- "Because You'd Be In Jail!" – The Real Reason Democrats Are Pushing Trump Impeachment?
“Because You’d Be In Jail!” – The Real Reason Democrats Are Pushing Trump Impeachment?
Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
In the time-honored tradition of Machiavellian statecraft, all of the charges being leveled against Donald Trump to remove him from office – namely, ‘abuse of power’ and ‘obstruction of congress’ –are essentially the same things the Democratic Party has been guilty of for nearly half a decade: abusing their powers in a non-stop attack on the executive branch. Is the reason because they desperately need a ‘get out of jail free’ card?
Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless.
Back in April 2016, before Trump had become the Republican presidential nominee, talk of impeachment was already in the air.
“Donald Trump isn’t even the Republican nominee yet,” wrote Darren Samuelsohn in Politico.
Yet impeachment, he noted, is “already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress.”
The timing of Samuelsohn’s article is not a little astonishing given what the Department of Justice (DOJ) had discovered just one month earlier.
In March 2016, the DOJ found that “the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed,” as Jeff Carlson reported in The Epoch Times.
That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of “deliberate decision-making,” according to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling (footnote 69).
On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA’s Office of Compliance to terminate all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD), and despite they were aware of Rogers’s actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations.
On Oct. 26, following approval of the warrant against Page, Rogers went to the FISA court to inform them of the FBI’s non-compliance with the rules. Was it just a coincidence that at exactly this time, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter were suddenly calling for Roger’s removal? The request was eventually rejected. The next month, in mid-November 2016 Rogers, without first notifying his superiors, flew to New York where he had a private meeting with Trump at Trump Towers.
According to the New York Times, the meeting – the details of which were never publicly divulged, but may be guessed at – “caused consternation at senior levels of the administration.”
Democratic obstruction of justice?
Then CIA Director John Brennan, dismayed about a few meetings Trump officials had with the Russians, helped to kick-start the FBI investigation over ‘Russian collusion.’ Notably, these Trump-Russia meetings occurred in December 2016, as the incoming administration was in the difficult transition period to enter the White House. The Democrats made sure they made that transition as ugly as possible.
Although it is perfectly normal for an incoming government to meet with foreign heads of state at this critical juncture, a meeting at Trump Tower between Michael Flynn, Trump’s incoming national security adviser and former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, was portrayed as some kind of cloak and dagger scene borrowed from a John le Carré thriller.
Brennan questioning the motives behind high-level meetings between the Trump team and some Russians is strange given that the lame duck Obama administration was in the process of redialing US-Russia relations back to the Cold War days, all based on the debunked claim that Moscow handed Trump the White House on a silver platter.
In late December 2016, after Trump had already won the election, Obama slapped Russia with punitive sanctions, expelled 35 Russian diplomats and closed down two Russian facilities. Since part of Trump’s campaign platform was to mend relations with Moscow, would it not seem logical that the incoming administration would be in damage-control, doing whatever necessary to prevent relations between the world’s premier nuclear powers from degrading even more?
So if it wasn’t ‘Russian collusion’ that motivated the Democrats into action, what was it?
From Benghazi to Seth Rich
Here we must pause and remind ourselves about the unenviable situation regarding Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who was being grilled daily over her use of a private computer to communicate sensitive documents via email. In all likelihood, the incident would have dropped from the radar had it not been for the deadly 2012 Benghazi attacks on a US compound.
In the course of a House Select Committee investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attacks, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US personnel, Clinton handed over some 30,000 emails, while reportedly deleting 32,000 deemed to be of a “personal nature”. Those emails remain unaccounted for to this day.
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 5, 2015
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
By March 2015, even the traditionally tepid media was baring its baby fangs, relentlessly pursuing Clinton over the email question. Since Clinton never made a secret of her presidential ambitions, even political allies were piling on. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example, said it’s time for Clinton “to step up” and explain herself, adding that “silence is going to hurt her.”
On July 24, 2015, The New York Times published a front-page story with the headline “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton’s Use of Email.” Later, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post candidly summed up Clinton’s rapidly deteriorating status with elections fast approaching: “Democrats still show no sign they are willing to abandon Clinton. Instead, they seem to be heading into the 2016 election with a deeply flawed candidate schlepping around plenty of baggage — the details of which are not yet known.”
Moving into 2016, things began to look increasingly complicated for the Democratic front-runner. On March 16, 2016, WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails and attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547-page treasure trove spans the dates from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.
In May, about one month after Clinton had officially announced her candidacy for the US presidency, the State Department’s inspector general released an 83-page report that was highly critical of Clinton’s email practices, concluding that Clinton failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private server.
“At a minimum,” the report determined, “Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”
The following month brought more bad news for Clinton and her presidential hopes after it was reported that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had a 30-minute tête-à-tête with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, whose department was leading the Clinton investigations, on the tarmac at Phoenix International Airport. Lynch said Clinton decided to pay her an impromptu visit where the two discussed “his grandchildren and his travels and things like that.” Republicans, however, certainly weren’t buying the story as the encounter came as the FBI was preparing to file its recommendation to the Justice Department.
The summer of 2016, however, was just heating up.
I take @LorettaLynch & @billclinton at their word that their convo in Phoenix didn’t touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) June 30, 2016
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Hack versus Leak?
On the early morning of July 10, Seth Rich, the director of voter expansion for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was gunned down on the street in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. Rich’s murder, said to be the result of a botched robbery, bucked the homicide trend in the area for that particular period; murders rates for the first six months of 2016 were down about 50 percent from the same period in the previous year.
In any case, the story gets much stranger. Just five days earlier, on July 5th, the computers at the DNC were compromised, purportedly by an online persona with the moniker “Guccifer 2.0” at the behest of Russian intelligence. This is where the story of “Russian hacking” first gained popularity. Not everyone, however, was buying the explanation.
In July 2017, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, who call themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent a memo to President Trump that challenged a January intelligence assessment that expressed “high confidence” that the Russians had organized an “influence campaign” to harm Hillary Clinton’s “electability,” as if she wasn’t capable of that without Kremlin support.
“Forensic studies of ‘Russian hacking’ into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer,” the memo states (The memo’s conclusions were based on analyses of metadata provided by the online persona Guccifer 2.0, who took credit for the alleged hack). “Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack.”
In other words, according to VIPS, the compromise of the DNC computers was the result of an internal leak, not an external hack.
At this point, however, it needs mentioned that the VIPS memo has sparked dissenting views among its members. Several analysts within the group have spoken out against its findings, and that internal debate can be read here. Thus, it would seem there is no ‘smoking gun,’ as of yet, to prove that the DNC was not hacked by an external entity. At the same time, the murder of Seth Rich continues to remain an unsolved “botched robbery,” according to investigators. Meanwhile, the one person who may hold the key to the mystery, Julian Assange, is said to be withering away Belmarsh Prison, a high-security London jail, where he is awaiting a February court hearing that will decide whether he will be extradited to the United States where he 18 charges.
Here is a question to ponder: If you were Julian Assange, and you knew you were going to be extradited to the United States, who would you rather be the sitting president in charge of your fate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Think twice before answering.
“Because you’d be in jail”
On October 9, 2016, in the second televised presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump accused his Democratic opponent of deleting 33,000 emails, while adding that he would get a “special prosecutor and we’re going to look into it…” To this, Clinton said “it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” to which Trump deadpanned, without missing a beat, “because you’d be in jail.”
Now if that remark didn’t get the attention of high-ranking Democratic officials, perhaps Trump’s comments at a Virginia rally days later, when he promised to “drain the swamp,” made folks sit up and take notice.
At this point the leaks, hacks and everything in between were already coming fast and furious. On October 7, John Podesta, Clinton’s presidential campaign manager, had his personal Gmail account hacked, thereby releasing a torrent of inside secrets, including how Donna Brazile, then a CNN commentator, had fed Clinton debate questions. But of course the crimes did not matter to the mendacious media, only the identity of the alleged messenger, which of course was ‘Russia.’
By now, the only thing more incredible than the dirt being produced on Clinton was the fact that she was still in the presidential race, and even slated to win by a wide margin. But perhaps her biggest setback came when authorities, investigating Anthony Weiner’s abused laptop into illicit text messages he sent to a 15-year-old girl, stumbled upon thousands of email messages from Hillary Clinton.
BREAKING NEWS: @jasoninthehouse: @HillaryClinton email – “Case reopened.” pic.twitter.com/feVlU2aNP9
— Fox News (@FoxNews) October 28, 2016
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Now Comey had to backpedal on his conclusion in July that although Clinton was “extremely careless” in her use of her electronic devices, no criminal charges would be forthcoming. He announced an 11th hour investigation, just days before the election. Although Clinton was also cleared in this case, observers never forgave Comey for his actions, arguing they cost Clinton the White House.
Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years.
In early December, Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, released the 400-page IG report that revealed a long list of omissions, mistakes and inconsistencies in the FBI’s applications for FISA warrants to conduct surveillance on Carter Page. Although the report was damning, both Barr and Durham noted it did not go far enough because Horowitz did not have the access that Durham has to intelligence agency sources, as well as overseas contacts that Barr provided to him.
With AG report due for release in early spring, needless to say some Democrats are very nervous as to its finding. So nervous, in fact, that they might just be willing to go to the extreme of removing a sitting president to avoid its conclusions.
Whatever the verdict, 2020 promises to be one very interesting year.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 23:30 - The Myth Of Voter Suppression
The Myth Of Voter Suppression
Do Republicans win elections by preventing minorities from voting?
The Left says yes, but the data says no.
Jason Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, settles the argument with hard evidence, separating fact from fiction.
h/t The Srategic Culture Foundation
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 23:00 - 2020: The Final Combat Of Western Hegemonism
2020: The Final Combat Of Western Hegemonism
Authored by Paul Schmutz Schaller for The Saker Blog
The world situation is changing very fast and one needs to make an effort in order to keep pace with the events. The end of a year is a welcome opportunity for an assessment of the current situation.
I shall concentrate on two main subjects…
2019: The West has lost the supremacy in the Middle East
I think that this was the most important change in the year drawing to a close. Iran has successfully and creatively defended herself against the „maximal pressure“ from the USA and has kept her distance with the West European countries. Economically, the country has suffered from the US-sanctions, but she has now passed the biggest crisis. The country took the imposed problems as a motivation to improve the economical governance and to diminish the dependance from petrol. While in June, say, there was a more or less real danger of an aggressive war against Iran, now, this treat haas faded into the background. The report of UN-Secretary-General Guterres of Desember 10 saying that the UN, after an investigation in Saudi Arabia, cannot verify the US and Saudi claims that Iran was behind the strikes on Aramco in September, is a diplomatic victory for Iran. As for the Iranian trade, an official recently said that, during the last 9 months, China, Iraq, UAE, Afghanistan and Turkey were major destinations for the Iranian exports while Turkey, UAE and Germany are biggest Iranian trade in terms of imports.
Syria has made further important progress in the fight against terrorism, in particular in the province Idleb. Moreover, the government and the army were able to utilize the partial withdrawal of the US occupying army in the north-east of the country. The reconstruction in Syria moves forward, Russian and Chinese enterprises will thereby play an important role. Hundreds of thousands refugees have come back. In short, as President Assad said in the interview with Italian Rai News 24: „[… ] the situation is much, much better […] and I think that the future of Syria is promising; we are going to come out of this war stronger.“
In the absurd war of Saudi Arabia against Yemen, the strategic situation has completely changed. Saudi Arabia has lost the initiative and different Arabian and African countries have stopped the support for the Saudi army. The Ansarallah movement of the Houthis has made important attacks, in particular against Aramco, and the movement has now strong official relations with Iran.
The West and Israel are still trying hard to exploit the economical and political crisis in Lebanon and Iraq. However, the patriotic forces in both countries were able to keep a positive outlook of the situation and could avoid to fall into the traps.
There is no reason to think that the positive development in the Middle East will change in the next months. Quite the contrary. One can expect that the fight in Afghanistan against terrorism and US occupation will make important progress. Moreover, the influence of China and Russia will further increase. However, the general situation will remain tense. This is of course due to the fact that there is a country like Israel in this region which is utterly hostile against the neighboring countries and tyrannizes the indigenous population.
Asia as a whole has already widely casted off the yoke of Western hegemonism. As of South America, the developments in 2019 show – despite of the coup in Bolivia – a movement to more independence which very probably will continue. I would assume that this vague will also grow in Africa, in particular in Western and central Africa, due to the fight against terrorism and the beneficial influence of China and Russia.
2020: The fight between the American national imperialism and Western hegemony will come to a decision
Trump has won in 2016, based on his program of „America first“. Since then, it has become more and more clear that this program is in fact a program of an American national imperialism. Trump is not interested in a „Western“ perspective. A typical example are the US sanctions against numerous countries, even against traditional allies. This is a crucial change. Since the end of World War 2, the USA were constructed as a worldwide leading power. During the cold war, this has developed into the collective Western hegemony – including countries like Japan, Australia and others – with the USA as the undisputed leader. The emergence of an American national imperialism is a somewhat unexpected challenge for all other Western countries. Nevertheless, it is a logical evolution, provoked among other things by the declining power of Western hegemony and the appearance of China, the new Russia, as well as their strategic collaboration.
The traditional Western hegemonic forces have never accepted the election of Trump in 2016. They are very strong inside the US Democratic Party and in the US parliament in general, but also in Western Europe. With the impeachment and the US election in 2020, the fight between the both tendencies will reach a decision. One should expect that this fight will be very hard. The only logical outcome will be a victory of Trump; however, it is still to be seen whether this will be a clear victory or not. In other words, will the Western hegemonic forces be obliged to accept it this time? I think that these questions will be very crucial in 2020.
Also for Western Europe, the influence of this fight will be immense. Concerning this matter, the UK is the most advanced country in Western Europe. After a struggle of 3 and half years, the population has given a clear mandate to the Johnson government to deliver Brexit. It is probable that now, where this central question is resolved, the development in the UK will be quite dynamical. The formation of a national imperialism will advance quickly. France also is rather well prepared for a victory of the American national imperialism; with the period of de Gaulle in the 1960s, she has a historical model.
On the other hand, I believe that Germany is the less prepared country. Germany is very anti-Trump. In 2016, polls in Germany indicated that up to 90% would vote for Hillary Clinton and only 4% for Donald Trump. The polls during the last years have clearly confirmed this rejection of Trump in the German population. Also, German Chancellor Merkel has been widely seen as a stronghold of the traditional Western hegemony and against American national imperialism. However, the situation is changing. Merkel has lost her authority and is now rather isolated. The awareness is growing that Trump does not stand for a parenthesis in history, but for a fundamental change. The impeachment is not judged as positive as one could await. Moreover, the German industry would like to have better relations with Russia. The US sanctions against Nord Stream 2 will only reinforce the will in Germany to become more autonomous.
There is still another problem. While national imperialism has a long tradition in the UK and in France and will probably be accepted without too much of resistance, in Germany, national imperialism is not popular, for historical reasons. Therefore, one may predict that Germany will have a big debate on her political identity; even a profound crisis is possible. This is certainly complicated by the fact that Merkel has to be replaced and that there is – actually – no convincing successor. I am however quite confident that Germany will be able to find a way for playing a quite positive role in the future world.
We therefore may anticipate that Western hegemony is replaced by national imperialisms. Of course, they will remain a big problem for the world, even if the classical Western hegemony will suffer an important defeat. But the contradictions of other Western countries with the USA will strongly expand. This gives the remaining world much better perspectives.
From my point of view, 2019 was a very positive year and I am convinced that the same will be the case for 2020.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 22:30 - Compulsive Gambler Sues Casino For "Letting Him" Lose $260,000
Compulsive Gambler Sues Casino For “Letting Him” Lose $260,000
It’s a bold strategy, Cotton, let’s see if it pays off for him…
Tarwinder Shokar is taking an unorthodox step after getting cleaned out on a gambling binge. After losing about $260,000 US, Shokar has now turned around and sued the Caesars Windsor Resort And Casino as well as the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission for his losses – plus about $381,000 in punitive damages, according to Newsweek.
The case was filed around the time the gambling took place and has been recently transferred to the Superior Court of Justice in Windsor.
Shokar’s lawyer Iain MacKinnon said: “Our position is he was a compulsive gambler and the casino and/or the OLG were either well aware of his past background—or should have been.”
Shortly prior to his binge, Shokar apparently attempted suicide by throwing himself in front of a bus after losing all of his money at a different casino. Ironically, he survived the accident and actually wound up collecting a large insurance payout as a result of his injuries. He then took the insurance money and lost that all, too.
Shokar reportedly had fraud convictions and had been banned from a number of other casinos due to his behavior. A travel agency was said to then recommend Caesars Windsor, who Shokar claims knew that he was there to spend a large amount of money, and who treated him to VIP treatment, including plying him with alcohol.
His first visit on October 17, 2013 resulted in him losing about $70,000 US. On his next visit, he racked up losses of about $190,000 US. The lawsuit says the casino should have known that he had a gambling problem, but instead chose to “take advantage of him”.
Which is precisely the line of business that casinos are in…
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 22:00 - Zuesse: Russiagate Investigation Now Endangers Obama
Zuesse: Russiagate Investigation Now Endangers Obama
Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
Former US President Barack Obama is now in severe legal jeopardy, because the Russiagate investigation has turned 180 degrees; and he, instead of the current President, Donald Trump, is in its cross-hairs.
The biggest crime that a US President can commit is to try to defeat American democracy (the Constitutional functioning of the US Government) itself, either by working with foreign powers to take it over, or else by working internally within America to sabotage democracy for his or her own personal reasons. Either way, it’s treason (crime that is intended to, and does, endanger the continued functioning of the Constitution itself*), and Mr. Obama is now being actively investigated, as possibly having done this. The Russiagate investigation, which had formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the prior President. Although he, of course, cannot be removed from office (since he is no longer in office), he is liable under criminal laws, the same as any other American would be, if he committed any crime while he was in office.
A December 17th order by the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court severely condemned the performance by the FBI under Obama, for having obtained, on 19 October 2016 (even prior to the US Presidential election), from that Court, under false pretenses, an authorization for the FBI to commence investigating Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign, as being possibly in collusion with Russia’s Government. The Court’s ruling said:
In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the government’s conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813, governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a “foreign power” or an agent a foreign power…
…The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this Court’s effective operation…
…On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions of the OIG Report… It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information to NSD[National Security Division of the Department of Justice] which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power…
On December 18th, Martha McCallum, of Fox News, interviewed US Attorney General Bill Barr, and asked him (at 7:00 in the video) how high up in the FBI the blame for this (possible treason) goes:
MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he [Obama’s FBI Director James Comey] seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation?
“JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you can’t run an investigation that’s seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career professionals to do.”
MACCALLUM: Do you believe that?
BARR: No, I think that the — one of the problems with what happened was precisely that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers below him is simply not true.
The current (Trump) A.G. there called the former (Obama) FBI Director a liar on that.
If Comey gets heat for this possibly lie-based FBI investigation of the US Presidential nominee from the opposite Party of the sitting US President (Comey’s own boss, Obama), then protecting himself could become Comey’s top motivation; and, in that condition, protecting his former boss might become only a secondary concern for him.
Moreover, as was first publicly reported by Nick Falco in a tweet on 5 June 2018 (which tweet was removed by Twitter but fortunately not before someone had copied it to a web archive), the FBI had been investigating the Trump campaign starting no later than 7 October 2015. An outside private contractor, Stefan Halper, was hired in Britain for this, perhaps in order to get around laws prohibiting the US Government from doing it. (This was ‘foreign intelligence’ work, after all. But was it really? That’s now being investigated.) The Office of Net Assessment (ONA) “through the Pentagon’s Washington Headquarters Services, awarded him contracts from 2012 to 2016 to write four studies encompassing relations among the US, Russia, China and India”. Though Halper actually did no such studies for the Pentagon, he instead functioned as a paid FBI informant (and it’s not yet clear whether that money came from the Pentagon, which spends trillions of dollars that are off-the-books and untraceable), and at some point Trump’s campaign became a target of Halper’s investigation. This investigation was nominally to examine “The Russia-China Relationship: The impact on US Security interests.” Allegedly, George Papadopoulos said that “Halper insinuated to him that Russia was helping the Trump campaign”, and Papadopoulos was shocked at Halper’s saying this. Probably because so much money at the Pentagon is untraceable, some of the crucial documentation on this investigation might never be found. For example, the Defense Department’s Inspector General’s 2 July 2019 report to the US Senate said “ONA personnel could not provide us any evidence that Professor Halper visited any of these locations, established an advisory group, or met with any of the specific people listed in the statement of work.” It seems that the Pentagon-contracted work was a cover-story, like pizza parlors have been for some Mafia operations. But, anyway, this is how America’s ‘democracy’ actually functions. And, of course, America’s Deep State works not only through governmental agencies but also through underworld organizations. That’s just reality, not at all speculative. It’s been this way for decades, at least since the time of Truman’s Presidency (as is documented at that link).
Furthermore, inasmuch as this operation certainly involved Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan and others, and not only top officials at the FBI, there is no chance that Comey would have been the only high official who was involved in it. And if Comey was involved, then he would have been acting in his own interest, and not only in his boss’s — and here’s why: Comey would be expected to have been highly motivated to oppose Mr. Trump, because Trump publicly questioned whether NATO (the main international selling-arm for America’s ‘defense’-contractors) should continue to exist, and also because Comey’s entire career had been in the service of America’s Military-Industrial Complex, which is the reason why Comey’s main lifetime income has been the tens of millions of dollars he has received via the revolving door between his serving the federal Government and his serving firms such as Lockheed Martin. For these people, restoring, and intensifying, and keeping up, the Cold War, is a very profitable business. It’s called by some “the Military-Industrial Complex,” and by others “the Deep State,” but by any name it is simply agents of the billionaires who own and control US-based international corporations, such as General Dynamics and Chevron. As a governmental official, making decisions that are in the long-term interests of those investors is the likeliest way to become wealthy.
Consequently, Comey would have been benefitting himself, and other high officials of the Obama Administration, by sabotaging Trump’s campaign, and by weakening Trump’s Presidency in the event that he would become elected. Plus, of course, Comey would have been benefitting Obama himself. Not only was Trump constantly condemning Obama, but Obama had appointed to lead the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 Presidential primaries, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who as early as 20 February 2007 had endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in the Democratic Party primaries, so that Shultz was one of the earliest supporters of Clinton against even Obama himself. In other words, Obama had appointed Shultz in order to increase the odds that Clinton — not Sanders— would become the nominee in 2016 to continue on and protect his own Presidential legacy. Furthermore, on 28 July 2016, Schultz became forced to resign from her leadership of the DNC after WikiLeaks released emails indicating that Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries — which favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey. In other words: Comey was Obama’s pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama).
Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party’s billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for them, but not that Sanders would — he never liked Sanders. He wants Warren to get the voters who otherwise would go for Sanders, and he wants the Party’s billionaires to help her achieve this (be the Party’s allegedly ‘progressive’ option), so that Sanders won’t be able to become a ballot option in the general election to be held on 3 November 2020. He is telling them whom not to help win the Party’s nomination. In fact, on November 26th, Huffington Post headlined “Obama Said He Would Speak Up To Stop Bernie Sanders Nomination: Report” and indicated that though he won’t actually say this in public (but only to the Party’s billionaires), Obama is determined to do all he can to prevent Sanders from becoming the nominee. In 2016, his choice was Hillary Clinton; but, today, it’s anyone other than Sanders; and, so, in a sense, it remains what it was four years ago — anyone but Sanders.
Comey’s virtually exclusive concern, at the present stage, would be to protect himself, so that he won’t be imprisoned. This means that he might testify against Obama. At this stage, he’s free of any personal obligation to Obama — Comey is now on his own, up against Trump, who clearly is his enemy. Some type of back-room plea-bargain is therefore virtually inevitable — and not only with Comey, but with other top Obama-appointees, ultimately. Obama is thus clearly in the cross-hairs, from now on. Congressional Democrats have opted to gun against Trump (by impeaching him); and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama — and against the entire Democratic Party (unless Sanders becomes its nominee, in which case, Sanders will already have defeated that Democratic Party, and its adherents will then have to choose between him versus Trump; and, so, too, will independent voters).
But, regardless of what happens, Obama now is in the cross-hairs. That’s not just political cross-hairs (such as an impeachment process); it is, above all, legal cross-hairs (an actual criminal investigation). Whereas Trump is up against a doomed effort by the Democratic Party to replace him by Vice President Mike Pence, Obama will be up against virtually inevitable criminal charges, by the incumbent Trump Administration. Obama played hardball against Trump, with “Russiagate,” and then with “Ukrainegate”; Trump will now play hardball against Obama, with whatever his Administration and the Republican Party manage to muster against Obama; and the stakes this time will be considerably bigger than just whether to replace Trump by Pence.
Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one — if that’s even possible, in today’s hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.)
There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since. The US already has a higher percentage of its people in prison than does any other nation on this planet. Americans who choose a ‘status-quo’ option will produce less stability, more violence, not more stability and a more peaceful nation in a less war-ravaged world. The 2020 election-outcome for the United States will be a turning-point; there is no way that it will produce reform. Americans who vote for reform will be only increasing the likelihood of hell-on-Earth. Reform is no longer an available option, given America’s realities. A far bigger leap than that will be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid a free-fall into oblivion.
The problem in America isn’t either Obama or Trump; it’s neither merely the Democratic Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the Deep State. That’s the reality; and the process that got us here started on 26 July 1945 and secretly continued on the American side even after the Soviet Union ended and Russia promptly ended its side of the Cold War. The US regime’s ceaseless thrust, since 26 July 1945, to rule the entire world, will climax either in a Third World War, or in a US revolution to overthrow and remove the Deep State and end its dictatorship-grip over America. Both Parties have been controlled by that Deep State, and the final stage or climax of this grip is now drawing near. America thus has been having a string of the worst Presidents — and worst Congresses — in US history. This is today’s reality. Unfortunately, a lot of American voters think that this extremely destabilizing reality, this longstanding trend toward war, is okay, and ought to be continued, not ended now and replaced by a new direction for this country — the path toward world peace, which FDR had accurately envisioned but which was aborted on 26 July 1945. No matter how many Americans might vote for mere reform, they are wrong. Sometimes, only a minority are right. Being correct is not a majority or minority matter; it is a true or false matter. A misinformed public can willingly participate in its own — or even the world’s — destruction. That could happen. Democracy is a prerequisite to peace, but it can’t exist if the public are being systematically misinformed. Lies and democracy don’t mix together any more effectively than do oil and water.
* * *
* The given official US definition of “treason” (see top of page 3 there) is “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.” Any US official has sworn to uphold and defend, never to subvert, the Constitution of the United States, and this is defining the US, itself, as being the continued functioning of the US Constitution. Treason is thus the supremely illegal act under US law, the act that violates any US official’s oath of office. (When treason is perpetrated by someone who is not a US official, it is still a severe crime, but less severe than it is for any US official.) The phrase “levies war against them” means war against the functioning of the Constitution that is their supreme law. “Or” means alternatively, and “adheres to their enemies” means is a follower of any person or other entity that seeks to impose a different constitution. “Enemies” is not defined — it need not be a foreign opponent; it may be a domestic opponent of the US Constitution. Thus, an American can be an enemy of the United States of America. In fact, the official definition explicitly refers ONLY to an entity “owing allegiance to the United States.” (Obviously, that especially refers to any US official.) This is how a “traitor” is understood, in US law. Obviously, the worst traitor would be one who committed the treasonous act(s) while a US official.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 21:30 - Petrodollar Shock: Russia Could Invert Part Of Its National Wealth Fund In Gold
Petrodollar Shock: Russia Could Invert Part Of Its National Wealth Fund In Gold
In the past two years Russia has been quite explicit in its shifting preference between fiat, in the form of the world’s reserve currency, US Dollars and hard assets, i.e., gold: after liquidating almost all of its Treasury holdings in mid 2018, roughly around the time relations between the US and Russia hit rock bottom and started digging, Russian gold holdings continued to climb and just a few months back rose to a record, more than doubling in the past 4 years.
It now appears that the recent gold-buying spree wasn’t enough, because according to Russia’s Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Russia is now also considering investing part of its National Wealth Fund in gold, adding that it is Russia’s view that investment in the precious metal as more sustainable in the long-term than in financial assets.
“There is a discussion on whether to invest the fund’s money in gold and precious metals. There are a lot of supporters and opponents,” Siluanov said.
While Russia has traditionally been one of the world’s largest gold producers, its central bank has been the main buyer of its metal in recent years, partly as a result of Western sanctions imposed on Moscow in 2014, which forced the central bank was reducing the share of U.S. dollar assets in its reserves.
So is Russia about to double down and in addition to converting its forex reserves into gold, will start buying the yellow metal for its sovereign wealth fund too? It appears so: speaking to reporters last Tuesday, Siluanov said that the finance ministry proposes that the National Wealth Fund’s new investment structure would mirror the foreign exchanges reserves structure of the central bank and excludes gold. As of December 1, the central bank’s gold reserves stood at 72.7 million troy ounces, worth approximately $108 billion.
As a reminder, the Russian National Wealth Fund accumulates revenues from oil exports and was initially designed to support the pension system. It was worth $124 billion as of Dec. 1. It is, therefore, a key cog in the petrodollar mechanism. This means that a key player in the global petrodollar recycling pathway will instead convert its revenues from sales of oil not into dollars, but directly into gold, bypassing the current reserve currency.
As a reminder, it was in late 2014, shortly before China’s economy suffered its first major shock – and currency devaluation – of the post-crisis era, when we reported in “How The Petrodollar Quietly Died, And Nobody Noticed” that as a result of the oil price crash of late 2014, the petrodollar had suffered its first near-death experience, as petrodollar exports would fall negative in 2014 for the first time in 18 years. And while since then we have seen a modest rebound, the net exported capital remains dangerously close to zero, in effect keeping the entire petrodollar system on death watch.
Russian gold miners usually sell their metal to Russian commercial banks, which then re-sell it to the central bank. Russia’s Polyus and Polymetal, along with Canada’s Kinross, are the world’s top producers.
That said, for now, the petrodollar is safe: “The Finance Ministry does not propose (the fund) investing in the precious metals, though one could think and consider this,” Siluanov said. “My point of view is that gold might well be present when investing reserve money.”
In November, the Russian finance ministry proposed spending 1 trillion roubles ($16 billion) from the National Wealth Fund to support infrastructure projects and exports between 2020 and 2022, as it tries to boost economic growth. The government will be able to use money from the Fund once its liquid assets exceed 7% of GDP, something the finance ministry expects to happen in 2020.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 21:00 - America Is Over But You Knew That Already
America Is Over But You Knew That Already
By Doug “Uncola” Lynn via TheBurningPlatform.com,
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
And old lang syne?For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We’ll take a cup of kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.– Robert Burns
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, “Auld Lang Syne” literally translates to “Old Long Since” which could also be interpreted as “since long ago” or “for old times’ sake”. Certainly, there is a feeling of melancholy when the song is sung at the end of another year gone by. Maybe any sadness could be attributed to good times that are now gone or, perhaps, especially, regret at what might have been.
The same goes for inevitable outcomes of unavoidable events, predictable denouements of tragic stories, and the ineluctable death of nations. It calls to mind a quote from the 1994 movie “The Legends of the Fall” when the Native American narrator described how a beautiful young woman caused brothers to hate one another and a family to fragment. He said:
She was like the water that freezes inside a rock and breaks it apart. It was no more her fault than it is the fault of the water when the rock shatters.
Indeed. Natural forces rage over and upon the earth. And who is Man to stop the rain?
A recent article addressing our “hysteric times” identified America as a corpse consumed by maggots, with liberals acting as the maggots and conservatives as “rooting for the corpse”. What an astute analogy. Because the Collective acts to completely consume rotting systems as those wearing MAGA hats perform CPR on a skeleton.
There are those who will say America’s fate was sealed when her government assimilated education, or when the Bible was banned in schools. Others will blame the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, or FDR’s New Deal, or the assassination of JFK, or the advent of The Great Society under Lyndon Johnson.
History buffs might claim the nation began its first convulsions when Abe Lincoln overturned states’ rights in the Civil War era or even earlier than that – when the Federalists overrode the Anti-Federalists in 1788.
Or maybe it was due to the covert implementation of the 45 Communist Goals, or the development of the League of Nations and United Nations.
Perhaps it was the Nixon Shock. Roe v. Wade? Disco? 911? The Patriot Act? Smartphones? Social Media? Foreign wars? Too big to fail? Political correctness? Illegal immigration? The exponentially growing national debt? Corruption in the CIA, FBI, DoJ and other alphabet soup government agencies?
In truth, it could’ve been any, and all, of the above or maybe these were just the symptoms of something deeper and more profound. In any case, they were all cracks and water in the nation’s foundation. And as was expected, winter is finally here.
Exactly how and when America’s foundational stones will shatter in the coming months is anyone’s guess, but do know this: When Progressive Democrats, and an activist mainstream media, stage a third-world impeachment trial of a U.S. President while reverently citing the words of the nation’s long-dead founders who were, by their own definition, privileged white males and racist slave owners – the end is nigh.
So it was no surprise when several days ago, in a buffet line, this blogger overheard an overweight man tell an obese woman the following:
“Poor Trumpy. He got hisself impeached.”
To which the woman replied with a Cheshire-cat grin of satisfaction:
“Yep! History will always show that he was impeached“.
One wonders if these citizens were aware of President Trump’s December 17, 2019 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was sent the day before the impeachment vote and it said, in part, the following:
I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.
The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever. You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!
By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy…
….You are the ones interfering in America’s elections. You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain…
…. Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment – against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle – is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America’s Constitutional order. Our Founders feared the tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.
Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until the present. I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses ….
Do the people care? Evidently not. And, unsurprisingly, House Speaker Pelosi called the 6-page letter “ridiculous” and “really sick” as some polls now show 54% of American’s supporting Trump’s forced removal from office.
It means there is no coming back from this one. The damage is done.
It means, by any definition, perilous times are here; and that predictably programmed dialectics will prevent either side from accepting the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. Surely, the ANTIFA crowd will be rioting in the streets in the event of a Trump win. And, if Trump loses and contests the results over wrongful impeachment, illegal immigration, vote fraud, or any other reason – the rioting of the collectivists will be even worse.
It also means that if Trump loses, a large percentage of the U.S. population will not accept the tyranny of the Political Left; because if the Progs are now willing to engage in such nefarious deeds as recently demonstrated on Capitol Hill with the impeachment sham, and in states like Virginia regarding gun control, imagine what happens when they win the power to legislate socialist hell from sea to shining sea.
Understandably, therefore, many natives have become increasingly angry and restless; and this may also be due to the fact that Epstein didn’t kill himself.
For example, at a recent election rally for Joe Biden, a random nobody in the audience called out the former vice president of the United States regarding his corrupt involvement in Ukraine. The heckler, additionally, yelled to Biden as one of the leading presidential candidates in the Democratic primaries:
“YOUR SON IS A CRACKHEAD, JOE! WHADDEYA THINK ABOUT THAT?”
Yet, in spite of the heckler’s accurate statements, the Biden supporters in the audience began chanting: “WE WANT JOE! WE WANT JOE!”
Yes, America is dead because her citizens love lies more than fast food, opiates, and ice cream.
Apparently, so, too, do American institutions today. It’s why the FISA court has refused to hold anyone accountable at the FBI in the aftermath of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s stunning report on FISA abuse during the 2016 Presidential Election; why a TV news network, in an Orwellian manner, identified Trump as the leader of a “destructive cult”, using “mind control” on Americans”; and why the U.S. Senate may deny the president his right to confront his accusers.
Certainly, U.S. Attorney John Durham may plumb the depths of the Russiagate rabbit hole but his report is not due to be delivered until late spring or early summer 2020. Even then, one wonders if Americans will have the stomach to digest it fully; that is, of course, if the corporate media spinners choose to spoon-feed any of Durham’s findings to the imprudent plebes.
Ask yourself these questions, Dear Reader: Do American’s have the political will to actually drain the swamp? What happens when the economy tanks in 2020? Do you think they’ll desire to root out any corruption then?
Or stated another way: Do the current measurable demographics in America today identify a sufficient percentage of the body politic as having the necessary moral outrage, and the courage, to sustain real swamp draining? And will the current demographics significantly change in the New Year as fiat green confetti rains down over Wall Street and onto Main Street?
Regardless, it has become clear that those at the top of the pyramid, as well as their minions comprising the Political Left, care not to consider the historical view of their actions. It could be because they are now desperate as cornered animals. Or maybe it’s because they believe they’ll soon be the victors who will rewrite history. And perhaps from their perspective, these are not mutually exclusive.
Even so, take heart. America’s fate may have long been sealed, but the ideas that originally made the country great will never die. Many will rise to meet the collective tide and even if victory is not assured under Trump’s presidency – his election will prove to have been a crucial catalyst toward that end.
Until that time, trust nothing reported by the Orwellian Media, remain ever skeptical, and never overestimate the American Sheeple. One day, in their wake, new mini-republics might rise and become known en masse as Nobullshitopia. Because then, and only then, can we stand united.
In the meantime, cheers to the New Year as we raise our glasses to the like-minded near and far. The past is a bright dream, and hope is the future’s fixed star.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 20:30 - China's Next Real Estate Bubble: Building EV-Production Cities Across The Country
China’s Next Real Estate Bubble: Building EV-Production Cities Across The Country
Just in time for Tesla’s big move to China, entire cities are popping up from within the country dedicated solely to making electric vehicles.
Shunde New Energy Vehicle Town in China is taking shape inside of the city of Foshun as a hub for EV production and research. It is estimated that the city could eventually generate $15 billion in revenue per year.
Bloomberg calls the cities “at least 20 electric-centric versions of Detroit under construction as China” as the country continues to bet big on EV technology. President Xi Jinping hopes that EV manufacturers will help boost other industries. He aims for the country to become a “manufacturing superpower” by 2025, in hopes that it’ll make China more self-sufficient and diversified.
And cities in China are working to shift their economies to become a part of Xi’s new plan. They are offering cheap land and tax breaks to bring in car makers, parts supplies and engineering labs, in hopes of bolstering their own local economies.
He Xiaopeng, chairman of Xpeng Motors Technology Ltd., said: “The new-energy vehicle industry is a bet local governments must take. A successful EV maker could bring at least 200 companies in the industry chain into a province.’’
So far, about $30 billion has been committed to developing these EV towns. The commitments range from fixed asset investments to development costs. It’s a move that’s typical of China’s “command-led” approach to its economy, as Bloomberg calls it.
To us, it looks similar to the country’s real estate strategy: try to build it, and hope they come.
That’s what China has been doing, erecting industrial parks, apartments and schools while laying out their offers – and sitting back, hoping that companies come in to take them up on thier offers.
Between 2009 and 2017, the country spend about $36.5 billion subsidizing EV sales. This could be why China now accounts for more than half of all passenger EV sales worldwide.
The rapid urbanization of the country has taken up many available land tracts, which has in turn pushed prices higher and made zoning laws tougher. By committing to EVs, local officials are likely to find it easier to get central government approval for redevelopment plans.
Shunde NEV Town is being built by China’s largest developer, Country Garden. The company has promised to bring EV-related businesses and meet tax revenue targets.
Liu Wei, who’s overseeing the project for Country Garden said: “The industry chain is far more comprehensive than car manufacturing. We’re well aware the fever will fade, but some emerging firms will grow, and that’s who we want to house.”
Country Garden has been able to keep office rents cheap (by as much as 25%) by using land in small towns, instead of adjacent areas. The businesses in these small towns will then need workers.
Cui Dongshu, secretary general of the China Passenger Car Association, said: “The towns have at least one key resource that EV makers and suppliers are eager to own: the land. That will naturally attract them to move into the towns.”
But EVs only make up less than 5% of total car sales in China. Some analysts see these pop-up towns as destined for failure, as a result. John Zeng, managing director of LMC Automotive Shanghai said: “Most of those EV towns will fail. This wave of electric-vehicle building will come to a life-or-death moment. When EV carmakers are being squeezed, the ‘EV Town’ bubble will burst.’’
Liu Wei concluded: “I admit that the EV sector is still working its own way. But we have been well aware of sector challenge since planning it two years ago, and we’re confident that we can adapt to the change.”
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 20:00 - These Five Top Trends Will Go On To Define The Decade
These Five Top Trends Will Go On To Define The Decade
Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,
As we roll into a new decade it might be a good time to explore the five top trends that define and are shaping our world. Overall, I wish I could be more positive but it seems the story of mankind is rooted in our moving forward in fits and starts as we work our way through adversity. War and conflict have always caused the world great grief. Sadly, with the increase in our ability to caused mass destruction, this is even more troubling. Adding to my concerns is that we are not trending towards a more peaceful sustainable place.
We live in a world where our system of governance is geared at getting politicians re-elected and fulfilling the most pressing needs of today. Things like profit, greed, and quenching our endless desire for growth is placed in front of longer-term issues and needs. The idea that we must increase our population to create growth is flawed. Simply adding mouths to feed and adding new workers to replace those retiring creates additional demand but is shortsighted in that it ignores the problems exploding population across the planet brings with it.
Mapping out a logical and sustainable long-term plan requires delving into some rather hefty philosophical questions like what brings real happiness. Dictators that govern under an agenda totally of their own creation have been no more successful than elected officials in coming up with real answers to our woes. Below are what I see as the “key” and most powerful directional shifts dictating our future and shaping our culture. These are followed by a few words on each.
-
The central banks pouring money and credit into the financial system in an effort to keep the economy moving forward.
-
The growing number of social ills, sick, and dysfunctional people.
-
Political shifts and polarization are rapidly increasing. – Populism has been growing for several years when combined with surging inequality and discontent people rise-up in protest.
-
As technology and artificial intelligence advance those in power are moving forward using these tools to turn us into pawns.
-
Concern over climate change is on the rise. Sadly, few of those talking about it see cutting waste as a priority.
Too many economic watchers, it has become obvious the greatly expanded role of central banks in the world’s economy is not working. The global financial system has morphed into a giant experiment controlled by an evil alliance that could be called the “Financial-Political Complex.” Interest rates have been flat or negative in real terms still many people advocate they still need or should go lower. These people forget that low-interest rates flowing from policies such as ZIRP and NIRP do not extend down to low-income individuals with poor credit. The huge number of people that fall into this category get no relief while low rates punish those that have saved. This fuels inequality. The concept that a rising tide floats all boats or trickle-down economics has proven to heavily favor the rich.
As a result of society’s growing ability to care for people and expanded medical care we have bent Charles Darwin’s law concerning, “survival of the fittest.” Governments have engaged in constructing a safety net under societies most vulnerable but whatever we do it seems it “ain’t enough.” Examples of social ills include crime, bullying, racism, delinquency, discrimination, family disintegration, drug addiction, poverty, and homelessness. While some of these problems may be less drastic than others all are costly to society and lessen the ability of our culture to function. Ironically, the often considered conservative belief in the “right to life” in some ways adds to this dilemma. simply put, children born with at least one dysfunctional parent have a greatly reduced chance of becoming a successful adult.
The world is undergoing a huge political shift that has magnified the sharp divisions of contrasting groups as to how issues should be addressed. This has resulted in a rapid increase in polarization as opinions and beliefs conflict. Populations frustrated by the failure of their leaders to create a more just world are taking to the streets in large protests to put their demands forth. Inequality and globalization are fueling a populist movement that will most likely grow as governments that have over-promised fail to carry out all they have pledged. Unfortunately, these movements can turn into revolutions that merely switch out one incompetent or corrupt leader for another.
We need only to look at a country like China where conformity is highly valued and the government tries to control all facets of a person’s life to see how such actions conflict with the idea of freedom of choice. A balance between conformity and “over the top” diversity is most likely a place where society finds its happy place. Conformity can crush the human soul while the lack of it is often difficult for society to address because it raises the issue of where one person’s rights end and another persons begin. Today we are seeing inequality soar and it can be argued conformity greatly reduces the ability of individuals to move up the social ladder.
A growing question is just how much of this is by design due to the culturally elite putting their foot on the head of those below them. Over the years with the aid of new technologies governments across the world have greatly expanded their ability to watch our movements and everything we do. They have even incorporated and leveraged the ever-present smartphone as an ultra-powerful surveillance device. The control over the individual will become complete as they move us towards being a cashless economy. This translates into where we will be unable to buy food, may at any moment have our ability to message others cut, and will be forced to rely on autonomous vehicles to deliver us to our destinations.
A lack of control over our lives grants those in charge total control over us making us powerless pawns and slaves with little choice but to do their bidding or perish. This dovetails with the move towards artificial intelligence where there exists great potential but also the dangerous possibility and risk that technology could create an environment where mankind is rendered redundant. This would leave mankind facing robots and weapons of mass destruction. The noose is rapidly tightening around our necks os quickly it has resulted in a reshuffling in the list of the “Worlds 10 Worst Problems.”
This Is Not Rocket Science!
The last major trend to have exploded on the scene is growing concern over climate change and global warming. Sadly, few of those talking about it see cutting waste as a key part of the answer and a priority instead they tout massive change. The fact is, many of our problems flow from governments and consumers wasting so much. While this waste drives the GDP higher it does little to make our lives better.
The reality is that “waste” is proving massively destructive to life on this planet. This extends to governments misallocating funds as corruption and crony capitalism flourish. Whether we are talking about bombs built and dropped in the middle of an empty desert, brochures that are printed but never distributed, or Medicaid fraud all add to our deficit and pull resources away from more important areas.
For both political and economic reasons, poor planning, weak recycling practices, and wasteful squandering of our natural resources on things that yield little of value continue to haunt America and most of the world. The message that we should conserve our natural resources is vastly understated. Most climate change advocates seem to be nibbling around the edges of cutting waste and focused on issues few people agree about. These include over the top ideas that are predicted to cost a huge amount of money but may prove ineffective and even harm the environment over time. Often it is the same people responsible for our problems that propose these expensive cures. They also promote them as “job creators” to sweeten their allure. Sadly, most do not work but generate negative unintended consequences as they become giant costly boondoggles.
After examining the top trends defining the last decade and ushering in the new there is little question they will play a key part in determining our future. The world is changing at a more rapid pace than at any time in our history. The takeaway is we can expect things to be very interesting going forward. This doesn’t necessarily mean they will be good or events will unfold as we hope but you can rest assured that boredom is not in the cards.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 19:30 -
- Average US Family Can't Afford A Home In 71% Of The Country
Average US Family Can’t Afford A Home In 71% Of The Country
More Americans are getting priced out of purchasing homes than ever, as soaring prices continue to outpace wages, according to a new report.
ATTOM Data Solutions’ Q4 2019 US Home Affordability Report says the average wage earner can’t purchase a home in 344 out of 486 counties, or about 71% of the US.
The report revealed the top five largest populated counties where median-priced homes outpaced wages in Q4 that made it unaffordable to the average American — were in Los Angeles County, CA; Maricopa County (Phoenix), AZ; San Diego County, CA; Orange County, CA (outside Los Angeles) and Miami-Dade County, FL.
The top ten least affordable counties in Q4 were: Kings County, NY; Dallas County, TX; Riverside County, CA; Queens County, NY; and San Bernardino County, CA.
About 142 out of 486 counties, or about 29% of the US, had an affordable median-priced home in Q4 for the average wage earner. Those counties were: Cook County (Chicago) IL; Harris County (Houston), TX; Wayne County (Detroit), MI; Philadelphia County, PA, and Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), OH.
The report listed ten more counties where the average American could afford to purchase a home in Q4: Franklin County, OH; Oakland County, MI; Allegheny County, PA; Mecklenburg County, NC; and Fulton County, GA.
Stagnate wages and excessive monetary policy via the Federal Reserve have contributed to an affordability crisis across the country. At least 34% of Americans, or approximately 100 million people, are in the renting economy, which has plunged homeownership rates to lows not seen since the 1960s.
Almost half of US workers between ages 18 to 64 are employed in low-wage jobs, a recent Brookings Institution report found. Low wage jobs represent between 33% to 66% of all jobs in more than 400 metropolitan areas across the country.
“The Greatest Economy Ever” could be a reality for the top 10% of Americans who are a majority of the asset owners and have benefited from the Fed pumping trillions of dollars into the financial markets over the last decade. Still, the middle class has been wiped out, now referred to as the bottom 90%, most of them have been left behind and can’t purchase a home in a majority of the country.
Something has to change in the early 2020s, or the extreme wealth inequality that is building up could lead to social unrest. We’re sure the Fed, government and financial elites have a plan to launch People’s Quantitative Easing to thwart riots.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 19:00 - Authorities Have Always Prevented The Bright Future Of Humankind
Authorities Have Always Prevented The Bright Future Of Humankind
Authored by Aleksandar Sarovic for The Saker Blog,
Authorities have power over people, and they enjoy this power. They preserve their power in society primarily by imposing knowledge on people. Authorities have been teaching us everything we know. Nothing can come to us if it does not pass the filters of authorities. We are what the authorities made us become, and it is challenging to escape from it.
If you love baseball, democracy, or god, this is because the authorities made you love it. People hardly get a chance to love something if the authorities did not let them, even though people believe that they have free will. The point is, people may only choose the options that authorities give them. Inconvenient options for authorities are not even accessible to people. For example, society has never developed a knowledge of how to create a just society because the authorities have prevented searching for the solution. When people build something new on the top of the choices the authorities give them, this is only the development of the will of authorities.
Authorities create rules which implement social policy, and people have to obey them. These rules have become the origin of social sciences. Authorities have always supported social ideas that followed their interests and suppressed those that didn’t. Therefore, social scientists have followed the interest of authorities and not of people. As a result, social sciences alienate society from social justice. We may accept that social scientists acted the best they could under the pressure of authorities, but also, their work prevents the progress of society.
Even when social scientists want to improve society, they can hardly do it because the alienated knowledge they accepted from their predecessors put them on the wrong path. Through the history of humankind, authorities have supported the creation of complex social sciences that prevent us from finding the escape from social problems. We think the way the authorities taught us to think, and that prevents us from searching for the bright future of humankind.
Social scientists have developed democracy and presented it as the best political choice of the people, by the people, for the people. According to this introduction, democracy must have been in the interest of authorities; otherwise, it would not be allowed to exist. Authorities have learned that dictatorship initiates a rebellion of people, which may take their lives. They found it more convenient to control the social policy secretly by manipulating people. Today they do it by controlling politicians, scientists, and media with the economic power they possess. I have presented how efficient they are in the article The Conspiracy of the World Exposed. As a result, we have a democracy that follows the interests of the elite and not of people. It is nothing else but a form of dictatorship that keeps preventing the freedom of people. Democracy must have been a designed forgery of the authorities.
We name the authorities in capitalism, the elite. We call them the elite because they do not rule over society openly as authorities historically did, but by secretly using the wealth they possess. Their power is nothing lesser than the power of dictators who openly ruled, but it is much more secure and stable. People cannot replace the elite from power because they do not know who they are. The politicians who work for the elite listen to their messages very carefully because otherwise, they would lose financial support from the elite and would not be able to be politicians.
Scientists know as well if they do not obey the elite, they will not get grants for their researches, and they would not be able to be scientists. This is the reason social scientists present capitalism as a final stage in the development of society. At least by not offering real solutions that might improve capitalism if not replacing it. The whole philosophy of capitalism is to let capitalists make profits. All of the paths that achieve this goal today lead to the exploitation of workers. The capitalism we know is very unjust.
Social scientists prevent ideas which may endanger the status of the elite and support ideas that help the elite survive. The elite has encouraged social sciences to support Marxism because the elite knew in advance that Marxism would put the workers on a wrong path that could not replace capitalism. History has proved it. It also shows that the elite can cheat on the highest intellectuals. If Marxism were able to replace capitalism, the elite would ban it, and not one Marxist would be able to propagate Marxism freely. I have explained it in the article Marx still prevents the progress of society.
All organizations in the western world that fight for a better future need money for their operations, and they can get it only from the elite because nobody else has it. By depending on the elite, these organizations lose their strength in fighting for social justice and a better world. Instead, by being corrupted by the elite, they rather mislead the people and prevent the bright future of humankind.
All the information available to people is created and supported by the elite. The elite owns the mainstream media of the western world, but they hide it. So-called independent media desperately need money for their operations, and they may get it only from the elite because nobody else has a financial power to support them. They pay this support by being obedient to the elite. They do not publish material the elite do not like. On the other hand, when the elite are interested in promoting something, you may find information about it where ever you turn your head. When you see a persistent media reporting, you may be well aware it is created to deceive you.
For example, people are perplexed about what exactly happened on the 9/11 terrorist attack thanks to the elite who invested billions of dollars in the 9/11 false propaganda. They did it to hide their involvement in 9/11, but also to deceive and mislead people. The elite used 9/11 to conquer independent countries around the world and to reduce the freedom of people. The elite are masters of deception. Their manipulation also divides people because then, they cannot change anything. I explained what happened on 9/11 in the article My investigation of 9/11.
Global warming propaganda is about increasing restrictions in CO2 production, which has the intention to keep the power of the elite by preventing the progress of the world, especially in developing countries. Yes, the Sahara desert expands, and the Arctic shrinks as the result of global warming, but it does not affect the rich countries. The elite has created the global warming issue, not because they are concerned about climate change, but because they want to enforce rules to control the world.
In a similar example, the development of nuclear weapons is forbidden in countries that do not have it. It should obliged developed countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons as well, though they do not have any intention to do it.
The elite has initiated all of the events and talks in the western world. Nothing beside it on a public level exists. That means people think the way the elite made them think. That means whatever people do, they can do nothing but support the elite. This is the reason nothing changes. Today’s society is an authoritarian dictatorship that prevents people from freedom of creating and meeting their needs.
* * *
All social problems have their origin in authoritarian systems, and an escape from all of the social issues lies in equal human rights. Equal human rights will create good societies unconditionally by giving everyone the same opportunities. This is what authorities have prevented from all of the history of humankind, and as a result, we do not know even what equal human rights are.
There is no such thing as partially equal human rights because these human rights are not equal. There is only one package of equal human rights, and it should not be rocket science to discover how equal human rights are supposed to look. Everyone can come up with the idea alone if they eliminate all rights that are not equal and try to imagine the equal human rights replacement. The problem is quite simple, and yet, society has not defined equal human rights so far.
To be able to define equal human rights, we need to rethink all of the imposed knowledge authorities have produced through the history of humankind. Social scientists not only do not want to do it, but they also refuse new ideas that reconsider the alienated knowledge they have accepted. Social sciences should develop society, but in fact, they prevent the development of society and the bright future of humankind.
People tend not to accept new ideas that question the established way of thinking. Once we start loving baseball, democracy, or god, we keep loving it no matter what. As a result, people live in a deception created by authorities from the day they are born till the day they die. It alienates them from a good life, and it is tough to change.
George Orwell: “The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Mark Twain: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
The fight for equal human rights will not be easy, but it is well worth it. Once we start establishing equal human rights, a bright future of humankind will begin. And defining equal human rights is very simple. I did it in the article Equal Human Rights will Build a Good Society Unconditionally.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 18:30 - Chinese President Xi Installs Finance Experts To Avoid "Lurking, Devastating Debt Bombs"
Chinese President Xi Installs Finance Experts To Avoid “Lurking, Devastating Debt Bombs”
The average forecast for China’s GDP in 2020 could be around 5.9%, indicating that the world’s second-largest economy will continue to experience downward pressure.
Slowing growth, deteriorating financial conditions for local governments, slowing property construction investment, plunging manufacturing investment, and credit crunches in low-tier cities have sparked concerns that China’s big financial meltdown could be nearing.
In response to the elevated financial risks, Chinese President Xi Jinping installed 12 former executives at state-run financial institutions across the country who will support the communist government’s ability to combat banking and debt difficulties, reported Taipei Times.
Some of the most recent appointments have been central bankers, veteran securities officials, and provincial governors, who will also help transition China’s economy from the world’s factory to a service-based economy producing high-quality goods. At the same time, the government is preparing for an extensive personnel reshuffle in 2022, with at least half of its 25 members of the Politburo could be replaced.
Feng Chucheng, a partner at Plenum, an independent research platform in Hong Kong, told Taipei Times that “Bankers are now in demand, as local governments are increasingly exposed to financial risks.”
“These ex-bankers and regulators are given the task of preventing and mitigating major financial risks,” Chucheng said.
The appointments are in response to growth collapsing to a three-decade low in 2019, as traditional monetary policy becomes ineffective to boost the economy.
One reason behind the ineffectiveness behind monetary policy in the country could be due to a balance sheet recession of companies that are paying down high debt loads, in an attempt to deleverage, causing investments to decline and contributing to slower economic growth.
Taipei Times noted that five regional banks have had “liquidity problems this year, raising the prospect of devastating debt bombs lurking in unexpected corners.”
He Haifeng, director of the Institute of Financial Policy at the Chinese Academy of Social Science, said: “Appointing financial vice governors to provinces can help better integrate financial policies into local practice, and to prevent financial risks beforehand.”
And while central banks around the world are cutting interest rates and pumping liquidity into markets on the premise of a return to global growth in 2020, China is currently preparing for a slowing economy and financial armageddon.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 18:00 - Tax Avoidance: A Moral Duty
Tax Avoidance: A Moral Duty
Authored by Darren Smith via JonathanTurley.org,
While it is a truism that in many respects some form of taxation is needed to provide necessities to a society, in practice many government and social detriments arise as either a consequence to or are derivative of tax policy. I’ve found for myself that fostering a personal goal of avoiding specific taxation or in many cases excessive taxation generally comports with a greater advocacy of morality in several beneficial forms.
First I must emphasize the difference between Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion.
-
Tax Evasion is the criminal and / or civil refusal to make payment of taxes a taxpayer is legally compelled to provide as a consequence of earnings or purchases.
-
Tax Avoidance is the lawful participation in a practice where a taxpayer is not legally required to pay taxes or he or she chooses to abstain from or to minimize activities that generate lawful tax liability.
I am by no means advocating tax evasion and I strongly discourage others to engage in such. While we have an obligation to pay the tax we are required, we are also equally obligated to make use of any deduction or credit of tax we are due.
I believe this topic can be discussed in lengthy detail but for the purpose of brevity a primer should suffice.
In tax avoidance as a moral duty one has to probably accept the notion that not all goals sought by government or especially politicians are benevolent. For nearly the past two decades the U.S. Federal Government’s political leadership has actively engaged in what I consider to be highly immoral behavior. At it’s worst it has willingly engaged in instigating completely elective foreign expeditions and wars that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians, and thousands of American military personal and citizens. In fact it could realistically be argued that the resolve “to get” individuals who our politicians did not like, such as Saddam Hussein , Assad, and Quadaffi, was so prevalent that Congress and the then presidents convinced themselves that close to a million lives were worth taking out these three men. Men I might add posed no true threat to the people of the United States. So over a trillion dollars of tax payer supplied money and treasury securities went toward those debacles.
I do not take issue with the idea of needing a military to protect ourselves in the ordinary sense, but lately in my life politicians have shown on the federal level that they believe a tool for personal political gain is to cause the death of civilians and our soldiers here to “get the bad guy”. And that looking tough works to get hired in an elected position. I am not willing to reward that behavior.
Often in the past wars have ended simply because a nation depleted itself of money and materiel and could no longer prosecute the battle. It could also be argued that a government being awash in the financial means to fight an elective war would be more tempted to use such means than if it was constrained by a limited budget. For me I do not agree with providing that means so easily.
The first example of “getting the bad guy” I came to realize in my life was President George H.W. Bush’s need to get Bad Guy Manuel Noriega. back in the 1980s. Most of you readers know of this affair so I won’t repeat it. For those who do not feel free to search for “Operation Just Cause”, the almost complete joke of a name our government gave that endeavor.
I remember having a training class with two officers who formerly served in U.S. Special Forces during the invasion of Panama to oust Bad Guy Noriega on drug trafficking charges (or so that was the excuse)–A police action as it was called then. One of the officers said they were sent there to get Noriega and when in country found themselves pinned down by sniper fire. So, they called in an airstrike which leveled a building. Of course they had to defend themselves but I had to wonder what kind of police action this was. I knew that generally when we went to take down a drug dealer in the county it generally did not involve airstrikes and blowing shit up all over town. But it seems that when it involves bad guys our federal government doesn’t like, well what’s a few hundred or thousand civilian lives anyway? I must have missed something when I went through the academy. I thought we had to preserve the peace not destroy it.
Controlling the size and over-reach of government
The old maxim goes, “a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have” and the more money we supply government the greater it grows in terms of control and want of increasing revenue. Such is the way of empire building.
I’ve seen many examples over the years where politicians here at the state level only curtailed spending when faced with either a crisis of revenue shortfalls or when the voters finally had enough and revoked their ability to tax excessively via the Citizen’s Initiative process or by removal at the ballot box. If we continue to allow government to be provided with limitless amounts of tax revenue it only encourages excessive spending and decreases any need for efficiency. And once again the pols will demand increasing tax rates exacted against citizens just to keep the juggernaut rolling. And the bigger it is, the more it wants to encroach upon others.
The Practice of Tax Avoidance results in stronger, more independent living.
Consider the notion of Conspicuous Consumption, that is the never-ending goal of spending money on “things” to elevate one’s self-image. It is the antithesis of Simple Living.
Living beyond one’s means results in many greater tax liabilities, whether it be in the form of higher amounts of sales tax or engaging in activities that generate tax itself. The simplest form of this involves eating in expensive restaurants in high-sales-tax cities as opposed to buying ordinary food at a grocery store (tax free) and eating at home for fifteen-percent of the cost. The food is also healthier I might add.
The stupidest example I personally saw was a Seattle based restaurant that charged more for pop than beer (due to Seattle’s sugared beverage tax) and because of the higher costs restaurants must pay due to over-regulation , the restaurant added an extra labor cost surcharge which was also subject to sales tax. In the end it cost more than five day’s worth of groceries just so that I could pay more tax and reward a city that is governed by some of the biggest fools in the state.
Yet, if instead we buy ordinary groceries, and don’t support a government that is incompetent, if enough restaurants fail maybe businesses might actually begin to exert some action against bad legislation. Surely this is a bit harsh, but who really motivates politicians, the voter or corporations?
Also ,if we looked carefully as a measure of what type of house or car to buy by the amount of tax we must pay resulting from such a purchase we might soon begin to realize that perhaps we don’t need the biggest, most expensive, most energy intensive, and most arrogant example of a dwelling or vehicle. An eight thousand square foot house that we can barely afford is not only more costly on the environment but can we morally justify our actions when a two thousand square foot house is just as livable? How much more hubris do we need when so much of the world would be greatly pleased just to have clean water and electricity. If instead we took some of that cost savings or superfluous property tax (which would probably be wasted otherwise) and gave it directly to a legitimate charity that actually bettered the lives of others less fortunate than we. Or we could at least be somewhat selfish and keep the money ourselves and not be as strapped for cash.
Beneficial Tax Law Can Elicit Morally Sound Behavior
While it can be debatable as to whether or not subsidies and tax credits result in a net benefit to the intended recipient generally speaking there are times where it does much good.
When deductions to charity are permitted there is a direct link between the amounts individuals give and what tax breaks they receive, and in the absence of such charity is curtailed. The per-capita generosity for Americans is one of the highest in the world and we have a tradition of tax deductions for charitable giving. (Though unfortunately this has lessened recently due to tax law changes). We have also benefited from tax credit schemes that encouraged the purchase of greener vehicles and the willingness of investors to engage in the construction of Tax Credit low-income housing projects to house the under-served. In the latter, the desire for tax avoidance actually put roofs over people’s heads.
I believe it is incumbent upon people to strongly consider how government will use what is given to it. The more power it is given, the less benevolent it will inevitably become. We only need a cursory understanding of history to recognize how usual this is the case. And money is as inseparable from power as it is from greed. The more money you give to politicians, the less freedom you will have.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 17:30 -
- Powerful Winter Storm To Dump Snow And Ice From Northern Plains and Upper Midwest to Northeast
Powerful Winter Storm To Dump Snow And Ice From Northern Plains and Upper Midwest to Northeast
Winter Storm Gage is producing snow, ice, and strong winds from the Northern Plains and upper Midwest Sunday will move into the Northeast early next week and unleash a wintery mess that could cause severe travel headaches ahead of New Years, reported The Weather Channel.
The storm is expected to traverse across a broad area from Nebraska to Dakotas to northern and western Minnesota. Snow and high winds could produce blizzard conditions in these areas throughout Sunday. Some regions could see as much as 12 inches by Monday morning.
The National Weather Service (NWS) published winter storm warnings, watches, and advisories for parts of the Central Plains into the northern Great Lakes, eastern upstate New York and parts of New England.
NWS warned, “the same winter storm that is impacting areas of the Plains and Upper Midwest will be heading east next week and is expected to bring locally significant snow and ice across portions of the Northeast ahead of the New Years holiday.”
The same winter storm that is impacting areas of the Plains and Upper Midwest will be heading east next week and is expected to bring locally significant snow and ice across portions of the Northeast ahead of the New Years holiday. For more, please visit https://t.co/QoghhWMaO7. pic.twitter.com/7zmBZe2ELU
— NWS WPC (@NWSWPC) December 28, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Snow, sleet, and freezing rain will spread across eastern upstate New York into central and northern New England by Monday night.
Winter Storm #Gage will snarl travel starting tonight across the northeast. Rain, snow and ice will make some roads impassable.@ReynoldsWolf and I are on @weatherchannel with details this morning. pic.twitter.com/YCW5fpP26K
— Felicia Combs (@FeliciaCombsTWC) December 29, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Then by Tuesday, colder air will swoop into the region from Canada and turn much of the storm into a snow event for eastern upstate New York as well as in central and northern New England. Rain is expected in coastal areas of southeast New England.
The Weather Channel predicts eastern Dakotas to northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan could receive around six inches of snow by Tuesday evening. Northeastern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and northern New England could see six to 12 inches.
A significant ice event through Monday could be seen from Scranton to Albany.
WCCO CBS Minnesota shared a video of a school bus sliding sideways down a street amid icy conditions on Saturday.
Well there’s something you don’t see every day! Thanks to Neil D. Marriott for sharing this video of a school bus sliding sideways “downhill” on Eden Prairie Road near Highway 5. | https://t.co/VqSViIxQIJ pic.twitter.com/1khKPV1UV4
— WCCO – CBS Minnesota (@WCCO) December 28, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Earlier in the week, the storm produced wet conditions and heavy fog in Texas, led to this dramatic accident caught on camera:
A shocking tractor-trailer crash in Texas was caught on camera. First responders were on the scene of an accident working to clear the road, when another tractor-trailer was unable to stop. It barreled into cars while troopers had to run to get out of the way. (Video KCBD|CNN) pic.twitter.com/mAvzTHft28
— WREG News Channel 3 (@3onyourside) December 28, 2019
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 17:00 - Jim Rickards Warns That Tsunami Of Debt Could Upend The Economy
Jim Rickards Warns That Tsunami Of Debt Could Upend The Economy
At some point, an economic problem deepens so much that the piper has to be paid. Both in the U.S. and globally, one of those problems appears to be mountains of debt.
Jim Rickards recently issued a dire proclamation about the global debt situation:
Current global debt levels are simply not sustainable. Debt actually is sustainable if the debt is used for projects with positive returns and if the economy supporting the debt is growing faster than the debt itself. But neither of those conditions applies today.
In other words, most of the global debt we’re racking up isn’t being used for productive purposes. Instead it’s being used to service “benefits, interest and discretionary spending,” according to Rickards.
This debt growth should continue. According to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), global debt is expected to pass $255 trillion by the end of this year, and they don’t see the pace of debt accumulation slowing down.
In fact, you can see below how the official global debt has already skyrocketed from about $80 trillion in 1999 to this new record:
Zero Hedge reports that, by year’s end, the global debt will be “roughly equivalent to a record 330% of global GDP.”
With debt outpacing growth by such a large margin, we are fast approaching a day of reckoning. And when that day arrives, it could be disastrous.
Rickards: “It’s a Catastrophic Global Debt Crisis Waiting to Happen”
Another Zero Hedge artjcle reports:
The world bank looked at the four major episodes of debt increases that have occurred in more than 100 countries since 1970 — the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s, the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s and the global financial crisis from 2007 to 2009.
The bank says that we’re in the fourth episode now, and their prognosis isn’t good. In fact, they called the failure to properly manage the global debt “complacency”:
“The increase in debt globally has already been larger, faster, and more broad-based since the Great Financial Crisis than in the previous three waves. This should be seen as a leading indicator for the possibility of financial crises ahead and shake up the complacency that is evident in macroeconomic policy making today with regard to increasing levels of both public and private debt.”
Jim Rickards thinks the “trigger” for an imminent global debt crisis, if one happens, would boil down to rates:
Low interest rates facilitate unsustainable debt levels, at least in the short run. But with so much debt on the books, even modest rate increases will cause debt levels and deficits to explode as new borrowing is sought just to cover interest payments.
He also thinks that if these debt levels and deficits spiral out of control, it won’t take much to trigger a debt crisis not seen since the 1930s.
World Bank President David Malpass sounded another alarm that if a crisis were to hit: “Emerging and developing economies are already more vulnerable on a variety of fronts than they were ahead of the last crisis.”
Put simply, that means disaster for those economies if the global economy is upended. The ripple effects from such a crisis would also hit the U.S. economy hard.
Once it hits, no amount of wishful thinking, denial, or ignorance will make this problem go away.
Make Sure Your Retirement Stands On Solid Ground
Unabated debt fueled growth on a global scale has put the world economy on a “knife edge of a debt crisis,” if Jim Rickards ends up being right.
So now is an ideal time to consider fortifying your own “economy.” Market optimism is almost always pushed until it’s too late.
If you want to hedge against that, don’t wait to start preparing your exit plan. Consider adding precious metals like gold and silver to your savings, which tend to perform well under uncertain economic conditions.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 16:30 - US Conducts Air Strikes In Iraq And Syria, Targeting Iran-Backed Militia After US Contractor Killed
US Conducts Air Strikes In Iraq And Syria, Targeting Iran-Backed Militia After US Contractor Killed
The U.S. military conducted air strikes in Iraq and Syria against the five facilities controlled by the Kataib Hezbollah militia group in response to the killing of a U.S. civilian contractor in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base, US Central Command said on Sunday. A U.S. official told Reuters that the strikes were carried out by F-15 fighter jets.
U.S. conducted defensive strikes in Iraq and Syria against 5 Kata’ib Hezbollah facilities in response to recent attacks against @CJTFOIR coalition forces. @ChiefPentSpox https://t.co/YQXUnLzq2F
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) December 29, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Iraqi security and militia sources said at least 18 militia fighters were killed and more than 50 wounded following three U.S. air strikes in Iraq on Sunday evening, with Reuters reporting that at least four local Kataib Hezbollah commanders were among the dead, adding that one of the strikes had targeted the militia group’s headquarters near the western Qaim district on the border with Syria.
#BREAKING: CJTF-Op. #InherentResolve released these images showing before and after the airstrike against five targets belonging to the Kataib Hezbollah (#PMU‘s 45th Brigade) in #AlQaim, west of #Iraq. pic.twitter.com/z1ojgoxIbp
— Babak Taghvaee (@BabakTaghvaee) December 29, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The Pentagon said it had targeted three locations of the Iranian-backed Shi’ite Muslim militia group in Iraq and two in Syria. The locations included weapons storage facilities and command and control locations the group had used to plan and execute attacks on coalition forces.
“In response to repeated Kata’ib Hizbollah attacks on Iraqi bases that host @CJTFOIR forces, U.S. forces conducted precision defensive strikes against 5 KH facilities in Iraq & Syria [to] degrade KH’s ability to conduct future attacks against @coalition forces.” ~@ChiefPentSpox pic.twitter.com/g2hmTD4Eqw
— OIR Spokesman Col. Myles B. Caggins III (@OIRSpox) December 29, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“In response to repeated Kata’ib Hizbollah attacks on Iraqi bases that host Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) coalition forces, U.S. forces have conducted precision defensive strikes … that will degrade KH’s ability to conduct future attacks against OIR coalition forces” chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement.
The US has accused Kataib Hezbollah of carrying out a strike involving more than 30 rockets on Friday which killed a US civilian contractor and injured four US service members and two members of the Iraqi Security Forces near the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.
#BREAKING: #PMU released first images of the aftermath of #USAF airstrike at the local command & control base & ammunition depot of #IRGC‘s Kataib Hezbollah terrorist organization in #AlQaim, west of #Iraq. Death of several terrorists including two from #IRGC-QF is reported! pic.twitter.com/q8r1aTRlaH
— Babak Taghvaee (@BabakTaghvaee) December 29, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Earlier this month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iranian-backed forces for a series of attacks on bases in Iraq and warned Iran that any attacks by Tehran or proxies that harmed Americans or allies would be “answered with a decisive U.S. response” which begs the question if today’s attack is just a precursor to a broader Iranian offensive.
And in what may perhaps be an early response to this question, shortly after news of the air strikes, the US evacuated all staff from the Iraq embassy in Baghdad following speculation that Kataib Hezbollah might carry-out a rocket attack in retaliation
#BREAKING: On order of #IRGC-QF terrorist commander, Qasem Soleimani, the #PMU‘s 47th Brigade (Kataib Hezbollah) might carry-out rocket attack at #US embassy in #Baghdad‘s #GreenZone within next few minutes. All #US embassy staff are evacuated. pic.twitter.com/sizL3A9Roc
— Babak Taghvaee (@BabakTaghvaee) December 29, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And while we wait to see if an attack will indeed take place against the US embassy in Baghdad, there were unconfirmed reports that Kataib Hezbollah had fired four 107mm rockets at Camp Taji where US troops are present and the Iraqi Air Force has a base; the attack was in response to the US airstrike targeting the Kataib Hezbollah’s local HQ.
#BREAKING: Minutes ago, #IRGC backed 47th Brigade of #PMU (Kataib Hezbollah) fired four 107mm rockets at Camp #Taji where #US troops are present & #Iraq|i Army Aviation has a base. This attack is carried-out in response to #USAF airstrike at Kataib Hezbollah’s local HQ in #AlQaim pic.twitter.com/2qrvRpMKOy
— Babak Taghvaee (@BabakTaghvaee) December 29, 2019
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 16:00 - 2020: The Year Of The Oil Bankruptcies
2020: The Year Of The Oil Bankruptcies
Authored by Alex Kimani via OilPrice.com,
A bankruptcy boom has hit the oil and gas industry, and it’s just getting started. Investors have lost their appetite for shale, and energy debt has become among the least desirable in the market.
The industry has been teetering on the verge of mass hysteria for much of 2019 as a record number of energy companies folded.
According to Energy and Restructuring law firm Hayes and Boone’s, a grand total of 50 energy companies filed for bankruptcy during the first nine months of the year, including 33 oil and gas producers, 15 oilfield services companies and two midstream companies.
In contrast, 43 oil and gas companies filed for bankruptcy for the whole of 2018.
The biggest oil and gas bankruptcy of the year–indeed, the biggest since 2016–was EP Energy, which filed for bankruptcy in October, unable to pay back some $5 billion in debt.
Now, some observers are warning that the shakeout will pick up serious momentum in 2020.
Bingeing on Debt
During the latest shale boom, the putative class valedictorian of the modern energy industry, American drillers binged on mountains of readily available debt as they capitalized on investors and financiers willing to gamble on the premise that fracking operations could be significantly cheaper and more efficient than conventional drillers.
Before long, oil markets were flooded with a deluge of the commodity far outstripping demand. In what few could have foreseen, the US became the world’s largest oil producer, with its nearly 13 million b/d output turning it from a net importer to a net exporter of crude. Predictably, prices tanked by a sizable margin, dropping to levels well below the breakeven points of many drillers.
Suddenly, investors became wary of the shale industry and energy debt became anathema.
They have good reason to be scared.
Companies with junk-rated bonds have been defaulting on interest payments at record levels, while dozens of smaller drillers that had saddled themselves with too much debt have been dropping like flies.
Now analysts see this taking an even sharper turn, with more mergers and more debt restructurings required to get the industry back in shape.
As Ken Monaghan, Amundi Pioneer co-director of high yield, has told CNBC:
“We’re at the early stages [of the shakeout]. The problem is some of these companies still have a bit of rope to go. they don’t have [debt] maturities that are coming up in 2020 and 2021. They’re going to try to outrun the clock and hope that oil prices move higher.”
Michael Bradley, energy strategist with Tudor, Pickering, Holt, has expressed a similar sentiment, saying that the market is no longer rewarding energy companies with aggressive expansion schemes, preferring instead to see profits and money returned to shareholders.
“Most people are saying we don’t want you to spend money on growth. We want you to give the money back because you guys are dummies.”
Monaghan says there are more distressed companies in the energy sector than in any other, with energy bonds only recently moving to the green after remaining in losing territory for much of the year thanks to the latest oil price mini-rally.
Bradley estimates that about $30 billion- $40 billion of high-yield energy debt [bonds] is now at risk. These companies have little choice but to seek bankruptcy protection and restructure if they hope to live to see another oil boom.
Catch 22
Shale drillers face a catch 22 situation because of the very nature of their business. Young shale wells decline at notoriously fast clips, with many depleting 70 percent to 75 percent of their reserves in the first year, thus forcing shale drillers to continue drilling new wells to replace lost supply. But with a freeze-out in debt and oil prices still low, they are bound to find it increasingly hard to keep up production.
Bradley sees many mid-cap oil companies resorting to mergers in order to survive with an estimated $2B-$7B in M&A deals over the next two years.
These won’t be the usual gilt-edged mergers with fat premiums, though, as the tie-up between WPX Energy and Felix Energy has proved. This was a smart and sober $2.5-billion tie-up that reflects the fact that investors have soured on the sector.
In other words, the consolidation wave that everyone seems to expect is going to focus on smart deals, or none at all.
This also means that large-cap independent players such as Concho Resources Inc. (NYSE:CXO) and Diamondback Energy Inc. (NASDAQ:FANG) are likely to see their market shares grow.
Ultimately, the ongoing shakeout is likely to leave the industry in a much better patch, though not so much for the consumer who will have to contend with higher oil prices thanks to higher levels of production discipline.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 15:30 - China Launches Stealth Rate Cut By Switching Benchmark Lending Rate, Lowering Funding Costs
China Launches Stealth Rate Cut By Switching Benchmark Lending Rate, Lowering Funding Costs
More than 4 years since the last official Chinese rate cut (not of its far more targeted Required Reserve Ratio but its broad Benchmark rate), economists and pundits were wondering when, if ever, Beijing would finally cut its main rate again to ease financial conditions again at the broadest level and boost fading corporate profits while kickstarting the country’s moribund economy whose GDP is now growing below 6% GDP, the lowest on record. To be sure, China has had its share of setbacks in the past year preventing it from implementing the type of monetary policy it desires, most notably soaring food inflation as a result 110% pork CPI…
… even as producer prices, a driver of industrial profits, slumped below zero earlier in 2019, a clear indicator that China’s enterprises desperate for lower rates.
And yet, a wholesale easing, such as cutting the benchmark rate, could potentially spark even more food inflation, setting off violent popular protests. After all, the Chinese population’s patience is already running thin, forcing Beijing to scrap import tariffs on US pork exports, a move which Xi Jinping (and Trump) quickly spun as a trade war concession, but in reality was a matter of preserving the peace for China which is desperate for any sources of cheaper protein to keep its 1.4 billion people fed, and happy.
Well, overnight China finally did what so many had been expecting to do, if once again it did so in a roundabout way.
Remember that back on August 17, China’s central bank unveiled detailed measures on its long-awaited interest rate reform by establishing a reference rate for new loans issued by banks to help steer corporate borrowing costs lower and support a slowing economy.
As a key part of the rate overhaul, the Loan Prime Rate (LPR) would eventually become the new Benchmark Reference Rate to be used by banks for lending which is aimed at supporting funding as well as lower borrowing costs for small businesses; the rate will be set monthly (20th of every month) and will be linked to the Medium-term Lending Facility rate. The current 1 year LPR stands at 4.15% after its latest cut on Nov 30 versus the Benchmark Rate 4.35%.
So even with the PBOC pushing the LPR lower by 10bps since its August inception, the benchmark rate has remained unchanged at 4.35% since October 2015.
It is in this context that on Saturday, China’s entire interest rate framework was overhauled when the PBOC ordered lenders to adopt the new LPR rate as the de facto basis for all credit from next year, marking an end to the previous benchmark in what Bloomberg said was another step toward liberalizing the financial system (although many disagree).
In a statement, the PBOC said that financial institutions should stop using the old lending rate as the pricing reference for all credit from January, and gradually convert existing loans to a new base using the loan prime rate, from March to August. The one-year lending rate had provided the previous anchor for loans across the economy.
And since the PBOC is effectively forcing lenders to adopt a reference rate that is 20bps lower than the benchmark, Saturday’s announcement is effectively stealth easing, and will lower costs for the roughly 152 trillion yuan ($21.7 trillion) in yuan-denominated outstanding loans held by financial institutions and boost economic growth, even though – as with most things in China – it does not involve a straightforward cut to interest rates.
The transition is “in line with the need to further reduce the financing costs for the real economy, although there’s still a long way to go,” said Fan Ruoying, analyst at the Bank of China’s Institute of International Finance in Beijing, as quoted by Bloomberg. The shift to the LPR comes at a time when Beijing has unveiled a raft of pro-growth measures, including tax cuts, more infrastructure spending, reductions in the amount of cash banks must keep on reserve and lending rates to boost credit.
Ironically, while the move will benefit end-consumers and debtors, it could have an especially adverse impact for creditors, forcing even more bank failures, bank runs, bailouts and nationalizations. As Fan warned, “the move will present more challenges for commercial banks because the interest margin will be squeezed and lenders will need to improve their pricing ability.” As a reminder, many of the small and medium-bank failures that took place in 2019 – and there have been more this year than ever on record – have been attributed to the ongoing drop in rates that banks can charge client which in a time of shadow bank crackdowns, has meant more bank failures amid a flattening of the Net Interest Margin curve.
“The purpose of the step is to make interest rates more market-driven and help lower financing costs,” said Wen Bin, an economist at Minsheng Bank in Beijing.
To be sure, the impact of the loan reform won’t be groundbreaking as most new loans issued in the past 4 or so months already track the LPR: “By now close to 90% of new loans are priced with the LPR, but outstanding loans with floating rates are still based on the benchmark lending rate,” the central bank said in a separate statement. That means the real lending cost “can’t reflect changes in market interest rates.”
Why did the PBOC decide to shift to the LPR, which we also dubbed China’s Libor rate when we discussed it in the summer, besides providing it a convenient way to cut rates by 20bps without actually implementing a 20bps rate cut? As a reminder, the rate which will become the benchmark for new loans this year, is based on the interest rate for one-year loans that 18 banks offer their best customers. Banks submit the quoted price each month in the form of a spread over the rate of the PBOC’s medium-term loans.
According to Bloomberg, the move may help make monetary policy more effective, resolving a long-standing problem in which cheap funding that the PBOC offers banks doesn’t result in cheaper loans to businesses. In the new scenario when all borrowing is based on the LPR, the supply of central bank funding or cuts to the rates of medium-term loans will in theory push down the LPR, and reduce the cost of all lending to businesses. One can almost call it trickle down credit with Chinese characteristics…
Whether or not such a move will succeed remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the transition to just one short-term rate will simply somewhat China’s arcane rate system. The following Bloomberg explainer makes it clear why this was long overdue: most central banks govern the price of money in an economy via the rate that banks are charged to borrow cash over short time periods. In China, that approach had been divided into two steps. First, the PBOC guided prices for funding in the inter-bank market via its reverse repurchase agreements and medium-term lending facility. Then, it set the benchmark rates that were used to price mortgages, business loans and other commercial lending – the one-year and five-year lending rates.
So will a successful transition from a benchmark to an LPR rate stoke another asset bubble? Perhaps, although the PBOC is careful to avoid overheating among China’s most important assets: housing. While the interest rate of home mortgages should also be converted to the LPR, the central bank said that the new borrowing cost must be the same as the current charges to “reflect the request to regulate the property market.” Eventually, at some point in the future, home mortgages could be repriced in the future, based on the LPR, the PBOC said, giving itself a buffer for when China’s housing market takes its next leg down.
And while Bloomberg concludes that this latest stealth rate cut shows the PBOC’s “commitment to making the interest-rate system more market-driven” controls on deposits remain for now. In short, the step-by-step approach appears to be trying to open up the system without shrinking interest margins too rapidly and adding more pressure to smaller lenders. Unfortunately, with numerous banks having already failed previously in 2019 (as discussed here), and with more than half of China’s banks failing a recent central bank stress test, the only guaranteed outcome from this weekend’s effective rate cut is that, paradoxically, it will only accelerate the rate of failure of China’s already cash strapped, and in many cases insolvent, banks.
Which begs the question: did Beijing, in hopes of gently stimulating the economy, start a cascade of failures that will eventually drag down more than just the small and medium banks (and result in the executions of many more bank CEOs) despite such “brilliant” marketing ploys as offering a pound of pork to starving savers with every new deposit, and precipitate China’s long-overdue financial crisis?
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 15:00 - Narrative Managers Claim White Helmets Founder Was Driven To Suicide By Syria Skeptics
Narrative Managers Claim White Helmets Founder Was Driven To Suicide By Syria Skeptics
Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,
Imperialist spinmeisters are trial-ballooning a new Syria narrative that is so breathtakingly stupid it needs its own article solely for the purpose of mockery.
On Christmas Eve PBS aired a bizarre segment on the death of James Le Mesurier, the former military intelligence officer who founded the extremely shady propaganda construct known as the White Helmets. The segment makes relentless, ham-fisted appeals to emotion, even attempting to associate the White Helmets with Armistice Day using wistful camera pans over poppy flowers and misty war memorial art exhibits, but by far the most yogurt-brained part is its repeated suggestions that Le Mesurier killed himself because people had been accusing him of being a propagandist.
“And now a story of a humanitarian trying to help Syria: the suspicious death in Turkey last month of James Le Mesurier, the co-founder of the White Helmets rescue organization in Syria,” opens PBS News Hour’s Judy Woodruff.
“Friends and colleagues fear that he may have been murdered or driven to suicide by a campaign of character assassination.”
“Whatever the cause, Le Mesurier was a victim of a very modern war,” the special’s narrator solemnly intones.
“There is no hiding place in cyberspace. Le Mesurier was at the epicenter of a propaganda war, and his friends are appalled at what they regard as a campaign of character assassination.”
“The amount of abuse, the amount of ill-placed propaganda, disinformation that’s on social media and the Internet coming out of Russian bots and Syria, Syrian regime, and others was unbearable,” Col. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon mourns.
This ridiculous narrative was picked up and run with by Syria narrative managers on Twitter.
“On lethal disinformation — a thread,” tweeted virulent Syria narrative manager Idrees Ahmad.
“This is a disturbing report by Malcolm Brabant on the lethal consequences of conspiracism. It shows how slander and disinformation may have pushed James Le Mesurier, one of the finest humanitarians, to his death. The report highlights the pernicious lies issuing from the self-described ‘Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media’, which is a small group of academics, none specialising in Syria or the Middle East, in alliance with a group of pro-Kremlin trolls like Vanessa Beeley et al.”
It is true that both Beeley and the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media have accused Le Mesurier of running a propaganda operation on behalf of western governments using western government funding. But if Ahmad truly believed that accusing people of conducting propaganda caused them to kill themselves, he should turn himself in for attempted murder, because he accuses people of being propagandists constantly.
Here’s a link to Ahmad calling journalist Max Blumenthal a “propagandist for Maduro”. Here’s a link to Ahmad calling Beeley a “pro-regime propagandist”. Here’s a link to Ahmad calling award-winning journalist Jonathan Steele “a fabricator and a propagandist”. Here’s a link to Ahmad calling CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou “a propagandist for Putin”.
Talk about “lethal disinformation”, Idrees.
Alexander “I’m so far left I agree with Mike Pompeo on every foreign policy issue” Reid Ross also assures us that questioning establishment Syria narratives definitely kills people. https://t.co/RyDlQ7Ex7X
— Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) December 29, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
But of course, no one really believes that accusations of conducting propaganda actually drive people to suicide. If that were so, people like me would have thrown ourselves off a building years ago.
I am accused of being a propagandist nearly every day. At the height of Russiagate hysteria it happened many times a day in my blog post comments and social media notifications. Depending on what’s in the news and how I’ve responded to it I’ve been accused of writing paid propaganda for the Kremlin, Assad, the Iranian government, Palestinians, Pyongyang, Beijing, Maduro, the alt-right, George Soros, and WikiLeaks, just off the top of my head.
Every anti-imperialist, anti-interventionist, and antiwar activist with any kind of platform has had this experience. Ever since the new McCarthyism of establishment-driven Russia hysteria took off, accusing people who question imperialist narratives of conducting psyops for foreign governments has become the norm in political discourse. It’s created an extremely hostile and vitriolic environment in which productive conversations are vanishingly rare.
Where’s our PBS special? Does anyone care? Is there any compassion from these hand-wringing establishment loyalists for the fact that Vanessa Beeley and the members of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media are hounded day in and day out by establishment narrative managers and their brainwashed followers with accusations of spreading propaganda, supporting genocide, and embracing war crimes? I know I’ve never had a garment-rending Idrees Ahmad thread written about concerns for my psychological well being, and I’ve been targeted by multiple online harassment campaigns over the years.
The amount of hateful vitriol that gets leveled at people for simply opposing imperialism, for wanting peace, is truly astonishing. Just for saying “Hey here are some reasons we should maybe reconsider toppling yet another government in yet another Middle Eastern nation” will bring in complete strangers calling you all sorts of names, calling you disgusting, calling you evil, calling you a monster. For supporting peace.
There are all kinds of people in the world who are very deserving of harsh words. Powerful exploiters, oppressors and manipulators. People who destroy the environment for profit. People who get rich selling weapons of war while paying politicians and think tanks to advance the cause of war. War criminals who’ve never faced justice. With all those people in the world who we can all agree are terrible, you wouldn’t think peace activists should feature anywhere near the top of anyone’s list. But they do. Because war propaganda is just that influential.
And, of course, nobody cares. None of these narrative managers care about what psychological burden they might be placing on people by assuring their audiences that it’s perfectly sane and normal to hound and harass anyone who questions imperialist propaganda. Their concern is not and has never been about anyone’s psychological health. Their concern is in managing narratives in a way that favors the US-centralized empire that they serve.
I do not know what caused Le Mesurier’s death; to be in any way confident that a known spook committed suicide at all, or was murdered by Russians, is absurd. Maybe he killed himself because he failed to listen to the adage “Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.”
What I do know, with absolute certainty, is that only idiots believe that skepticism about western regime change agendas in the Middle East kills people.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/29/2019 – 14:30
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...