Dec 06

Today’s News 6th December 2022

  • Mapped: Global Energy Prices By Country
    Mapped: Global Energy Prices By Country

    For some countries, energy prices hit historic levels in 2022.

    Gasoline, electricity, and natural gas prices skyrocketed as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ruptured global energy supply chains. Households and businesses are facing higher energy bills amid extreme price volatility. Uncertainty surrounding the war looms large, and winter heating costs are projected to soar.

    Given the global consequences of the energy crisis, Visual Capitalist’s infographics below shows the price of energy for households by country, with data from GlobalPetrolPrices.com.

    1. Global Energy Prices: Gasoline

    Which countries and regions pay the most for a gallon of gas?

     

    Source: GlobalPetrolPrices.com. As of October 31, 2022. Represents average household prices.

     

    At an average $11.10 per gallon, households in Hong Kong pay the highest for gasoline in the world—more than double the global average. Both high gas taxes and steep land costs are primary factors behind high gas prices.

    Like Hong Kong, the Central African Republic has high gas costs, at $8.60 per gallon. As a net importer of gasoline, the country has faced increased price pressures since the war in Ukraine.

    Households in Iceland, Norway, and Denmark face the highest gasoline costs in Europe. Overall, Europe has seen inflation hit 10% in September, driven by the energy crisis.

    2. Global Energy Prices: Electricity

    Extreme volatility is also being seen in electricity prices.

    The majority of the highest household electricity prices are in Europe, where Denmark, Germany, and Belgium’s prices are about double that of France and Greece. For perspective, electricity prices in many countries in Europe are more than twice or three times the global average of $0.14 per kilowatt-hour.

    Over the first quarter of 2022, household electricity prices in the European Union jumped 32% compared to the year before.

    Source: GlobalPetrolPrices.com. As of March 31, 2022. Represents average household prices.

    In the U.S., consumer electricity prices have increased nearly 16% annually compared to September last year, the highest increase in over four decades, fueling higher inflation.

    However, households are more sheltered from the impact of Russian supply disruptions due to the U.S. being a net exporter of energy.

    3. Global Energy Prices: Natural Gas

    Eight of the 10 highest natural gas prices globally fall in Europe, with the Netherlands at the top. Overall, European natural gas prices have spiked sixfold in a year since the invasion of Ukraine.

    Source: GlobalPetrolPrices.com. As of March 31, 2022. Represents average household prices.

    The good news is that the fall season has been relatively warm, which has helped European natural gas demand drop 22% in October compared to last year. This helps reduce the risk of gas shortages transpiring later in the winter.

    Outside of Europe, Brazil has the fourth highest natural gas prices globally, despite producing about half of supply domestically. High costs of cooking gas have been especially challenging for low-income families, which became a key political issue in the run-up to the presidential election in October.

    Meanwhile, Singapore has the highest natural gas prices in Asia as the majority is imported via tankers or pipelines, leaving the country vulnerable to price shocks.

    Increasing Competition

    By December, all seaborne crude oil shipments from Russia to Europe will come to a halt, likely pushing up gasoline prices into the winter and 2023.

    Concerningly, analysis from the EIA shows that European natural gas storage capacities could sink to 20% by February if Russia completely shuts off its supply and demand is not reduced.

    As Europe seeks out alternatives to Russian energy, higher demand could increase global competition for fuel sources, driving up prices for energy in the coming months ahead.

    Still, there is some room for optimism: the World Bank projects energy prices will decline 11% in 2023 after the 60% rise seen after the war in Ukraine in 2022.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 23:20

  • Benchmark Diesel's 17.4-Cent Plunge Comes Amid Broad Market Slide
    Benchmark Diesel’s 17.4-Cent Plunge Comes Amid Broad Market Slide

    By John Kingston of FreightWaves.com

    The benchmark price for most diesel surcharges fell the most in a week since the early days of the 2009 financial crisis, with physical markets suggesting there are further declines to come. 

    Not since October 2009 has the Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration weekly diesel price fallen as much as the 17.4 cents it dropped Monday. The price came in at $4.967 a gallon, the first time it has been below $5 since Oct. 3. 

    This week’s decline is only 1 cent more than the 16.4-cent drop recorded July 25. The DOE/EIA had not dropped more than 17.4 cents since a decline of 19.4 cents Oct. 27, 2009, which wrapped up a four-week decline of more than 67 cents as the full impact of the collapse of Lehman Brothers and other financial market turmoil was kicking into high gear.

    The latest price decline came on an eventful day for oil and diesel markets. Those markets also suggest that retail diesel prices still have a long way to fall to catch up with broader market conditions.

    The FUELS.USA data series in SONAR, which reflects the spread between retail and wholesale prices, has pushed past $1.90 a gallon in recent days. That is easily the highest number in the more than four and a half years that SONAR has tracked the spread, which before the enormous volatility of this year tended to move toward a range of $1 to $1.10, though with significant swings above and below that range.

    The FUELS.USA data series in SONAR has climbed from about 55 cents October 8 to more than $1.92 Monday

    If wholesale prices were to be locked into place at the current level, retail diesel would be expected to fall at least 50 cents and likely more just to get back to some level of normalcy.

    That retail/wholesale spread has been affected not only by recent declines in the ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) price on the CME commodity exchange, but also by weakness in the physical markets that trade as a differential against the ULSD futures price.

    For example, the daily basis differential for ULSD in New York Harbor published by DTN Energy stood at $1 on Nov. 15. That means that delivery of ULSD in New York Harbor in the subsequent few days after Nov. 15 traded at $1 more than the price of ULSD on the CME commodity exchange. On Nov. 15, ULSD on CME would have been reflecting product to be delivered during December. 

    That spread is normally a few cents. And on Monday, it was down to that level, being assessed by DTN at a spread of 1.5 cents. The differential has shed 98.5% of its value in just three weeks.

    The benchmark U.S. Gulf Coast physical price never soared as East Coast prices did. On Nov. 15, it was negative 28.5 cents, according to DTN, meaning physical diesel in the U.S. Gulf Coast was that much less than the CME ULSD price. It has gotten stronger since then, to negative 23.5 cents. But that is still well below normal prices, which are also generally 10 cents or less under the CME price.

    Those strong spreads on the East Coast and in other markets incentivized refiners to run their plants at high levels, and they have responded. In the more than 30 years of data on refinery operating rates published by the EIA, there have been only three times in the final weekly report of November when the nation’s refineries ran at an operating rate more than the 95.2% they  recorded in the week ended Nov. 25, the latest report published by EIA.

    That has led to a significant easing of inventories. The closely watched Days Cover figure for distillate inventories — which are generally 85% to 90% ULSD — came in at 29 days in that report for the week ended Nov. 25. That figure was less than 26 days just a few weeks earlier and the highest since the end of September. Days cover represents the number of days of current consumption that could be supplied solely by inventories.

    The background of this movement in diesel prices Monday was the start of a price cap implemented by Western nations on purchases of Russian crude, combined with an EU ban on waterborne imports of Russian crude. 

    The $60/barrel cap for now would not have an impact on sales of Urals crude, the grade of oil it ships out to Western markets, because the price of Urals has been less than $60.

    But a more immediate test will come with sales of ESPO, a crude exported out of Russia’s east coast, which before the large declines of Monday was selling for  more than $70 a barrel.

    The prospect of the Russian cap being implemented and the possibility it might end up restricting Russian crude exports was seen as a factor in early gains Monday in global oil markets. 

    But the later weakening of equity markets pulled oil down with it. The end result was that the DOE/EIA price was not the only one to break through a key number; the CME price for ULSD did too, falling below $3 a gallon for the first time since Feb. 25, settling at $2.9998 a gallon.

    The volatility in Monday’s market could best be seen by the fact that while ULSD settled at less than $3 a gallon, it traded as high as nearly $3.24 earlier in the day.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 23:02

  • NASA's Homeward-Bound Orion Spacecraft Captures Last Stunning Image Of Moon
    NASA’s Homeward-Bound Orion Spacecraft Captures Last Stunning Image Of Moon

    On the 19th day of the historic Artemis I mission, a camera mounted on the uncrewed Orion spacecraft captured a stunning image of the moon. 

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

    The Orion spacecraft performed a powered flyby burn of the moon — the longest so far — as it’s now on its final stretch of the 25-day mission. 

    “We’ve completed our return-powered flyby burn and are heading home!” NASA tweeted. 

    Orion will travel 238,900 miles back to Earth, and reentry into the atmosphere is expected on Dec. 11 — with a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. If successful, the spacecraft would complete a 1.3 million-mile space mission. This would allow astronauts to make the journey in the Artemis II mission in 2024 and return to the lunar surface by 2025. 

    NASA has said the mission has yet to experience major issues. There was a minor issue when the spacecraft lost communication for about an hour.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 22:40

  • Victor Davis Hanson: How Corrupt Is A Corrupt Media?
    Victor Davis Hanson: How Corrupt Is A Corrupt Media?

    Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via AmGreatness.com,

    The media has ceased to exist, and the public plods on by assuming as true whatever the media suppresses and as false whatever the media covers.

    The current “media”—loosely defined as the old major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post, the network news channels, MSNBC and CNN, PBS and NPR, the online news aggregators like Google, Apple, and Yahoo, and the social media giants like the old Twitter and Facebook—are corrupt. 

    They have adopted in their news coverage a utilitarian view that noble progressive ends justify almost any unethical means to obtain them. The media is unapologetically fused with the Democratic Party, the bicoastal liberal elite, and the progressive agenda. 

    The result is that the public cannot trust that the news it hears or reads is either accurate or true. The news as presented by these outlets has been carefully filtered to suppress narratives deemed inconvenient or antithetical to the political objectives of these entities, while inflating themes deemed useful. 

    This bias now accompanies increasing (and increasingly obvious) journalistic incompetence. Lax standards reflect weaponized journalism schools and woke ideology that short prior basic requisites of writing and ethical protocols of quoting and sourcing. In sum, a corrupt media that is ignorant, arrogant, and ideological explains why few now trust what it delivers.

    Suppression

    Once a story is deemed antithetical to left-wing agendas, there arises a collective effort to smother it. Suppression is achieved both by neglect, and by demonizing others who report an inconvenient truth as racists, conspiracist “right-wingers,” and otherwise irredeemable. 

    The Hunter Biden laptop story is the locus classicus. Social media branded the authentic laptop as Russian disinformation. That was a lie. But the deception did not stop them from censoring and squashing those who reported the truth. 

    Instead of carefully examining the contents of the laptop or interrogating Biden-company players such as Tony Bobulinksi, the media hyped the ridiculous disinformation hoax as a mechanism for suppressing the damaging pre-election story altogether.

    Joe Biden’s cognitive state was another suppression story. The media simply stifled the truth that 2020 candidate Biden was unable to conduct a normal campaign due to his frailty and non-compos-mentis status. Few fully reported his often cruel and racist outbursts of the “lying-dog-faced-pony-soldier” and “you ain’t black”/“terrorist” sort. 

    The #MeToo media predictably quashed the Tara Reade disclosure. In fact, journalists turned on her in the manner that they previously had insisted was sexist and defamatory “blame-the-victim” smearing. 

    Joe Biden has long suffered from a sick tic of creepily intruding into the private space of young women and preteen girls: blowing their hair, talking into their ears, squeezing their necks, hugging in full body embraces—all for far too long. In other words, Biden should have expected the Charlie Rose or the Donald Trump Access Hollywood media treatment. Instead, he was de facto exonerated by collective media silence. To this day, despite staffers’ efforts to corral his wandering hands and head, he occasionally reverts to form with his creepy fixations with younger women. 

    Ask the media today which administration surveilled journalists and they will likely cry “Trump!” Yet their own sensationalist reporting that the IRS was weaponized by Trump was proven a lie when the inspector general notedTrump never went after either James Comey or Andrew McCabe. And it was an untruth comparable to the smear that “nuclear secrets” and “nuclear codes” were hidden away at Mar-a-Lago or that Donald Trump sought to profit from the trove. Nor does anyone remember that Barack Obama went after the Associated Press reporters and Fox News Channel’s James Rosen. Nor do they care that Biden sought to birth an Orwellian Ministry of Truth censorship bureau.

    Fantasy

    The media does not just suppress, but concocts. The entire Russian-collusion hoax—Robert Mueller’s vain 22-month and $40 million investigation—was a complete waste of time on the one hand, but on the other an effective effort to destroy the effectiveness of an elected president. 

    How many print and television celebrity journalists declared that Trump would shortly resign, be jailed, or impeached over the pee-pee tape or Christopher Steele’s other mishmash of lies? The problem for the media in promoting the fallacious dossier was not just that it was untrue, but that it was so awfully written, so obviously poorly sourced, and so Drudge Report-like amateurishly sensational that it could not be appear factual to any sane person—other than an agenda-driven and addled journalist who found it useful.

    Do we remember the Hillary Clinton-approved Alfa Bank/Trump Tower fable that is now resurfacing for a second try? 

    Or the Jussie Smollett caper that trumped even the Brett Kavanaugh-as-teenage-assaulter and rapist lie? Or the Covington kids fabrications that trumped the Duke lacrosse hoax that trumped the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” myth that trumped the “white Hispanic,” doctored photo/edited 911 call smear about George Zimmerman? 

    Recall Trump’s supposed “immigration jails” and “kids in cages” at the border—in truth both not cages and in fact birthed by Obama. 

    Then there was Trump’s supposedly impeachable offense of purportedly canceling military aid to Ukraine so that he could allegedly hound the innocent Biden family—rather than delaying, but not canceling, offensive arms vetoed by the Obama Administration for the prescient worry that the Biden family had left a trail of corruption in Ukraine.  

    Who ran with the “voter suppression” untruth that Stacey Abrams was the “real” governor of Georgia or the yarn that Donald Trump was illegitimately elected? How exactly did Jeffery Epstein and Harvey Weinstein operate as sexual perverts and high-profile, liberal-benefacting deviants for years without media scrutiny? Who created the cable news myth of now-felon Michael Avenatti as presidential timber? 

    Chronological Manipulation

    Why, after the midterms, did we suddenly learn that Donald Trump did not, as in the case of Barack Obama’s Lois Lerner skullduggery, manipulate the IRS for political purposes to go after James Comey and Andrew McCabe? Why suddenly post-election did we read that his presidential papers at Mar-a-Lago really did not contain “nuclear codes” and “nuclear secrets” or stuff intended for sale? Why did we learn after November 8 that a special counsel was suddenly appointed? Why did we discover the Ponzi scheme of Sam Bankman-Fried only after the midterms and why is he treated as an aw-shucks teen in bum drag rather than a calculating and conniving crook?

    The answer is the same as why, just days before the 2016 election, we were assured suddenly by the media that the DNC’s planted stories about Christopher Steele’s dossier “proved” that Trump was a Russian stooge. 

    Asymmetry 

    When did the media finally dribble out that Obama’s memoir Dreams From My Father was chock full of lies and thus was intended all along to be read as “impressionistic” rather than factual? 

    We only learned belatedly that Hillary Clinton did not brave the front lines in virtual combat in Bosnia. We were assured that she was completely out of the loop on the Uranium One deal and thus knew nothing about the cash that poured into the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s honoraria from Russian sources? 

    Did the media ever fully report that Hillary Clinton: 1) broke the law by using a personal server to communicate while Secretary of State; 2) lied about the missing emails by claiming they were all personal about “yoga” and “weddings” and such; 3) destroyed subpoenaed evidence by smashing her devices; 4) had her husband accidently bump into Attorney General Loretta Lynch on a Phoenix tarmac who was supposedly investigating Clinton at the time; and 5) became our first major election denialist by declaring “Russian collusion” to be true, Donald Trump to be illegitimately elected, and the 2016 balloting to be “rigged”?

    Unethical Behavior 

    Our once lions of network news were long ago revealed to have feet of clay. Dan Rather insisted that “fake but true” memos “proved” George W. Bush got special exemptions from military service. Brian Williams fabricated an entire Walter-Mitty fantasy existence with ease. The Wiki Leaks Podesta trove revealed blue-chip reporters checking in with the Clinton campaign and the DNC to “fact check” and brainstorm their pre-publication puff pieces. 

    Throughout the Obama years, Ben Rhodes, the failed novelist and deputy national security advisor distorted U.S. foreign policy, as CBS News, overseen by his brother, warped its coverage of him. 

    Do we remember the commentary on MSNBC of the brilliant Vanderbilt professor and MSNBC “analyst,” presidential historian Jon Meacham? He periodically praised Joe Biden’s eloquence and moving addresses without informing his audience that he contributed to or indeed helped write what he gushed about. No problem. Even after finally being fired, Meacham is still at it, offering his input on Biden’s September 1, Phantom-of-the-Opera “un-American” rant.

    CNN Sums It Up

    The long, slow death of Jeffery Zucker’s CNN is emblematic of all the mortal sins listed above of our present-day corrupt media.

    It is ancient history now and thus forgotten that the self-righteous MSNBC anchorman Lawrence O’Donnell falsely claimed that Deutsche Bank documents would prove that Russian oligarchs co-signed a loan application for Donald Trump. 

    Over a decade ago, CNN’s Candy Crowley—remember this impartial “moderator” of the second 2012 presidential debate?—infamously transformed before our very television eyes into an active and shameless partisan by attacking candidate Mitt Romney. CNN commentator Donna Brazile topped Crowley when she unethically leaked primary-debate questions to candidate Hillary Clinton. When pressed, Brazile serially denied her role.

    CNN’s former Obamaite Jim Sciutto is known as a serial offender of journalistic ethics and was recently the subject of an internal investigation. Sciutto has also alleged, falsely, that the CIA had yanked a high-level spy out of Moscow because of President Trump’s supposedly dangerously reckless handling of classified information. Sciutto joined CNN’s Carl Bernstein and Marshall Cohen to falsely report that Lanny Davis’ client Michael Cohen would soon assert that Trump had prior knowledge of an upcoming meeting between his son and Russian interests.

    Another CNN trio of Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Harris were forced out from CNN for their mythologies that the Trump-hating Anthony Scaramucci was directly involved in a $10 billion Russian fund.

    CNN’s Julian Zelizer fabricated his own tall tale that Donald Trump never reiterated America’s commitment to honor NATO’s critical Article 5 guarantee. The quartet of CNN’s Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper, and Brian Rokus all were exposed wrongly assuring that former FBI director James Comey would unequivocally contradict President Trump’s prior assertion that Comey had told him he was not under investigation. 

    CNN reporter Manu Raju in December 2017 trafficked in lots of fake news stories that Donald Trump, Jr. supposedly had prior access to the hacked WikiLeaks documents. And he offered another fable that Trump, Jr. would be indicted by Mueller’s special-counsel investigation. But then, who at CNN did not blast out such “bombshells” and “walls are closing in” lies?

    The once supposedly great Chris Cuomo—finally fired for softball incestuous interviews with his brother Andrew while serving as confidant to his sibling’s sexual-harassment dilemmas—had been caught on tape screaming obscenities. He also lied on the air when he assured a CNN audience in 2016 that it was illegal for citizens to examine the just-released WikiLeaks emails.

    Julia Ioffe was eagerly hired by CNN after Politico fired her for tweeting that the president and his daughter Ivanka might have had an incestuous sexual relationship. CNN Anderson Cooper was every bit as creepy. He harangued a pro-Trump panelist with “If he [Trump] took a dump on his desk, you would defend it!”

    Erstwhile CNN religious “expert” Reza Aslan was not so subtle. He trashed Trump as “this piece of sh**.” The late CNN cooking show guru Anthony Bourdain openly joked about poisoning Trump with hemlock. Recall CNN New Year’s Eve host Kathy Griffin posing with a bloody facsimile of Trump’s severed head. Was there something in the CNN contract that stipulated CNN journalists had to be obscene, vulgar, and threatening? 

    The CNN circus also hired as a “security analyst” the admitted liar James Clapper. So, was it any surprise that on spec Clapper did what he was hired to do—by falsely claiming that President Trump was a veritable Russian asset?

    But for that matter, former CIA director Michael Hayden preposterously alleged that Trump’s immigration policies resembled those in the death camps of Nazi Germany. Was it any wonder either that CNN host Sally Kohn and her roundtable panelists raised their hands to reverberate the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie of the Ferguson shooting?

    Do the bias, invective, and lack of ethics of the media even matter anymore? 

    In truth, media corruption has changed the course of recent history. 

    Had the true nature of the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop been reported, the 2020 voters have polled that the revelation may well have made a difference because they would not have voted for a candidate so clearly compromised by foreign interests. 

    Tell the full story of death, destruction, arson, looting, and injured police of the post-George Floyd rioting and what emerges is not the MSNBC denial of violence or the August 2020 CNN lie of a “fiery but mostly peaceful” sort of idealistic protestors.

    The Kavanaugh and Smollett fake news accounts helped further to tear apart the country and greenlighted the new assaults on the Supreme Court, from Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) rants and threats to the would-be assassin who turned up near the Kavanaugh residence. 

    The Russian collusion hoax and the first impeachment media hysteria virtually ruined a presidency and have had grave foreign-policy consequences vis à vis Russia.

    The media, moreover, matter-of-factly assumed Twitter was an arm of the Democratic Party. Mark Zuckerberg and the FBI worked together to suppress any news embarrassing to the Biden campaign. Do not expect much media coverage of Elon Musk’s serial disclosures of Twitter’s efforts to suppress free communications.

    No thanks to the media, after nearly three years we are finally learning that the Wuhan Lab proved the likely source of the COVID pandemic and that the media-sainted Dr. Anthony Fauci subsidized gain-of-function viral research in Wuhan. 

    Despite the lies, Americans assumed that Officer Brian Sicknick was not killed by Trump supporters as reported. The public shrugged “of course” when the media did its best to suppress the name of the Capitol policeman who lethally shot Ashli Babbitt for attempting to go through a broken window inside the Capitol. And on and on.

    In sum, there is no media. It has ceased to exist, and the public plods on by assuming as true whatever the Pravda-like news outlets suppress and as false whatever they cover.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 22:20

  • "Conditions Are In Place": Chile On Alert As Villarrica Volcano Spits Lava Balls
    “Conditions Are In Place”: Chile On Alert As Villarrica Volcano Spits Lava Balls

    Chile’s Villarrica volcano’s last major eruption was in 1984. The 9,300-foot-high snow-capped volcano has become active again, belching lava fireballs into the night sky and shaking the ground with earthquake swarms. Local officials are concerned the next big eruption could be nearing. 

    “While we cannot predict when the volcano will erupt, the conditions are in place,” Alvaro Amigo, the head of the National Volcanic Surveillance Network, told AFP. 

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

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

    Amigo warned a large population and infrastructure are around Villarrica, and any eruption would be hazardous because of the volcanic rock and mud flows.  

    “The thing about Villarrica is the risk, because many people are living in areas that are highly exposed” to potential damage from the volcano, geophysicist Cristian Farias said. 

    About 28,000 people live less than ten miles from the peak in a city called Pucon. Officials have placed a yellow alert for the volcano, which means imminent eruption. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 22:00

  • Contradictions, Lies, And "I Don't Recalls": The Fauci Deposition
    Contradictions, Lies, And “I Don’t Recalls”: The Fauci Deposition

    Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary,

    Today, Missouri Attoney General Eric Schmitt released the transcript of the testimony of Dr. Anthony Fauci. As you might recall, Fauci was deposed as part of an ongoing federal lawsuit challenging the Biden Administration’s violations of the First Amendment in targeting and suppressing the speech of Americans who challenged the government’s narrative on COVID-19.

    Here is the Fauci deposition transcript.

    And here are the highlights…

    EcoHealth Alliance – the Peter Daszak group – is knee-deep in the Wuhan controversy, having been funded by the Fauci’s NIH for coronavirus and gain of function research in China (and having worked with the Chinese team in Wuhan). What does Fauci say about EcoHealth Alliance? Over two years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, and after millions dead worldwide, he’s “vaguely familiar” with their work.

    In early 2020, Fauci was put on notice that his group – NIAID – had funded EcoHealth alliance on bat coronavirus research for the past five years.

    This coincided with early reports – directly to Fauci, from Jeremy Ferrar and Christian Anderson – “of the possibility of there being a manipulation of the virus” based on the fact that “it was an unusual virus.”

    Fauci conceded that he was specifically made aware by Anderson that “the unusual features of the virus” make it look “potentially engineered.”

    Fauci couldn’t recall why he sent an article discussing gain of function research in China to his deputy, Hugh Auchincloss, telling him it was essential that they speak on the phone. He couldn’t recall speaking with Auchincloss via phone that day. But remarkably, Fauci did remember assigning research tasks to Auchincloss

    Fauci was evasive on conversations with Francis Collins about whether NIAID may have funded coronavirus-related research in China, eventually stating “I don’t recall.”

    The phrase “I don’t recall” was prominent in Fauci’s deposition. He said it a total of 174 times:

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

    For example, Fauci couldn’t remember what anyone said on a call discussing whether the virus originated in a lab:

    During that same call, Fauci couldn’t recall whether anyone expressed concern that the lab leak “might discredit scientific funding projects.” He also couldn’t recall whether there was a discussion about a lab leak distracting from the virus response. Fauci did remember, however, that they agreed there needed to be more time to investigate the virus origins – including the lab leak theory.

    What else couldn’t Fauci remember? Whether, early into the pandemic, his confidants raised concerns about social media posts about the origins of COVID-19.

    Yet Fauci did admit he was concerned about social media posts blaming China for the pandemic. He even admitted the accidental lab leak “certainly is a possibility,” contradicting his prior claims to National Geographic where he said the virus “could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated.”

    Fauci also couldn’t recall whether he had any conversations with Daszak about the origins of COVID-19 in February 2020, but admitted those conversations might have happened: “I told you before that I did not remember any direct conversations with him about the origin, and I said I very well might have had conversations but I don’t specifically remember conversations.” And he couldn’t recall telling the media early on during the pandemic that the virus was consistent with a jump “from an animal to a human.”

    Fauci said he was in the dark on social media actions to curb speech and suspend accounts that posted COVID-19 information that didn’t fit the mainstream narrative: “I’m not aware of suppression of speech on social media.” Yet it was Fauci’s proclamations of the truth, whether about the origins of COVID-19 to the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, that led to social media companies banning discussions of contrary information.

    Regarding those removals of content, Fauci had no personal knowledge of a US Government/Social Media effort to curb “misinformation.” But he conceded the possibility numerous times.

    Then there’s the issue of masks. In February 2020, Fauci informed an acquaintance that was traveling: “I do not recommend that you wear a mask.” Fauci would later become a vocal proponent of masks only two months later.

    I’m near my Substack length limit – posting the excerpts does that – but you can see from Fauci’s testimony that his public statements about COVID-19 origins and the necessity to wear a mask didn’t match his private conversations. This has been known for some time, but it’s finally nice to get him on record.

    Again, read it all and subscribe here.

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

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 21:40

  • "That Is Where Tyranny Starts": New Zealand May Take Baby From Parents Demanding 'Unvaccinated' Blood For Heart Surgery
    “That Is Where Tyranny Starts”: New Zealand May Take Baby From Parents Demanding ‘Unvaccinated’ Blood For Heart Surgery

    Over 100 anti-vaccination protests showed up in New Zealand to support the parents of a critically ill 4-month-old baby in New Zealand who demanded that the hospital provide supplementary blood from unvaxxinated donors before the child goes under the knife for pulmonary valve stenosis, a heart valve disorder.

    Te Whatu Ora is taking a case against parents who are refusing to allow blood from vaccinated people to be used during their baby’s life-saving heart operation. Photo: RNZ / Mohammad Alafeshat

    The boy’s mother says she wants “safe blood” to be used, which her lawyer described as a fear of blood containing traces of vaccines using mRNA technology.

    The request has been denied by New Zealand health service, which says vaccines pose no risk to donor supplies, according to RNZ. On Tuesday, the Auckland High Court will decide whether to grant a request to remove the child from the family to perform the surgery.

    Paul White, a lawyer for Te Whatu Ora, aka Health New Zealand, described the baby as “getting sicker with every heartbeat.”

    Te Whatu Ora is making an application under the Care of Children Act regarding the baby who needs open heart surgery.

    It is asking that the baby be placed under the guardianship of the court.

    Te Whatu Ora then wants the court to appoint the doctors as agents of the court for medical care, and the parents agents of the court for all other care. -RNZ

    According to White, a child with this condition would have been treated by now.

    Supporters outside the High Court in Auckland where Te Whatu Ora is taking a case against parents who are refusing to allow blood from vaccinated people to be used during their baby’s life-saving heart operation. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi

    Sue Grey, a lawyer for the family, said the doctors are dismissing the parents as conspiracy theorists and ignoring their concerns.

    A full hearing on the matter will be held on Tuesday.

    One supporter of the family, Sarah McNaulty, said she was standing up for freedom of choice.

    “There’s so many people lined up to give their blood freely,” she said, adding “That is where tyranny starts. When the state provides us with not being able to give blood freely to a patient that needs it.”

    According to officials, the Blood Service does not segregate blood from vaccinated and unvaccinated donors, and that there is no risk from the Covid-19 vaccine.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 21:20

  • Censorship By Surrogate: Why Musk's Document Dump Could Be A Game-Changer
    Censorship By Surrogate: Why Musk’s Document Dump Could Be A Game-Changer

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    Below is my column in the Hill on the recent disclosures in the “Twitter Files” on the coordination of censorship between the company and both Biden and Democratic party operatives. Beyond personally attacking Elon Musk and Matt Taibbi, many have resorted to the same old saw of censorship apologists: it is not censorship if the government did not do it or direct it. That is clearly untrue.  Many groups like the ACLU define censorship as denial of free speech by either government or private entities.  It is also worth noting that this censorship (and these back channels) continued after the Biden campaign became the Biden Administration. Moreover, some of the pressure was coming from Democratic senators and House members to silence critics and to bury the Hunter Biden influence peddling scandal.

    Here is the column:

    “Handled.” That one word, responding to a 2020 demand to censor a list of Twitter users, speaks volumes about the thousands of documents released by Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, on Friday night. As many of us have long suspected, there were back channels between Twitter and the Biden 2020 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to ban critics or remove negative stories. Those seeking to discuss the scandal were simply “handled,” and nothing else had to be said.

    Ultimately, the New York Post was suspended from Twitter for reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Twitter even blocked users from sharing the Post’s story by using a tool designed for child pornography. Even Trump White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany was suspended for linking to the scandal.

    Twitter’s ex-safety chief, Yoel Roth, later said the decision was a “mistake” but the story “set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack and leak campaign alarm bells.” The reference to the APT28 Russian disinformation operation dovetailed with false claims of former U.S. intelligence officers that the laptop was “classic disinformation.”

    The Russian disinformation claim was never particularly credible. The Biden campaign never denied the laptop was Hunter Biden’s; it left that to its media allies. Moreover, recipients of key emails could confirm those communications, and U.S. intelligence quickly rejected the Russian disinformation claim.

    The point is, there was no direct evidence of a hack or a Russian conspiracy. Even Roth subsequently admitted he and others did not believe a clear basis existed to block the story, but they did so anyway.

    Musk’s dumped Twitter documents not only confirm the worst expectations of some of us but feature many of the usual suspects for Twitter critics. The documents do not show a clear role or knowledge by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. Instead, the censor in chief appears to be Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s former chief legal officer who has been criticized as a leading anti-free speech figure in social media.

    There also is James Baker, the controversial former FBI general counsel involved in the bureau’s Russia collusion investigation. He left the FBI and became Twitter’s deputy general counsel.

    Some Twitter executives expressed unease with censoring the story, including former global communications VP Brandon Borrman, who asked, “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” Baker jumped in to support censorship and said, “It’s reasonable for us to assume that they may have been [hacked] and that caution is warranted.” Baker thus comes across as someone who sees a Russian in every Rorschach inkblot. There was no evidence the Post’s Hunter Biden material was hacked — none. Yet Baker found a basis for a “reasonable” assumption that Russians or hackers were behind it.

    Many people recognized the decision for what it was. A former Twitter employee reportedly told journalist Matt Taibbi, “Hacking was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn’t going to hold.”

    Obviously, bias in the media is nothing new to Washington; newspapers and networks have long run interference for favored politicians or parties. However, this was not a case of a media company spiking its own story to protect a pal. It was a social media company that supplies a platform for people to communicate with each other on political, social and personal views. Social media is now more popular as a form of communications than the telephone.

    Censoring communications on Twitter is more akin to the telephone company agreeing to cut the connection of any caller using disfavored terms. And at the apparent request of the 2020 Biden campaign and the DNC, Twitter seems to have routinely stopped others from discussing or hearing opposing views.

    The internal company documents released by Musk reinforce what we have seen previously in other instances of Twitter censorship. A recent federal filing revealed a 2021 email between Twitter executives and Carol Crawford, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s digital media chief. Crawford’s back-channel communication sought to censor other “unapproved opinions” on social media; Twitter replied that “with our CEO testifying before Congress this week [it] is tricky.”

    At the time, Twitter’s Dorsey and other tech CEOs were about to appear at a House hearing to discuss “misinformation” on social media and their “content moderation” policies. I had just testified on private censorship in circumventing the First Amendment as a type of censorship by surrogate. Dorsey and the other CEOs were asked about my warning of a “‘little brother’ problem, a problem which private entities do for the government that which it cannot legally do for itself.” In response, Dorsey insisted that “we don’t have a censoring department.”

    The implications of these documents becomes more serious once the Biden campaign became the Biden administration. These documents show a back channel existed with President Biden’s campaign officials, but those same back channels appear to have continued to be used by Biden administration officials. If so, that would be when Twitter may have gone from a campaign ally to a surrogate for state censorship. As I have previously written, the administration cannot censor critics and cannot use agents for that purpose under the First Amendment.

    That is precisely what Musk is now alleging. As the documents were being released, he tweeted, “Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is.”

    The incoming Republican House majority has pledged to investigate — and Musk has made that process far easier by making good on his pledge of full transparency.

    Washington has fully mobilized in its all-out war against Musk. Yet, with a record number of users signing up with Twitter, it seems clear the public is not buying censorship. They want more, not less, free speech.

    That may be why political figures such as Hillary Clinton have enlisted foreign governments to compel the censoring of fellow citizens: If Twitter can’t be counted on to censor, perhaps the European Union will be the ideal surrogate to rid social media of these meddlesome posters.

    The release of these documents has produced a level of exposure rarely seen in Washington, where such matters usually are simply “handled.”

    The political and media establishments generally are unstoppable forces — but they may have met their first immovable object in Musk.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 21:00

  • These Are The World's Richest Billionaires Over The Past 10 Years
    These Are The World’s Richest Billionaires Over The Past 10 Years

    The last decade has seen a number of changes in the world’s richest billionaires list.

    For one, there are new faces at the top of the leaderboard that were never there before. But, as Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley details below, one of the most obvious changes though, is that the richest billionaires have accumulated a lot more wealth in recent years.

    Using annual data from Forbes on the richest billionaires, Routley has visualized the wealth and ranking of the top 10 billionaires over the past decade.

    Who are the World’s Richest Billionaires?

    While the pecking order has fluctuated, the leaderboard remains very exclusive. Out of a possible 10 spots, there are only 19 individuals that have made the list over the last decade.

    Here’s the current list of richest billionaires in 2022, including when they first made the list (if in the last decade):

     

    *Billionaires with “-” first made the list at an earlier date. Example: Mukesh Ambani made the 2008 list.

     

    Microsoft co-founder turned philanthropist, Bill Gates, is a perennial presence at the top of these lists. Gates is currently at his lowest rank over this time period, but is still in fourth spot. The billionaire has pledged to give away nearly all of his fortune to the eponymously named Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

    From 2018 to 2021, Jeff Bezos sat at the top of the world’s richest people ranking, only to be bumped out by Elon Musk. In 2020, Bezos became the first person to amass a $200 billion fortune after Amazon’s stock price surged during the pandemic. In recent months, Bezos’ net worth has taken a hit as Amazon’s share price has fallen back down to Earth.

    Today, Elon Musk is the world’s richest person.

    The Rich Get Richer

    Over time, the median net worth of the richest billionaires has grown significantly.

     

    Most fortunes are held in the form of business equity, real estate, and publicly-traded stocks—all asset classes that have benefited from the era of cheap money and ultra-low interest rates.

     

    Over the decade period, the median net worth of the top 10 billionaires has nearly tripled from $39 billion to $115 billion.

    In fact, the first billionaire to pass the $100 billion threshold was Jeff Bezos in 2018, when he took the top spot on the list from Bill Gates. However, now all but two on the top 10 wealthiest list are centibillionaires.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 20:40

  • Teacher Who Wears Large Prosthetic Breasts Subject Of College Review, Possible Lawsuit
    Teacher Who Wears Large Prosthetic Breasts Subject Of College Review, Possible Lawsuit

    Authored by Tara MacIsaac via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    A teacher in Oakville, Ontario, who wears large prosthetic breasts in class has been the subject of protests, bomb threats, a College of Teachers review—and now, potentially, a lawsuit.

    Protesters stand outside of Oakville Trafalgar High School on Friday, Sept. 23, 2022. (The Epoch Times/Peter Wilson)

    The teacher at Oakville Trafalgar High School wears oversized prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples, under tight-fitting shirts. Pictures of the teacher posted on social media by students have received international attention.

    The school had four bomb threats from September through November targeting the teacher. One demanded, for example, that the teacher be fired. No explosives were found at the school, and no arrests were made.

    Parents of students at the school have formed a group called Students First Ontario and say their concerns have not been adequately addressed.

    “We have retained legal counsel and are in the process of moving forward with a legal strategy,” the group told The Epoch Times via email. This announcement follows up on a recent review of the case by the Ontario College of Teachers.

    Professional Conduct Review

    The controversy around the Oakville teacher came to the attention of Education Minister Stephen Lecce, who asked the Ontario College of Teachers in September to “consider strengthening” professional standards.

    “In this province, in our schools, we celebrate our differences,” he told reporters at Queen’s Park. “We also believe there must be the highest standards of professionalism for our kids, and on that basis, I’ve asked the Ontario College of Teachers to review and to consider strengthening those provisions.”

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

    The college completed the requested review October 14, though its contents were first made public Dec. 5 by the National Post. The Epoch Times has obtained a copy of the review.

    It concludes that no strengthening of professional standards is needed. It said the standards of conduct already in place for teachers should be sufficient to address the situation at the Oakville school.

    “Following our review, Council has concluded that the standards, governing legislation and supporting resources appropriately address professionalism in today’s modern learning environment,” the review said. “All Ontario Certified Teachers, in their position of trust, are expected to demonstrate responsibility and sound judgement in their relationships with students.”

    It suggested that the teacher in question should review the standards already in place. It said there is a “critical need for teachers to adhere to government and employer policies and protocols, as part of their commitment to teacher professionalism. For example, the College’s Essential Advice for the Teaching Profession advises that ‘OCTs should consult their employers’ policies to ensure that they know and follow the expectations and obligations in their particular workplaces and communities.’”

    College spokesperson Andrew Fairfield said the college cannot discuss any complaints or concerns filed against teachers. A search of the teacher’s name in the college database shows the teacher is in “good standing.”

    ‘A Safe Environment’

    At a protest outside the school in September, parent Dave Kvesic told The Epoch Times, “Kids should have a safe environment to learn free of ridiculous distractions.” He said the protest wasn’t about “transphobia.” It was “just about my kids.”

    Since that time, some parents have expressed continued frustration with the Halton District School Board (HDSB).

    In a Nov. 21 statement, the Students First parent group said, “parents have been largely silenced by HDSB administrators and there has been little desire for open inquiry, transparency, and accountability.”

    It continued: “Many parents/students have significant questions that need to be addressed given the HDSB’s insistence that there are effectively ‘no boundaries’ when it comes to the ‘expression’ of adults in the company of minors in a publicly-funded school system. It appears our children are part of a social experiment—one that is testing the limits of ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.’”

    HDSB spokesperson Heather Francey did not respond specifically to questions about the parents’ concerns regarding the teacher as of publication. But she said via email, “We have every confidence in the security measures and safety procedures in place at all Halton District School Board (HDSB) schools. …. The HDSB and police work together to investigate threats.”

    Board Chair Margo Shuttleworth told The Epoch Times in September that HDSB supports the teacher “as prescribed by the Ontario Charter of Human Rights.”

    Moral Codes, Dress Codes

    The parent group criticized Shuttleworth for requesting a change to the Education Act that would remove section 264 (1)(c), related to religion and morals. Shuttleworth made the request in an Oct. 20 letter to Education Minister Lecce.

    The section in question says that a teacher’s duties include, “to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.”

    Shuttleworth requested that it be replaced with a clause that reflects “contemporary and current diversity, equity and inclusion policy and practices, and to reflect the Calls to Action 62 and 63s brought forward by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.”

    HDSB recently considered a proposal to implement a dress code for staff. The proposal was made by board trustees. On Nov. 9, HDSB Superintendent of Human Resources, Sari Taha, said at a board meeting that a dress code for teachers would likely be found discriminatory and should not be implemented.

    He said as an employer, the board has the right to implement a dress code or rule for employees as any business does. But, if a dress code places additional burdens on one gender over another, that’s a problem.

    A dress code that results in “deferential treatment⁠—that’s key to really pay attention to this word, deferential treatment⁠—will generally be found to be discriminatory,” Taha said.

    “Arbitrators will often engage in a balancing of the employer’s legitimate business interest with employees’ interest in personal expression. The employer bears the burden in these cases to establish that the employee’s appearances pose a real threat to its business that is more important than the rights of the employee,” Taha said. “And that is the burden of proof on us if we are to establish a dress code.”

    The Epoch Times reporter Peter Wilson contributed to this report. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 20:20

  • Global Wages Take A Hit As Inflation Eats Into Paychecks
    Global Wages Take A Hit As Inflation Eats Into Paychecks

    The global inflation crisis paired with lackluster economic growth and an outlook clouded by uncertainties have led to a decline in real wages around the world, a new report published by the International Labour Organization (ILO) has found.

    As Statista’s Felix Richter reports, according to the 2022-23 Global Wage Report, global real monthly wages fell 0.9 percent this year on average, marking the first decline in real earnings at a global scale in the 21st century.

    Infographic: Global Wages Take a Hit As Inflation Eats Into Paychecks | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The multiple global crises we are facing have led to a decline in real wages.

    “It has placed tens of millions of workers in a dire situation as they face increasing uncertainties,” ILO Director-General Gilbert F. Houngbo said in a statement, adding that “income inequality and poverty will rise if the purchasing power of the lowest paid is not maintained.”

    While inflation rose faster in high-income countries, leading to above-average real wage declines in North America (minus 3.2 percent) and the European Union (minus 2.4 percent), the ILO finds that low-income earners are disproportionately affected by rising inflation. As lower-wage earners spend a larger share of their disposable income on essential goods and services, which generally see greater price increases than non-essential items, those who can least afford it suffer the biggest cost-of-living impact of rising prices.

    “We must place particular attention to workers at the middle and lower end of the pay scale,” Rosalia Vazquez-Alvarez, one of the report’s authors said.

    “Fighting against the deterioration of real wages can help maintain economic growth, which in turn can help to recover the employment levels observed before the pandemic. This can be an effective way to lessen the probability or depth of recessions in all countries and regions,” she said.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 20:00

  • Everything And Everybody Is More Important Than You
    Everything And Everybody Is More Important Than You

    Authored by Robert Gore via StraightLineLogic.com,

    You will sacrifice and sacrifice until there’s nothing left to sacrifice…

    If we’re all responsible to everybody, what’s in it for you? How does it work, exactly? Can you claim anything—your production, property, expression, body, mind, life, or soul—for yourself? If you can’t, if everyone else has first claim to them, what can you claim for yourself? Do you give up everything for our eight billion fellow earth-citizens as they give up everything for you? Do you get one eight-billioneth of what’s nominally everyone else’s? Or is this supposed to be pure sacrifice—give up everything and receive nothing in return? If you give up everything, is there any you left?

    It’s best not to think about such questions, they won’t get you anywhere but confused. What you do know is what you’ve been told your entire life: everything you do for others is good; everything you do for yourself is selfish and bad. Just look what happens when everyone pulls together in a cause greater than themselves, like war. Isn’t that a cause greater than yourself, maiming and killing people you don’t know? You must be doing it for the greater good, because you might be maimed or killed by those people you don’t know. Oh, you can’t let yourself think of it that way. Everyone has to pitch in.

    Government must be a cause greater than yourself, because you spend several months every year working to pay your taxes. That’s a good chunk of money, and you and millions of other hard-working Americans pay it. People complain a bit, but everybody pays, because it’s necessary to keep the country running and fund all the great things the government does. Like what, exactly? You’re funding those wars, and a lot of money ends up in the pockets of people who are of no discernible benefit to you. A lot of it stays right there in Washington. And even with all the money they take in they are still $31 trillion in the hole. Stop it! You can’t let yourself think of it that way; we’ve got to have government.

    Think what would have happened the last couple of years if we hadn’t had the government. We saw that pull-together spirit, with everyone wearing their masks and getting vaccinated. Well, almost everybody. There were a few people who didn’t wear masks or get vaccinated.

    But here’s where things started to break down. Because you know a few antisocial refuseniks and they either didn’t get sick or if they got sick, they took care of themselves, took the medicines they weren’t supposed to take, and got well. And you know people who had both rounds of vaccines and every booster and got sick. And there are those stories, all over the Internet, about apparently healthy people, young people, collapsing, some dying; you’ve seen the videos.

    The thoughts you can’t shut down started when somebody close to you, a relative or friend, had a severe reaction after a shot, or told you about someone they know who did. And maybe you brushed it off, but then it happened again . . . and again. These weren’t stories on the Internet; this was direct experience, or direct experience once removed. And it wasn’t just severe reactions, the afflicted recovering after hospitalization. There were long term effects for which there are apparently no cures, lives ruined. And there were those who died. You know of more people harmed by the cure than the disease.

    One day, out of nowhere, the question popped into your head: Who’s collecting the sacrificial offerings? Because that’s what all this is—sacrificial offerings—not to propitiate some unseen deity, but to line the pockets and to increase the power of . . . of those telling you that you have to sacrifice! That’s the thought you’ve pushing down all these years: All this sacrifice is a damn scam, a racket! Once you gave it some thought, you realized it’s been going on for years, decades, centuries. Somebody telling people they must sacrifice for some greater good, and those same somebodies collecting the sacrificial offerings.

    If we’re all responsible to everybody, what’s in it for you? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Actually, less than nothing. You no longer have whatever it is you offer. It’s not even an offering, something you do voluntarily. Your “offerings” are taken from you under implicit or explicit threat of force. What you get back, if anything, is worth less to you than what you gave up.

    You’ve never minded giving up things for something you regarded as a greater value—saving for the down payment on a house or a child’s college education. Paying for groceries and utilities rather than taking a vacation you couldn’t afford. Those weren’t sacrifices, not like the sacrifices you’re told you must make for the greater good, where you give up something and get nothing in return.

    If you’re giving something and getting nothing, somebody’s getting something and giving nothing. Think of what they’ve done with your sacrifices—your money, your time, and your life—and what you could have done with them. There’s nothing greater or good about their greater good; the country’s going to hell in a hand basket. We’re riding a ruination train downhill, the grade is getting steeper and steeper, and the engineer has it on full throttle.

    Their greater good is your greater bad—your life gets increasingly risky and difficult. What you’re paying out is rising faster than what you’re taking in. All while money is tossed down the toilet of the latest war and domestic boondoggles and the trillion-dollar milestones on the national debt come faster and faster. You hear the bell tolling: doom, doom, doom.

    You’re dealing with reality to the fullest extent of your capacity so that people you despise, and who despise you, don’t have to. Accept the morality of sacrifice, accept that everybody and everything is more important than you, and you’ve issued them a blank check. They have, they are, and they will continue to take everything you offer, up to and including your life.

    The lie has always been that the sacrifices of you and your fellow sacrificers would build a better world for everyone. Now they no longer try to hide it: sacrifice gets you worse, not better. Bugs instead of meat; an urban apartment instead of a house and land; mass transit instead of a personal automobile; a guaranteed income instead of meaningful work; computer entries instead of money, surveillance instead of privacy; compliance instead of freedom; punishment instead of reward.

    “And you will be happy.” That assurance is as stale and false as the phony causes they trot out to justify your unhappiness: the climate, the earth, a virus, a war, an alien invasion, the common good, etc. We do owe them one debt. The last few years have made it obvious to anyone who will look that it’s not about the phony causes, it never has been; it’s about power and control, and always has been.

    That’s not nothing, for from that recognition comes the realization: run from those demanding sacrifice, which at the least means every government on the planet. Sadly, running is only possible in the metaphorical sense. Gangster governments are the order of the day, regardless of how they cloak their intentions and actions.

    And when you ask ’em, “How much should we give?”
    Ooh, they only answer, “More, more, more, more!”

    “Fortunate Son,” John Fogerty, Credence Clearwater Revival, 1969

    You will sacrifice and sacrifice until there’s nothing left to sacrifice, and then they’ll discard you like last night’s garbage. Your life means one thing to them—enslaved, subjugated submission. It’s the less than zero existence, the logical consequence, of everybody and everything is more important than you.

    Accept that—and most people do—and you’ll deserve what you get—less than zero. Claim your life and resolve that nothing is more important to you than the freedom to live it, and your course will be fraught with danger. It’s not the less-than-zeros who change things; expect nothing from them but opposition. If you want what’s yours you’re going to have to fight for it, and yes, fight means fight. That is the truth that can no longer be evaded.

    Resistance is lonely and dangerous. Choose it, and you may have compatriots, but if you’re not careful, you’ll also have false friends who will betray you in the darkest hour. You will, fortunately, have an ally in the incompetence and evil of those who seek to enslave you. Nothing they’ve established can last and their system is collapsing. In some ways that will make things easier—bankrupt and collapsed governments don’t have the wherewithal to maintain order. However, chaos presents its own dangers.

    Fight for your life, or accept endless sacrifice and less than zero. There are no other choices, no middle ground. It’s your choice. It’s your life.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 19:40

  • Putin Signs Into Law Sweeping Ban On "LGBT Propaganda"
    Putin Signs Into Law Sweeping Ban On “LGBT Propaganda”

    As if the West needed more reason to hate Vladimir Putin, the Russian president on Monday signed into law updated legislation which expands the current ban on the prohibition of what it dubs LGBT propaganda to children, shrugging off widespread Western human rights criticisms leveled at Moscow.

    The new law now expands to banning anything that promotes LGBT propaganda before the entire population, regardless of age or demographic, which makes it much more sweeping and broad. 

    The law also aggressively targets transgender ideology. At this point, anything interpreted as advancing or displaying information that “can make minors want to change their gender” is banned, according to the new law. This includes promoting “non-traditional sexual relations”.

    Police breaking up Gay pride parades has become a familiar scene in Moscow. Image via Reuters.

    Violation of the law, for example with media campaigns or formal organizing and activism, could see entities face a fine of up to 4 million rubles (or just under $64,000). Time in jail is also possible as a punishment. It further effectively bans all future attempts at ‘pride’ parades.

    According to details in The Moscow Times: 

    People of all ages are now banned from accessing certain content under the new legislation. From now on, LGBT relationships and “lifestyles” cannot be displayed or mentioned, according to activists.

    The display of LGBT relationships is also banned from advertising campaigns, films, video games, books and media publications. Outlets that break the new law could be fined or shut down by the government.  

    Foreigners could also be booted from the country if they are found in violation of the law. 

    For years it has been illegal to promote ‘alternative’ sexual lifestyles among minors, based on an initial 2013 law that focused on rooting out “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” aimed at children. As it previously existed, violators could face 15 days in prison, or also a fine. 

    President Putin has over the last few years increased his focus on fighting against gender ideology in speeches, vowing to protect the country and the Russian people from “gender obscurantism” – as he dubbed it in a 2021 speech. Many Russian officials also associate it with nefarious intentions from NATO.

    “I am a proponent of the traditional approach that a woman is a woman and a man is a man,” Putin said at the time – in a theme which has since been reiterated. “A mother is a mother, a father is a father. And I hope that our society has the internal moral protection dictated by the traditional religious denominations of the Russian Federation.”

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 19:20

  • Democrat Head Of Armed Services Committee Says Ukraine Oversight Push "Russian Propaganda"
    Democrat Head Of Armed Services Committee Says Ukraine Oversight Push “Russian Propaganda”

    Authored by Dave Smith via AntiWar.com,

    Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the head of the House Armed Services Committee, said Saturday that the growing calls for more oversight of the billions of dollars the US is spending on Ukraine are “part of Russian propaganda.”

    While the majority of Republicans strongly favor continuing to arm Ukraine, even the more hawkish GOP members have said they favor increased oversight for the aid. Smith said that the concern from Republicans for more transparency “makes me a little crazy.”

    Rep. Adam Smith, via Politico

    “Ukraine is spending the money really well; that’s why they’re winning,” Smith said at the Reagan National Defense Forum, according to Defense News. “Yes, we need oversight, but we don’t need that as an excuse to not fund what we’re doing.”

    Last month, a small group of House Republicans opposed to arming Ukraine led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) introduced a bill that would require an audit of the funds that the US has spent on the war so far. Greene said that if she needed to, she would reintroduce the legislation after the next Congress is sworn in this January.

    House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who is expected to be the speaker in the next Congress, has said a Republican-controlled House wouldn’t send a “blank check” to Ukraine.

    McCarthy later downplayed his comments and said the lack of oversight was the issue, and other Republican leaders insisted they would keep arming Ukraine. But McCarthy’s comments were still enough to prompt a push to approve a massive new Ukraine aid package.

    The White House is looking for Congress to approve $37.7 billion in new Ukraine aid during the lame-duck period. If authorized, the new funds will bring total US spending on a proxy war on Russia’s border to about $105 billion.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 19:00

  • BofA Finds Increasing Number Of Wealthier Americans Now Shop At Value Supermarkets
    BofA Finds Increasing Number Of Wealthier Americans Now Shop At Value Supermarkets

    US consumers, the biggest economic force in the world, are rapidly altering their spending habits and where they get groceries due to persistently high inflation, 19 months of negative real wage growth, and threats of recession. 

    Bank of America’s report on consumer trends titled “Supermarket Swap” found consumers are “trading down” (i.e., shifting spending from more to less expensive items within the same category), with yearly growth spending at value grocery stores up more than a third versus premium stores. 

    According to the findings of the report:

    So who is “trading down” the most? Middle – and higher-income consumers have more scope to trade down and shift spending to less expensive versions of items, since lower-income consumers are more likely to be shopping at less expensive grocery stores already. For the higher-income consumers , spending at value-tier grocery stores in October 2022 was up 22% relative to January 2019, according to Bank of America data, likely due to persistent negative real wage growth this year

    BofA reminds readers of the latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) print via the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows prices for the ‘food at home’ category were still at a shocking 12.4% YoY in October. They said, “real (inflation-adjusted) grocery spending per household, estimated using Bank of America card data and CPI inflation, has slowed substantially since 2021 and was below 2019 levels in October,” but the number of transactions per household made at the grocery store was still holding levels in line with 2019, indicating “real grocery spending per household per transaction that has dropped meaningfully.” 

    This means the consumer is trading down for cheaper items at the supermarket. BofA data shows consumer spending at value-tier supermarkets exploded earlier this year as inflation surged, “suggesting an increasing rotation into cheaper grocery options. This adds further evidence that consumers might have been looking for alternative ways to save on groceries by trading down and purchasing from less expensive stores,” the report said. 

    And why are consumers shifting to value-tier supermarkets? One big issue has been 19 months of negative real wage growth. Essentially the vast majority of Americans find their cost of living is increasing faster than the income they bring home.

    BofA said middle- and higher-income consumers are more likely to be the ones trading down since lower-income folks are already shopping at value-tier stores. 

    The report focused on annual incomes of $50k – $100k and >$100k and found significant shifts in spending as value-tier supermarkets surged in popularity among wealthier Americans. 

    And now, people in higher income brackets are trading down for cheaper items and shopping at value supermarket stores. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 18:40

  • FBI Held "Weekly Meetings" With Big Tech Ahead Of 2020 Election, "Sent Lists Of URLs And Accounts" To Be Censored
    FBI Held “Weekly Meetings” With Big Tech Ahead Of 2020 Election, “Sent Lists Of URLs And Accounts” To Be Censored

    Authored by Chris Menahan via InformationLiberation.com,

    The FBI held “weekly meetings” with social media giants ahead of the 2020 election and sent in “lists of URLs and accounts” for them to take down in the name of fighting “foreign influence operations,” an FBI agent revealed Tuesday while under oath.

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

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

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

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

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

    This is what real “election interference” looks like.

    From Fox News:

    On Tuesday, lawyers from the offices of Attorneys General Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana deposed FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan as part of their lawsuit against the Biden administration. That suit accuses high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies “under the guise of combating misinformation” to achieve greater censorship.

    Chan, who serves in the FBI’s San Francisco bureau, was questioned under oath by court order about his alleged “critical role” in “coordinating with social-media platforms relating to censorship and suppression of speech on their platforms.”

    During the deposition, Chan said that he, along with the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force and senior Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency officials, had weekly meetings with major social media companies to warn against Russian disinformation attempts ahead of the 2020 election, according to a source in the Missouri attorney general’s office.

    Those meetings were initially quarterly, then monthly, then weekly heading into the presidential election between former President Donald Trump and now President Biden. According to a source, Chan testified that in those multiple, separate meetings, the FBI warned the social media companies that there could be potentially Russian “hack and dump” or “hack and leak” operations.

    In their complaint, the GOP AGs noted an Aug. 26 podcast episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” in which Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that “the FBI basically came to us” and told Facebook to be “on high alert” relating to “a lot of Russian propaganda.” Zuckerberg added that the FBI said “there’s about to be some kind of dump… that’s similar to that, so just be vigilant.”

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

    […]

    “Since filing our lawsuit, we’ve uncovered troves of discovery that show a massive ‘censorship enterprise,'” Attorney General Eric Schmitt told Fox News Digital. “Now, we’re deposing top government officials, and we’re one of the first to get a look under the hood — the information we’ve uncovered through those depositions has been shocking to say the least. It’s clear from Tuesday’s deposition that the FBI has an extremely close role in working to censor freedom of speech.”

    Elon Musk released internal documents from Twitter last week showing the “Biden team” sent in requests for URLs to be taken down ahead of the election.

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

    As we saw with Zuckerberg’s comments on Rogan, the FBI’s “warnings” were a way to pressure Big Tech to censor content the regime viewed negatively.

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

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

    The FBI not only directed the censorship of the internet ahead of the 2020 election but also manufactured a fake terror plot in the swing state of Michigan to hype the phony threat of “right-wing extremism.”

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 18:20

  • Macron: Russia Needs Security Guarantees 'Essential' To Ending The War
    Macron: Russia Needs Security Guarantees ‘Essential’ To Ending The War

    As we detailed earlier, a clear division is arising between Europe and the United States over Washington’s more hawkish and hardline stance on resisting all negotiations with Russia, but instead which is centered on encouraging Kiev to pursuing ‘victory’ on the battlefield. “The fact is, if you look at it soberly, the country that is most profiting from this war is the U.S. because they are selling more gas and at higher prices, and because they are selling more weapons,” one senior European official bluntly complained to Politico last month.

    Underscoring that Europe is more ready to pursue avenues of negotiated settlement in Ukraine, over the weekend French President Emmanuel Macron urged for the West to take seriously Russia’s security concerns regarding NATO expansion near its border. He called for greater willingness to give Moscow the “guarantees” necessary for negotiations to be successful. He called them ‘essential’ if the West wants to get serious about talks and peaceful settlement. 

    Image via The Hill

    “We need to prepare what we are ready to do, how we protect our allies and member states, and how to give guarantees to Russia the day it returns to the negotiating table,” President Macron said in an interview that aired Saturday.

    That’s when he underlined something which a mere months ago would elicit rage and accusations of ‘pro-Kremlin’ stooge among Western mainstream punditry. “One of the essential points we must address — as President Putin has always said — is the fear that NATO comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia,” Macron said. 

    The timing of the remarks was interesting given the interview was recorded while he was on the US on a state visit to the White House, and it aired as he departed. 

    According to The New York Times, “The interview with TF1, a French television network, appeared sympathetic to the concerns of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and was immediately picked up prominently by TASS, the Russian state news agency. It prompted an angry reaction in Ukraine.”

    While there was no immediate reaction from the Biden administration, the Ukrainian presidency’s office said such negotiations and security guarantees would only be possible “after tribunal, conviction of war authors and war criminals” and the “imposition of large-scale reparations.”

    Separately, David Arakhamia, the chief of the Ukrainian negotiating group involved in short-lived ceasefire talks in the opening months of the war, also echoed that Russian forces must first “leave the territory of our country; pay reparations; punish all war criminals; voluntarily give up nuclear weapons.”

    The Times further points out that Russian state media was quick to amplify Macron’s interview statements: 

    Responding to a tweet from TASS featuring Mr. Macron’s remarks, Nicolas Tenzer, a prominent French political scientist and essayist, commented: “Devastating.”

    During the summer months and prior, European leaders seemed to tilt toward Washington’s more hardline approach to the conflict, but with the energy crisis becoming more acute and now headed into the winter months it appears a new consensus is emerging.

    As another example, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with President Vladimir Putin on Friday, with the Kremlin side later saying that Scholz admitted the West’s policy on Ukraine is “destructive” and that Berlin may pursue a rethinking of its policy. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 18:00

  • Ron Paul: The 'Twitter Papers' Reveal The Totalitarians Among Us
    Ron Paul: The ‘Twitter Papers’ Reveal The Totalitarians Among Us

    Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,

    I admit to being skeptical of Elon Musk as a free speech hero. He has moved from one US government-subsidized business to another on his path to becoming the world’s richest person. But there is no denying that his release of the “Twitter Papers” this past weekend, which blew the lid off government manipulation of social media, has been a huge victory for those of us who value the First Amendment.

    The release, in coordination with truly independent journalist Matt Taibbi, demonstrated indisputably how politicians and representatives of “official Washington” pressed the teams that were then in charge of censorship at Twitter to remove Tweets and even ban accounts that were guilty of nothing beyond posting something the power-brokers did not want the general public to read. Let’s not forget that many of those demanding Twitter censorship were US government officials who had taken an oath to the US Constitution and its First Amendment.

    It is important to understand that both US political parties were involved in pushing Twitter to censor information they didn’t like. There is plenty of corruption to go around. However, as the Twitter Papers demonstrated, vastly more Tweets were censored at the demand of Democratic Party politicians simply because Twitter employees on the censorship team were overwhelmingly Democratic Party supporters.

    Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence released in this first installment of the Twitter Papers was a series of Tweets from the Biden 2020 campaign to its contact inside Twitter asking that the social media censor them. An internal Twitter document shows that the censor team “handled these,” meaning censored them.

    Elon Musk himself openly stated before the release that, prior to his taking control of the company and engaging in mass firing, Twitter had been manipulating elections. So all those years we heard lies from the Washington elites that Russia was interfering in our elections when after all it was Twitter. Of course that raises the question about other large social media companies like Facebook. Will Mark Zuckerberg come clean about his own company’s election interference? Will anyone have the courage to demand that he do so?

    How did they get away with all of this? As another truly independent journalist, Glenn Greenwald, pointed out on the Tucker Carlson show the night the “Twitter Papers” were released, while it was once controversial for the CIA to attempt to manipulate what Americans consume in the mainstream media, nowadays these outlets openly hire “former” US intelligence leaders and officers as news analysts. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and the rest of them all bring on “former” members of the intelligence services to tell Americans what to think. “Big tech censorship is a critical tool of the national security state,” Greenwald told Tucker. “Whenever anyone tries to do anything about it these former people from the CIA and the Pentagon and the rest jump up and say ‘we cannot allow you to restore free speech.’”

    This is a corruption scandal so massive that it is almost guaranteed to never be properly investigated. Government itself is among the most guilty and we know “government commissions” are really about covering up rather than uncovering the crimes committed. But the truth is powerful. Some 58 years after the Warren Report whitewashed the assassination of President Kennedy, polls show that few Americans believe the “official” narrative.

    Truth is powerful and we must always seek it. No amount of lies can withstand the disinfectant of truth. Thanks to Elon Musk for his courage and we encourage him to continue.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 17:40

  • PepsiCo To Lay Off Hundreds After Price-Hikes As Consumer 'Strength' Questioned
    PepsiCo To Lay Off Hundreds After Price-Hikes As Consumer ‘Strength’ Questioned

    Up until now, the majority of layoffs have been focused in technology firms and banks, as talking heads proclaim ‘the consumer is still strong’.

    However, tonight’s news that no lesser staple than PepsiCo is to announce a major belt-tightening suggests the pain is spreading much more broadly across the US economy.

    The Wall Street Journal reports, according to people familiar with the matter and documents reviewed, that the giant firm will be cutting hundreds of jobs at its North American snack and beverage headquarters.

    As of Dec. 25 last year, PepsiCo employed about 309,000 people worldwide, including about 129,000 people in the U.S.

    In a memo sent to staff that was viewed by the Journal, PepsiCo told employees that the layoffs were intended “to simplify the organization so we can operate more efficiently.”

    Of course, it’s anyone’s guess when these layoffs appear in the official jobs data…

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

    This decision comes just a few week after the company announced it had raised prices on its snacks and drinks by 17% on average from last year.

    “The consumer has very much stuck with our products,” said Hugh Johnston, PepsiCo’s finance chief, in an interview.

    “In a world where there are many struggles and stresses, we are kind of an affordable luxury.”

    …

    “There may be a point when the revenue growth slows down,” Mr. Johnston said. He added: “We just have to be prepared for it.”

    Do the layoffs mean that the consumer is cutting back further? Or have margins been crushed even more by inflation?

    Are Doritos now out of reach for the average joe?

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/05/2022 – 17:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest