Bonesaw Diplomacy: New at Reason

Mohammed bin Salman had been crown prince of Saudi Arabia for only a few months, but he was already on his second U.S. visit. In March 2018, the young monarch (usually known as “MBS”) spent three weeks on a whirlwind P.R. tour of America, meeting everyone from Jeff Bezos to Morgan Freeman.

But the trip was about more than photo ops and hobnobbing. In the month leading up to the visit, the Saudi government had retained three American law firms—David Kultgen, King & Spalding, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman—to advise it on and lobby for a potential bilateral agreement on nuclear research. On March 7, a Canadian law firm called Gowling WLG likewise signed a $66,000-per-month contract with the Saudi government related to “the development of a civil nuclear program.” (As of press time, none of these firms has responded to requests for comment.)

Saudi Arabia and the United States are engaged in negotiations over just such a program: Under a proposed plan, American companies would build nuclear reactors for the Saudi government, writes Matthew Petti.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2Ttt0Rp
via IFTTT

Totalitarianism: Buying A Hammer Now Makes You A Terrorist In The UK

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

If you need a hammer for any reason, the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism policing unit will consider you a potential terrorist.  They are also asking that anyone who sees someone doing something suspicious, like purchasing a hammer, to report it to the enforcers.

Buying a hammer is suspicious and is potentially an indicator of criminal activity according to the Tweet below posted by the U.K. Counter Terrorism Policing office.

It’s hard to see in the Twitter photo, but the guy looking at the hammer also has a few knives in his shopping basket. That’s apparently supposed to be a context clue that he’s maybe a very bad person, if not a terrorist. The U.K. has a borderline-comical campaign going on trying to convince young people not to carry knives aroundAccording to Reason, there’s actually a very logically and likely explanation for needing some knives and one hammer. The man might be a chef doing some work in his restaurant, but the point of this ad campaign is that they actually don’t want you to think of the most likely explanation. They want you to be suspicious and live your life in fear of other’s everyday activities. Complete with the scary “Life Has No Rewind Button” motto. Reason further pointed out that the entire video ad is actually a lot more sinister; not because it’s eerie at all, but it’s a bit horrifying what the UK counter-terrorism police demand you feel is “suspicious” behavior: like taking out the trash.

Similar tweets and the video ad above did get some good and decent mocking (and rightfully so) on Twitter:

They [the counter-terrorism police] try to blow off the idea that people are going to end up reporting innocent activity with the statement “Reporting suspicious activity won’t ruin lives, but it might save them.” Do they really think there’s no consequences to being investigated as a potential terrorist? Law enforcement in the United Kingdom goes after and prosecutes people for the content of their tweets, for heaven’s sake. These investigations would most likely upend the lives of their subjects. This ad isn’t just mockable, it’s horrifying. For the love of God, do not go through life being suspicious of common daily occurrences. And be very wary of a law enforcement organization that tells you to treat people who record the behavior of law enforcement as potential threats. -Reason

The worst part is that some people are constantly in fear of what others are doing.  They pay far more attention to the daily goings on of others than they do to themselves. If someone actually does report another, it amounts to little more than a slave tattling on their fellow slave to the “punisher.” The good news is that if the ruling class and their hired enforcers are this terrified of the everyday lives of the public, it really won’t take much for the entire empire to come crashing down under its own weight.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2UCWhsW Tyler Durden

Chinese Accelerate Their Exodus From US Real Estate

After years of torrid money-laundering buying of US properties by wealthy Chinese, purchases of US commercial real estate by the Chinese tumbled last year to the lowest level since 2012, according to a new report by the Wall Street Journal. The fall came as a result of Beijing continuing to pressure Chinese investors to bring cash home, instead of allowing it to leave the country. Recall, we reported back in early December that Chinese firms had dumped $1 billion of US real estate in the quarter prior. 

Various investors, including insurers and conglomerates in mainland China, were net sellers of $854 million worth of US commercial property in the fourth quarter, according to Real Capital Analytics. This is the third quarter in a row that Chinese investors were net sellers of US property, the first such stretch of this length.

And, of course, the selling stands in significant contrast to the five years prior to 2018 when Chinese conglomerates led a seemingly endless buying spree in the United States. Tens of billions of dollars of Chinese money was spent on places like the Waldorf Astoria New York and a nearly billion dollar skyscraper development in Chicago.

But now the tide has turned and some of China’s largest investors are unloading or reducing their exposure to these types of assets. Now that credit conditions have tightened in China, developers have tried to raise money by offloading US assets. Trade tensions between the two countries aren’t making for an environment of confidence either.

Still, for 2018, the Chinese were net buyers of $2.63 billion in US real estate. However, this is the lowest such number in six years, and China would have actually wound up as a large net seller for the year if it wasn’t for an $11.6 billion purchase of Global Majestic Properties made by a consortium of Chinese buyers a year ago.

It’s not just commercial real estate, either. Chinese buyers have also been selling their US homes, as purchases by the Chinese in the United States tumbled 4% between April 2017 and March 2018 (the latest data available). That fall reflected higher prices in the United States, the strengthening dollar and tensions between the two economies.

These all are, to some degree, aftershocks of slowing growth in China. The country reported a 6.6% growth number for 2018, which was its worst annual expansion since 1990 and below estimates out of Beijing.

Making matters worse is China’s aggressive shadow credit deleveraging campaign. As we discussed back in late 2018, total Chinese Credit Creation has unexpectedly collapsed, resulting in shockwaves of weakness across the domestic and global economy. Amid speculation that Beijing is engineering a “slow landing” through a significant slowdown in credit issuance, investors – hungry for liquidity – are unloading US properties at a rapid clip. 

In global markets, we believe this will likely create a deflationary chill and lead to a further slowdown in 2019.

Regardless, “experts” still expect Chinese money to pour into US real estate in 2019. Arthur Margon, a partner at real-estate consulting firm Rosen Consulting Group, said: “They haven’t managed to stabilize anything, so the timeline is going to be extended.” 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WEGSdu Tyler Durden

A Libertarian Litigator Dons the Judge’s Robes: New at Reason

Clint Bolick, a co-founder of the Institute for Justice, was for years one of the libertarian movement’s most successful trial lawyers. In 2002, his advocacy for school choice culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, in which Cleveland’s pioneering school voucher program was upheld. Three years later, he argued and won Granholm v. Heald, in which the Court struck down protectionist state laws that banned the direct sale of wine to consumers from out-of-state wineries.

In 2007, he joined the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, as vice president for litigation. But now Bolick is shaping the law from the other side of the bench, writes Damon Root.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2HNULm5
via IFTTT

It’s Not Brexit But ‘Deutsche-it’ You Want To Worry About

Via Golem XIV’s blog,

While everyone is endlessly told about the world-ending dangers of Brexit, I wonder if we should be paying a little more attention to Deutsche-it.  If the UK leaves the EU the EU will survive.  But what happens when – and surely it’s no longer if – but when Deutsche, Germany’s biggest and only truly global bank has to be rescued? What will the fallout from that be?

I am sure the German authorities will claim its not a rescue its a merger. Yeah right!  It’s a rescue. Deutsche’s shares have fallen 48% in just the last 12 months – the same time the management said they were going to have the bank turned around. The bank’s shares are now worth no more than they were nearly 40 years ago. Which is not such good news.

But there’s worse. While, and perhaps in part because(?) Deutsche’s share price has been in free-fall,  Deutsche has been money laundering around the world. That corruption is now beginning to catch up with the bottom line that it had been pumping cash into for so long.  Deutsche is being investigated after the Panama papers revealed its roll in industrial scale tax avoidance and money laundering. No sooner had the ink dried on that headline when the revelations about Deutsche’s central role in laundering money through Danske bank drew yet more investigators to its HQ like flies to a fresh and steaming turd.

Now don’t get me wrong I’m not saying this makes Deutsche special among big banks except in the category of being caught. There, they have certainly wrestled the crown from Citi and Wachovia.

What I am saying is that that much laundering in that many localities is going to mean the usual bankers defence of ‘one bad apple’, ‘one corrupt employee’, ‘one weakness in our otherwise impeccable rules which are now being updated etc etc’ is not going to wash (sorry I couldn’t resist) so easily.  Deutsche is a dirty bank. But does this mean Deutsche could be brought up on corporate criminal charges? Not a chance. To do that could mean it would lose its banking license and that would be Deutsche-it. And Deutche-it would be far more dangerous to the EU as a whole than Brexit. Deutsche is a filthy, systemically dirty bank but a bank which the German state is going to save. Using tax payers money. But how?

Of course every nation has such a bank, we certainly do here in the UK. But it is full of irony that the self-proclaimed capital of fiscal prudence is going to be intervening to save its flag-carrying bank and not just save it but do so in a way that makes a mockery of all the fine words about lessening systemic risk and tackling the problem of Too Big To Fail Banks.  Surely we all now have to admit that all that fine talk was just so much political smoke blown up our collective rear ends?

By merging Deutsche with Commerzbank, which is itself one of the global Banking-Dead, being still part owned by the German tax payer – much like our own moaning, shuffling, dribbling RBS, the German ‘regulator’ will be creating an even larger corpse.  Of course old habits are hard to kick and the German answer to every failing bank it has ever had, has been to merge it with another. They did it way back in the 90’s when they  created HVB from two failing Bavarian banks and again with Hypo and Depfa  just before the crash. It never works for them but they keep on trying. To be fair, so does every other financial regulator in every other country. Maybe they are all related?

Anyway, it will surely happen and what it will create does make political if not economic sense. At the moment Deutsche is a G-SIFI, A Global – Systemically Important Financial Institution. Every self respecting nation wants to have one. Deutsche is Germany’s.  The other, unofficial name for G-SIFI’s is TBTF. Except, and here’s the rub, there is and always has been little gap between those two concepts, that has niggled away at bankers and their political friends all these long years of the wonderful recovery we have been having.

And that gap is that being a G-SIFI, being on the official G-SIFI list, actually, legally means you can fail but are so important you have to fail in a special way. You have to have a special ‘Last Will and Testament’ in case of your untimely demise. It means there are special rules you are bound by concerning your capital holdings and how you are supposedly going to be – should you fail – wound up in a special way that protects the rest of us from your implosion.  It doesn’t mean you are Too Big To Fail.

The idea was that our wonderful and prudent rulers and regulators would create new rules to prevent banks failing (which sounds a little like TBTF, but isn’t) because IF they did fail then they would be wound up in a way that protected the rest of us. The problem is that’s not what the bankers want at all and certainly not what the countries who house those banks want. What nation wants its largest bank to fail, ever? What would happen to Italy if UniCredit imploded? What would happen to Spain if Santander died? Or the UK is HSBC was ever really caught out like Deutsche has been?

The answer is no one knows and no one is prepared to find out. The G-SIFI bank wind-up rules are there because in the teeth of the political fall-out from the bank crisis our rulers had to be seen to do something. But no G-SIFI bank and no nation housing one is every really going to allow a G-SIFI to go down. ‘G-SIFI’ is what we have officially but unofficially what the world of finance is sticking to is TBTF. Just, Too Big to Ever, Ever be allowed to Fail …no matter what. The question is how to be TBTF while officially merely being G-SIFI? And the answer, straightforwardly I suppose, is to make G-SIFI’s bigger. So big that failing really isn’t a viable survivable event – at least not politically.  Which means merge Deutsche with Commerzbank, either of which could just conceivably be wound up,  and create something so sprawlingly immense that it just is TBTF.

That makes sense doesn’t it? Could Germany ever allow Deutsche and Commerzbank to fail at the same time? No, of course not.

Personally I don’t think the German state was ever going to allow Deutsche to go down. The flag carrying bank is a very different animal to the flag carrying airline. One can go the other can’t. Combining Deutsche with Commerzbank closes that risky gap between being systemically important and being truly too big to fail.

Brexit can conceivably happen – though if it does and a general election returns a Corbyn government afterwards, then I think we will see engineered ‘regime change’ of the kind that we are used to allowing our rulers to impose upon Ukrainians, Iraqis, Libyans and Syrians, being imported into the heart of the Industrial North. Brexit and then Regime Change in the UK? Yes.  But Deutsche-it? No, not a possibility.

If I’m right then expect other nations to follow suit and when the next crisis hits we’ll see the creation of the truly TBTF mega banks.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2G97UV8 Tyler Durden

Inflation Everywhere… Except Super Bowl Ticket Prices Tumble

While, according to the government’s latest aggregated, normalized, smoothed data, incomes are growing at their fastest rates in years, it seems that while healthcare and education costs are soaring, luxuries (and non-government-sponsored industries) are losing their pricing power.

As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, tickets for this year’s installment of the Super Bowl are reselling at lower prices than last year. Still, tickets purchased on the secondary market for the Super Bowl LIII to be held in Atlanta this Sunday remain pricey.

The average price of a ticket was US$5,653 on Friday, down from US$7,277 last year, according to vendor TicketIQ. Resold Tickets are expected to rise in price until game day.

Infographic: Super Bowl Tickets Resell at Lower Rates | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Two years on record when resold tickets were especially pricey are 2015 and 2018. According to TicketIQ, prices may vary depending on how many tickets are released to the public each year, whether competing teams come from wealthier cities and even on how easy it is for fans to reach the Super Bowl from their respective home towns.

While 2,200 tickets were available on the market three weeks before the event this year, those numbers were below 1,000 in 2018.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2D7sxx0 Tyler Durden

Brexit ‘Chicken’: 1-2 Years Of Pain Now Versus Permanent Idiocy

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

The UK is at a crossroads. Fearmongering of “crashing” out of the EU is in play. The EU is playing “chicken“.

In the classic game of Chicken, the first person to blink loses.

The name “chicken” has its origins in a game in which two drivers drive towards each other on a collision course: one must swerve, or both may die in the crash, but if one driver swerves and the other does not, the one who swerved will be called a “chicken”, meaning a coward.

That’s essentially the game the EU is playing with Theresa May and the UK.

Chicken Brexit Style

May has blinked so damn many times the EU fully expects here and the UK parliament to blink again.

May gave away 39 billion pounds, agreed to an odious backstop that has the potential of keeping the UK in a customs agreement forever, and received nothing in return.

May is headed back to the EU now with her head tucked under her legs in a posture of defeat in a futile attempt to win backstop changes that the EU has already nixed.

What’s the point?

Brexit Plans

The Guardian reports One in three UK firms plan for Brexit relocation, IoD says.

That’s a very good thing. The more planning for Brexit, the less fear and pain there will be.

Short-Term Pain

The UK has a choice: Walk away and have a bad 1-2 years with 39 billion pounds in hand, knowing the EU will have a far worse two years, or be made permanent fools of.

That is the choice.

The EU played May for a fool and she was then and remains now. May is on the EU’s side. So why should they blink?

The only chance for a deal is if May and the UK parliament is willing to play chicken accepting a “crash” if the EU does not blink by removing the backstop.

No Chicken Crash

Here’s the most Absurd Brexit claim Ever: “30-Year Recession, Worse Than 1930s”

Contrary to discussion of no food, no medicine, no air travel, and dogs trapped on the wrong side of the English Channel, the process will be relatively smooth.

Sure, there will be some short-term pain.

But the long-term gain is the UK will be able to negotiate its own trade deal, it can control its fishing rights, it will not be under pressure to join the Euro, and it can escape the massive idiocy of EU agricultural policy and over-regulation of virtually everything.

Choice at Hand

  1. Short-term small amount of pain with enormous long-term benefits

  2. Long-term idiocy

So UK, which is it?

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2GktPIr Tyler Durden

As US Freezes, This Is Where Europeans Can’t Afford To Heat Their Homes

While the US Midwest suffers with below-Arctic temperatures, winter tightens its icy stranglehold on Europe, where a considerable number of people are struggling to keep their homes warm.

Statista’s Niall McCarthy reports that, according to new data released by Eurostat, eight percent of the EU population couldn’t afford to adequately heat their homes in 2017. That still represents an improvement on recent years, particularly 2012 when it peaked at 11 percent.

Infographic: Where Europeans can't afford to heat their homes | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Among member states, the largest share of people who could not afford to properly heat their home was recorded in Bulgaria at 36.5 percent. It was followed by Lithuania (28.9 percent) and Greece (25.7 percent). The lowest figures were recorded in Luxembourg (1.9 percent), Finland (2.0 percent) and Sweden (2.1 percent).

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2BehKkE Tyler Durden

Unrest In France: No End In Sight

Authored by Guy Millière via The Gatestone Institute,

  • The third group is extremely large: it is the rest of the population. The upper class treat them as regrettable dead weight and expect nothing from them except silence and submission. Its members often have a hard time making ends meet. They pay taxes but can see that a growing portion is being used to subsidize the very people who drove them out of their suburban homes.

  • For the moment, Macron does not seem to want to recognize that these people even exist.

  • When Macron lowered the taxes of the wealthiest but increased the taxes of these “peripherals” by means of a fuel tax, it was seen as the last straw — in addition to his arrogant condescension.

  • “Today, most of those who protest do not attack the police. But instead of acting to bring down the violence, the police are receiving orders pushing them to be very violent. I do not blame the police. I blame those who give them orders”. — Xavier Lemoine, the mayor of Montfermeil, a city in the Eastern suburbs of Paris where the 2005 riots were extremely destructive,

Police scuffle with a yellow vest protester on December 18, 2018 in Biarritz, France. (Photo by Gari Garaialde/Getty Images)

Saturday, January 26th 2019. “Yellow vests” protests were being organized in the main cities of France. Mobilization was not weakening. Support from the population had decreased slightly but was still huge (60%-70%, according to polls). The main slogan has remained the same since November 17, 2018: “Macron must resign”. In December, another slogan was added: “Citizens’ initiative referendum“.

The government and French President Emmanuel Macron have been doing everything they can to crush the movement. They have tried insults, defamation and have said the demonstrators were both “seditious people” wishing to overthrow the institutions and fascist “brown shirts“. On December 31, Macron described them, as “hateful crowds“. The presence of some anti-Semites led a government spokesman (incorrectly) to describe the entire movement as “anti-Semitic“.

The Minister of the Interior, Christophe Castaner, ordered the police to resort to a degree of violence not seen since the time of the Algerian war (1954-62). During the two last decades in France, other riots have taken place many times. In 2005, for instance, when the whole country was subjected to arson and riots for weeks, the number of wounded rioters remained low. But violence has consequences. In just the last few weeks, 1,700 protesters were wounded, some seriously. Nineteen lost an eye; four lost a hand. Although French police officers do not use lethal weapons, they do use rubber ball launchers and often fire at protesters’ faces — a target prohibited by the current rules of engagement. The French are also the onlypolice force in Europe to use Sting-Ball grenades.

Macron has never treated protesters as people who have legitimate claims, so he has never paid attention to their claims. He only agreed to suspend the additional fuel tax, which was to have been begun in January, and to grant a slight increase in the minimum wage — all of which he did only after weeks of protests.

Journalists say that Macron thought the movement would fade away after the end-of-year break; that police violence and desperation would induce the demonstrators to resign themselves to their fates, and that the support of the general population would collapse. Nothing of the sort took place.

It is clear that Macron does not want to meet the main demands of the protesters; that he will not resign, and that he refuses to accept a citizens’ initiative referendum. He has apparently decided that if he dissolved the national assembly and called for legislative elections to end the crisis — as President Charles de Gaulle did it to put an end to an uprising in May 1968, as allowed by the French Constitution — he would suffer a scathing defeat. He can see that an overwhelming majority of the French people reject him, so apparently he has determined to seek a way out:

Macron called for a “great national debate” to address the problems facing the country. It soon became clear, however, that the “great debate” would be unconventional, to say the least.

Macron wrote a letter to all French citizens inviting them to “participate”, but saying explicitly that the “debate” would not change anything, that the government would continue in exactly the same direction (“I have not forgotten that I was elected on a project, on major orientations to which I remain faithful.”), and that everything that was done by the government since June 2017 would remain unchanged (“We will not go back on the measures we have taken”).

He then entrusted organizing the “debate” and drafting its conclusions to two members of the government, and requested that “registers of grievances” be made available to the public in all town halls.

Macron then launched the “debate” by meeting mayors of many cities, but not in public. He seems to have been concerned that if he organized meetings open to the public, he would be immediately chased away by crowds.

The first two meetings took place in small cities (with 2000-3000 inhabitants), and with mayors whom the organizers — chosen by Macron — allowed to come. The organizers also selected the questions to be asked, then sent them to Macron to be answered at the meeting.

The day before each meeting, the selected city was placed under the administration of legions of police. All access roads to the city were closed, and anyone found wearing a yellow vest or carrying one in his car was fined. All protests in the city were flatly forbidden. The police made sure that the road used by Macron’s convoy to reach the city was empty of any human presence for several hours before the convoy arrived.

Television news channels were asked to broadcast the entire meetings, which lasted six to seven hours. Only a few journalists, also selected by Macron, had permission to attend.

Several commentators stressed that pretending to “debate” is nonsense, and that entrusting the organization of the “debate” and the drafting of its conclusions to members of the government, and the way the meetings were organized, clearly show that these performances are a sham.

Some commentators pointed out that the term “register of grievances” has not been used since the time of absolute monarchy, that mayors are treated as waxworks and that placing the cities Macron visits in a state of siege is unworthy of a democracy.

A French economist, Nicolas Lecaussin, who grew up in Romania, wrote that these meetings reminded him of those in Romania during communism.

The author Éric Zemmour said that Macron is desperately trying to save his presidency but that the attempt will be useless:

“Macron has lost all legitimacy. His presidency is dead… For three months the country stopped economically; and Emmanuel Macron, to try to save his presidency, inflicts on the country two months of additional economic stagnation, and two more months of demonstrations. When people understand that they have been deceived, anger could increase… France is already a country in very bad shape.”

The French economy is, in fact, sclerotic. The Index of Economic Freedom created by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal ranks it 71st in the world (35th among the 44 countries in the Europe region) and notes that “the government spending accounts for more than half of total domestic output”. The Index also reveals that “the budget has been chronically in deficit”; that “corruption remains a problem and that “the labor market is burdened with rigid regulations” leading to a high level of unemployment.

France has lost almost all its factories (industrial jobs account for only 9.6% of total employment). Its agriculture is in ruins, despite huge European subsidies: 30% percent of French farmers earn less than 350 euros ($400) a month and dozens commit suicide each year. In the high-tech sector, France is essentially absent.

brain drain has started that show no signs it will stop.

In parallel, each year, 200,000 immigrants from Africa or the Arab world, often without skills, arrive. Most are Muslim and have been contributing to the Islamization of France.

When a talk show host recently asked Zemmour why Macron is not placing the country’s interest higher by taking the reality on the ground into account, the author replied:

“Macron is a technocrat. He thinks he is always right. He was programmed to do what he does. For him, France and the French people do not count. He is at the service of technocracy. He will do exactly what is wanted by the technocracy and a higher class, [who are] totally disconnected from the bulk of the country’s population… Those who want to understand have to read Christophe Guilluy.”

Guilluy, a geographer, published two books: La France périphérique (“Peripheral France”) in 2014, and, just weeks before the outbreak of the uprising, No society. La fin de la classe moyenne occidentale (“No Society. The End of the Western Middle Class”). In them, he explains that French population today is divided into three groups.

The first group is a ruling upper class, totally integrated into globalization, made up of technocrats, politicians, senior civil servants, executives working for multinational companies, and journalists working for the mainstream media. The members of this class live in Paris and the main cities of France.

The second group lives in the suburbs of the main cities and in no-go zones (“Zones Urbaines Sensibles“). It consists mainly of immigrants. The French upper class, who rule, recruit people to serve it directly or indirectly. They are poorly paid, but highly subsidized by the government, and increasingly live according to their own cultures and standards.

The third group is extremely large: it is the rest of the population. It is this group that is called “peripheral France.” Its members are made up of low-ranking civil servants, blue collar workers and former blue-collar workers, employees in general, craftsmen, small entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, farmers, and the unemployed.

For the ruling upper class, they are useless. The ruling upper class treat them as regrettable dead weight and expect nothing from them except silence and submission.

Members of “peripheral France” have been driven out of the suburbs by the influx of immigrants and the emergence of no-go zones. These “peripherals”, for the most part, live 30 kilometers or more from the big cities. They can see that the upper class dismisses them. They often have a hard time making ends meet. They pay taxes but can see that a growing portion is being used to subsidize the very people who drove them out of their suburban homes. When Macron lowered the taxes of the wealthiest, but increased the taxes of the “peripherals” with a fuel tax, it was seen as the last straw — in addition to his arrogant condescension.

In a recent interview on the British web magazine Spiked, Guilluy said that the “yellow vests” movement is a desperate awakening of “peripheral France”. He predicted that despite Macron’s efforts to displace the problem, the awakening will last, and that either Macron “will recognize the existence of these people, or he will have to opt for a soft totalitarianism”.

For the moment, Macron does not seem to want to recognize that these people even exist.

According to François Martin, a journalist for the monthly Causeur, Macron has placed himself in a stalemate:

“He must make decisions and he can no longer take any decision without making things much worse… Macron should agree to resign, but will not do it, and would prefer to go to the end, and hit a wall… The next three years will be hell for the yellow vests and for the French”.

At the end of the protests in Paris on January 26, thousands of “yellow vests” had planned to gather peacefully on one of the main squares of the city, the Place de la République, for a “debate” and to provide responses to the “debate” organized by Macron. The police were ordered to disperse them brutally; they once again used rubber ball launchers and Sting-Ball grenades to do just that.

One of the leaders of the “yellow vests” movement, Jerome Rodrigues, was shot in the face while filming police officers in a square nearby, the Place de la Bastille. He lost an eye and for several days was hospitalized. Other protestors were wounded.

In the spring of 2016, leftists had organized debates in the same locations and were allowed to remain there for three months with no police intervention.

In an article describing the events of January 26, columnist Ivan Rioufol wrote in Le Figaro: “Repression seems to be the only argument of the caste in power, faced with a large-scale protest that will not weaken”.

Why today’s events are especially ugly, according to Xavier Lemoine, the mayor of Montfermeil, a city in the Eastern suburbs of Paris where the 2005 riots were notably destructive, is that:

“In 2005, the police were clearly the target of rioters, and they showed restraint in the use of force to bring down the violence. Today, most of those who protest do not attack the police. But instead of acting to bring down the violence, the police are receiving orders pushing them to be very violent. I do not blame the police. I blame those who give them orders”.

The next day, Sunday, January 27, a demonstration was organized by Macron’s supporters, who called themselves “the red scarves“. The demonstration was supposed to show that an impressive number of people were still on Macron’s side. Organizers said that ten thousand people came. Videos, however, show that the number seems to have been far lower.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2UwkIYW Tyler Durden

A Truthful State Of The Union (That Will Keep You Awake At Night)

Authored by Skip Kaltenhauser via DownWithTyranny.com,

Tick Tock. The good folks at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientistshave returned to wind their Doomsday Clock. Last Thursday at the National Press Club a group of well-credentialed speakers, including former California Governor Jerry Brown and former Secretary of Defense William Perry, underscored the organization’s warning that we have established residence in “the new abnormal.” Watch the press conference and supportive videos here.

The Doomsday Clock was set last year at a two-minutes until midnight, (midnight being the endgame), and there it now remains. There’s little comfort to be had in standing on what University of Chicago astrophysicist Robert Rosner characterized as a precipice we’d best quickly leap back from. Bulletin president and CEO Rachel Bronson stressed that the clock remaining where it is, the closest it has been to world catastrophe, is not stability, but “a stark warning to leaders and citizens around the world.”

William Perry said the organization views our current situation as precarious as it was in 1953, in the gloom of the Cold War while the Korean War still raged. Jerry Brown said, “The blindness and stupidity of the politicians and their consultants is truly shocking in the face of nuclear catastrophe and danger… the business of everyday politics blinds people to the risk, we’re playing Russian Roulette with humanity,” with the danger of an incident that will kill millions if not igniting a conflict that will kill billions.

Brown told journalists while they may love the Trump tweets and news of the day, “the leads that get the clicks,” the final click could be a nuclear accident, a mistake. “It’s hard to even feel or sense the peril and danger we are in, but these scientists know what they’re talking about, and I can say, based on my understanding of the political process, the politicians, for the most part, do not.” Referring to Congress’s inaction on related matters, Brown called it “massive sleep walking all over the place.” He committed to spending the next few years doing everything he can to “sound the alarm and get us back on the track to dialogue, collaboration and arms control.”

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and the Doomsday Clock are creations of a group of scientists who participated in the Manhattan Project. The clock’s current position was determined by a group of scholars and scientists that includes fifteen Nobel Laureates. These are serious people. It is heartening to see their avoidance of political talking points or partisan tilt in favor of Joe Friday’s focus on “just the facts, ma’am.” Just the chilling facts that let the chips fall where they may. About thirty-three minutes into the conference Jerry Brown gave a Dutch uncle talk to Democrats who maintain the attack mode on Putin on all matters without holding open the option for nuclear dialogue. It brought to mind the discussions of Washington’s bipartisan War Party prompted by William Atkin’s recent critique of NBC and MSNBC.

The Bulletin has been criticized for going beyond the original nuclear realm to include a number of other perils. But it seems if there is one thing we’re learning now from climate and polar ice studies and being slapped around by extreme weather events, it’s that seemingly unrelated factors cascade and overlap, interacting and accelerating in ways we hadn’t understood. No doubt more surprises will come. Certainly the impacts of climate change on food and water supplies, on ocean health and on migration will bear on political systems and on future tensions and conflicts. Perhaps it is too far afield, but a case could be made to include prospects of financial meltdowns from bankers behaving badly. Economic calamities have lit a lot of fuses throughout history.

Stanford cyber expert Herb Lin focused on the ongoing debasement of institutions that hold leaders accountable. While nuclear risks and climate change lead the concerns, that witches brew is now put into the blender by the misinformation on steroids enabled by the Internet. Says Lin, “Events in 2018 have helped us to better understand an ongoing and intentional corruption of the information environment. Our leaders complain about fake news and invoke alternative facts when reality is inconvenient. They are shamelessly inconsistent.”

So we have Information warfare combining with information overload to compromise the public’s ability to absorb and analyze critical issues. Among other things, information warfare delegitimizes the values and truths embodied by science, causing a cheapening and distrust of all information, opening a Pandora’s Box of distortions that allow the public and politicians to avoid grappling with the serious issues before them.

Fine by me if the experiences of the past few years inoculate the public with a healthy cynicism, offering some protection from the gatling guns spewing talking points. But if the public discards the legitimacy of scientific thought and proof, not so good.

Here’s a few excerpts from The Bulletin statement on the Doomsday Clock

Humanity now faces two simultaneous existential threats, either of which would be cause for extreme concern and immediate attention. These major threats– nuclear weapons and climate change– were exacerbated this past year by the increased use of information warfare to undermine democracy around the world, amplifying risk from these and other threats and putting the future of civilization in extraordinary danger.

In the nuclear realm, the United States abandoned the Iran nuclear deal and announced it would withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), grave steps towards a complete dismantlement of the global arms control process. Although the United States and North Korea moved away from the bellicose rhetoric of 2017, the urgent North Korean nuclear dilemma remains unresolved. Meanwhile, the world’s nuclear nations proceeded with programs of “nuclear modernization” that are all but indistinguishable from a worldwide arms race, and the military doctrines of Russia and the United States have increasingly eroded the long-held taboo against the use of nuclear weapons.

On the climate change front, global carbon dioxide emissions– which seemed to plateau earlier this decade– resumed an upward climb in 2017 and 2018. To halt the worst effects of climate change, the countries of the world must cut net worldwide carbon dioxide emissions to zero by well before the end of the century. By such a measure, the world community failed dismally last year. At the same time, the main global accord on addressing climate change– the 2015 Paris agreement– has become increasingly beleaguered.The United States announced it will withdraw from that pact, and at the December climate summit in Poland, the United States allied itself with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait (all major petroleum-producing countries) to undercut an expert report on climate change impacts that the Paris climate conference had itself commissioned.

Amid these unfortunate nuclear and climate developments, there was a rise during the last year in the intentional corruption of the information ecosystem on which modern civilization depends. In many forums, including particularly social media, nationalist leaders and their surrogates lied shamelessly, insisting that their lies were truth, and the truth “fake news.” These intentional attempts to distort reality exaggerate social divisions, undermine trust in science, and diminish confidence in elections and democratic institutions. Because these distortions attack the rational discourse required for solving the complex problems facing humanity, cyber-enabled information warfare aggravates other major global dangers– including those posed by nuclear weapons and climate change– as it undermines civilization generally.

First clock, 1947

Worrisome nuclear trends continue. 

The global nuclear order has been deteriorating for many years, and 2018 was no exception to this trend. Relations between the United States and both Russia and China have grown more fraught. The architecture of nuclear arms control built up over half a century continues to decay, while the process of negotiating reductions in nuclear weapons and fissile material stockpiles is moribund. The nuclear-armed states remain committed to their arsenals, are determined to modernize their capabilities, and have increasingly espoused doctrines that envision nuclear use. Brash leaders, intense diplomatic disputes, and regional instabilities combine to create an international context in which nuclear dangers are all too real.

A number of negative developments colored the nuclear story in 2018.

First, the United States abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the multilateral agreement that imposed unprecedented constraints on Iran’s nuclear program and allowed unprecedented verification of Iran’s nuclear facilities and activities. On May 8, President Trump announced that the United States would cease to observe the agreement and would instead launch a campaign of “maximum pressure” against Iran. So far, Iran and the other parties have continued to comply with the agreement, despite the absence of US participation. It is unclear whether they will keep the agreement alive, but one thing is certain: The Trump administration has launched an assault on one of the major nuclear nonproliferation successes of recent years and done so in a way that increases the likelihood of conflict with Iran and further heightens tensions with long-term allies.

Second, in October the Trump administration announced that it intends to withdraw from the INF Treaty, which bans missiles of intermediate range. Though bedeviled by reciprocal complaints about compliance, the INF agreement has been in force for more than 30 years and has contributed to stability in Europe. Its potential death foreshadows a new competition to deploy weapons long banned. Unfortunately, while treaties are being eliminated, there is no process in place that will create a new regime of negotiated constraints on nuclear behavior. For the first time since the 1980s, it appears the world is headed into an unregulated nuclear environment– an outcome that could reproduce the intense arms racing that was the hallmark of the early, unregulated decades of the nuclear age.

…even as arms control efforts wane, modernization of nuclear forces around the world continues apace. In his Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly on March 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin described an extensive nuclear modernization program, justified as a response to US missile defense efforts. The Trump administration has added to the enormously expensive comprehensive nuclear modernization program it inherited from the Obama administration.

Andrew Wheeler by Nancy Ohanian

Ominous climate change trends.

The existential threat from human-caused global warming is ominous and getting worse. Every year that human activities continue to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere irreversibly ratchets up the future level of human suffering and ecosystem destruction that will be wrought by global climate disruption. The key measure of improvement on the climate front is the extent of progress toward bringing global net carbon dioxide emissions to zero. On this measure, the countries of the world have failed dismally.

Global carbon dioxide emissions rates had been rising exponentially until 2012 but ceased growing from 2013 to 2016. Even if this emissions plateau had continued, it would not have halted the growth of warming. Net emissions need to ultimately be brought to zero to do so, given the persistence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for up to thousands of years. The ominous news from 2017 and 2018 is that world emissions appear to have resumed their upward climb.

Even nations that have strongly supported the need to decarbonize are not doing enough. Preliminary estimates show that almost all countries contributed to the rise in emissions. Some countries, including the United States and some members of the EU, increased their emissions after years of making progress in reducing them.

The United States has also abandoned its responsibilities to lead the world decarbonization effort. The United States has more resources than poorer nations have; its failure to ambitiously reduce emissions represents an act of gross negligence. The United States stood alone while the other G20 countries signed on to a portion of a joint statement reaffirming their commitment to tackle climate change. Then in 2018, at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poland, the United States joined with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait– all major oil producers– to undercut a report on the impacts of climate change.

Freedom of the Press, Money and the Media by Nancy Ohanian

The threat of information warfare and other disruptive technologies. 

Nuclear war and climate change threaten the physical infrastructure that provides the food, energy, and other necessities required for human life. But to thrive, prosper, and advance, people also need reliable information about their world– factual information, in abundance.

Today, however, chaos reigns in much of the information ecosystem on which modern civilization depends. In many forums for political and societal discourse, we now see national leaders shouting about fake news, by which they mean information they do not like. These same leaders lie shamelessly, calling their lies truth. Acting across national boundaries, these leaders and their surrogates exacerbate existing divisions, creating rage and increasing distrust in public and private institutions. Using unsupported anecdotes and sketchy rhetoric, denialists raise fear and doubt regarding well-established science about climate change and other urgent issues. Established institutions of the government, journalism, and education– institutions that have traditionally provided stability– are under attack precisely because they have provided stability.

In this environment, communication inflames passions rather than informing reason.

Many countries have long employed propaganda and lies– otherwise known as information warfare– to advance their interests. But a quantitative change of sufficient magnitude qualifies as a qualitative change. In the Internet age, the volume and velocity of information has increased by orders of magnitude. Modern information technology and social media allow users easy connectivity and high degrees of anonymity across national borders. This widespread, inexpensive access to worldwide audiences has allowed practitioners of information warfare to broadcast false and manipulative messages to large populations at low cost, and at the same time to tailor political messages to narrow interest groups.

By manipulating the natural cognitive predispositions of human beings, information warriors can exacerbate prejudices, biases, and ideological differences. They can invoke “alternative facts” to advance political positions based on outright falsehoods. Rather than a cyber Armageddon that causes financial meltdown or nationwide electrical blackouts, this is the more insidious use of cyber tools to target and exploit human insecurities and vulnerabilities, eroding the trust and cohesion on which civilized societies rely.

The Enlightenment sought to establish reason as the foundational pillar of civilized discourse. In this conception, logical argument matters, and the truth of a statement is tested by examination of values, assumptions, and facts, not by how many people believe it. Cyber-enabled information warfare threatens to replace these pillars of logic and truth with fantasy and rage. If unchecked, such distortion will undermine the world’s ability to acknowledge and address the urgent threats posed by nuclear weapons and climate change and will increase the potential for an end to civilization as we know it. The international community should begin multilateral discussions that aim to discourage cyber-enabled information warfare and to buttress institutions dedicated to rational, fact- based discourse and governance.

Particularly regarding the 2016 election, Russia and fake news have become inseparable to many. 

My lingering view remains that any impact from Internet mischief the Russians did during elections was a blip next to all the rot that’s been flying about for years, much of it funded by homegrown dark money and most of it owing to good old-fashioned American lack of integrity. On the other hand, I don’t have a cell phone, am not on cable and have never been on Facebook, so maybe I’m just clueless about how easily people are significantly swayed by a select few of the gazillion bits of information firehosing them, even those bits that people happily cobble into personal echo-chambers. But it seems that folks who are birthers and such don’t have to depend on the far flung for nonsense readily available and riding down a hotel escalator. The American realm of carefully calculated election misinformation from incognito sources is wonderfully underscored by the POV film Dark Money. It shows how dark money, ramped up by Citizens United, distorted elections in Montana, targeting both Democrats and Republicans who didn’t do a sufficient kowtow to the big money. Not to Putin’s druthers, but to the big money, to polluters, Koch brothers allies, ALEC objectives and such. But I digress, because that’s the beauty of a blog post.

Back to bombs.

According to the Federation of American Scientists, nine nations together have about 15,000 nuclear bombs, most far more powerful than those used on Japan, 1,800 of those possessed by the US and Russia are kept on high-alert status. Ride along with Major Kong here, and sing along with Vera Lynn here on “We’ll Meet Again,” as humanity exits stage left. Here’s a version picking some of the 331 atmospheric tests the US conducted from 1945 to 1962. Try the comfort of the largest bomb exploded, the Tsar Bomba, aka Ivan, aka Vanya, here. If you’d like to explore the impacts of a single one megaton bomb, (eighty times larger than the Hiroshima bomb but tiny compared to some modern bombs), as well as the global impacts of an exchange of 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, perhaps a conflict between Pakistan and India,here you go. Perhaps pass these along to George W. Bush so he has a better idea of how to look for a WMD, maybe at a correspondents dinner.

By the way, do you think kids in the Fifties might have had a few issues to work out later?

Actions and statements by Trump figure significantly in the clock’s advancement in 2017 to two and a half minutes before midnight. A then-incoming President Trump made alarming statements regarding nuclear proliferation, the prospect of using nuclear weapons and his opposition to US commitments on climate change. And in 2018 he helped move the clock ahead thirty seconds with actions like pulling out of the Iran agreement. By the way, that idiocy is greased by nuclear power Israel, Sheldon Adelson and their American neocon minions like John Bolton. Invading Iraq wasn’t enough horror.

Trump also announced his intent to scrap the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) that for decades was a lynchpin for global arms control.

I do wish Trump luck for a good follow-through with North Korea that might relax the minute hand a bit. The world needs a win.

Trump recently reincarnated the illusion of a global defense system. A worthy critique by Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, is his essay Donald Trump’s Mission Impossible: Making His Unrealistic Missile Plan Work, is here.

That man behind the curtain has nothing on Trump. Now we have the news of Trump’s latest misdirection, Venezuela. In 1975 I traveled overland to South America. Two impressions of Venezuela linger, the startling transition over a few hours going from snow in the Andes to the streamy tropics below, and the surreal feel while waterskiing between the oil derricks in Lake Maracaibo. Like slicks on the water, oil money was everywhere, a pleasant-looking lifestyle for many of the privileged youths darting about in convertibles filled with cheap gas. I can’t grasp the changes since then. Whatever way out of the miseries of a failed state might be found, it’s hard to imagine lighting the fuse for a civil war would prove beneficial. Perhaps Venezuelans will come knocking seeking asylum, quoting Trump’s description of their plight, never mind contributing US pressures. In any case, Venezuela should give us pause at how fast things can change.

Tick Tock.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2S3S9FA Tyler Durden