, institutions and history have a harder time cooperating and finding trust. Is this not self-evident? One would have to marinate for a very long time in some potent reality denying ideological soup in order to be able to reach any other conclusion. There is no need to invoke racism as an explanation whatsoever.
In his study, Putnam also speaks warmly for the end-game: that multicultural communities can bridge fragmentation by embracing new social norms and broader identities. I can only agree. Humans have to do this, because we live in this world together. And when we do expand the notion of “us” voluntarily, over time, we tend to be relatively successful at it.
Putnam uses the examples of the early migrations into the United States. Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans for example, are no longer at each other’s throats. These groups suffered friction between themselves, and towards the ruling WASP-culture despite sharing skin colour and most religious sentiments. Putnam puts forward the notion that if groups can bridge their differences, the self evident good of diversity will start to shine. I am unconvinced. Again yes; humanity has bridged cultural and ethnic divides many times in history, and this is certainly better than outright conflict — but is “diversity” really a self evident good in of itself? How so?
The progressive penchant for the inherent strength of diversity is entirely unconvincing. What does a slogan such as “diversity is strength” mean exactly? Is it any truer than “unity is strength”? These two statements look roughly the same to me in some fundamental way: they are equally scary. Neither “diversity” nor “unity” can be strengths in any universally true way, any such conclusion would have to depend on the component parts of any given situation. It would also depend on how you define strength, and diversity, and unity. Clear definitions are paramount when trying to reach truth.
Would it not be preferable to aim for a culture which is capable of discriminating against bad ideas, and open to adapting to good ideas — as negotiated through free speech and voluntary association? Would not such a culture be desirable to build and maintain? A culture which is capable of change towards the better, sometimes due to contact with other cultures, would indeed be strong.
Diversity zealots however seem to believe that all it takes in order to reach the utopia of good intentions is to cram all manner of people together on a rainbow road of love and (severely bounded) tolerance. Together (and with implicit bias training) we shall prevail against the hate! This is nuts.
In contemporary discourse, the US and especially New York are put forward as successful cultural and ethnic melting pots. There is a lot to that sentiment which is perfectly true. But to the degree that New York has been successful, it has not been thanks to simply mashing people together willy-nilly and then forcing them to like each other. People who came to the US had no choice but to bite the bullet and attempt to contribute with something of value. Even this did not take place without friction and conflict (often via labour unions and political shenanigans) but in the end cultural appropriation occurred and above all: assimilation to the predominant culture — not the other way around.
There were still cultural clashes, and these were solved, or at least mitigated over time, because people were not explicitly forced to interact or to contribute to each other’s upkeeps. There was definitely enclavisation and segregation, many times voluntarily so, but always coupled with ample opportunity for people to willingly and voluntarily approach one another, given time and for reasons of self-interest. At least in the long run people became adherents to one overarching American culture. Voila: peace.
With a welfare state as a punching bag between groups however, cultural divides become much harder to bridge. Large scale immigration will always be culturally demanding, even when there is access to market mechanism to bridge cultural differences. But the welfare state largely nullifies such avenues.
-
The attractive welfare state lures non-productive economical migration, deters labour-market entry for migrants who do want to contribute, and cements welfare dependency. Beyond cultural effects, we therefore must add resentment fueled by the predominant culture having no choice but to fund absolute strangers.
-
While not specifically related to the welfare state; minimum wage requirements and other protectionistic union regulations exacerbate this mechanic. In Sweden, hardly a day goes by without some enterprising tax-paying immigrant getting a deportation notice because of having “taken too few vacation days,” or having “accepted too low a salary.” Yes, migration authorities actively enforce union edicts! In the face of this, who can blame a migrant who simply decides to play it safe and remain on welfare?
-
In Sweden, the welfare state is enormous and encompasses everything; from a plethora of transfer payments, to schools (including university), and health care. There is literally no way of escaping its grasp if you wish a lead a semblance of a normal life.
When a welfare state subsidies migration we get a direct burden on existing net taxpayers, who tend to be ethnically and culturally Swedish, above and beyond the burden already imposed by native welfare-recipients and rent-seekers. The added demand for already strained welfare services from new — perceivably alien groups who perhaps have never “contributed to the system” — makes it obvious that any welfare withdrawals for people who may have tilled the soil for generations, are severely discounted. People are inclined to have an opinion in this matter, and do not necessarily deserve to be labeled racist for daring to utter it.
Sweden’s rampant welfare state is sick to the core. And it must therefore be questioned to its core, perhaps even allowed to perish. It isn’t immigrants on welfare that should be crushed; although certainly a lot of welfare recipients and rent-seekers, among them immigrants, would have a hard time during a transition before they can find productive roles in civil society, and will have to leave on their own accord. This is a crying shame – but Swedes have chosen the welfare state for everyone and therefore ultimately: no-one. Combined with euphoric virtue signalling it has been shown to have a profoundly detrimental effect to the fabric of civil society. And now we must pay the price, one way or the other.
These dynamics are playing out with full force in Sweden today — and it is heartbreaking to watch.
-
- Iran, Iraq, & The Axis Of Sanity
Authored by Brett Redmayne-Titley via Off-Guardian.org,
No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America’s rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq. Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster by the Zio-American bully.
In the politics of the Middle East, however, money is at the heart of all matters. As such, this ring of defensive nations is collectively and quickly shifting towards the new Russo/ Sino sphere of economic influence. These countries now form a geo-political defensive perimeter that, with Iraq entering the fold, make a US ground war virtually impossible and an air war very restricted in opportunity.
If Iraq holds, there will be no war in Iran.
In the last two months, Iraq parliamentarians have been exceptionally vocal in their calls for all foreign military forces- particularly US forces- to leave immediately. Politicians from both blocs of Iraq’s divided parliament called for a vote to expel US troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter. “Parliament must clearly and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty,” said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker loyal to the populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
Iraq’s ambassador to Moscow, Haidar Mansour Hadi, went further saying that Iraq “does not want a new devastating war in the region.” He told a press conference in Moscow this past week, “Iraq is a sovereign nation. We will not let [the US] use our territory,” he said. Other comments by Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi agreed. Other MPs called for a timetable for complete US troop withdrawal.
Then a motion was introduced demanding war reparations from the US and Israel for using internationally banned weapons while destroying Iraq for seventeen years and somehow failing to find those “weapons of mass destruction.”
As Iraq/ Iran economic ties continue to strengthen, with Iraq recently signing on for billions of cubic meters of Iranian natural gas, the shift towards Russian influence– an influence that prefers peace- was certified as Iraq sent a delegation to Moscow to negotiate the purchase of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system.
To this massive show of pending democracy and rapidly rising Iraqi nationalism, US Army spokesman, Colonel Ryan Dillon, provided the kind of delusion only the Zio-American military is known for, saying,
Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of the Iraqi government.”
Good luck with that.
US influence in Iraq came to a possible conclusion this past Saturday, May 18, 2019, when it was reported that the Iraqi parliament would vote on a bill compelling the invaders to leave. Speaking about the vote on the draft bill, Karim Alivi, a member of the Iraqi parliament’s national security and defense committee, said on Thursday that the country’s two biggest parliamentary factions — the Sairoon bloc, led by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Fatah alliance, headed by secretary general of the Badr Organization, Hadi al-Ameri — supported the bill.
Strangely, Saturday’s result has not made it to the media as yet, and American meddling would be a safe guess as to the delay, but the fact that this bill would certainly have passed strongly shows that Iraq well understands the weakness of the American bully: Iraq’s own US militarily imposed democracy.
Iraq shares a common border with Iran that the US must have for any ground war. Both countries also share a similar religious demographic where Shia is predominant and the plurality of cultures substantially similar and previously living in harmony. Both also share a very deep seeded and deserved hatred of Zio- America. Muqtada al-Sadr, who, after coming out first in the 2018 Iraqi elections, is similar to Hizbullah’s Hassan Nasrallah in his religious and military influence within the well trained and various Shia militias. He is firmly aligned with Iran as is Fattah Alliance. Both detest Zio- America.
A ground invasion needs a common and safe border. Without Iraq, this strategic problem for US forces becomes complete. The other countries also with borders with Iran are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. All have several good reasons that they will not, or cannot, be used for ground forces.
With former Armenian President Robert Kocharian under arrest in the aftermath of the massive anti-government 2018 protests, Bolton can check that one off the list first. Azerbaijan is mere months behind the example next door in Armenia, with protests increasing and indicating a change towards eastern winds. Regardless, Azerbaijan, like Turkmenistan, is an oil producing nation and as such is firmly aligned economically with Russia. Political allegiance seems obvious since US influence is limited in all three countries to blindly ignoring the massive additional corruption and human rights violations by Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow.
However, Russian economic influence pays in cash. Oil under Russian control is the lifeblood of both of these countries. Recent developments and new international contracts with Russia clearly show whom these leaders are actually listening to.
Turkey would appear to be firmly shifting into Russian influence. A NATO member in name only. Ever since he shot down his first- and last- Russian fighter jet, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has thumbed his nose at the Americans. Recently he refused to succumb to pressure and will receive Iranian oil and, in July, the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft/missile system. This is important since there is zero chance Putin will relinquish command and control or see them missiles used against Russian armaments. Now, Erdogan is considering replacing his purchase of thirty US F-35s with the far superior Russian SU- 57 and a few S-500s for good measure.
Economically, America did all it could to stop the Turk Stream gas pipeline installed by Russia’s Gazprom, that runs through Turkey to eastern Europe and will provide $billions to Erdogan and Turkey. It will commence operation this year. Erdogan continues to purchase Iranian oil and to call for Arab nations to come together against US invasion in Iran. This week, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar renewed Turkey’s resolve, saying his country is preparing for potential American sanctions as a deadline reportedly set by the US for Ankara to cancel the S-400 arms deal with Russia or face penalties draws near.
So, Turkey is out for both a ground war and an air war since the effectiveness of all those S-400’s might be put to good use if America was to launch from naval positions in the Mediterranean. Attacking from the Black Sea is out since it is ringed by countries under Russo/ Sino influence and any attack on Iran will have to illegally cross national airspace aligned with countries preferring the Russo/ Sino alliance that favours peace. An unprovoked attack would leave the US fleet surrounded with the only safe harbours in Romania and Ukraine. Ships move much slower than missiles.
Afghanistan is out, as the Taliban are winning. Considering recent peace talks from which they walked out and next slaughtered a police station near the western border with Iran, they have already won. Add the difficult terrain near the Iranian border and a ground invasion is very unlikely
Although new Pakistani President Imran Khan has all the power and authority of a primary school crossing guard, the real power within the Pakistani military, the ISI, is more than tired of American influence. ISI has propagated the Taliban for years and often gave refuge to Afghan anti-US forces allowing them to use their common border for cover. Although in the past ISI has been utterly mercenary in its very duplicitous- at least- foreign allegiances, after a decade of US drone strikes on innocent Pakistanis, the chance of ground-based forces being allowed is very doubtful. Like Afghanistan terrain also increases this unlikelihood.
Considerations as to terrain and location for a ground war and the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously when, in 2006 Hizbullah virtually obliterated its ground attack, heavy armour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon. In further cautionary detail, this failure cost PM Ehud Olmert his job.
For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings of the Russo/ Sino pact have little use any longer for the “Sorrows of Empire.” These nation’s leaders, if nothing more than to line their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War…is not, for them, profitable.
For Iran, the geographic, economic and therefore geo-political ring of defensive nations is made complete by Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Syria, like Iraq, has every reason to despise the Americans and similar reasons to embrace Iran, Russia, China and border neighbour Lebanon. Syria now has its own Russian S-300 system which is already bringing down Israeli missiles. It is surprising that Lebanon has not requested a few S-300s of their own.
No one knows what Hizbullah has up its sleeve, but it has been enough to keep the Israelis at bay. Combined with a currently more prepared Lebanese army, Lebanon under the direction of Nasrallah is a formidable nation for its size. Ask Israel.
Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region.
Friendly airspace will also be vastly limited, so also gone will be the tactical element of surprise of any incoming attack. The reality of this defensive ring of nations means that US military options will be severely limited. The lack of a ground invasion threat and the element of surprise will allow Iranian defences to prioritize and therefore be dramatically more effective. As shown in a previous article, The Return of the Madness of M.A.D, Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/ Israeli threats, has developed new weapons and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight.
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia, but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Regardless, a lengthy public ramp-up to stage military assets for an attack by the US will be seen by the vast majority of the world- and Iran- as an unprovoked act of war. Certainly at absolute minimum Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz, throwing the price of oil skyrocketing and world economies into very shaky waters. World capitalist leaders will not be happy. Without a friendly landing point for ground troops, the US will either have to abandon this strategy in favour of an air war or see piles of body bags of US servicemen sacrificed to Israeli inspired hegemony come home by the thousands just months before the ’20 primary season. If this is not military and economic suicide, it is certainly political.
Air war will likely see a similar disaster. With avenues of attack severely restricted, obvious targets such as Iran’s non-military nuclear program and major infrastructure will be thus more easily defended and the likelihood of the deaths of US airmen similarly increased.
In terms of Naval power, Bolton would have only the Mediterranean as a launch pad, since using the Black Sea to initiate war will see the US fleet virtually surrounded by nations aligned with the Russo/ Sino pact. Naval forces, it should be recalled, are, due to modern anti-ship technologies and weapons, now the sitting ducks of blusterous diplomacy. A hot naval war in the Persian Gulf, like a ground war, will leave a US death toll far worse than the American public has witnessed in their lifetimes and the US navy in tatters.
Trump is already reportedly seething that his machismo has been tarnished by Bolton and Pompeo’s false assurances of an easy overthrow of Maduro in Venezuela. With too many top generals getting jumpy about him initiating a hot war with Iraq, Bolton’s stock in trade-war is waning. Trump basks in being the American bully personified, but he and his ego will not stand for being exposed as weak. Remaining as president is necessary to stoke his shallow character. When Trump’s limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute instead, even America’s marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master’s blood lust for war.
In two excellent articles in Asia times by Pepe Escobar, he details the plethora of projects, agreements, and cooperation that are taking place from Asia to the Mid-East to the Baltics. Lead by Russia and China this very quickly developing Russo/ Sino pact of economic opportunity and its intentions of “soft power” collectively spell doom for Zio-America’s only remaining tactics of influence: military intervention. States, Escobar:
We should know by now that the heart of the 21stCentury Great Game is the myriad layers of the battle between the United States and the partnership of Russia and China. The long game indicates Russia and China will break down language and cultural barriers to lead Eurasian integration against American economic hegemony backed by military might.”
The remaining civilized world, that which understands the expanding world threat of Zio-America, can rest easy. Under the direction of this new Russo/ Sino influence, without Iraq, the US will not launch a war on Iran.
This growing Axis of Sanity surrounds Iran geographically and empathetically, but more importantly, economically. This economy, as clearly stated by both Putin and Xi, does not benefit from any further wars of American aggression. In this new allegiance to future riches, it is Russian and China that will call the shots and a shooting war involving their new client nations will not be sanctioned from the top.
However, to Putin, Xi and this Axis of Sanity: If American wishes to continue to bankrupt itself by ineffective military adventures of Israel’s making, rather than fix its own nation that is in societal decline and desiccated after decades of increasing Zionist control, well…
That’s just good for business!
- Army's 'Google Earth On Steroids' Can Look Inside Buildings
New mapping technology that is expected to transform training and simulation exercises for America’s warfighters was unveiled at the IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo (ITEC) 2019 conference on May 15 in Stockholm, Sweden, reported National Defense Magazine.
Jason Knowles, director of geospatial science and technology at the University of Southern California’s Institute for Creative Technologies, an Army affiliated research center, spoke at ITEC about the new terrain capture and reconstruction software that recreates complex environments including cities for simulation exercises and war planning. The institute is part of a cross-functional team working on the mapping software (called One World Terrain (OWT) project).
Knowles described the new software as “Google Earth on steroid.”
At a briefing during ITEC, Knowles showed the audience a picture of an enemy base that was captured and digitally re-created in about an hour using commercial software and a small drone. “We were able to throw that UAS up, capture that in an hour, put it on the laptop, process it, and push it out,” he said.
“The ability to have an individual or a squad go out, collect their own organic 3D model for ingesting into their modeling and simulation is huge for us,” he said.
“The interior of buildings are now being fused and snapped inside of that 3D model,” Knowles said. The software can “strip the outside of a building level by level and see what’s inside the building. That’s obviously very useful for operators.”
He said the software is linked with GPS data so war planners can organize future real operations.
The rapid 3D terrain capture and reconstruction system is supported by aerial imagery from satellites and aircraft. For higher resolution, reconnaissance teams can deploy small, handheld drones to collect much higher resolution imagery, he added.
The software uses machine learning and artificial intelligence for the data merging component to “make the model smart, so it’s not just [identifying objects in] pictures,” he said. For example, it can tell troops if a perimeter wall of an enemy base needs to breached with a vehicle or munition.
The new mapping software is one of the Army’s top modernization priorities, besides long-range precision missiles, next-generation combat vehicle, future vertical lift, air-and-missile defense, directed energy weapons, next-generation combat rifle, and soldier lethality.
- Eliminating Free Speech The Smart Way
Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,
Left-wing activists have recently been increasingly active in seeking to limit opposing political viewpoints, in order to create a more ubiquitous “groupthink.” One effort in accomplishing this has been to propose the creation of a “Human Rights Committee” in order to monitor the economic transactions of “white supremacist groups and anti-Islam activists.”
This should not be surprising, as, throughout the former Free World, collectivists are, increasingly, coming out of the closet and seeking to eliminate any and all opposition to their cause.
And this should not, in itself, be alarming, as it should be both predictable and understandable that any politically driven group, be it left-leaning or right-leaning, would seek to gain an advantage over its opposite number.
What may be a real cause for alarm, however, is that those whom they are trying to rope into their effort are banks and corporations… and that they’re succeeding without a shot being fired.
It might be hoped that those champions of industry and commerce would at least put up a perfunctory fight, but clearly, this is not the case. They’re not only caving in; they’re entirely on board.
As an example, MasterCard is considering the selective restriction of individuals from their services and funds. Those individuals would be the ones that held unacceptable political views.
But they’re not the first in the queue to economically force people to have “correct” views. PayPal and Patreon have barred selected individuals from receiving payments through their services when those individuals have been identified as holding “extreme views.” More alarmingly, they’ve been supported in this decision by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Journalist Ben Swann has commented that this means that the US government has granted “big corporations the ability to control what voices are heard.”
The reader will already be familiar with the fact that major corporations that are led by liberally aligned executives, such as Facebook, Twitter and Amazon, have already proudly stated that they wish to do their part to freeze out those whose opinions they disagree with.
Of course, in a free world, the head of a privately held corporation should be free to do business with only those individuals he approves of. Although that might make him discriminating, he should have the right to be discriminating.
The concern here, though, is that there’s nothing on the horizon that’s aimed at limiting collectivist notions. All the restrictions are being applied to those who are conservative, libertarian, or in fact, anything but collectivist.
There’s clearly an all-encompassing effort to not only silence non-collectivists in the media (including social media), but to silence them through the loss of economic freedom.
And the campaign is unfolding dramatically, on many fronts, at the same time. It would not be rash to suggest that, by 2020, it may not be safe for an individual to express any non-collectivist position by that time, for fear of being cut out of the economic structure.
Back in the early part of the twentieth century, the Bolsheviks did a wonderful job of eliminating the existence of views that opposed collectivism, through the use of concentration camps and execution. Later in the century, the Nazi (abbreviation for Nationalsozialistische, or National Socialist Party) also did a bang-up job of disappearing dissent against their rhetoric.
But Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels would all have their hats off to the new American version of collectivist propaganda, which is not only attacking freedom of speech in the media, but using economic warfare to ensure that, in the future, the only propaganda will be collectivist propaganda.
This is a tactic these past collectivist leaders would have envied, as the results of economic pressure can be so immediate and permanent.
And clearly, large banks, corporations and the US government are fully on board.
This latter fact informs us that the move to a collectivist society in the US is not merely the work of some extremist groups; it is, indeed, the intended “New America.”
One hundred years ago, the US began a decline into corporatism, with the introduction of the Federal Reserve as the overlord of US banking. Since that time, there has been a steady decline in freedoms in the US, interrupted only by the capitalist boom years that were brought on by World War II.
And we now see the culmination of that long-sought-after objective. The American public are not only being phased into the fuller conversion to a collectivist society; they’re being forced into it through economic punishment, should they take any other view.
There can be no question that virtually all of the restrictions of free speech are intended to limit any thought other than collectivist thought.
But the more important take-away here is that this is not a mere ploy by a political group. It has the support of the financial industry, corporate America and the government (through the US Securities and Exchange Commission).
This tells us that the Deep State – that collective body that actually rules the US above the political structure – is on board for a conversion of the US into a fully collectivist state.
This objective should not be surprising, as rulers always wish, first and foremost, to rule. And as such, they will always seek to obtain total control, if possible. Collectivism is the key to that goal. The greater the degree of collectivism, the greater the level of totalitarianism.
In limiting free speech through economics, they’re now going about it the smart way. But this in itself should not be too surprising. What may be surprising is that the changes necessary to bring that about are happening so quickly.
For the US, this is much like Russia, circa 1917, or Germany, circa 1937. The question is no longer whether the government intends to institute totalitarianism. The question is how much time remains before the transition is complete.
This question should give us pause. Its answer would define the remaining shelf-life of the US, as a country that’s desirable as a place to reside.
* * *
The wave of political correctness and liberal group-think has taken the US by storm. The effort to silence opposing viewpoints and free speech will continue to accelerate. That’s why Doug Casey has prepared a timely video on surviving this modern American trend. In it Doug exposes the lies and mainstream bias that’s poisoning America… Click here to watch it now.
- Semiconductors Are The Trade War Epicenter
Back in December 2018, when conventional wisdom was falsely convinced by the handshake between Trump and Xi that the tariff war between the US and China would soon end, we warned that not only is the trade war nowhere near over, far from it, but that semiconductors had “become the central battlefield in the trade war between the two countries. And it is a battle in which China has a very visible Achilles heel.”
Today, SaxoBank’s head of equity strategy, Peter Garnry, not only confirms what we said nearly 6 months ago, but also notes that as the trade war evolves into a technology cold, many industries stand to lose but semiconductor companies are more exposed than anything else. “Add in the rising risk of recession and you’ve got what looks like a perfect storm”, he notes ominously.
His full note is below:
In our recent trade war analysis “Are you ready for a Cold War in tech? “ we argued that the world has seen the starting signal of a Cold War in technology between the US and China. The most likely outcome of the US ban of Huawei due to national security issues is that the global supply chain will come under attack the next couple of decades. Many industries from transportation, semiconductors, biotechnology, rare earth minerals etc. will all most likely be deemed of national security to both the US and China. If the rivalry intensifies between the two countries the only sensible trajectory from here is a global supply chain separation. US and China will seek to make themselves independent of each other to limit the political downside risk in an escalating trade and technology war
Semiconductors are bleeding and it will continue
Since the US escalated the trade war by increasing the tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods on May 6 semiconductors have been tanking. The industry group can be divided into two groups: semiconductor equipment makers and pure semiconductor manufacturers.
We have devised two custom indices tracking those two industries to measure the impact on the global supply chain the trade war. As the chart below shows the semiconductor industry is hurting from the US-China trade war escalation and our view is that it will continue.
Investors should stay underweight semiconductors. In our last trade war analysis we highlighted the US companies with the biggest exposure to China and the majority of those are in fact US semiconductor companies.
Another reason to be negative on semiconductors is that earnings have most likely topped and valuations will have to reflect this over the next 12 months. We see the risk of recession going up from our standpoint of just three months ago and in the case of a global recession semiconductor companies would be hit the hardest. To make it a perfect storm we also expect it to coincide with the beginning of a new AI winter which will dramatically slow down the growth in semiconductors.
US semiconductor companies have most to lose
If we look at how semiconductor manufacturers are performing based on their geography we see a clear sign that US companies stand to lose the most, together with South Korea. If the global supply chain in the semiconductor industry is being reconfigured US semiconductor companies will lose short-term revenue in China and will have to invest in new manufacturing facilities in other countries.
Chinese semiconductor companies will on the other hand be more directly supported by the Chinese government and thus win out relatively speaking. But what about WTO rules about state support? In our view the WTO framework is at risk of being obsolete as the US is clearly steering away from multilateral trade deals towards bilateral deals. In this world order China would not be accountable for state sponsorship of semiconductors inside WTO.
European semiconductor companies could win relatively in the short-term but they face the risk that Europe eventually choose the US over China in the new political future. The caveat here is that Europe needs strong exports to offset weak domestic growth and here China offers more upside potential than the US economy. European politicians are entering a minefield over the next decade as they feel squeezed between the diverging interests of the US and China.
US equities have broadly outperformed
Outside the casualties in semiconductors the US equity market has in fact outperformed the five countries running the biggest trade surplus against the US. Our trade war ETF basket shows that US equities have outperformed by 22%-points since early 2018 when the trade war broke out. In the markets view trade surplus countries are more vulnerable. Only time will tell whether this is in fact true or not.
- Global Times: China Holds Three Trump Cards In War Against US
Amid the escalating economic war between the US and China, discussions have intensified on how Beijing might stand up to the economic power of America, especially given that the global economy is increasingly dependent on the US dollar as the main currency for international trade, and the closing of US markets could do some serious damage to China’s export-oriented companies. China’s main foreign-policy publication, the Global Times, points to three trump cards that Beijing could use to at least level the playing field in its fight with the Trump administration and cause appreciable harm to the US economy, possibly forcing its opponent to temporarily scale back its ambitions.
According to an article in the Global Times by a professor at the Renmin University of China, the three trump cards are:
1) banning the export of rare earths to the US;
2) blocking US companies’ access to Chinese markets; and
3) using China’s portfolio of US Treasury bonds to bring down the US government debt market.
Each of these trump cards are worth looking at in detail, both in terms of their impact on the US economy and also in terms of any possible retaliation from the US and the repercussions for the global economy as a whole.
Banning the export of rare earths to the US would actually be a pretty serious blow for US electronics manufacturers and, indeed, US high-tech manufacturers generally. This is because rare earths are a key raw material for the production of smartphones, various chips, and other high-value-added products that are the biggest cash cows of US companies such as Apple and Boeing.
President Donald Trump during a meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He over trade talks in the Oval Office, February 22, 2019
Reuters, an agency one could hardly accuse of sympathising with Beijing, reports: “The United States has again decided not to impose tariffs on rare earths and other critical minerals from China, underscoring its reliance on the Asian nation for a group of materials used in everything from consumer electronics to military equipment.”
China does not exactly have a monopoly on such materials, but the market would definitely be in short supply without Chinese exports, with all the price implications that would bring. Moreover, it is likely that some deficit positions will be impossible to close no matter how much money is involved.
Not everything is that simple, however. Should such a ban be introduced, then Beijing will encounter certain technical difficulties. If sanctions are only imposed on US companies, then they will still be able to purchase the necessary materials through Japanese or European straw buyers, making the embargo pointless. But if China imposes a total export ban, then it won’t just be US companies that suffer but European ones as well, leading to EU reprisals against Chinese exporters to Europe. This would be very painful for China, especially given the economic war with the US that is making access to European markets invaluable to the Chinese economy.
It appears that a ban on rare earth exports is a powerful weapon, but its use will require the utmost delicacy and serious diplomatic efforts to avoid any extremely unpleasant side effects.
The second trump card mentioned by the Global Times is blocking US companies’ access to the fast-growing and extensive Chinese market. This should be looked at from a political, rather than economic, point of view (although the latter may seem logical). The aim of such restrictive measures is not to inflict unacceptable damage on the US economy, but to make the full might of America’s corporate lobbying machine work against Donald Trump and support his political opponents.
According to the S&P Dow Jones Indices, Asia only accounts for around 14 per cent of the sales of S&P 500 companies. If we assume that China makes up the majority of this, then not even a complete closure of the Chinese markets would be a disaster. There are a few important details, however.
-
First, China is the only (and final) market for sales growth for many US companies. So if China closes, the graphs at business presentations won’t be showing any kind of growth.
-
Second, China plays a key role in many production chains that end with sales in the US and other markets. A loss of access to Chinese production would therefore severely damage the competitiveness of American companies on the world (and even on the US) market, especially if their European and Japanese competitors retain complete access to China’s production facilities.
As a result, the profits of US companies and the future of the American stock market (which is a key political barometer given that many Americans have invested their savings in shares) would be at risk. It might be possible to offset these problems by transferring production to other Asian countries with cheap labour and favourable terms, but this couldn’t be done quickly and it would be risky, given that Trump is waging trade wars with everyone from the European Union to loyal US allies such as Japan and India. In light of this, US companies will have a huge incentive to prevent Trump from being elected for a second term, and the lobbying and political capabilities of that part of the US corporate sector that will suffer the most from this trump card could really play a key role in the political victory of Trump’s opponents.
The third trump card involves China dumping its portfolio of US Treasury bonds. The Global Times writes: “China holds more than $1 trillion of US Treasury bonds. China made a great contribution to stabilizing the US economy by buying US debt during the financial crisis in 2008. The US would be miserable if China hits it when it is down.” One can conclude from this that Beijing will most probably save dumping its portfolio of US treasury bonds for dessert – in that it will have the biggest impact when the US stock market is experiencing its next crisis.
China’s Vice Premier Liu He (left) speaks during a meeting with President Donald Trump (right) in the Oval Office of the White House on February 22, 2019
The move is not likely to cause catastrophic damage in and of itself (although the value of US bonds will definitely fall), but if it is done at the moment when America is most vulnerable, then China’s portfolio may well end up being the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Beijing is not displaying a particularly cocksure attitude. As the Global Times’ editor-in-chief quite rightly notes on Twitter:
“Most Chinese agree that the US is more powerful than China and Washington holds initiative in the trade war. But we just don’t want to cave in and we believe there is no way the US can crush China. We are willing to bear some pain to give the US a lesson.”
As China lays its trump cards on the table, the world’s globalised economy will creak and collapse. Globalisation is going backwards, and chances are we’ll end up with a completely different economic system that has more protectionism. Instead of a global market, there will be several large regional markets with their own rules, dominant currencies, technical standards, and financial systems.
-
- Two Charts Showing Jeopardy Champion James Holzhauer's Record Pace
If you don’t know about Jeopardy Champion James Holzhauer by now, you haven’t been paying attention (or read “Meet The Man Who Mastered “Jeopardy!” By Ignoring Conventional Wisdom“). Holzhauer has shocked the world, not only by amassing millions of dollars in Jeopardy winnings, but doing it at a blistering pace, making former Jeopardy champion Ken Jennings look like a snail in comparison. Despite being $455,000 behind Jennings in total winnings still, Holzhauer is closing in Jennings’ $2.5 million at breakneck speed.
The New York Times has published two charts showing, graphically, just how efficient of a player Holzhauer has been. As you can see from the first chart, Holzhauer’s pace when compared to former champion Ken Jennings is stunning. He is averaging about $76,500 per episode, compared to Jennings’ $34,000 per episode.
In addition, his projected winnings, should he continue at this pace, will likely near $6 million by the time he has played as many game as Jennings. Jennings’ streak is, so far, still 47 games longer than Holzhauer.
When factoring in the “Tournament of Champions” games, Brad Rutter is still the all time earner at $4.7 million. Inclusive of these games, Jennings stands at $3.4 million.
Here are some other “by the numbers” facts about Holzhauser’s incredible run, courtesy of freelance writer Bill Rice, Jr, a freelance writer in Troy, Alabama.
- 0 – Number of Daily Double clues answered incorrectly by James in game’s “Double Jeopardy” round (through 28 games).
- 5 – Through 28 episodes, number of games where James won more than $100,000.
- 7 – Through 28 games, number of times James wagered $11,914 in Daily Doubles (his daughter’s birthday: 11-9-14).
- 7 – Number of times James wagered $9,812 in Daily Doubles (his wedding date: 9-8-12).
- 10 – Number of “perfect games” – no incorrect responses – recorded by James in first 28 games (includes clues in Final Jeopardy).
- 10 – Number of games James had only one incorrect response (through 28 games).
- 13 – According to James, approximate number of years he tried to get on “Jeopardy!” before being selected as a contestant. James, 34, began trying in college.
- 15 – Through 28 episodes, number of games where James won more than $80,000.
- 15 – Number of spots James holds in Top 15 all-time winnings on show (through 28 games).
- 20 – Number of games (through 28) where James had either zero or one incorrect response.
- 21 – Number of times James went “all in” on these first-round Daily Doubles.
- 22 – Number of Daily Doubles “found” by James in the game’s first round (first 28 games).
- 28 – Number of consecutive games won by James Holzhauer though May 25.
- 35.9 – Average number of correct responses per game by Ken Jennings (includes Final Jeopardy).
- 37.15 – Average number of correct responses per game by James (includes Final Jeopardy)
- 41 – Percent increase in show’s ratings over same period a year ago.
- 68 – Percent of Final Jeopardy clues correctly answered by Ken Jennings (51-of-75).
- 96.4 – Percent of Final Jeopardy clues correctly answered by James (27/28) in first 28 games.
- 120 – Consecutive correct responses by James in Games 22 through 24.
We detailed Holzhauer’s strategy at length in a recent post , remarking how the “secret” of his success was turning conventional wisdom on its head. Unlike 99.9% of the game’s previous contestants, he starts at the bottom of the board and goes sideways.
“It seems pretty simple to me: If you want more money, start with the bigger-money clues,” Holzhauer explained in an interview with Vulture magazine. He told NPR “What I do that’s different than anyone who came before me is I will try to build the pot first” before seeking out the game’s Daily Doubles. He then “leverages” his winnings with “strategically aggressive” wagers (read: wagers far larger than any contestant before him was willing to make).
This strategy – along with the fact he’s answering 96.7 percent of the clues correctly – has allowed James to build insurmountable leads heading into Final Jeopardy. He can then be ultra-aggressive with his Final Jeopardy wagers, including one of $60,013. It was this wager that allowed James to establish his current single-game record of $131,016.
You can read more on his strategy here.
- The Pence Prophecy: VP Predicts Perpetual War At West Point Graduation
Authored by Major Danny Sjursen via AntiWar.com,
Time was that a stint, or even a career, in the military did not necessarily translate into any serious combat duty. That may seem hard to believe eighteen years after 9/11, but this middle-aged middling major is just old enough to remember such a bygone era. As a cadet at West Point (2001-05), having joined the army just months before the September 11 attacks, most of my professors and tactical officers had never been to war. The colonels had joined in the early 1980s and, at worst, saw limited combat in the petite (and absurd) conflicts in Panama and/or Grenada. The captains and majors commissioned in the early 1990s. As such, most just missed Persian Gulf War 1.0, a few deployed to Somalia or the Balkans, and most hadn’t seen the elephant at all.
Back then, soldiers trained for war but didn’t necessarily expect to fight in one. The Cold War, post-Vietnam army was built as much to contain America’s enemies, and to deter war, as it was to actually engage in combat. Those days seem charmingly quaint from the viewpoint of 2019. Indeed, when I entered the U.S. Military Academy on July 2, 2001, my expectation was to travel the world and maybe do some light peacekeeping in Bosnia or Kosovo, not to fight extended wars. How naive that seems now.
Vice President Pence speaking at West Point graduation over Memorial Day weekend. Image via Getty Instead I spent a career training for and deploying to wars across the Greater Middle East. Hell, that’s been the story of my entire generation of soldiers. When I graduated in 2005, this still seemed unique and profound. More than a decade later it’s simply the mundane way of things. So it was, this past week, that Vice President Mike Pence addressed the graduating class at West Point, and reminded them to prepare for ever more war.
The content of this bellicose, and banal, speech should have been remarkable; should have raised Americans’ collective “spidey-sense.” Instead, hardly anyone noticed that Pence, like a Punxsutawney groundhog, was veritably predicting many more years of winter (read: warfare). Still, the vice president’s oratory was disturbing on a number of levels.
First off, he bragged about President Trump’s absurd military budget and explained that the cadets should be honored to join “an Army that’s better equipped, better trained, and better supplied than any United States Army in the history of this country.” Evidence for such an assertion was glaringly absent, and none in the audience had the opportunity to ask why this unsurpassed army hasn’t won a single war in this century. Also absent was any discussion of the tradeoffs inherent in ballooning defense spending, the opportunity costs of such largesse, or an explanation as to why the US spends more on its military than the next seven nations combined. And why should he have brought any of this up? Defense spending is politically popular; it’s the one type of public outlay that draws essentially no criticism.
Next, Pence engaged in some genuine truth-telling that revealed the nature of military service in a time of forever war. He informed the cadets that “It is a virtual certainty that you will fight on a battlefield for America at some point in your life. You will lead soldiers in combat. It will happen.” This should have been a controversial statement, an alarming prophecy of perpetual war. Only in 2019 that’s the norm for military members and their families. They should expect combat, because almost no mainstream political figures demonstrate the capacity or intent to reign in the American war machine.
Pence went further, though, and actually listed out where these newly minted officers should expect to fight. Sure he listed the usual suspects – “Some of you will join the fight against radical Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq” – so apparently the war on terror will roar on indefinitely.
However, Pence also listed a few other places where the young officers will join “the fight,” including the “Korean peninsula,” the South China Sea, and Europe (against “an aggressive Russia”). Mind you, there are – as of yet – no actual shooting wars in any of these locales, thus labeling them ongoing “fights” is both provocative and irresponsible.
Nevertheless, the true surprise, and most distressing of all, was the VP’s casual assertion that “some of you may even be called upon to serve in this hemisphere.” This was a clear reference to Venezuela, Washington’s stated policy of regime change there, and to the recent kick off of Cold War 2.0 with what John Bolton labeled the “troika of tyranny” – Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Never mind that not a single one of these tinpot tyrannies presents a significant threat to the US, Pence still gleefully paraded the old ghost, and villain, of “socialism.” It was all so 1980s!
Pence’s retro foreign policy, and outrageously pugnacious rhetoric befit the actions of an empire, not a republic. His casual assumption that today’s young graduates – most of whom were kindergarteners on 9/11 – will see combat in both ongoing and future wars reflects life in an increasingly militaristic and unhinged society. That such crazy is so routine is even more problematic.
The normalization of war can be just as detrimental to a republic as war itself. The barbarians are not at the gates, folks. War is not a foregone conclusion or a national necessity. Each successive occupant of the White House only needs you to believe that in order to centralize the power of an increasingly imperial presidency, stifle dissent, and chip away at what remains of civil liberties.
Seen in its proper context, Pence’s speech would have raised alarm bells in a healthy, functioning republic. But America in 2019 is far from that. Instead, the VP’s staggeringly absurd speech registered as barely a blip on the media’s 24-hour news cycle. After eighteen years of perpetual conflict, members of the military, and the populace at large, have grown immune to the inertia of war. As such, the republic’s bleeding is internal, as American Democracy dies a slow, opaque death from the inside out. It may be too late to reverse course, and one wonders if a distracted and apathetic public even notices…
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://i0.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/knifecrime.jpg?ssl=1){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://i0.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/eng%20wales.jpg?ssl=1){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://i0.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/PenceWestPoing.jpg?ssl=1){kind=link}