Today’s News 29th November 2022

• China: The World's First Technate – Part 1
  China: The World’s First Technate – Part 1

  Authored by Iain Davis via Off-Guardian.org,

  We are being rapidly transitioned into a new system of centralised, authoritarian global governance. This system is designed to be a technocracy and it is truly totalitarian.

  Totalitarianism is a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. It does not permit individual freedom. Traditional social institutions and organizations are discouraged and suppressed, making people more willing to be merged into a single unified movement. Totalitarian states typically pursue a special goal to the exclusion of all others, with all resources directed toward its attainment, regardless of the cost.

  That “special” goal is sustainable development and no cost, either financial or humanitarian, is too great to tackle the alleged “climate crisis.” In reality, climate change is simply the excuse for sustainable development and it is through the global policy commitment to “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) that technocracy is being installed.

  A technocratic society is called a Technate and the world’s first Technate has emerged in China. In this two part exploration we will look at how this system was constructed, who was behind it and why technocracy is now being foisted upon all of us.

  

  These articles are drawn largely from my 2021 publication Pseudopandemic. It is free to subscribers to my blog.

  GLOBAL TECHNOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

  In order for global technocracy to be rolled-out, authority needs to be centrally controlled at the global level. Governments, intergovernmental organisations and multinational corporations have collaborated to form a global public-private partnership  (G3P) for this purpose.

  Throughout the 20th and 21st century the G3P network has sought to construct global governance. In turn, global governance enables the worldwide distribution of the technocracy that governments then convert into national policy commitments. Many components of global technocratic governance have already been established.

  The World Heath Organisation (WHO) delivers global governance of public health; global access to technological development is meted out through the World Intellectual Property Organization; the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) works to coordinate economic policies between nation-states and global trade is monitored and controlled through the trade agreements overseen by the World Trade Organisation.

  The Bank For International Settlements (BIS) coordinates global monetary policy and the flow of capital; the direction of education, academia, the sciences and cultural development is steered through the U.N Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the seizure of the global commons and the “financialisation” of nature—through natural asset companies and other mechanisms—is nearing completion.

  Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are centrally controlled through global governance, primarily by the U.N Development and Environmental programs (UNDP & UNEP). The necessary global scientific consensus on climate change is centrally administered and the appropriate research funding streams allocated, by the U.N’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

  The powerful individuals, pushing the G3P project forward, are a collective of mass polluters, robber barons, land grabbers and the world’s leading exponents of worker exploitation, market manipulation, monetary extortion (usury) and oppression. They form what would otherwise be considered a criminal cartel but have greenwashedtheir reputations through their commitment to so-called “sustainable development.”

  Often referred to as the elite, a more fitting description is “the parasite class.”

  The G3P has managed to convince billions that it is committed to sustainable, net zero, environmentalism and wants to “save the planet.” It is actually determined to empower global governance and enforce technocracy upon humanity through SDGs and the associated policy Agendas. Regardless of what you think about the causes of climate change or the level of risk it presents, SDGs do nothing to address it and are designed to serve no-one and nothing other than the G3P and its interests.

  In order to requisition, commodify, audit and ultimately divide up the Earth’s resources among themselves, the stakeholder capitalists, at the heart of the G3P, also need technocratic control. Once humanity figures out what has happened, technocracy will enable the G3P to shutdown resistance through literal population control.

  Every human being will be individually monitored by Artificial Intelligence (AI) networks which will punish or reward them, depending upon their behaviour. Biosecurity and environmental concerns are set to provide the justification for this enslavement.

  Much like the quack pseudo-science of eugenics, which many G3P “thought leaders” seem to believe, Technocracy was the social science certainty of its day. Like eugenics, while it has subsequently faded from public consciousness, it is still avidly pursued by the G3P’s compartmentalised hierarchy.

  TECHNOCRACY

  In 1911, arguably the worlds first management consultant, Frederick Winslow Taylor, published The Principles of Scientific Management. His publication came at the culmination of the Progressive Era in the United States.

  This was a period marked by the political activism of the US middle class who mainly sought to address the underlying social problems, as they saw them, of excessive industrialisation, immigration and political corruption. So-called “Taylorism,” fixated with the imminent exhaustion of natural resources and advocating efficient “scientific management systems,” was in the spirit of the age.

  Taylor wrote:

  In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first. [. . .] The best management is a true science, resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles. [. . . ] The fundamental principles of scientific management are applicable to all kinds of human activities, from our simplest individual acts to the work of our great corporations.

  Taylorism advocated science driven efficiency reforms across society. An efficient system should not be run by politicians or religious leaders but by “experts,” such as engineers, scientists, logistical experts, economists and other academics. The focus should always be on systemic efficiency and the proper use of precious resources, including labour.

  Though Taylor’s ideas were influenced by Social Darwinism he wasn’t a eugenicist. However, his ideas were adopted by eugenicists. It “fitted” with their belief in their unassailable right to rule.

  Just as they could optimise and control the human population, so they could employ the right experts to make socioeconomic and industrial systems more efficient. They could promote this as being for “the public good” while at the same time consolidating their own power and reaping a greater financial harvest from a more efficient industrialised society.

  Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management chimed with the theories of economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblan. He proposed that economic activity wasn’t just a function of supply and demand, utility, value and so forth, but rather it evolved with society and was thus shaped by psychological, sociological and anthropological influences.

  Both Taylor and Veblan were focused upon improving the efficiency of industrial and manufacturing processes. However, they also recognised that their theories could be extended to the wider social context. It was the more expansive application of their ideas that beguiled the parasite class.

  Veblan famously spoke about “conspicuous consumption” to describe how the affluent displayed their social standing through their ability to engage in pursuits and buy items that were essentially purposeless and wasteful. This “conspicuous leisure” and “consumption” cascaded down through the class structure, as those aspiring to signal their own status emulated the wealthy.

  He argued that this was a major contributory factor toward unacceptable resource waste and inefficiency. Consumer society ultimately produced more goods and services than it needed simply to meet the artificial demand created for, in his view, avoidable and unnecessary social demand.

  Veblan was strongly opposed to this inefficient use of resources which he blamed on the “business classes” and financiers. He valued their contribution to the industrial age but felt they were no longer capable of managing modern industrial society.

  Initially, Veblan argued that the workers must therefore be the architects of the necessary social change that would create economic and industrial reform. Later, in the Engineers and the Price System he shifted his focus away from workers, as the drivers of change, towards technocratic engineers.

  

  Thorsten Veblan

  He called for a thorough analysis of the institutions which maintained social stability. Once understood, he opined, those with technological expertise should reform the institutions and thereby engineer society and improve efficiency. Veblan referred to these social change agents as a “soviet of technicians.”

  In 1919 Veblan was among the founders of the John D. Rockefeller funded private research university in New York called the New School for Social Research. This soon led to the creation of the Technical Alliance as Veblan joined a small team of scientists and engineers, notably Howard Scott, to form a fledgling technocratic organisation.

  

  Howard Scott

  Scott didn’t like Veblan’s description of a soviet of technicians, reportedly calling it “a cockeyed thing.” The clear association with communism probably wasn’t welcome from a PR perspective, and Scott felt it undermined what he was trying to achieve with the technocracy movement.

  Veblan’s involvement with the Technical Alliance was relatively brief and some have suggested that his contribution to technocracy was minimal, accrediting Scott as the great mind behind it. Regardless of the extent of Veblan’s personal involvement in the movement, his socioeconomic theories permeate technocracy.

  In 1933 the Technical Alliance reformed after an enforced hiatus, prompted by Scott’s exposure as a fraudster—he falsified his engineering credentials. The group renamed themselves Technocracy inc.

  Despite his public humiliation, Scott was a skilled orator and remained the spokesman for Technocracy inc. He worked with, among others, M. King Hubbert who would later become globally renowned for his vague and generally inaccurate “peak oil” theory.

  Scott and Hubbert collaborated to write The Technocracy Inc study course to formerly introduce the world to technocracy. At the time, the proposed technocracy was technologically impossible and sounded pretty crazy. However, we are certainly more familiar with these ideas today.

  Hubbert wrote:

  Technocracy finds that the production and distribution of an abundance of physical wealth on a Continental scale for the use of all Continental citizens can only be accomplished by a Continental technological control, a governance of function, a Technate.

  The Technate, a technocratic society initially envisaged to encompass the North American continent, would be administered by a central planning body formed of scientists, engineers and other suitably qualified technocrats. Technocracy would require a new monetary system based upon a calculation of the Technate’s total energy usage. People would be allocated an equal share of the corresponding “energy certificates” (as a form of currency) denominated in units of energy (Joule):

  [I]ncome is granted to the public in the form of energy certificates. [. . .] They are issued individually to every adult of the entire population. [. . .] The record of one’s income and its rate of expenditure is kept by the Distribution Sequence, [the envisaged ledger of transactions]. [. . .] so that it is a simple matter at any time for the Distribution Sequence to ascertain the state of an unknown customer’s balance. [. . .] Energy Certificates also contain the following additional information about the person to whom issued: whether he has not yet begun his period of service, is now performing service, or is retired [where service to the Technate is rewarded with Energy Certificates] [. . .] sex, [. . .] the geographical area in which he resides, and [. . .] job at which he works.

  A new price system was envisaged with all commodities and goods priced according to the energy cost of their production. Purchases made with “energy certificates” would then be reported back to the appropriate department of the technocratic central planning committee. The transactions would be catalogued and analysed, enabling the central planners to precisely calculate the rolling energy balance, between energy production and consumption, for the entire Technate.

  In order for this system to work, all consumer’s energy expenditure (including all daily transactions) would need to be recorded in real time; the national inventory of net energy production and consumption would have to be constantly updated, around the clock; a registry of every commodity and product needed to be scrupulously maintained, with every individual living in the Technate allocated a personal energy account. This would be updated to record their energy usage and personal net energy balance.

  Hubbert & Scott made it clear that, for technocracy to work, an all pervasive energy surveillance grid would be required. All citizens would be individually identified on the grid and every aspect of their daily lives monitored and controlled by the technocratic central planners.

  Technocracy is a totalitarian form of surveillance based, centralised authoritarian governance which abolishes national sovereignty and political parties. Freedoms and rights are replaced with a duty to behave in the interest of a common good, as defined by the technocrats. All decisions about production, allocation of resources, all technological innovation and economic activity is controlled by a technocracy of experts (Veblan’s “soviet of technicians”).

  In 1938 in Technocrat Magazine vol. 3 No. 4 (to give it its technocratic specification) technocracy was described as:

  The science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.

  For the parasite class, and their G3P stakeholder partners, technocracy was an irresistible idea. Technocracy potentially enables the precise engineering of society through the control of resources and energy through the mechanism of a linked, centrally planned and monitored, economic and monetary system.

  The Technocracy inc Study Course claims:

  The significance of this, from the point of view of knowledge of what is going on in the social system, and of social control, can best be appreciated when one surveys the whole system in perspective. First, one single organization is manning and operating the whole social mechanism. This same organization not only produces but distributes all goods and services. Hence a uniform system of record-keeping exists for the entire social operation, and all records of production and distribution clear to one central headquarters.

  In order to control everything all the parasite class would need to do is whisper in the ear of a few hand-picked technocrats. There would be no need to corrupt politicians or orchestrate international crisis anymore. While in the 1930’s the Technate was an impracticable proposition, it was still something to inspire the G3P and a goal to work towards.

  

  Scott Speaking at a Technocracy inc. Rally

  THE TECHNOCRATIC OPPORTUNITY

  Understanding that technological development would eventually enable the Technate to be realised, in 1970 Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928 – 2017) wrote Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era. At the time, he was a professor of political science at Columbia university, where Scott had first met Hubbert in 1932. He had already been an advisor to both the Kennedy and Johnson campaigns and would later become National Security Advisor to US President Jimmy Carter (1977 – 1981).

  Brzezinski was a significant influence on late 20th Century US foreign policy, far beyond his years in the Carter administration. The Democrat counterpart to Republican Henry Kissinger, he was a centrist and his deep dislike of the Soviet Union often placed him on the right of Kissinger on related issues. He supported the Vietnam War and was instrumental in “Operation Cyclone“ which saw the US arm, train and equip Islamist extremists in Afghanistan.

  He was a member of numerous policy think tanks including the Council on Foreign Relations, The Center For Strategic & International Studies, Le Cercle and was a regular attendee at the annual parasite class soiree, the Bilderberg conference. In 1973 he and David Rockefeller formed the Trilateral Commission policy think tank. Brzezinski was very much part of the Deep State milieu and the G3P.

  

  Zbigniew Brzezinski (March 28, 1928 – May 26, 2017)

  Between Two Ages is a geopolitical analysis and practical set of policy recommendations born from Brzezinski’s view that digital technology would transform society, culture, politics and the global balance of political power. It also provides us with a clear view of the mindset of the parasite class.

  Brzezinski didn’t reference technocracy directly, perhaps wary of its rather sketchy reputation following Scott’s disgrace. However, he did describe it in detail throughout the book:

  Technological adaptation would involve the transformation of the bureaucratic dogmatic party into a party of technocrats. Primary emphasis would be on scientific expertise, efficiency, and discipline. [. . .] the party would be composed of scientific experts, trained in the latest techniques, capable of relying on cybernetics and computers for social control.

  He theorised about, what he called, the “Technetronic Age” and offered a vision of the near future, from the perspective of the 1970’s. Brzezinski predicted that this Age would arise as a result of the Technetronic Revolution. This would be the “third revolution” to follow the industrial revolution. Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, would later call this the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

  Brzezinski wrote:

  The post industrial society is becoming a ‘technetronic’ society: a society that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics—particularly in the area of computers and communications.

  He then went on to describe what he thought life in the Technetronic Age would be like for ordinary men, women and their families. He foretold how political and industrial control would be replaced by psychological control mechanisms, such as the cult of personality, steering us towards behaviour change. Our lives would be managed through computing power and, in the parlance of today, led by science:

  Both the growing capacity for the instant calculation of the most complex interactions and the increasing availability of biochemical means of human control augment the potential scope of consciously chosen direction. [. . .] Masses are organized in the industrial society by trade unions and political parties and unified by relatively simple and somewhat ideological programs. [. . .] In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of millions of unorganized citizens, who are easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities, and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.

  He also explained how technology would enable extensive behaviour modification and manipulation of the population. He foresaw (suggested) how this could be weaponised:

  It may be possible—and tempting—to exploit for strategic political purposes the fruits of research on the brain and on human behavior. [. . .] one could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period.

  Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote enthusiastically, through a paper-thin veil of caution, about how a “global scientific elite” could not only use extreme, all-pervasive propaganda, economic and political manipulation to determine the direction of society, but could also exploit technology and behavioural science to genetically alter and brainwash the population.

  Describing the form of this society and the potential for technocratic control, he wrote:

  Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.

  He claimed that the “Technetronic Age” he described was inevitable. Therefore he asserted that the future of the United States (and the planet) must be centrally planned. These planners would eventually displace “the lawyer as the key social legislator and manipulator.”

  As is so often the excuse, warning that others—he meant the Soviet Union—wouldn’t hesitate to embark on this dark social engineering path, this therefore necessitated the urgent need for US geopolitical strategists to develop this network of planners (technocracy) first. This would be done by fusing government with academia and private corporations (the G3P).

  He stated that political parties would become increasingly irrelevant, replaced by regional structures pursuing “urban, professional, and other interests.” These could be used to “provide the focus for political action.” He understood the potential for this localised, technocratic administrative system:

  In the technetronic age the greater availability of means permits the definition of more attainable ends, thus making for a less doctrinaire and a more effective relationship between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be.

  He also suggested a redefinition of freedom. Liberty would be achieved through centrally planned public commitment to social and economic equality. The “public good” thus defined by the technocrats.

  The positive potential of the third American revolution lies in its promise to link liberty with equality.

  Brzezinski recognised that it would be impossible to impose world government directly. Rather it should be gradually constructed through a system of global governance comprised of treaties, bilateral agreements and intergovernmental organisations:

  Though the objective of shaping a community of the developed nations is less ambitious than the goal of world government, it is more attainable. [. . .] It [global governance] attempts to create a new framework for international affairs not by exploiting these divisions [between nation-states] but rather by striving to preserve and create openings for reconciliation.

  One “opening” that he was particularly interested in was China. Tensions between Russia and China had continued to rumble on and, as Brzezinski wrote Between Two Ages, they had spilled over into a border conflict. He saw that the Sino-Soviet split had created an opportunity to shape China’s modernisation:

  In China the Sino-Soviet conflict has already accelerated the inescapable Sinification of Chinese communism. That conflict shattered the revolution’s universal perspective and—perhaps even more important— detached Chinese modernization from its commitment to the Soviet model. Hence, whatever happens in the short run, in years to come Chinese development will probably increasingly share the experience of other nations in the process of modernization. This may both dilute the regime’s ideological tenacity and lead to more eclectic experimentation in shaping the Chinese road to modernity.

  These ideas were firmly in Brzezinski’s mind when he and committed eugenicist David Rockefeller, whose family had been bankrolling technocratic initiatives for more than 50 years, first convened the Trilateral Commission. They were eventually joined by other so called “thought leaders” like population control expert Henry Kissinger, Club of Rome environmentalist Gro Harlem Brundtland, US presidents like Bill Clinton, and the president of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass, who more recently wrote World Order 2.0.

  

  CONSTRUCTING THE TECHNATE IN CHINA

  Mao Zedong’s “great leap forward” saw 40 million people brutalised and starved to death in just three horrific years (1959 – 1961). Apologists claim this was all a terrible mistake but it was nothing of the kind.

  In the certain knowledge that food supplies were running out, in 1958 Mao said “to distribute resources evenly will only ruin the Great Leap Forward” and later the same year:

  When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better to let half the people die so that others can eat their fill.

  In his zeal to create a communist utopia, Mao presided over a system that seized food from starving millions and exported it to fund his political reforms and determination to rapidly industrialise the economy. It wasn’t an error or an unfortunate oversight. While many were so terrified that they submitted fake reports of surpluses that didn’t exist, it is clear that the leadership of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) knew exactly what the human costs were. They just didn’t care.

  

  Mao and Rockefeller’s view of the Great Leap Forward

  Nor did David Rockefeller, as evidenced by his 1973 op-ed for the New York Times. He and his Chase Group banking empire delegation had visited Maoist China. In his account of the trip, Rockefeller dismissed the mass murder of millions as “whatever.” It was the product of genocide that Rockefeller was interested in:

  One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony. [. . .] There is a very real and pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese revolution it has obviously succeeded, not only in producing a more efficient administration, but also in fostering. [. . .] a community of purpose.

  The Trilateralist Rockefeller could see the opportunity the Chinese dictatorship presented the parasite class. In full agreement with Brzezinski, he wrote:

  Too often the true significance and potential of our new relationship with China has been obscured. [. . .] In fact, of course, we are experiencing a much more fundamental phenomenon. [. . .] The Chinese, for their part, are faced with altering a primarily inward focus. [. . .] We, for our part, are faced with the realization that we have largely ignored a country with one-fourth of the world’s population.

  The “we” Rockefeller referred to was not us. He meant the G3P and his fellow “stakeholder capitalists” and Trilateralists.

  The totalitarian order in China impressed him as he hoped it would. He wasn’t the first Trilateralist to see the technocratic possibilities in China. The sheer scale of the market was an enticing prospect and the promise of the “Technetronic Age” raised the real potential to build the world’s first Technate.

  Completely discounting the appalling loss of human life, Rockefeller wrote:

  The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history. How extensively China opens up and how the world reacts to the social innovation. [. . .] is certain to have a profound impact upon the future of many nations.

  

  The Great Leap Forward

  The G3P’s task was to crack open the Chinese market while supporting ongoing totalitarian rule. China would need help with its economic development and technical support to build the technological infrastructure necessary for technocracy to work. This process had already begun, but with Rockefeller, Brzezinski, Kissinger and others committed to the cause, the target of constructing a Technate was firmly in the Trilateral Commission’s sights.

  The Trilateralists set about assisting China to develop both economically and technologically, while remaining careful to avoid applying too much pressure for political reform. Totalitarianism was a system they supported and wanted to exploit. In their 1978 Paper No. 15 on East-West Relations they suggested:

  To grant China favourable conditions in economic relations is definitely in the political interest of the West.. there seems to exist sufficient ways for aiding China in acceptable forms with advanced civilian technology.

  In the same paper the Trilateralists announced that they weren’t entirely averse to helping China modernise their military capability, though they stressed this should only be for defensive purposes.

  They accepted that a modern, militarised China might turn to expansionism and seek to regain territory it historically claimed as its own, in particular Taiwan. They judged this was a reasonable risk to take.

  They were playing the great game. Human lives were of no concern.

  In Part 2 we will look at how they set about constructing the world’s first Technate in China.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 23:40

• Police Bust "Super Cartel" Behind One-Third Of Europe's Cocaine Trade
  Police Bust “Super Cartel” Behind One-Third Of Europe’s Cocaine Trade

  Law enforcement agents across six countries joined forces to bust a “super cartel” of drug traffickers controlling about one-third of cocaine flows into Europe, the European Union crime agency stated Monday.

  🚨 Super cartel controlling one third of Europe’s cocaine trade is taken down

  👥 49 arrests following parallel investigations in Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UAE with the support of Europol

  More➡️https://t.co/wzkpoAKAx1https://t.co/5JBHRdXwDP

  — Europol (@Europol) November 28, 2022

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

  Europol said a series of raids (dubbed “Operation Desert Light”) between Nov. 8 and 19 in multiple countries led to the arrest of 49 suspects and the seizure of 30 tons of drugs. The raids were in Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UAE. 

  

  “The drugpins, considered as high-value targets by Europol, had come together to form what was known as a ‘super cartel’ which controlled around one-third of the cocaine trade in Europe,” Europol said.

  “The scale of cocaine importation into Europe under the suspects’ control and command was massive and over 30 tons of drugs were seized by law enforcement over the course of the investigations,” the law enforcement agency said, adding cartel members used a super encrypted communication network to arrange drug shipments. 

  The Netherlands had the most arrests, with 14 suspects in 2021 and six “high-value targets” in Dubai. Shipments of cocaine were imported from Panama in Central America. 

  

  “This coordinated clampdown sends a strong message to criminals seeking sanctuary from law enforcement,” Europol said. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 23:20

• The Emperor Elonicus
  The Emperor Elonicus

  Authored by CJ Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

  Everyone is going to hate this column. Musk worshipers are going to hate it because I’m going to blaspheme against Elon Musk. Musk demonizers are going to hate it because I am not going to blaspheme against him enough. Everyone else is going to hate it because they’re sick to the gills of hearing about Musk, and Musk’s destruction of Twitter, or his salvation of Twitter, and censorship, and “hate speech,” and all that stuff.

  

  I’ll get to the blasphemy part in a minute, but first, let’s quickly review what’s happened, and where things now stand, or appear to stand.

  On October 27, 2022, so almost exactly a month ago, Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, US government military contractor and all-around global-capitalist oligarch with a net worth approaching $200 billion, completed his acquisition of Twitter, the notorious “hell-site” where Donald Trump, the Russian-backed literal Resurrection of Hitler, Jordan Peterson, the “lobster hierarchy” guy, Alex “the Devil Incarnate” Jones, and assorted members of the “deplorable” masses had been wantonly perpetrating acts of “hate speech,” disseminating “disinformation,” and otherwise unrestrainedly expressing themselves, until Twitter’s “content moderators” started censoring, deboosting, and deplatforming everyone whose views and opinions they didn’t like.

  As it turned out, most of the views and opinions they did not like, and thus needed to censor, were views and opinions that conflicted with their increasingly fanatical “woke” ideology, or allegiance to the Democratic Party, or one of its European equivalents, or which contradicted, or challenged, or playfully mocked, whatever official narrative the global Corporatocracy was pumping out on any given day.

  From 2016 to 2022, Twitter.com (which, let’s face it, is essentially a glorified listserv with ads) abandoned any pretense of editorial neutrality and regard for anything remotely resembling people’s right to freedom of speech (i.e., a fundamental principle of democratic society), and brazenly attempted to impose and enforce ideological uniformity on the platform under the guise of “keeping people safe” and “protecting the health of the public conversation.”

  This metamorphosis of a social-media company into a full-blown Orwellian Ministry of Truth was just one part of “The War on Populism” that the global-capitalist ruling classes have been relentlessly waging for the last six years, which I’ve written about extensively elsewhere (e.g., in that book I just inserted a link to, and the majority of my Consent Factory essays), so I just want to focus on Twitter at the moment and get to the part where I blaspheme Musk, or don’t blaspheme him enough, and piss everyone off.

  Basically, the backstory, in a nutshell, is, by circa the middle of 2021, the Twitter moderators’ censorship of views that didn’t conform to their “woke” ideology had reached the point where a lot of conservatives, and libertarians, and the approximately 15-16 old free-speech-absolutist lefties like me that still exist, were unhappy about being censored, deplatformed, “deboosted,” and demonized as “disseminators of hate speech,” “science deniers,” “election deniers,” “anti-vaxers,” “conspiracy theorists,” and an assortment of other official epithets, and were making a considerable amount of noise.

  The governments that nominally regulate Twitter and other social-media platforms are owned and operated by GloboCap (i.e., the global Corporatocracy I mentioned above), which has been imposing and enforcing ideological uniformity on the entire planet for the last thirty years, so, of course, they were not going to intervene in the affairs of global corporation that is part and parcel of the Gleichschaltung campaign that they are also part and parcel of.

  So, Emperor Elonicus to the rescue!

  Musk, who did not get where he is by not being able to read a market, saw an opportunity and he seized it. As I’ve been going on and on and on about monotonously for the last six years, the essential conflict of our historical epoch is the multiplicitous backlash (or insurgency) against the advance of hegemonic global capitalism. I won’t go on and on about it here. The point is, at the current stage of that conflict, there is serious money to be made by marketing to the “anti-Woke” demographic, and, if Musk is a master of anything, it’s marketing.

  You probably think I’m kidding. I am not. As Bill Hicks would put it if he were still around, the authoritarian anti-authoritarianism dollar is just sitting out there waiting to be harvested. “Anti-Woke” authoritarianism is the next big thing. We are talking beaucoup branding action, social media platforms, phones, you name it!

  And so begins the glorious reign of Emperor Elonicus the Just, the half-man/half-god savior of Twitter, and freedom of speech, and freedom itself, selfless defender of the common man, and unrivaled practitioner of the marketing stunt!

  The day before the deal was sealed, Elonicus swaggered into Twitter headquarters carrying an actual kitchen sink, tweeting “let that sink in!” to his 100 million followers, the first of a series of such stunts to follow.

  

  The plebeians in the digital Colosseum erupted into wild applause. A frenzy of joyous hooting and hollering and “liking” and retweeting ensued. At last, a beneficent billionaire Caesar had arrived to save the Internet from Wokeness! Elonicus loyalists flooded onto Twitter, chanting the ancient Roman obeisance, “Avē Imperātor, tweetitūrī tē salūtant!”

  The next day, Elonicus summarily fired Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s CEO, and took his seat upon the throne. Other “woke” heads were soon placed on spikes. Hallelujah … the bird was freed!

  

  The Corporatocracy went absolutely apeshit. Liberal pundits rent their garments and rushed onto the Internet to histrionically denounce Elonicus the Usurper, who was going to unleash the most the stochastically-terrorist orgy of white-supremacist hate speech in the history of white-supremacist hate speech, or stochastic terrorism, or orgies, or something. Television celebrities, ageing rock musicians, bestselling philosophical podcasters, and other such influential personages began pretentiously fleeing the platform in droves, a number of them migrating to something called Mastodon, where they immediately commenced scolding and cancelling each other. Advertisers pulled their accounts. The media began a “Twitter Death Watch.” Jonathan Chait threatened to move to Canada, but then changed his mind and vowed to “stay and fight.”

  Meanwhile, Elonicus, who understands a public-relations war as well as anyone, did what all good emperors do when under attack from their own patrician class. He broke out the bread and circus for the plebeians … or, all right, at least he broke out the circus.

  

  Yes, he actually did the imperial Roman “pollice verso” shtick to decide the fate of Trumpus Maximus, and then, once the results came in, he imperiously tweeted “Vox Populi, Vox Dei”!

  

  And now, apparently, Elonicus, in his mercy, after running another Vox Populi poll stunt, has decreed a “general amnesty” for all political prisoners (i.e., suspended Twitter accounts). It remains to be seen whether this “amnesty” extends to the countless people whose accounts were suspended for challenging the official Covid narrative, or for mentioning the fact that GloboCap is arming and funding the neo-Nazis in the Ukraine that have been carrying out its latest counterinsurgency op, but let’s not worry about minor details. Next week is going to be a celebration … a celebration of freedom, and “anti-Wokeness,” and the god-like power of Elon Musk!

  All of which has been highly entertaining, but forgive me if I don’t get all worked up. For one thing, I’ve seen this movie before, the one where the handsome new charismatic sheriff (who just happens to be a major GloboCap player, or puppet, or otherwise a member of “the club”) rides into town to set things right. No matter how many I watch it, it always seems to end the same.

  The other thing is … well, it’s personal. For about a year now, Twitter has been maliciously defaming my business account in order to damage my reputation and income. Twitter has been doing that by concealing my tweets — the majority, but not all, of my tweets — behind fake “age-restricted adult content” advisories. Twitter has been doing that in order to trick people into believing that I am tweeting some kind of pornography.

  

  This rather weird tactic has been quite effective. It has definitely damaged my income as an author, and has presumably misled countless people into assuming I am some sort of sleazy pornographer posing as a political satirist. You can probably imagine how I feel about that.

  Elon Musk’s Twitter did not start this, and I realize the man has a lot on his plate, but I just assumed that, after a month or so on the throne, it might have occurred to him to issue an order instructing his “freebird” staff to, you know, stop maliciously defaming people, and attempting to damage their reputations and income, because they questioned the official Covid-19 narrative, or the official Russia narrative, or the “Emperor Elonicus” narrative.

  

  Or … I don’t know, maybe I’m overreacting. Maybe Elonicus really has come to save us from the “woke” fanatics. Maybe this is not just another iteration of the classic good cop/bad cop routine, like when Obama the Beneficent saved the world from Evil Bush and ended the War on Terror by bombing numerous countries, extrajudicially assassinating anyone he felt like, and illegally surveilling everyone, to the wild applause of millions of liberals, who had spent the previous eight years shrieking about Evil Bush doing exactly the same thing.

  Because conservatives and libertarians would never fall for a con job like that, would they?

  No, the Emperor Elonicus is probably going to issue that order any day now (i.e., to cease and desist from maliciously defaming people). Or I guess it might take a little longer than that. Not maliciously defaming people is probably a complicated, multi-stage process involving months of meticulous planning, like rocketing a car into outer space. One Elonicus fan, alarmed by the disrespectful tone of my repeated tweets to the Emperor, advised me to stop whining and wait one full year, which … sure, on reflection, that’s probably about right.

  So, never mind, and please forgive the foregoing blasphemy. Hail Elonicus! Long may he reign!

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 23:00

• Biden Joins Over 400 Trade Groups In Calling On Congress To Pass Legislation To Avert Crippling Rail Strike
  Biden Joins Over 400 Trade Groups In Calling On Congress To Pass Legislation To Avert Crippling Rail Strike

  Calls for government intervention to prevent a rail strike in early-to-mid-December became louder Monday, with more than 400 state and national trade groups asking the majority and minority leaders of Congress to prevent a rail strike that would disrupt the flow of goods as soon as next week and could further hobble the pre-recessionary US economy.

  In a Monday letter to Congress seen by Freightwaves, the US Chamber of Commerce sent a letter on Monday, signed by dozens of other business lobbying groups, to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders calling on them to intervene to prevent a labor strike or a lockout by the freight railroads. The Chamber and these groups have made similar calls before, and some of the groups plan a press conference for Tuesday; the groups pleaded with congressional leaders to address the possible rail strike, calling it a “matter of grave urgency” because of the potential billions of dollars such a shutdown could cost the U.S. economy.

  “No one wins when the railroads stop running,” the letter said. “Congress recognized their necessity to interstate commerce and America’s economic health with the passage of the Railway Labor Act and past congressional interventions in rail labor disputes when other steps failed. Indeed, Congress has intervened 18 times since 1926 in labor negotiations that threaten interstate commerce and there is no reason why Congress should deviate from this record today. 

  “While a voluntary agreement with the four holdout unions is the best outcome, the risks to America’s economy and communities simply make a national rail strike unacceptable. Therefore, absent a voluntary agreement, we call on you [Congress] to take immediate steps to prevent a national rail strike and the certain economic destruction that would follow.”

  Members of four rail unions have failed to ratify a labor agreement, while eight others have ratified theirs. The cooling-off period in which neither the unions nor railroads can take any corrective actions ends just after midnight EST on Dec. 9, which means that on Dec 10 the US economy could find itself paralyzed all over again.

  The two sides are in negotiations but the railroads said they would not deviate far from the recommendations of the panel, while union leaders said they must win new concessions, such as paid sick days, to take back to their workers. If no agreement has been reached before then, union members could go on strike or the railroads could lock out union workers.

  The four unions to have not ratified labor deals consist of over 56% of all unionized workers who have been seeking to receive a new contract since January 2020. They include two of the larger unions, one representing train conductors and the other maintenance-of-way employees.

  “As provided for under federal law and consistent with past practice, Congress must be prepared to intervene before the end of the current ‘status quo’ period on Dec. 9 to ensure continued rail service should railroads and [the] four unions fail to reach a voluntary agreement. A strike by any one union would assuredly result in a stoppage of national rail service,” said the letter signed by the Agriculture Transport Coalition, American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute and National Retail Federation, among others.

  The letter also hearkened back to September, when freight railroads reduced their operations of handling hazardous materials ahead of a potential strike as a security measure. That strike could have occurred had the two largest rail unions — the ones representing train conductors and locomotive engineers — failed to reach a tentative agreement. After reaching that deal, the locomotive engineers voted to ratify it, but the train conductors ultimately turned it down.

  “Many businesses will see the impacts of a national rail strike well before Dec. 9 — through service disruptions and other impacts potentially as  early as Dec. 5,” the letter said. “The sooner this labor impasse ends, the better for our communities and our national economy.”

  Late on Monday, the WSJ reported that Joe Biden joined the trade groups in calling on Congress to pass legislation to adopt a tentative labor agreement in an effort to avert a rail shutdown that could hurt the economy before the holiday season.

  “As a proud pro-labor President, I am reluctant to override the ratification procedures and the views of those who voted against the agreement,” Biden said in a statement. “But in this case—where the economic impact of a shutdown would hurt millions of other working people and families—I believe Congress must use its powers to adopt this deal.”

  White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said President Biden is directly involved in the matter and “has had conversations with members of Congress on this particular issue in case resolving the issue falls to them, as it has 18 times in the last 60 years.”

  The White House and congressional leaders say a strike would be unacceptable but that the companies and unions need to resolve their disagreements. The White House appointed a panel over the summer to mediate the discussions. Eight unions have ratified the deal that came out of those talks, but four haven’t.

  Under the Railway Labor Act, Congress can make both sides accept an agreement that their members have voted down. Likewise, lawmakers can order negotiations to continue and delay the strike deadline for a certain period, or they could send the dispute to outside arbitrators.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 22:40

• Conrad Black: Is America In Decline?
  Conrad Black: Is America In Decline?

  Authored by Conrad Black via The Epoch Times,

  Gloom is always annoying and almost never the best response to even the most upsetting developments. It’s always psychologically better and a more efficient response to negative facts to try to design around them and get back to a positive sequence of objectives, no matter how tortuous and challenging.

  Sometimes reflexive and uninformed cheerfulness is useful as a momentary palliative, but it swiftly descends into a make-believe optimism that is bound to be disappointed. That seems to be where much of the Republican response to the midterm elections has settled.

  Those of us who are appalled by the weakness, incoherence, corruption, and hypocrisy of the Biden administration would do better to recognize the implications of the disaster in the midterm elections and the extent of the task that confronts those—apparently a significant majority—who believe that Bidenism is a straight boulevard to catastrophe.

  Whatever else may be said of Donald Trump, he represented a shaped-up Western alliance fully armed and determined to prevent continued Chinese advance at the expense of the West; effective opposition to North Korea and Iran as nuclear powers; and a determination to reverse the erosion of America by the admission of countless millions of migrants partly masking the smuggling in with them of unfeasible quantities of lethal drugs. He also represented the celebration of the unifying American nationality over atomizing inflamed groups protesting multifarious forms of victimhood: self-serving nihilists gnawing at the bowels of America and denigrating virtually all of its characteristics and traditions.

  Trump supported rational limits to the treatment of climate change: He continued to compel the reduction of environmental pollution while eliminating oil imports and recognizing the economic insanity of excessive and over-hasty promotion of energy sources that are deemed to be sustainable but are, in fact, inadequate in themselves and economically profoundly unsustainable. America has apparently chosen Biden over Trump twice, a grievous self-issued verdict.

  It was widely believed prior to the midterm elections that the fact that three-quarters of Americans believed the country was headed in the wrong direction under the current administration, and disapproved of that administration by a substantial majority, would assure that a sharp course correction would be imposed by the voters.

  

  The principal fact to emerge from these elections was that the well-founded disapproval of this hapless and, at times, malevolent administration was effectively equaled by a confected, defamatory fear that a return of Donald Trump would plunge the country into chaos, violence, racism, and intolerable indignities.

  …

  It seemed a reasonable hope that the failures of the Biden administration in almost every field and the alarming trend of the most obvious indicators—economic breakdown and soaring crime rates—would motivate the country to seek a different result in the event of a presidential election rematch between Biden and Trump. The evidence of the midterm elections is otherwise, and the Republicans have only managed to accustom themselves to the dangerous practices of ballot harvesting in some states and not in others.

  Unless Trump can, as he gave some indication of doing in his announcement of his campaign for renomination, convince a substantial number of voters that he’s a seriously renovated and less erratic political personality, there’s no reason to think he will do better in 2024 than he has in the last two elections.

  He can still meet these criteria, but it will require diligence and self-discipline.

  …

  For the majority who still believe in the traditional America, sensibly updated and cleansed of discrimination, the country is entering mortally perilous times. The midterms were a wake-up call, but has anyone awakened?

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 22:20

• Biden's Gender-Fluid Nuclear Official Charged With Felony Theft After Lying To Cops
  Biden’s Gender-Fluid Nuclear Official Charged With Felony Theft After Lying To Cops

  A senior Department of Energy official was charged with felony theft after stealing a piece of luggage from the Minneapolis airport in September – shortly before taking a leave of absence.

  

  Sam Brinton, a gender-fluid nuclear expert who in 2015 defended underage gay prostitution website “Rentboy.com,” allegedly took a Vera Bradley suitcase worth $2,325 from the luggage carousel at the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport (MSP) on September 16, Fox News reports, citing a criminal complaint filed Oct. 16 in Minnesota state court.

  It’s official. As of June 19th, I now serve my nation as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy in the Department of Energy. pic.twitter.com/zLq3Bf97X2

  — Sam Brinton (@sbrinton) June 29, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsAccording to court filings, surveillance footage showed Brinton taking the luggage, then removing its tag identifying the owner, before leaving the airport. Brinton was observed using the luggage during at least two other trips to Washington DC – on Sept. 18 and Oct. 9.

  When a police officer called Brinton on Oct. 9 for questioning, Brinton confirmed that he still possessed the suitcase, but then claimed it was his.

  “If I had taken the wrong bag, I am happy to return it, but I don’t have any clothes for another individual,” Brinton told the officer, adding “That was my clothes when I opened the bag.“

  Two hours later, Brinton called back and apologized for not being “completely honest,” adding that taking the wrong bag was a mistake because ht was tired.

  “DEFENDANT said when they opened the bag at the hotel, they realized it was not theirs,” reads the court filing. “DEFENDANT got nervous people would think they stole the bag and did not know what to do. DEFENDANT stated they left the clothes from the bag inside the drawers in the hotel room.”

  Brinton was ultimately charged with felony theft of a movable property without consent, a charge that could result in a five-year sentence, $10,000 fine or both.

  Minnesota-based outlet Alpha News first reported the charges against Brinton on Monday.

  Brinton was placed on leave about a month ago and another official was named as a replacement in the interim earlier this month, according to the Exchange Monitor which tracks government hires. The DOE didn’t explain why Brinton took leave at the time. -Fox News

  Sounds like Brinton can add ‘klepto’ to their resume.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 22:00

• "Instructions From Kiev": Ukraine Propaganda Messaging
  “Instructions From Kiev”: Ukraine Propaganda Messaging

  Authored by Yves Smith via NakedCapitalism.com,

  Below we are reproducing a post from Ukraine Telegram, along with an assessment from Colonel Douglas Macgregor. A long-standing military colleague sent the material to Macgregor, who deems it to be authentic.

  One thing that is striking about the text of Ukraine gaslighting messaging points is the focus on creating dissent in the military with the intent of achieving regime change in Moscow. One thing I have inferred despite my considerable distance from Russian Telegram is the degree to which it seems to be highly critical of the Russian government’s conduct of the war. This seems to go beyond possible self-selection. Yes, ex-soldiers and other war nerds can no doubt come up with mistakes made, as well as having a general hankering for more aggressive action. Mind you, Russia is now moving into that footing with its dissection of Ukraine’s electrical grid. That is presumably be followed sometime in the winter with an increase in the tempo of the war. But Surovikin promised a grinding war. If that translates into grinding in more places, and faster loss of Ukraine/Western men and materiel, will that be kinetic enough to make these armchair generals happy?

  What has struck me with my limited contact with Russian Telegram is that its members seem too often to become overwrought about minor setbacks, like the loss of three Russian helicopters at an airbase due to apparent sabotage. Yes, this is bad and suggests not enough care was taken to prevent such an event (although one could easily argue given the ferocity of Ukraine intent that the level of successful terrorist operations has been comparatively modest). But the level of upset on Telegram seemed wildly disproportionate, and hence not organic…particularly given that the Western press also flogged the story.

  Some of the messaging in the Western press is also so uniform as to raise questions about how so many journalists can suddenly be thinking the same thing. For instance, now that they can’t not mention Russia’s destruction of Ukraine’s electrical grid, the spin is that this move is an act of desperation by Russia, a last-ditch effort to salvage its failing campaign….which will clearly fizzle into nothing when they run out of missiles.

  

  Now to Macgregor, who I hope you will thank for letting me publish his finding. Hoisted from e-mail:

  I am indebted to XXXX who sent this material to me this morning. The material is very revealing.

  The instructions below from the Kiev Government to its propaganda organs read like talking points for the Washington Post, New York Times, and most of the major western media. These points were lifted from a Ukrainian telegram channel. The stories that appear in Western media begin with the utterly false and misleading assertions on the list below. Encouraged by Western Governments, Western Journalists eagerly adopt them and present the fairy tales that proceed from them as factual.

  Trotsky who distinguished himself during the Russian Civil War and the Russian Invasion of Poland with the creation of similarly effective lies and fabrications would be enormously proud of Zalenskiy and the work he and his apparatus are doing.

  From XXX:

  According to the source, this is a conditional training manual for a week from the functionaries of the Office of the President and CIPSO for their bot farms and social media to work in the RU segment.

  Media plan, November 21-27

  Topic: Problems of mobilization 

  • Search and creation of materials about the problems of providing mobilized weapons, equipment, mistakes in managing on the battlefield and during training.

  • Use authentic videos from the mobilized, published in Russian news and military Telegram channels.

  • Obtaining, creating and disseminating insider information about problems in the regions. Detailed coverage, generalization of problematic incidents for the entire mobilization process.

  • The direct accusation of the Russian high command and leadership of the Ministry of Defense of corruption, low qualifications and neglect of the lives of their subordinates.

  Topic: Losses in manpower and equipment 

  • Use of numerical data of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, ISW, CIT, Oryx and other approved sources.

  • Emphasize high casualties among mobilized, not professional Russian military. The task is to create a conflict between the career military and those called up for mobilization for further development and consistent updating.

  • Calls to lay down arms and surrender – saving lives is more important than war for undefined goals and the Kremlin regime. Involvement of youth opinion leaders and organizations to disseminate such appeals.

  • Losses in technology – translate the assessment into financial indicators. Emphasis: the money spent on the war, the Kremlin should have distributed among the population, so that it becomes richer.

  • Emphasize the losses of the economy from the war and the imposed sanctions.

  Topic: Internal conflicts in power 

  • Key line: to strengthen the basis for the revolt of the military against the Kremlin in case of a crisis.

  • Return to theses about conflicts in the Russian elite, among the “Kremlin towers”. The task is to undermine the trust of civil officials and security forces in each other.

  • The accusation of officials of the Presidential Administration and the government of disagreeing with the actions of the military, in parallel to disseminate information about the violent dissatisfaction of the military with the political decisions of the Kremlin. Task: to launch information about the next conflict between the civilian and security forces of the regime.

  • The use of defector speakers to launch information about conflicts between law enforcement agencies – the military, the FSB, the National Guard.

  • Continuing the line: discrediting past referendums on joining Russia. The key thesis is that among the Russians, the annexation of regions does not enjoy support, their preservation as part of Russia is not considered important following the results of the war.

  Topic: Russia is a terrorist state 

  • Key line: The whole world considers the Russian regime to be terrorist in its essence, punishment for its crimes is inevitable.

  • Active coverage of Russian strikes on civilian infrastructure. Emphasize the suffering of the civilian population from the power outage, the victims of the civilian population from shelling.

  • Accents in coverage: The European Parliament recognizes Russia as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”. The Dutch Parliament will vote on a resolution recognizing the Russian Federation as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”. Emphasize European unity on the issue of recognizing the Putin regime as a terrorist one.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 21:40

• NYISO Warns New Yorkers About "Sharp Rise" In Winter Electricity Prices
  NYISO Warns New Yorkers About “Sharp Rise” In Winter Electricity Prices

  Readers have been well-informed that the global energy crisis is finally coming to America this winter as energy bills soar. The latest sign of soaring power costs is a warning from New York’s grid operator. 

  In a press release, New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) wrote that millions of New Yorkers would have enough electricity supplies this winter to meet forecasted peak demand conditions.

  While that’s a relief NYISO won’t have to resort to power blackouts this winter, the grid operator warned customers would face “a sharp rise in wholesale electricity prices expected this winter due to several economic and geopolitical factors that continue to impact the cost of natural gas used in the production of electricity.” 

  

  Bloomberg pointed out that NYC natural gas prices for January delivery were more than 60% higher than a year ago. Plus, diesel prices are through the roof as fuel supplies in the Northeast are dangerously low. Combine higher inputs to generate power, which means the added costs will be passed onto consumers. 

  

  For months we have pointed out, “The Average US Household Pays 47% More For Electricity Than A Year Ago” and “American Energy Bills Are Set To Soar This Winter” and “Your Next Pain Will Be Soaring Electricity Costs As Energy Crisis Comes To America.”

  And just as the cold season begins, there are 20 million households behind on their power bills. Now power companies are renegotiating power contracts with households, increasing the price per kilowatt substantially.

  Winter is coming...

  

  Americans will increasingly burn firewood this year to offset soaring electricity costs, just like millions of Europeans — as the energy crisis sends the western world back to the ‘medieval’ days of using stoves and fireplaces to heat homes because of failed sanctions against Russia and terrible energy policy by western politicians pushing ESG garbage. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 21:20

• Was San Francisco Election Official Not Rehired Because He Wasn't 'Diverse' Enough?
  Was San Francisco Election Official Not Rehired Because He Wasn’t ‘Diverse’ Enough?

  Authored by Alan Dershowitz via The Gatestone Institute,

  • The City of San Francisco is a state actor that is constitutionally prohibited from disqualifying job applicants on the basis of race. That is precisely what occurred here, despite the phony claim that Arntz can reapply for his job.

  • There is one important benefit to the San Francisco decision — at least as compared to university admissions decisions. The San Francisco panel did not try to disguise the racial criteria they are employing, whereas most universities go to great length to deny that race alone is often a dispositive factor in ranking applicants. This will make it easier for the courts to hold San Francisco’s Arntz decision as a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

  • In the bad old days, race was often used to discriminate against Black applicants. Today race is often used to discriminate in favor of Black applicants. I guess that is some sort of progress. But real progress will be achieved only if and when race is no longer a factor that trumps meritocracy. Only then will Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of how his children and ours should be judged become a reality.

  John Arntz has held the job of San Francisco’s director of the Department of Elections for two decades. He has been repeatedly praised for his excellent performance at this increasingly important job — important because of so many election challenges and doubts. Just two years ago, the election commission commended him for his “incredible leadership.” But now they are essentially firing him because he is apparently of the wrong race to satisfy their “racial equity plan.”

  

  This is what he was told:

  “Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan and give people an opportunity to compete for a leadership position.”

  The mayor of San Francisco, London Breed, disagreed:

  “John Arntz has served San Francisco with integrity, professionalism and has stayed completely independent. He’s remained impartial and has avoided getting caught up in the web of City politics, which is what we are seeing now as a result of this unnecessary vote.

  “Over the last year John successfully ran four elections while navigating a pandemic that thwarted San Francisco into crisis response – all without a single issue. Rather than working on key issues to recover and rebuilt our City, this is a good example of unfair politicization of a key part of our government that is working well for the voters of this city.”

  All of the 12 managers in his department asked that his contract be renewed. But in today’s woke world of identity politics, race trumps meritocracy. “Racial equity” plans are apparently more important than electoral integrity.

  It well maybe that Arntz’s “equity” replacement will be as good as or better than him. There are, after all, highly qualified people of all races and backgrounds. But that is not the point. His contract would clearly have been renewed — he would not have been fired — if he were of an “acceptable” race. But he is not, because he does not meet the criteria for the city’s “racial equity plan.”

  To cover their legal rear ends (“CYA”) the panel has said that Arntz can “reapply” and be considered among the pool of candidates who do meet the criteria of racial equity, even though he does not! This “CYA” tactic does not even pass the giggle test.

  It certainly does not pass the constitutional test, even the one that currently allows universities to place the thumb of racial diversity on the scale of admissions. That test is likely to be changed — perhaps disallowed — even in the context of private universities such as Harvard. The City of San Francisco is a state actor that is constitutionally prohibited from disqualifying job applicants on the basis of race. That is precisely what occurred here, despite the phony claim that he can reapply for his job.

  There is one important benefit to the San Francisco decision — at least as compared to university admissions decisions. The San Francisco panel did not try to disguise the racial criteria they are employing, whereas most universities go to great length to deny that race alone is often a dispositive factor in ranking applicants. This will make it easier for the courts to hold San Francisco’s Arntz decision as a clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. But even if this particularly outrageous decision is struck down as unconstitutional, many cities and other governmental units will continue to use race as a basis for hiring and firing employees. They will simply be less transparent about it than San Francisco was.

  In the bad old days, race was often used to discriminate against Black applicants. Today race is often used to discriminate in favor of Black applicants. I guess that is some sort of progress. But real progress will be achieved only if and when race is no longer a factor that trumps meritocracy. Only then will Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of how his children and ours should be judged become a reality.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 21:00

• Japan Considering Long-Range Missiles For Submarines
  Japan Considering Long-Range Missiles For Submarines

  Despite only until recently having no military to speak of at all based on post-WWII disarmament, Japan’s defense ministry is hinting that it could soon equip its submarines with long range missiles, regional media reported Monday.

  Japan’s armed forces are “considering acquiring the capability to launch long-range missiles from submarines as a way to mount a counter-strike against foreign threats,” Nikkei reported.

  

  Japan’s public broadcaster NHK referenced considerations for the acquirement of the iconic Tomahawk cruise missile in partnership with the US. If it goes through, the new platform would be deployable by some point in the 2030s. 

  The news comes after in the last couple years Tokyo acknowledged it is studying ways to enhance deterrence. In 2021, for example, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida stated:

   “In order to protect the lives and livelihood of our citizens, we will examine all options, including so-called enemy base strike capability in a realistic manner without ruling out any options. We will fundamentally strengthen our defense capabilities with an accelerated pace.”

  Earlier reports also said that ships and fighter jets will be included as key platforms from which to launch longer range missiles. 

  Maritime and arms monitoring site Naval News describes based on the reports, “the reason why the Japanese government is considering the purchase of Tomahawk is that it cannot wait to deploy domestically produced long-range cruise missiles in the face of recent heightened security threats.”

  China in particular has of late been seen as challenging Japan’s maritime territory and sovereignty over disputed islands. Japan has also recently become more vocally supportive of the United States’ stance on the Taiwan issue. 

  

  “The Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) is currently in the process of extending the range of the Type 12 surface-to-ship missiles deployed by the Ground Self-Defense Force (JGSDF), from the current 200 km to a maximum of 1,200 km,” the Naval News report explains. Japanese media has revealed that submarines are now being seriously considered as among the list of options.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 20:40

• Only 28% Of Americans Are Worried About COVID Anymore; New Poll Finds
  Only 28% Of Americans Are Worried About COVID Anymore; New Poll Finds

  Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

  A Gallup poll has found that fewer than a third of Americans remain worried about COVID.

  

  “Twenty-eight percent of Americans say they are ‘very’ or ‘somewhat worried’ they will get COVID — the lowest percentage Gallup has recorded since the summer of 2021,” the pollster notes.

  

  The survey also found that 78% believe the pandemic to be “over,” a new high, with most people saying that everyone should “lead their normal lives as much as possible and avoid interruptions to work and business.”

  

  Gallup further notes that “The same poll finds the smallest percentages of Americans yet reporting they are steering clear of specific situations because of the coronavirus, including avoiding large crowds (24%), avoiding travel by plane or public transportation (19%), avoiding going to public places (16%) and avoiding small gatherings (13%).”

  “Use of face masks remains fairly common, but the 40% saying they have worn one in the past week when outside their home is also a new low during the pandemic,” the pollster adds.

  Most Americans are not bothering with social distancing anymore either, according to the poll.

  

  “About six in 10 Americans (59%) say they have made no attempt to isolate themselves from people outside their household in the past 24 hours — the most eschewing social distancing since the beginning of the pandemic,” Gallup explains.

  “Sixteen percent, similar to the level in April, now say they have completely or mostly isolated themselves from people outside their household, while 25% — the lowest reading since April 2020 — say they have isolated themselves partially or a little,” the report further notes.

  Despite the findings, along with all the recent revelations about vaccines and vaccine mandates, globalist technocrats appear to be planning to bring back vaccine passports for the “next pandemic.”

  *  *  *

  Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

  In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 20:20

• Are Progressive "Experts" Fallible? Yes, But Don't Tell Them That
  Are Progressive “Experts” Fallible? Yes, But Don’t Tell Them That

  Authored by Claudio Grass via The Mises Institute,

  It can be argued that the world has reached the sorry state it’s in today largely because academics, politicians, “distinguished experts,” and “recognized authorities” did not have the humility to admit their own mistakes or to at least recognize the limits of their knowledge. Of course, this is far from a new affliction in societies and political systems. Hubris was among the most terrible sins that the ancient Greeks warned against, and there have been too many narcissists in positions of power to count since the emergence of the first organized societies.

  People who believe they know best, not just for themselves, but everyone else too, are naturally attracted to roles that would allow them to impose their will, their morality, and their values on their neighbors.

  

  However, one also can argue that the problem is much more prevalent today than at any other time in our history. The modern news landscape, both mainstream and social media, the supercharged propaganda machines of all developed nations, and our public education system, ensure that dangerous figures will hardly be challenged by anyone once presented to the public as de facto, “recognized,” and “widely accepted” authorities. This is also true of politicians, but things are infinitely more perilous when it comes to science. The average citizen can more easily question a political stance directly, whereas it can be impossible to judge the merits of a scientific one without detailed and specific knowledge.

  Therefore, it is much easier to “sell” any academic, from professors to junior researchers, as an “authority,” one that must be obeyed and never questioned. They can freely give us all advice on how to live our lives, and they can even dictate policy, despite the fact that usually that kind of thing tends to have side effects in areas they have absolutely no clue about. Once placed on their pedestals, they become “anointed.” They don’t even have to share their qualifications, their accomplishments, or any testimonies from their peers.

  Their professional records are irrelevant; well, their failures, at any rate. After all, how could you, average Joe, even begin to use your untrained, unspecialized brain to judge the particulars of their CVs or their research? After all, what do you know about climatology, about infectious diseases, or about macroeconomics? Isn’t it hubris on your part to dismiss the decades of dedication and work that someone else invested in a single subject and to believe that you know better?

  These would be fair arguments if we lived in an unbiased world where open debate and independent thinking were actually encouraged. In that world, multiple experts would engage in public exchanges and challenge each other by presenting relevant, contradictory findings and evidence for different theories. And every viewpoint would be explored and scrutinized, in a grand competition of ideas. Those hypotheses and models that matched real-life observations and had more accurate predictive value would be promoted to theories, and only then could we base our policy making upon them. But just as easily, old ideas would be consigned to the ash heap of history once better ideas came along. This is the scientific method, the product of reason; everything else we see today is the product of a cult mentality.

  And it yields the results one would expect: catastrophically wrong “theories” with devastating consequences for entire nations, even the entire world. We’re seeing much of this play out in real time today. The demented fanaticism of the West and its leaders’ monomaniacal obsession with the “green” agenda have led to an energy crisis like no other. In Europe, guided by “expert advice,” the policies of the last decade and the premature transition away from fossil fuels have left most countries almost entirely dependent on imports. Skyrocketing electricity bills have already crippled countless households and this self-inflicted crisis even has the potential to cost actual lives this winter.

  Another area where this phenomenon is painfully obvious is the “dismal science.” The field of economics has arguably produced some of the most dangerous “authorities” the world has ever seen. Once placed in a position of power, in a central bank or in a finance ministry, for instance, the chaos they can wreak is frightening and truly lasting. This is because the general public really has no understanding of even the most basic economic principles and no grasp of monetary history, and it is justifiably intimidated by the jargon used. This is why central bankers can deflect the blame so easily each time their policies go awry and why “respected economists” can sell nonsensical but popular ideas as “fact,” just as we saw with “modern monetary theory.”

  A rare exception can be found in Austrian economics. Economists of this school understand very well that the economy is an extremely complex, living organism and that there is no such thing as a homo economicus or a perfectly rational actor that behaves exactly as a model predicts. No, there are no such creatures, we only have humans to work with, for better or for worse. As Walter E. Block put it in a recent article:

  I think the steadfast refusal of Austrians to engage in economic predictions is consonant with our limited powers. We can explain economic reality and understand quite a bit of it, but unless “all else is constant” which it never is, we cannot predict, at least not qua economists. Intellectual modesty is of great value. Do I predict that one day mainstream economists will come to see the error of their ways in this regard? I hope so, but, as an Austrian economist, I make no predictions either way.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 19:40

• Beijing Police Checking People's Phones For Social Media Apps Amid Mass Protests: Report
  Beijing Police Checking People’s Phones For Social Media Apps Amid Mass Protests: Report

  Mass protests against China’s ‘zero-covid’ policy have spread to Hong Kong, after demonstrators on the mainland began demanding that President Xi Jinping resign.

  

  Around 50 students at the Chinese University of Hong Kong were pictured chanting “No PCR tests but freedom!” and “Opposed dictatorship, don’t be slaves!” while holding up blank pieces of paper – which have become a symbol of protest against China’s clampdown on freedom of expression, according to Axios. The blank paper protests were previously seen during the Hong Kong protests in 2020, and earlier this year during demonstrations against the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

  

  “We are not foreign forces! We are Chinese youth!” pic.twitter.com/QraYzybqPR

  — Xinqi Su 蘇昕琪 (@XinqiSu) November 28, 2022

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

  Anti-lockdown protests spread throughout several cities over the weekend, including Beijing, Shanghai and Wuhan – which were largely muted on Monday after police moved out in force.

  Meanwhile, police in Beijing, Shanghai and Hangzhou have reportedly been checking the phones of random citizens to look for unapproved social media apps. If they found Twitter or Telegram, the personal information would be taken down and the person would receive a warning. Any resistance would be met with a report, according to DW News correspondent William Yang.

  Updates: police in Beijing, Shanghai and Hangzhou have all reportedly been checking people’s phones. #China https://t.co/VIxUhtoAct

  — William Yang (@WilliamYang120) November 28, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsOn Monday, a BBC reporter who was arrested over the weekend while covering the protests reported that police were checking people’s phones for photos, and forcing people to delete them (or have them deleted).

  People being forced to delete photos by the police today at the of the last two days of protests #shanghai #china pic.twitter.com/VS1kFSoh3x

  — Edward Lawrence (@EP_Lawrence) November 28, 2022

  In response to the protests, China’s Foreign Ministry says that the country has been “making adjustments” to Covid protocols “based on realities on the ground.” This follows a statement out of Beijing earlier in the month in which the CCP said they would “unswervingly adhere” to their zero-Covid policy, but would make it less disruptive.

  “We will protect people’s lives and health to the greatest extent and minimize the impact of the epidemic on economic and social development,” said CCP officials, adding “But recent spikes in Covid cases have prompted cities to tighten protocols.”

  On Monday Spokesperson Zhao Lijian said that China is actively implementing the 9th version of the pandemic protocols.

  “We believe that, with the leadership of China’s Communist Party and the cooperation and support of all Chinese people, our fight against COVID-19 will be successful,” he told reporters.

  China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson said the country has been “making adjustments” to its Covid protocols “based on realities on the ground,” despite the public anger across the country over its stringent Covid Zero policy https://t.co/OmnBHyj5Us pic.twitter.com/xDbzKXu8hg

  — Bloomberg Quicktake (@Quicktake) November 28, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsMeanwhile, Apple is helping the CCP:

  Apple has released a software update limiting the use of AirDrop in China in light of recent protests.

  AirDrop was being used by protesters to transmit info directly phone to phone, bypassing the Great Firewall of China. pic.twitter.com/2UNtOeuTBZ

  — Whole Mars Catalog (@WholeMarsBlog) November 28, 2022

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

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 19:20

• US Soccer Coach Apologizes To Iran Over Flag Scandal In Unprecedented Presser
  US Soccer Coach Apologizes To Iran Over Flag Scandal In Unprecedented Presser

  Update(1510ET): In an unprecedented press conference, the head coach of the US soccer team Gregg Berhalter apologized to the Iranian team over the altered flag controversy. However, he asserted that he and the team had no involvement with the weekend social media post which unleashed a firestorm of controversy. 

  “We had no idea about what U.S. Soccer put out. The staff, the players, we had no idea,” Berhalter said at the Monday press conference. “Our focus is on this match,” he added. That’s when he issued a formal apology amid Tehran’s insistence that the US team be disqualified: 

  “We’re not focused on those outside things and all we can do, on our behalf, is apologize on behalf of the players and the staff. But it’s not something that we were a part of.”

  

  “I’m not well versed on international politics. I’m a football coach,” he had stressed while being grilled by international reporters covering the World Cup in Doha.

  Iran over the weekend and into Monday said that the US Soccer federation had “disrespected the national flag of Islamic Republic of Iran,” and additionally that it was “unethical and against international law.” State media described that the US had removed “the symbol of Allah” from the Iranian flag in social media posts. The original national flag of Iran has since been restored to the US team’s social media accounts. 

  As Axios previews, “The U.S. team will play Iran on Tuesday in a match that is a must-win for the USA in order to advance to the knock-out stage of the World Cup tournament.” As for Iran, it “can sneak through with a draw if Wales doesn’t defeat England in their next match, also taking place Tuesday.”

  * * *

  Iran is demanding that the US Soccer team be disqualified from the World Cup going into Tuesday’s much anticipated US-Iran match, after more off-field controversy has sent tensions to boiling point. 

  A Saturday social media post across the official social media accounts of the US Soccer Federation (USSF), including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram – featured an altered version of the Iranian national flag without the Islamic emblem in the center. US Soccer said it was to show solidarity with the ongoing ‘anti-hijab’ protest movement which has been raging for over two months inside Iran.

  

  “We wanted to show our support for the women in Iran with our graphic for 24 hours,” the US Soccer federation said. The USSF said this was in “support for the women in Iran fighting for basic human rights.”

  In response, Iran’s soccer federation said the move “disrespected the national flag of Islamic Republic of Iran,” and additionally that it was “unethical and against international law.” 

  It is driving outrage inside Iran, given that state media is describing that the US is “removing the symbol of Allah” from the Iranian flag. According to a description in the Associated Press: 

  The Islamic Republic emblem, designed in 1980, is four curves with a sword between them. It represents the Islamic saying: “There is no god but God.” It also resembles a tulip or lotus.

  In response, on Sunday Iran state media called for the US team to be immediately booted from the World Cup for the intentionally “distorted image” of the flag.

  Tasnim news agency said in a statement, “By posting a distorted image of the flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran on its official account, the US football team breached the FIFA charter, for which a 10-game suspension is the appropriate penalty.” It emphasized: “Team USA should be kicked out of the World Cup 2022.”

  Iran’s soccer federation called for the U.S. to be expelled from the World Cup over social media posts that featured a doctored version of Iran’s flag. U.S. Soccer said that it was meant to show support for the women of Iran, but later deleted the posts. https://t.co/zEX9IhT8K3

  — The New York Times (@nytimes) November 27, 2022

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

  The flag sans Islamic emblem appeared for 24 hours and then the actual flag was restored…

  The US soccer team changed Iran’s flag ahead of their match, then changed it back to its correct form after Iran complained to FIFA. #FIFAWorldCup pic.twitter.com/MlsiihdfBt

  — Richard Medhurst (@richimedhurst) November 27, 2022

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

  FIFA has thus far not indicated whether it will take any punitive action.

  Already there has been much off-the-field controversy and drama in Qatar, including a strict FIFA ban on players wearing ‘pro-LGBT’ armbands – which a number of European teams had initially planned to do, but have since backed off of.

  For Iran especially, Qatar 2022 continues to be one of the most politicized World Cups in recent memory…

  The sore losers of British state media https://t.co/z9HE3atvTr

  — Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) November 26, 2022

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

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 19:11

• Canadian Banks Slammed For Continued Fossil Fuel Investments
  Canadian Banks Slammed For Continued Fossil Fuel Investments

  Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

  • Canadian banks are receiving backlash from investors for their continued investments in fossil fuels.

  • All Canadian banks were revealed to have increased their exposure to fossil fuels between 2020 and 2021, by between 25 percent – TD and BMO – and 132 percent for CIBC.

  • The report is the latest example of investor pressure on financial institutions to reduce their lending to fossil fuel companies.

  An investor group has criticized Canadian lenders for investing heavily in fossil fuels despite the Paris Agreement, noting that all of the largest Canadian banks still need to be ready for net zero.

  

  In a report titled Net Zero Policy Report Card, Investors for Paris Compliance graded Canada’s largest banks on several indicators, including fossil fuel investments, climate targets, and emissions reporting.

  In fossil fuel investments, all banks were revealed to have increased their exposure between 2020 and 2021, by between 25 percent—TD and BMO—and 132 percent for CIBC.

  According to the report, RBC invested $48.5 billion in fossil fuels last year, up 101 percent on 2020, and Scotiabank increased its exposure to the sector by 87 percent to $38 billion.

  TD’s fossil fuel investments rose to $26.4 billion, and BMO’s went up to$23.5 billion. CIBC invested $27.8 billion in fossil fuels in 2021, Investors for Paris Compliance said, noting that the sixth bank under review, National Bank, had no data published on its fossil fuel industry exposure.

  The report is the latest example of investor pressure on financial institutions to reduce their lending to the fossil fuel sector and focus on emission reporting and reducing measures in line with international Paris Agreement commitments.

  This, however, stands in stark contrast with warnings, including from the IEA, that not enough is being invested in the new supply of fossil fuels, including coal, which this year saw a real renaissance.

  Despite this growing pressure from investors, banks around the world increased their exposure to fossil fuels last year. Earlier in 2022, a report produced by a group of climate nonprofits said that the world’s biggest banks had invested $742 billion in the fossil fuel industry, almost unchanged on 2020. 

  The level of financing was higher than in 2016 and 2017 despite the fact that the global economy was still in recovery mode after the pandemic, the report, released in March, said.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 19:00

• US Complains Russia Has Abruptly Postponed Nuclear Arms Control Talks
  US Complains Russia Has Abruptly Postponed Nuclear Arms Control Talks

  On Monday the United States said that Russia has “unilaterally postponed” important nuclear arms control talks without explanation. The resumption of New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start) negotiations was supposed to happen this week, but now a potential date for their continuation remains uncertain.

  “The United States is ready to reschedule at the earliest possible date as resuming inspections is a priority for sustaining the treaty as an instrument of stability,” the US State Department said.

  

  It was a mere weeks ago that the two sides finally agreed to restart the talks for the first time since Russia’s Ukraine invasion, given the growing international alarm over the increasing prospect of nuclear confrontation and accompanying rhetoric. 

  State Department spokesperson Ned Price said at the time that New START will be focus of bilateral talks in the near future. “We have agreed that the BCC [Bilateral Consultative Commission] will meet in the near future under the terms of the New START Treaty. The work of the BCC is confidential, but we do hope for a constructive session.”

  New START remains the last significant end of Cold War era agreement on nuclear arms control between Washington and Moscow. It is also one of the last hoped-for points of positive communications between the two sides, given spiraling relations over the Ukraine war.

  The commission has not met in more than a year, in October 2021, with central aspects of the treaty since stalled due to attempts of the US to resume nuclear arsenal inspections on Russian soil, which Moscow rebuffed. According to The Associated Press on Monday:

  The State Department said Russia had “unilaterally postponed” a meeting of the Bilateral Consultative Commission that was scheduled to begin Tuesday in Egypt and last through next week. It said Russia had promised to propose new dates but had offered no reason for the delay.

  

  Russia had complained that it was actually the US side which “deprive the Russian Federation of the right to conduct inspections on American territory.” If New START can’t be successfully renewed, this would mark the collapse of the last nuclear agreement between the rival superpowers, creating an ever more dangerous situation for the world.

  * * *

  Below is a summary definition of New START and where things stand via Arms Control Association…

  The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) was signed April 8, 2010, in Prague by the United States and Russia and entered into force on Feb. 5, 2011. New START replaced the 1991 START I treaty, which expired December 2009, and superseded the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which terminated when New START entered into force.

  New START continues the bipartisan process of verifiably reducing U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals begun by former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. New START is the first verifiable U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control treaty to take effect since START I in 1994.

  The United States and Russia agreed on Feb. 3, 2021, to extend New START by five years, as allowed by the treaty text, until Feb. 5, 2026.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 18:40

• Wallowing In Welfare-Warfare State Prison
  Wallowing In Welfare-Warfare State Prison

  Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

  A reader recently sent me an email pointing out that many ex-convicts commit new crimes with the intent of being sent back to prison. They actually feel more comfortable in prison than they do in the outside world.

  This phenomenon shouldn’t surprise us. In prison, the state takes care of prisoners and, by and large, keeps them safe. It provides their food, healthcare, and clothing. In some prisons, prisoners are even given a paying job. Much of the time, prisoners are free to lie around, relaxing in their cells or watching television. Sometimes prisoners are even provided a formal education. And the best part is that all of this is free.

  In other words, with prison the state provides you with security. In the minds of some convicts, that’s a lot better than freedom. When the state casts convicts out of prison, they become responsible for themselves and their well-being. That’s not easy. They need money to buy food, housing, a car, and other things. That means finding and keeping a job. Moreover, outside prison they are faced with an array of choices on a daily basis, which contributes to their anxiety. Better to trade liberty for security.

  The reason that this phenomenon shouldn’t surprise us is that this is no different from what the American people have done with their adoption of a welfare-warfare state way of life.

  They have traded their liberty for security – or at least what they are convinced is security.

  The purpose of government in a welfare state is to take care of the citizenry, not only by providing them with government doles, but also by restricting their range of choices, so that they don’t have to experience excess anxiety.

  That’s what Social Security and Medicare are all about. The government takes care of people when they reach older age. They don’t have to worry about starving to death or dying in the street from some illness, which is what government officials have convinced people would happen in the absence of these two big socialist programs.

  It’s also what public schooling is all about — to provide the education of young people, thereby relieving families of the responsibility of making educational decisions for their children. 

  It’s what education grants and loans are all about — to help young people get a college education. 

  There is the FDIC, to ensure that people don’t lose their money in the event of a bank failure. 

  Public housing provides low-cost housing for the poor. Food stamps ensure that the poor don’t go hungry. Medicaid ensures that the poor are able to get healthcare. 

  Farm subsidies help out needy farmers. Corporate bailouts help out needy corporations. 

  Taking care of people is what drug laws are for. These laws ensure that people will be punished if they possess, ingest, or distribute drugs that have not been approved by the government. That keeps people healthy. If someone gets caught breaking the rules, he is sent to his room, which is located in a state or federal penitentiary.

  Immigration controls. They protect us from immigrant invaders. 

  Trade wars and trade restrictions. They protect us from foreigners who would dump cheap products in our laps.

  And then there is the massive national-security establishment.

  The Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA keep us safe from the terrorists, the drug dealers, the illegal immigrants, the Muslims, the communists, and all those foreign nations that are hell-bent on invading the United States and conquering our country. 

  Moreover, the military provides vast amounts of military welfare for Americans all across the country.

  Think of all of the cities and towns that are dependent on military bases and military installations. Supposedly, they would dry up and die without all that military welfare. And don’t forget all those weapons manufacturers who existence necessarily depends on feeding at the public trough.

  

  Why should it surprise anyone that some convicts readily trade liberty for security? Isn’t that what the American people have done with their adoption of the welfare-warfare state way of life?

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 18:20

• Goldman Prime Finds Hedge Funds Massively Piling Into Energy Stock Shorts
  Goldman Prime Finds Hedge Funds Massively Piling Into Energy Stock Shorts

  Last week, when we recapped Goldman’s quarterly hedge fund monitor report which is the most detailed breakdown of hedge fund activity in the prior quarter, we pointed out something remarkable: while the hedge fund VIP list of most popular long positions continued to dramatically underperform (i.e., suck( as the “hedge fund hotel” model works very badly during times of broader market drawdowns…

  

  … what was far more interesting was the list of Very Important Short Positions, or VISP, where at the very top was none other than Exxon – our favorite long since the summer of 2020 when it dropped to the $30s – which has doubled this year (and quadrupled since it was kicked out of the Dow Jones). As we said last week, “judging by how much short covering XOM still faces, not to mention how much more buying lies in stock as hedge funds rotate from being short to going long energy, Exxon may very well double again from here.”

  It very well may be eventually… but not before hedge funds double down on their worst trade of 2022 which has been to massively short the best performing sector in the S&P500 this year.

  

  You see, so ingrained is the mean-reversion Pavlovian response among the hedge fund community that it continues to double down on tech longs – hoping that any minute now they will soar higher just because – while doubling down on such formerly hated names as energy stocks, nevermind the massive underperformance that the average hedge fund has suffered YTD.

  And sure enough according to Goldman Prime’s latest report, energy was the top shorted sector (notionally) on the bank’s Prime book last week with short sales outpacing long buys 6 to 1! Yes, during the previous week when many energy names hit fresh all time highs, instead of cutting losing tech longs, hedge funds were sextupling down on their energy shorts, and as GS Prime further adds, “US Energy stocks have been net sold 7 of the past 8 trading sessions, and last week’s notional net selling was the largest in over 5 months.”

  It gets better: the US Energy Long/Short ratio has steadily fallen to 1.83 from its YTD peak of 2.38 in January. The Long/Short ratio is currently in only the 2nd percentile vs. the past year!

  Amid all the shorting, the US Energy Over/Underweight vs. the S&P decreased week-over-week to -0.69% underweight, which is in the 32nd percentile vs. the past year and in the 65th percentile vs. the past five years. Yes: despite the historic outperformance of energy, hedge funds remain stubbornly, stupidly short the sector even as it continues to grind ever higher.

  

  Finally, Goldman prime observes that over the last week, US Energy as a % of Total US Net Exposure decreased to 4.57%, while the percentage of Gross Exposure  remained relatively unchanged. US Energy as a % of Total US Net Exposure remains in the 89th percentile vs. the past year, and in the 72nd percentile vs. the past five years. At the same time, US Energy as a % of Total US Gross Exposure is in the 86th percentile vs. the past year, and 63rd percentile vs. the past five years.

  

  Why does this matter: considering the outperformance of energy, and the increase in market cap relative to the drop in tech values, net energy exposure as a % of total should be roughly double where it is now.

  Finally, all of this is taking place as oil hits lows not seen since Dec 2021; in fact, we can only assume that many hedge funds are erroneously shorting energy as a surrogate to shorting oil itself. Just imagine the squeeze when oil finally catches a bid and pushes the energy sector to new highs.

  Full report available to zh pro subs.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 18:00

• No Joke: Supreme Court Case Could Take A Big Bite Out Of The First Amendment
  No Joke: Supreme Court Case Could Take A Big Bite Out Of The First Amendment

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  Below is my column in The Hill on what is shaping up to be a major Supreme Court term on the issues of parody and satire under the First Amendment. The Court could reframe the constitutional limits for criminal and civil liability in two cases currently on the docket, including one recently granted review. Here is the column:

  The court system often is where humor goes to die. For those seeking to use satire or parody of corporations, jokes often run into trademark or other lawsuits and result in a little more than “ha, ha, thump.”

  The same bad audience could await the defendant in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC. The Supreme Court just accepted a case involving a tongue-in-cheek dog chew toy made to resemble a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle. VIP prevailed in defending the toy as protected speech, but the distiller wants the Supreme Court to declare such parodies to be trademark violations.

  The docket this term is actually a hoot of parody cases.

  Another pending case is Novak v. City of Parma, in which Anthony Novak was prosecuted for posting a parody of the website of his local police department. He was charged with (and later acquitted of) a felony under an Ohio law prohibiting the use of a computer to “disrupt” or “interrupt” police functions.

  The satirical site, The Onion, has filed a brilliant parody brief to support the right to parody. The Onion regularly publishes funny fake news stories and, true to form, filed a brief as the self-described “world’s leading news publication” offering “universally revered coverage,” and noting it is the “single most powerful and influential organization in human history.” It told the court that its “more than 350,000 full- and part-time” staff members are renowned for “maintaining a towering standard of excellence” in journalism. (It added that it “owns and operates the majority of the world’s transoceanic shipping lanes, stands on the nation’s leading edge on matters of deforestation and strip mining, and proudly conducts tests on millions of animals daily.”) It was a tour-de-force on the value of satire to make profound legal and political points.

  

  Image from Supreme Court Petition

  The court has yet to decide whether to take the Novak case, but it has accepted the Jack Daniel’s case. The distiller sued VIP over its introduction of the Silly Squeakers “Bad Spaniels” rubber squeaky toy. The toy is shaped like a whiskey bottle with a cartoon spaniel on the front and the caption: “Bad Spaniels, the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet.” On the back is a small disclaimer reading: “This product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel’s Distillery.”

  That clearly was not enough for the distillery, which argued that people would be confused by the parody. While the district court originally ruled with Jack Daniel’s, it was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The chew toy was ruled (correctly, in my mind) to involve “new expressive content” and to be protected under the First Amendment.

  The Supreme Court has recognized that satire and parody have long played a key role in political discourse stretching back to ancient Greece. In 1988, the court handed down the important free-speech decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, holding that an offensive cartoon of Rev. Jerry Falwell was protected under the First Amendment from civil liability.

  A chew toy is obviously not the type of “slashing and one-sided” political commentary which the court found in the Hustler case.

  However, the distiller is advancing a claim that would chill the use of any common image in a parody or satire, even though no reasonable person would confuse the products.

  At issue is the Ninth Circuit’s highly protective free-speech test for trademark claims where a company argues that a product “tarnishes” its image. The Ninth Circuit has held that the “referential and cultural icon requirements” just have to be “above zero” to be protected under the First Amendment.

  The district court originally objected that, once a court finds that a parody is protected speech, companies have little ability to overcome free-speech objections. It found that the Bad Spaniels toy was not an artistic or expressive work and was not entitled to protection under the First Amendment. But the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding it to be expressive speech protected by the First Amendment.

  On remand, the district court found that standard was made because, as it said, “A parody functions just like a mash-up. It modifies and plays with the elements of an original work to express something new and different.” Three other circuits have rejected this approach. Yet, in the absence of congressional action (which is unlikely, given the power of corporate lobbies), the Ninth Circuit offers greater clarity and space for free expression.

  Parody and satire also face threats from other legal actions, particularly tort actions over the appropriation of names or likenesses (called the right to publicity). The courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have made a distinctly unfunny mess of such cases. Past tort cases generally have favored celebrities and resulted in rulings like White v. Samsung, a perfectly ludicrous ruling in which Vanna White successfully sued over the use of a robot with a blonde wig turning cards as the appropriation of her name or likeness. It appears no blonde being — robotic or human — may turn cards on a fake game show.

  The court’s term could prove to be the most important docket on parody and satire in decades. It may prove less protective on trademark actions (like Jack Daniel’s) than criminal matters (like Novak). However, this involves more than a canine chew toy — it will impact a wide range of creative expression using common cultural images or references.

  This dog toy was an obvious parody and expressly included a disclaimer of any connection to the distillery; it neither confuses consumers nor tarnishes the Jack Daniel’s trademark.

  A lack of sense of humor, not a lack of sufficient clarity, drove this litigation – but make no mistake: If this little chew toy is found to be a trademark violation, the court may take a big bite out of the First Amendment.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/28/2022 – 17:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest