May 03

Today’s News 3rd May 2019

  • Amphibious Warfare: Robot Tank Protects Royal Marines During War Games

     

    Royal Marines conducted a “ground-breaking” exercise simulating an amphibious assault of a beach supported by unmanned vehicles for the first time, reported the Royal Navy newspaper.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Alpha Company of 40 special forces carried out ‘Exercise Commando Warrior’ alongside 1 Assault Group Royal Marines (1AGRM) at Tregantle Beach, in Cornwall, a county on England’s rugged southwestern tip.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The amphibious assault began late last month with marines in special forces vessels transported to the beach while being supported by unmanned boats with machine guns searching for enemy forces on land and at sea, using advanced cameras and sensors.

    In the sky, small to medium-sized unmanned aerial vehicles patrolled the skies, and two unmanned ground vehicles provided direct and indirect fire support to landing troops.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The war exercise successfully achieved connecting all of these unmanned systems to central commanders who will then use data collected from the exercise to influence their future tactical decision-making.

    With autonomous vehicles on three domains (air, land, and sea) protecting marines from enemy forces, the troops successfully stormed the beach, climbed the cliffs, eliminated enemy forces, and retreated to the shore.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Royal Marines were the first ever forces to use autonomous vehicles in three domains simultaneously while simulating a beach assault.

    The two unmanned ground vehicles were designed and produced by QinetiQ, a British multinational defense robotics company and a supplier of robots to the Royal Marines.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Corporal Scott Shaw was one of the marines participating in the beach assault exercise.

    Shaw said: “This is very early steps in the capacity of the Future Commando Force and reinventing ourselves back to the original definition of what Commandos are.”

    “It is about reinventing the force with new technology that’s available,” he added.

    Corporal Ashley Hill agreed with Shaw — indicating that “Trialling this new kit, and new formations, is about pushing us away from just being an infantry force that gets off the boats and moving us back towards our Commando roots.”

    “There is a space to be filled in defense and we are trying to fill it thanks to this new technology,” Shaw said.

    All video from the unmanned systems were fed through a downlink to a central command and then relayed back to marines that had tablets.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Colonel Chris Haw, commanding officer of 1AGRM and Commando Warrior exercise director, said: “This is a really exciting start and although it is only the first step, it is a milestone in Future Commando Force and Littoral Strike development.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Royal Navy funded all unmanned systems used in the exercise in the 2018/19 financial year.

    Haw said, “In future, we will be able to do things with more precision and less risk.”

    Since the 20th century began, amphibious assaults onto beaches have been one of the most sophisticated military maneuvers. It seems that now, the Royal Marines are integrating autonomous systems on three domains to gain a tremendous edge against enemy forces in future conflicts. 

  • Why Social Democracy Is Failing Europe

    Authored by Alasdair Macleod via The Mises Institute,

    There is a certain tension in the phrase, “social democracy,” and the description of someone as a social democrat. Social in this context is socialism by the state. A democrat supports the freedom for individual electors to express and defend personal interests in regular plebiscites. The two positions are incompatible.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At this point we should note that in economic terms there is little philosophical difference between European socialism and communism. Both seek to relieve capitalists of the means of production in favor of the state, either by ownership or control. Marx himself saw socialism as a temporary phase on the way to full communism. However, we all know from experience that communism fails by impoverishing everyone except a coterie of leaders. The same problem of the state’s inability to calculate prices, other than with reference to labor costs, and to foresee what consumers require on the morrow bedevils both socialism and communism. The principal difference between the two is the speed at which economic disintegration takes place, tied to the rate at which the socializing state removes personal freedoms and destroys wealth.

    Social democrats assume that moderate socialism does not lead to those outcomes, which is a mistake. They are deceived.

    With social democracy we observe committed socialists and communists using democracy as the pathway towards increasing socialism and eventual communism. But there’s a problem, which in time becomes increasingly obvious to the electorate. Electors become poorer over time, and the more progressive among them seek to escape in order to participate in more capitalistic economies. Lenin and Mao Zedong dealt with this tendency by suppressing all freedom of expression and they redefined democracy to permit only the election of communist officials. Intellectuals, always the first to express discontent, were liquidated or sent to the Soviet gulags and China’s penal labor camps. 

    In Western Europe a different, more patient approach was needed for the communist revolution. And this is where the concept of the social democrat springs from.

    The tactic was (and still is) to stand firm on socialism and force compromises always to be made by the democrats. For decades it was the basis of Soviet foreign policy, which employed “useful idiots” to spread communism in both universities and political circles. Their influence was what defeated Enoch Powell and still drives Ken Clarke and his fellow appeasers towards greater socialism. It is clear that social democratic politicians need not be communists, only appeasers. 

    Social democratic political parties express a belief in social justice. But social justice is a meaningless term used by the far left to attract support for more extreme forms of socialism. In Europe, social democrats advocating social justice have held sway since the Second World War. But they are becoming victims of their success at taking down capitalism, because they are losing electoral support. 

    The era of social democracy appears to be coming to an end.

    Germany’s SPD recently suffered its worst electoral result since the Second World War, and France’s Socialist Party came fifth in the presidential election won by Emmanuel Macron, a political outsider. Other social democratic parties to have lost ground include the Netherlands’ Labour Party, Italy’s Democratic Party and Austria’s Social Democrats. In the United States there was a rejection of the Democrats in favor of President Trump, who like Macron in France started as a political outsider. 

    Brexit was the rejection by the British voter of the socializing controls imposed by a remote super-state. The British parliament initially paid lip-service to the electorate’s wishes, before rallying round its socialist credentials and is now conspiring to stop Brexit. So strong is Parliament’s collective socialist instinct that May’s appeasing government is prepared to destroy its electoral base rather than stand against the socialist tide. It comes at a time when the Labour Party has been captured by a Marxist clique which appears increasingly likely to form the next government. 

    Commentators attribute the decline in social democracy to events such as the great financial crisis. This and other reasons are why traditional working-class and blue-collar workers have drifted away. The philosophical conflict between socialism and democracy is at the heart of the rebellion, if only the voters themselves knew it. Instead of rejecting socialism, they are embracing extremes, and the extremes are always socialist extremes. Notably, almost none of the disillusioned social democrats support free markets.

    The point missed by most analysts is that social democracy is failing because of the contradiction between personal freedom and state control.

    As a form of mild socialism, it fails for the same reason as did communism. It all plays into the hands of the communists, for whom the failure of social democracy is an opportunity. They encourage the rank and file to blame capitalism. The collapse of capitalism is inevitable, as Marx wrote. And its collapse hastens full-blooded communism. Communism is a broken philosophy, as has been clearly demonstrated. But ruthless leaders still see it as the means of obtaining power over their fellow humans.

  • Kim's "Game of Thrones": Report Details Leadership Shake-Up Over Nuclear Negotiations

    A new Bloomberg report details “Kim Jong Un’s Game of Thrones” as he appears to be rapidly changing high level posts connected with nuclear negotiations with the United States, suggesting a change in negotiating strategy following President Trump’s walking away from the Hanoi talks in February. 

    The report concludes that the “swirl of mysterious personnel changes” in Pyongyang signals a dramatic makeover as Kim purges ranks, including the North Korean dictator’s own sister who’s quickly faded to the background in a possible demotion along with his chief nuclear negotiator. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    North Korean state media photo of Kim leading a ruling Workers’ Party meeting in Pyongyang, via NYT.

    The shake-up further follows Kim’s first historic meeting with President Putin in Russia last month, and is fueling speculation that Pyongyang could be ready to approach US talks with a firmer line, given observers have seen no evidence North Korea is ready to given up any aspect of its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. 

    It comes after last month The New York Times reported that ongoing leadership changes in the ruling Workers’ Party signaled preparations for “protracted negotiations” based on replacing “aging senior officials with younger, more aggressive ones and vowed repeatedly to overcome the sanctions.”

    Weeks ago Kim told a government assembly that he remains “open” to another meeting with Trump, but with conditions.

    He indicated in a public speech: “I am willing to accept if the United States proposes a third North Korea-United States summit on the condition that it has a right attitude and seeks a solution that we can share,” according to the Times.

    “What is clear is that if the United States sticks to its current political calculations, it will darken the prospects for solving the problem and will in fact be very dangerous,” Kim said during the April 10 remarks. 

    Below are some of the highlights of Kim Jong Un’s Game of Thrones style shake-up from the Bloomberg report.

    * * *

    Kim Yo Jong, Sister

    Long considered the most powerful woman in North Korea, she’s recently faded from view.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bloomberg summarizes:

    Part royal representative, part personal assistant, Kim Yo Jong has emerged as one of her older brother’s closest aides in recent months. While she became the first member of the ruling family to visit Seoul and accompanied Kim Jong Un in his summits with Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, she’s also performed mundane tasks, such as helping the leader extinguish a cigarette during a train stop in China.

    That proximity to power has made Kim Yo Jong’s disappearance in recent weeks all the more intriguing. Besides being left off a list of newly elected Political Bureau alternate members last month, she was absent from the Putin meetings. In fact, she hasn’t appeared in any state media since the early April reshuffle, after participating in nine public events earlier in the year, according to a tally by the North Korea news site NKPro.

    Kim Hyok Chol, Chief Negotiator

    The nuclear deterrence expert who was initially relatively unknown became point man for negotiations in Hanoi, but has since completely dropped from view. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Says Bloomberg: 

    A career diplomat known for his expertise in nuclear deterrence against the U.S., Kim Hyok Chol’s appointment as counterpart to the Trump administration’s chief envoy Stephen Biegun earlier this year surprised North Korea watchers. One South Korean TV outlet drew a circle around him in a video from a White House meeting between Trump and North Korean officials, asking who he was.

    In the aftermath of the Hanoi talks, Kim Hyok Chol has plunged back into obscurity, receiving no mention in state media reports. That could reflect his relatively low rank in Pyongyong’s power structure — or suggest a purge. Lee Hye-hoon, the South Korean lawmaker, said intelligence officials wouldn’t confirm whether Kim Hyok Chol had been punished.

    * * *

    Kim Yong Chol, State Affairs Commission

    Powerful former spy chief, he was the main emissary between Trump and Kim Jong Un, helping arrange both Trump-Kim summits, but he’s just been replaced as head of a key ruling party department.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Kim Yong Chol at the White House in June 2018. Image source: AP

    Per the Bloomberg report:

    Last month, Kim Yong Chol was unexpectedly replaced as head of the ruling party’s United Front Department by a lesser-known official and was absent from Kim Jong Un’s side during meetings with Putin last week in Russia. Experts disagree over whether the change was a demotion. He was re-appointed to the 14-member State Affairs Commission led by Kim Jong Un and is believed to have retained his various ruling party positions.

    * * *

    Ri Yong Ho, Foreign Minister

    Appears to be more central in decision making, perhaps displacing Chol in terms of influence. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via CGNT

    According to Bloomberg:

    The veteran diplomat who once denounced Trump at the United Nations as a “mentally deranged person, full of megalomania” has maintained a central foreign policy role since Hanoi. In addition to being re-appointed to the State Affairs Commission last month, he’s also appeared repeatedly by Kim Jong Un side in recent diplomatic events, including the meetings with Putin in Vladivostok.

    * * *

    Choe Son Hui, First Vice Foreign Minister

    From diplomat and translator, her rapid rise to first vice foreign minister – but more importantly her apparent closeness to Kim – has stunned observers.

    Per Bloomberg:

    Among the most surprising developments has been the ascent of Choe Son Hui. The blunt-spoken diplomat was once best known to foreign negotiators as a translator who took liberties with her boss’s words during six-party talks, according to Chun Yung-woo, a former South Korean nuclear envoy.

    Since participating the Hanoi talks, Choe has been promoted to the State Affairs Commission alongside Ri and received the title of first vice foreign minister. She has enjoyed other nods of trust from Kim Jong Un, sharing his table with Putin at their Vladivostok banquet and briefing the foreign media, where she conveyed what she said were the supreme leader’s personal views.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Choe Son Hui center. Image source AP

     

  • China And Russia: Whoopin' Uncle Sam At His Own Game

    Authored by Mike Whitney via The Unz Review,

    Your Geopolitical Quiz for the Day:

    Two countries are embroiled in a ferocious rivalry. One country’s meteoric growth has put it on a path to become the world’s biggest economic superpower while the other country appears to be slipping into irreversible decline. Which country will lead the world into the future?

    Country A builds factories and plants, it employees zillions of people who manufacture things, it launches massive infrastructure programs, paves millions of miles of highways and roads, opens new sea lanes, vastly expands its high-speed rail network, and pumps profits back into productive operations that turbo-charge its economy and bolster its stature among the nations of the world.

    Country B has the finest military in the world, it has more than 800 bases scattered across the planet, and spends more on weapons systems and war-making than all the other nations combined. Country B has gutted its industrial core, hollowed out its factory base, allowed its vital infrastructure to crumble, outsourced millions of jobs, off-shored thousands of businesses, plunged the center of the country into permanent recession, delivered control of its economy to the Central Bank, and recycled 96 percent of its corporate and financial profits into a stock buyback scam that sucks critical capital out of the economy and into the pockets of corrupt Wall Street plutocrats whose voracious greed is pushing the world towards another catastrophic meltdown.

    Which of these two countries is going to lead the world into the future? Which of these two countries offers a path to security and prosperity that doesn’t involve black sites, extraordinary rendition, extrajudicial assassinations, color-coded revolutions, waterboarding, strategic disinformation, false-flag provocations, regime change and perennial war?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China’s Belt and Road Initiative: A Tectonic Shift in the Geopolitical Balance of Power

    Over the weekend, more than 5,000 delegates from across the world met in Beijing for The Second Belt and Road Forum For International Cooperation. The conference provided an opportunity for public and private investors to learn more about Xi Jinping’s “signature infrastructure project” that is reshaping trade relations across Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa. According to journalist Pepe Escobar, “The BRI is now supported by no less than 126 states and territories, plus a host of international organizations” and will involve “six major connectivity corridors spanning Eurasia.” The massive development project is “one of the largest infrastructure and investment projects in history, ….including 65% of the world’s population and 40% of the global gross domestic product as of 2017.” (Wikipedia) The improvements to road, rail and sea routes will vastly increase connectivity, lower shipping costs, boost productivity, and enhance widespread prosperity. The BRI is China’s attempt to replace the crumbling post-WW2 “liberal” order with a system that respects the rights of sovereign nations, rejects unilateralism, and relies on market-based principles to effect a more equitable distribution of wealth. The Belt and Road Initiative is China’s blueprint for a New World Order. It is the face of 21st century capitalism.

    The prestigious event in Beijing was barely covered by the western media which sees the project as a looming threat to US plans to pivot to Asia and become the dominant player in the most prosperous and populous region in the world. Growing international support for the Chinese roadmap suggests that Washington’s hegemonic ambitions are likely to be short-circuited by an aggressive development agenda that eclipses anything the US is currently doing or plans to do in the foreseeable future.

    The Chinese plan will funnel trillions of dollars into state of the art transportation projects that draw the continents closer together in a webbing of high-speed rail and energy pipelines (Russia). Far-flung locations in Central Asia will be modernized while standards of living will steadily rise. By creating an integrated economic space, in which low tariffs and the free flow of capital help to promote investment, the BRI initiative will produce the world’s biggest free trade zone, a common market in which business is transacted in Chinese or EU currency. There will be no need to trade in USD’s despite the dollar’s historic role as the world’s reserve currency. The shift in currencies will inevitably increase the flow of dollars back to the United States increasing the already-ginormous $22 trillion dollar National Debt while precipitating an excruciating period of adjustment.

    Chinese and Russian leaders are taking steps to “harmonize” their two economic initiatives, the Belt and Road and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This will be a challenging task as the expansion of infrastructure implies compatibility between leaders, mutual security guarantees, new rules and regulations for the common economic space, and supranational political structures to oversee trade, tariffs, foreign investment and immigration. Despite the hurtles, both Putin and Xi appear to be fully committed to their vision of economic integration which they see as based on the “unconditional adherence to the primacy of national sovereignty and the central role of the United Nations.”

    It comes at no surprise that US powerbrokers see Putin’s plan as a significant threat to their regional ambitions, in fact, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted as much in 2012 when she said, “It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called the Eurasian Union and all of that, but let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.” Washington opposes any free trade project in which it is excluded or cannot control. Both the EEU and the BRI fall into that category.

    The United States continues to demonize countries that simply want to use the market to improve the lives of their people and increase their prospects for prosperity. Washington’s hostile approach is both misguided and counterproductive. Competition should be seen as a way to improve productivity and lower costs, not as a threat to over-bloated, inefficient industries that have outlived their usefulness. Here’s an excerpt from an article that Putin wrote in 2011. It helps to show that Putin is not the scheming tyrant he is made out to be in the western media, but a free market capitalist who enthusiastically supports globalization:

    “For the first time in the history of humanity, the world is becoming truly global, in both politics and economics. A central part of this globalization is the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific region as compared to the EuroAtlantic world in the global economy. Asia’s rise is lifting with it the economies of countries outside Asia that have managed to latch onto the “Asian economic engine”….The US has also effectively hitched itself to this “engine”, creating an economic and financial network with China and other countries in the region…

    The “supercontinent” of Eurasia is home to two-thirds of the world’s population and produces over 60 percent of its economic output. Because of the dramatic opening of China and the former Soviet Union to the world, almost all the countries in Eurasia are becoming more economically, politically, and culturally interdependent. …

    There is huge potential for development in infrastructure, in spite of some formidable bottlenecks. …A unified and homogeneous common power market stretching from Lisbon to Hanoi via Vladivostok is not necessary, because electric power markets do not function in that way. But the creation of infrastructure that could support a number of regional and sub-regional common markets would do much for the economic development of Greater Eurasia.” (Russian newspaper, Izvestia, 2011)

    Keep in mind, the article was written back in 2011 long before Xi had even conjured up his grand pan-Asia infrastructure scheme. Putin was already a committed capitalist looking for ways to put the Soviet era behind him and skillfully use the markets to build his nation’s power and prosperity. Regrettably, he has been blocked at every turn. Washington does not want others to effectively use the markets. Washington wants to threaten, bully, sanction and harass its competitors so that outcomes can be controlled and more of the world’s wealth can be skimmed off the top by the noncompetitive, monopolistic corporate behemoths that diktat foreign policy to their political underlings (in congress and the White House) and who see rivals as blood enemies that must be ground into dust.

    Is it any wonder why Russia and China have emerged as Washington’s biggest enemies? It has nothing to do with the fictitious claims of election meddling or so-called “hostile behavior” in the South China Sea. That’s nonsense. Washington is terrified that the Russo-Chinese economic integration plan will replace the US-dominated “liberal” world order, that cutting edge infrastructure will create an Asia-Europe super-continent that no longer trades in dollars or recirculates profits into US debt instruments. They are afraid that an expansive free trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok will inevitably lead to new institutions for lending, oversight and governance. They are afraid that a revamped 21st century capitalism will result in more ferocious competition for their clunker corporations, less opportunity for unilateralism and meddling, and a rules-based system where the playing field is painstakingly kept level. That’s what scares Washington.

    The Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union represent the changing of the guard. The US-backed ‘neoliberal’ model of globalisation is being rejected everywhere, from the streets of Paris, to Brexit, to the rise of right wings groups across Europe, to the unexpected election of Donald Trump in 2016. The Russo-Chinese model is built on a more solid, and less extractive, foundation. This new vision anticipates an interconnected multipolar world where the rules governing commerce are decided by the participants, where the rights of every state are respected equally, and where the new guarantors for regional security scrupulously keep the peace.

    It is this vision of ‘revitalized capitalism’ that Washington sees as its mortal enemy.

  • US Military Reports Massive Spike In Sexual Assaults

    The US military has reported a massive spike in sexual assaults, with 20,500 instances of unwanted sexual contact in 2018 – up from 14,900 in 2016 when a survey was last conducted, according to ABC News. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Most of the victims were female recruits aged 17 to 24, while alcohol was involved in approximately 1/3 of the incidents reported. Shockingly, just one out of three cases were reported to the authorities. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In response to the findings, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told Congress he plans to “criminalize” sexual harassment in the military. 

    The report released on Thursday surveyed the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, and found 20,500 cases in 2018.

    Incidents of unwanted sexual contact – which ranges from groping to rape – rose by around 38% between 2016 and 2018.

    Only one out of three cases were reported to authorities, the report found.

    In over 85% of the cases, the victims knew their alleged attacker – and a disturbing number of incidents involved young women whose attacker was often their superior officer. 

    “We’ve got a higher prevalence for women 17 to 24. We’re going to be focusing very, very tightly on that,” said Nate Galbreath, Deputy Director of the Department’ of Defense’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. 

    “This is what tells us that there’s something going on that we need to hone in on,” he told ABC News. 

    “It’s extremely disheartening,” said Dr. Elizabeth Van Winkle, the executive director of the Office of Force Resiliency for the Defense Department. “These are our youngest service members and it is extremely frustrating because we’ve been working at this for a really long time.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    New efforts will focus on lower-level leaders, starting with non-commissioned officers, and how they need to hold service members in their units accountable. 

    “Our command climate surveys for a long time measured toxic leadership,” said Van Winkle. “What we’re moving towards is that you’re not only accountable for your own behavior but you’re accountable for true command climate. You are accountable for what’s happening within the peers underneath you.”

    “What we now have to do is we really have to focus down and work with the E5’s (sergeants) and those first line folks that are right there on the front lines,” said Galbreath. “To be able to say here are the tools that you can use to be able to set good order and discipline.”

  • Whales, Crickets, And Other Fearsome Russian Doomsday Weapons

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    Headlines were blaring the word “Russian” again the other day because the mass media narrative managers found yet another reason for westerners to feel terrified of the icy potato patch that we’d barely ever thought about prior to 2016.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    I’d like to talk about the Kremlin’s latest horrifying horrific addition to its fearsome doomsday artillery, and recap a few of the other incredibly frightening and terrifying tactics that those strange Cyrillic-scribbling demons of the East are employing to undermine truth, justice, and the American way. Just to make sure we’re all good and scared like we’re supposed to be.

    Gather the kids, clutch your pearls and sign off on hundreds of billions of dollars of extra military spending, my patriotic brethren! Here are five super scary ways the Red Menace is trying to destroy you and everything you hold dear:

    1. Whales

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

    Headlines and TV news segments from virtually all mainstream outlets were falling all over themselves the other day to report the fact that some Norwegians found a tame beluga whale with a harness on it, and “experts” attest that the animal may have been part of a covert espionage program for the Russian navy.

    While there is no indication that this spying cetacean has been trained in the arts of sonar election meddling or shooting novichok from its blowhole, theGuardian helpfully informs us that the harness was labeled “Equipment of St. Petersburg”, and was equipped to hold “a camera or weapon”.

    “Marine experts in Norway believe they have stumbled upon a white whale that was trained by the Russian navy as part of a programme to use underwater mammals as a special ops force,” the Guardian reports.

    The Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang, which picked up on the discovery well before the breathless English headlines began gracing us with their presence, is a teensy bit less Ian Flemingesque in its reporting on the matter: the harness is equipped for a GoPro camera. The words “Equipment of St. Petersburg” are written in English.

    Why is the Russian military writing “Equipment of St. Petersburg” in English on the garments of its aquatic special ops forces, you may ask? If there were indeed a secret beluga espionage squad assembled by Russian intelligence services, would they not perhaps avoid writing the home address of the whales on their harnesses altogether, and maybe, you know, not let them run free in the wild?

    And to that I would say, stop asking so many questions. That’s just what Putin wants.

    2. Crickets

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

    A report seeded throughout the mainstream media by anonymous intelligence officials last September claimed that US government workers in Cuba had suffered concussion-like brain damage after hearing strange noises in homes and hotels with the most likely culprit being “sophisticated microwaves or another type of electromagnetic weapon” from Russia. A recording of one such highly sophisticated attack was analyzed by scientists and turned out to be the mating call of the male indies short-tailed cricket. Neurologists and other brain specialists have challenged the claim that any US government workers suffered any neurological damage of any kind, saying test results on the alleged victims were misinterpreted.

    The actual story, when stripped of hyperventilating Russia panic, is that some government workers once heard some horny crickets in Cuba.

    *cough*

    3. Puppies

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

    Ye gads, is is nothing sacred? Is there any weapon these monsters won’t use to transform the west into a giant, globe-spanning Mordor?

    That’s right, in 2017 puppies became one of the many, many things we’ve been instructed to fear in the hands of our vodka-swilling enemy to the east, with mass media outlets reporting that a Facebook group for animal lovers was one of the sinister, diabolical tactics employed by St. Petersburg’s notorious Internet Research Agency. As the Moon of Alabama blog has explained, the only evidence we’ve seen so far actually indicates that the Internet Research Agency’s operations in America served no purpose other than to attract eyeballs for money. As journalist Aaron Maté wrote of the highly publicized Russian Facebook meddling, “Far from being a sophisticated propaganda campaign, it was small, amateurish, and mostly unrelated to the 2016 election.”

    The late, great Robert Parry, one of the earliest and most outspoken critics of the Russiagate narrative, covered this one for Consortium News in an article he authored a few months before his untimely passing:

    As Mike Isaac and Scott Shane of The New York Times reported in Tuesday’s editions, “The Russians who posed as Americans on Facebook last year tried on quite an array of disguises. … There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies that spread across the site with the help of paid ads.”

    Now, there are a lot of controversial issues in America, but I don’t think any of us would put puppies near the top of the list. Isaac and Shane reported that there were also supposedly Russia-linked groups advocating gay rights, gun rights and black civil rights, although precisely how these divergent groups were “linked” to Russia or the Kremlin was never fully explained. (Facebook declined to offer details.)

    At this point, a professional journalist might begin to pose some very hard questions to the sources, who presumably include many partisan Democrats and their political allies hyping the evil-Russia narrative. It would be time for some lectures to the sources about the consequences for taking reporters on a wild ride in conspiracy land.

    Yet, instead of starting to question the overall premise of this “scandal,” journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, etc. keep making excuses for the nuttiness. The explanation for the puppy ads was that the nefarious Russians might be probing to discover Americans who might later be susceptible to propaganda.

    “The goal of the dog lovers’ page was more obscure,” Isaac and Shane acknowledged. “But some analysts suggested a possible motive: to build a large following before gradually introducing political content. Without viewing the entire feed from the page, now closed by Facebook, it is impossible to say whether the Russian operators tried such tactics.”

    4. Pokémon

    Yes, Pokémon.

    This Russia hysteria has been a long, wild ride, and sometimes it’s honestly felt like they’re just experimenting on us. Like they’ve been testing the limits of how ridiculous they can make this thing and still get mainstream Americans to swallow it. Like the establishment propagandists are all sitting around in a room smoking blunts and making bets with each other all,
     “I’m telling you, we can sell a Pokémon Go Kremlin conspiracy.”
     “Do it!”
     “No way. There’s no way they’ll go for it.”
     “Yeah well you said that about the puppy dogs!”

    And then they release their latest experiment in social manipulation and place bets on how many disgruntled Hillary voters they can get retweeting it saying “God dammit, I knew that jigglypuff looked suspicious!”

    The October 2017 CNN report which sparked off a full day of shrieking “OMG THEY’RE EVEN USING PIKACHU TO ATTACK OUR DEMOCRACY” headlines was titled “Exclusive: Even Pokémon Go used by extensive Russian-linked meddling effort”, and it reported that Russia had extended its “tentacles” into the popular video game for the purpose of election meddling. Apparently the Internet Research Agency attempted to hold a contest using the game to highlight police brutality against unarmed Black men, which of course is something that only an evil autocracy would ever do.

    Not until the fifteenth paragraph of the article did we see the information which undercut all the frantic arm flailing about Russians destroying democracy and warping our children’s fragile little minds:

    “CNN has not found any evidence that any Pokémon Go users attempted to enter the contest, or whether any of the Amazon Gift Cards that were promised were ever awarded — or, indeed, whether the people who designed the contest ever had any intention of awarding the prizes.”

    Mmm hmm.

    5. Laughter

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

    Late last year the BBC published an article titled “How Putin’s Russia turned humour into a weapon” about yet another addition to the Kremlin’s horrifying deadly hybrid warfare arsenal: comedy. The article’s author, ironically titled“Senior Journalist (Disinformation)” by the BBC, argues that Russia has suddenly discovered laughter as a way to “deliberately lower the level of discussion”.

    “Russia’s move towards using humour to influence its campaigns is a relatively recent phenomenon,” the article explained, without speculating as to why Russians might have suddenly begun laughing at their western accusers.

    Is it perhaps possible that Russian media have begun mocking the west a lot more because westerners have made themselves much easier to make fun of? Could it perhaps be the fact that western mass media have been doing absolutely insane things like constantly selling us the idea that the Kremlin could be lurking behind anything in our world, even really innocuous-looking things like puppy dogs, Pokémon and whales? Could we perhaps be finding ourselves at the butt end of jokes now because in 2016 our society went bat shit, pants-on-head, screaming-at-passing-motor-vehicles insane?

    Nahhh. Couldn’t be. It’s the Russians who’ve gone mad.

    *  *  *

    Everyone has my unconditional permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. 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, 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. 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. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

  • Mapped: The Salary Needed To Buy A Home In 50 U.S. Metro Areas

    Over the last year, home prices have risen in 49 of the biggest 50 metro areas in the United States.

    At the same time, mortgage rates have hit seven-year highs, making things more expensive for any prospective home buyer.

    With this context in mind, today’s map comes from HowMuch.net, and it shows the salary needed to buy a home in the 50 largest U.S. metro areas.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Least and Most Expensive Metro Areas

    As a reference point, Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins points out that the median home in the United States costs about $257,600, according to the National Association of Realtors.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With a 20% down payment and a 4.90% mortgage rate, and taking into account what’s needed to pay principal, interest, taxes, and insurance (PITI) on the home, it would mean a prospective buyer would need to have $61,453.51 in salary to afford such a purchase.

    However, based on your frame of reference, this national estimate may seem extremely low or quite high. That’s because the salary required to buy in different major cities in the U.S. can fall anywhere between $37,659 to $254,835.

    The 10 Cheapest Metro Areas

    Here are the cheapest metro areas in the U.S., based on data and calculations from HSH.com:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After the dust settles, Pittsburgh ranks as the cheapest metro area in the U.S. to buy a home. According to these calculations, buying a median home in Pittsburgh – which includes the surrounding metro area – requires an annual income of less than $40,000 to buy.

    Just missing the list was Detroit, where a salary of $48,002.89 is needed.

    The 10 Most Expensive Metro Areas

    Now, here are the priciest markets in the country, also based on data from HSH.com:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Topping the list of the most expensive metro areas are San Jose and San Francisco, which are both cities fueled by the economic boom in Silicon Valley. Meanwhile, two other major metro areas in California, Los Angeles and San Diego, are not far behind.

    New York City only ranks in sixth here, though it is worth noting that the NYC metro area extends well beyond the five boroughs. It includes Newark, Jersey City, and many nearby counties as well.

    As a final point, it’s worth mentioning that all cities here (with the exception of Denver) are in coastal states.

    Notes on Calculations

    Data on median home prices comes from the National Association of Realtors and is based on 2018 Q4 information, while national mortgage rate data is derived from weekly surveys by Freddie Mac and the Mortgage Bankers Association of America for 30-year fixed rate mortgages.

    Calculations include tax and homeowners insurance costs to determine the annual salary it takes to afford the base cost of owning a home (principal, interest, property tax and homeowner’s insurance, or PITI) in the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas.

    Standard 28% “front-end” debt ratios and a 20% down payments subtracted from the median-home-price data are used to arrive at these figures.

  • Unconstitutional Searches Of Electronic Devices At US Airports Have Quadrupled

    Authored by Dagny Taggart via The Organic Prepper blog,

    “Go to any airport in this country and you’ll see how well our government is dealing with the terrible danger you’re in. TSA staffers are wanding 90-year-old ladies in wheelchairs, and burrowing through their suitcases. Toddlers are on the no-fly list. Lipsticks are confiscated. And it’s all done with the highest seriousness.

    It’s a show of protection and it stirs the fear pot, giving us over and over an image of being in grave personal peril, needing Big Brother to make sure we’re safe.” – Ann Medlock, Home of the Brave

    The federal government wants us to believe that its growing disregard for our First and Fourth Amendment rights is in the interest of national security.

    Thankfully, there are organizations that are attempting to bring attention to the ever-expanding police state – and are even willing to fight them in court.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    America is turning into a Constitution-free zone.

    Since 2015, U.S. government searches of travelers’ cellphones and laptops at airports and border crossings have nearly quadrupled.

    You might be tempted to believe that these searches are done for good reasons.

    You’d be mistaken.

    Those searches are “being done for reasons beyond customs and immigration enforcement, according to papers filed Tuesday in a federal lawsuit that claims scouring the electronic devices without a warrant is unconstitutional,” according to the Associated Press:

    The government has vigorously defended the searches, which rose to 33,295 in fiscal 2018, as a critical tool to protect America. But the newly filed documents claim the scope of the warrantless searches has expanded to assist in enforcement of tax, bankruptcy, environmental and consumer protection laws, gather intelligence and advance criminal investigations.

    Agents with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement consider requests from other government agencies in determining whether to search travelers’ electronic devices, the court papers said. They added that agents are searching the electronic devices of not only targeted individuals but their associates, friends, and relatives. (source)

    Border officers are conducting searches without a warrant.

    CBP and ICE policies allow border officers to manually search anyone’s smartphone with no suspicion at all, and to conduct a forensic search with reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. CBP also allows suspicionless device searches for a “national security concern.”

    The previously undisclosed information about the searches was included in a motion the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. The groups asked a federal court to rule without trial (called a summary judgment) that the Department of Homeland Security violates the First and Fourth Amendments by searching travelers’ smartphones and laptops at airports and other U.S. ports of entry without a warrant.

    Last year, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston rejected the government’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the case to move forward. The ACLU and EFF began gathering documents and deposition testimony. Based on the new information, they filed a motion asking the judge to rule in their favor without a trial. “Travelers’ devices contain an extraordinary amount of highly personal information that the government can easily search, retain, and share,” the motion argues.

    This information was obtained as part of a lawsuit, Alasaad v. McAleenan, EFF, ACLU, and ACLU of Massachusetts filed in September 2017 on behalf of 11 travelers – 10 U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident – whose smartphones and laptops were searched without warrants at U.S. ports of entry.

    The plaintiffs are asking the court to rule that the government must have a warrant based on probable cause before conducting searches of electronic devices, which contain highly detailed personal information about people’s lives.

    Among the plaintiffs are a limousine driver, a military veteran, journalists, students, an artist, a NASA engineer, and a business owner. They are also requesting the court to hold that the government must have probable cause to confiscate a traveler’s device.

    The government can keep your data and share it with other entities.

    In addition, the plaintiffs are demanding the government expunge from investigatory databases information obtained in past searches. ICE and CBP both allow officers to retain information from travelers’ electronic devices and share it with other government entities, including state, local and foreign law enforcement agencies, the court papers claim.

    Travelers who have had their electronic devices searched at the border run increased odds of being subject to future device searches as they can be flagged in government databases for additional scrutiny on that basis, the plaintiffs say.

    Adam Schwartz, senior staff attorney for the EFF, elaborated in a press release:

    “The evidence we have presented the court shows that the scope of ICE and CBP border searches is unconstitutionally broad.

    ICE and CBP policies and practices allow unfettered, warrantless searches of travelers’ digital devices and empower officers to dodge the Fourth Amendment when rifling through highly personal information contained on laptops and phones.” (source)

    Esha Bhandari, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, added:

    “This new evidence reveals that government agencies are using the pretext of the border to make an end run around the First and Fourth Amendments. The border is not a lawless place, ICE and CBP are not exempt from the Constitution, and the information on our electronic devices is not devoid of Fourth Amendment protections. We’re asking the court to stop these unlawful searches and require the government to get a warrant.” (source)

    Government is abusing its power under the guise of security.

    It might be tempting to believe that allowing the government to violate our rights is the price we pay for a safer country…that the ends justify the means.

    If you are inclined to think that way, please consider the following questions from John W. Whitehead, Constitutional attorney and founder of The Rutherford Institute:

    How far would you really go to secure the nation’s borders against illegal aliens?

    Would you give the government limitless amounts of money to fight yet another endless war? Surround the entire country with concrete walls and barbed wire? Empower border police to do whatever it takes to crack down on illegal immigrants, even if it means violating their human rights? Hold your nose and tolerate all manner of abuses in name of national security?

    Would you allow government agents to trample on the rights of anyone who gets in their way, including legal citizens? Relinquish some of your freedoms in exchange for the elusive promise of non-porous borders? Submit to a national ID card that allows the government to target individuals and groups as it chooses in order to identify those who do not “belong”? Turn a blind eye to private prisons and detainment camps that profit off the forced labor of its detainees?

    Would you turn your backs on every constitutional principle for which our founders fought and died in exchange for empty campaign promises of elusive safety by fast-talking politicians?

    This is the devil’s bargain that the U.S. government demands of its people. (source)

    Immigrants are not the only ones being subjected to warrantless searches.

    Border control cops aren’t just targeting immigrants who are attempting to enter the U.S., as Whitehead explains:

    As part of the government’s so-called crackdown on illegal immigration, drugs and trafficking, its border patrol cops are expanding their reach, roaming further afield and subjecting greater numbers of Americans to warrantless searches, ID checkpoints, transportation checks, and even surveillance on private property far beyond the boundaries of the borderlands.

    That so-called border, once a thin borderline, is now an ever-thickening band spreading deeper and deeper inside the country.

    Consequently, nearly 66% of Americans (2/3 of the U.S. population, 197.4 million people) now live within a 100-mile-deep, Constitution-free zone.

    As journalist Todd Miller explains, that expanding border region now extends “100 miles inland around the United States—along the 2,000-mile southern border, the 4,000-mile northern border and both coasts… This ‘border’ region now covers places where two-thirds of the US population (197.4 million people) live… The ‘border’ has by now devoured the full states of Maine and Florida and much of Michigan.” (source)

    It is time to ask ourselves how much liberty we are willing to sacrifice in exchange for a bit of security (security the government isn’t even good at providing).

  • US Military Stops Releasing Information On Afghanistan War

    As the United States continues its ‘longest war’ in Afghanistan, the US military has elected to stop releasing information often used to measure progress, citing “uncertainty” in the way the data is produced which have resulted in “subjective” underlying assessments. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan, left, arrives in Kabul, Afghanistan, to consult with Army Gen. Scott Miller, right, commander of U.S. and coalition forces, and senior Afghan government leaders on Feb. 11, 2019. (AP Photo/Robert Burns, File)

    “The command said they no longer saw decision-making value in these data,” reads a report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). 

    In remarks to reporters last week, John Sopko, the special inspector general, criticized what he called a trend toward less openness by the military authorities who are advising, training and assisting Afghan security forces. –AP

    “I don’t think it makes sense,” said Sopko. “The Afghan people know which districts are controlled by the Taliban. The Taliban obviously know which districts they control. Our military knows it. Everybody in Afghanistan knows it. The only people who don’t know what’s going on are the people who are paying for all of this, and that’s the American taxpayer.“

    The move comes amid a stalemate within the Trump administration, as the Pentagon has proposed sending nearly 4,000 more US troops into the conflict, which many in the White House oppose. Some in the White House have even propsed withdrawing completely(i.e. the non-interventionism platform Trump campaigned on) or handing over the American effort to private security contractors. 

    And as AP notes, the decision to restrict battlefield information is but the most recent step in a trend of less transparency about the war in recent years – often at the insistence of the Afghan government, which has in previous instances stopped the US military from disclosing how many Afghans had been killed in battle, and the overall attrition within the Afghan army. 

    The latest clampdown also aligns with President Donald Trump’s complaint that the U.S. gives away too much war information, although there is no evidence that this had any influence on the latest decision.

    A government watchdog agency that monitors the U.S. war effort, now in its 18th year, said in a report to Congress on Wednesday that the U.S. military command in Kabul is no longer producing “district control data,” which shows the number of Afghan districts — and the percentage of their population — controlled by the government compared to the Taliban. –AP

    In January, President Trump criticized the disclosure of battlefield information – telling reporters “Some IG goes over there, who are mostly appointed by President Obama — but we’ll have ours, too — and he goes over there, and they do a report on every single thing that’s happening, and they release it to the public,” adding “What kind of stuff is this? We’re fighting wars, and they’re doing reports and releasing it to the public? Now, the public means the enemy. The enemy reads those reports; they study every line of it.”

    Trump then told acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan: “I don’t want it to happen anymore, Mr. Secretary.”

    When the US military last released battlefield data in January, it revealed that “Afghan government control was stagnant or slipping,” according to the report, which adds that the share of the population under Afghan government control or influence – “a figure that was largely unchanged from May 2017 to July 2018 at about 65 percent” – had dropped in October 2018 to 63.5 percent. The Afghan government’s control or influence of districts overall fell almost 2% to 53.8 percent. 

    Less than two years ago, a top American commander in Afghanistan called population control “most telling.” Gen. John Nicholson told reporters in November 2017 that he wanted to see the figure, then about two-thirds, increase to at least 80 percent, with the Taliban holding only about 10 percent and the rest contested.

    “And this, we believe, is the critical mass necessary to drive the enemy to irrelevance,” Nicholson said then.

    Nicholson’s successor, Gen. Scott Miller, believes there already are enough such assessments available to the public, including one produced by intelligence agencies. –AP

    “We are focused on setting the conditions for a political settlement to safeguard our national interests,” said Col. David M. Butler, a spokesman for Gen. Miller in a Tuesday email exchange with AP. “The district stability assessment that was previously provided by DOD was redundant and did little to serve our mission of protecting our citizens and allies.”

    The Trump administration, meanwhile, has been making a hard push to encourage the Taliban and Afghan government to engage in peace talks after the Taliban launched a recent spring military offensive. The group has refused to speak directly with representatives from Kabul, which they view as a US puppet. 

    The war in Afghanistan is largely forgotten in much of America, as is the enormous, continuing financial cost. This year the Pentagon budget includes $4.9 billion to provide the Afghan army and police with everything from equipment and supplies to salaries and food. That is one piece of a wider array of “reconstruction” assistance the U.S. government has provided since the war began in 2001, totaling $132 billion. –AP

    The United States has spent $737 billion on the war and lost over 2,400 lives, according to the Pentagon. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest