A man has admitted taking San Luis Obispo, Calif., Police Chief Deanna Cantrell’s gun after she left it in the restroom of an El Pollo Loco restaurant. Skeeter Carlos Mangan has returned the weapon. Cantrell said she removed her gun while using the restroom and left it behind when she was finished. A spokesman for the police department said he’s not aware of any disciplinary actions against Cantrell. But officials say she will be attending training on firearms safety practices, something you’d hope she would have done before becoming a police officer.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2O5H0m1
via IFTTT
Could NATO show Turkey the door in the near future? Things could easily reach this point considering the alliance’s most easterly member is fast amassing significant Russian defense hardware. With reception of Russian S-400 anti-air components, and now blocked from the F-35 joint strike fighter program per Wednesday’s White House announcement, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to be mulling a new Russian offer.
“Russia is ready to sell its super-maneuverable Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets to Turkey, the head of the Russian state conglomerate Rostec said Thursday,” according to Turkey’s English language Daily Sabah.
“If our Turkish colleagues express a desire, we are ready to work out the deliveries of the Su-35,” Rostec CEO Sergei Chemezov said.
Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35 fighter, via Russia Insider/Asia Times
Russia’s TASS news agency also confirmed the offer, which a Turkish military source said was “premature” but noted that Erdogan will assess the proposal. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu had stated previously that Ankara stood ready to sign a contract for jet fighters with other countries should the US block transfers of the F-35.
After the White House statement confirming Turkey was booted from the program, Turkey urged the US to rectify its “mistake” while also calling it “unfair”.
The Su-35S is Russia’s latest advanced fighter, a derivative of the Su-27 plane, having been in service with the army since 2015, as TASS describes further of its specs:
The Su-35S generation 4++ supersonic fighter jet performed its debut flight on February 19, 2008. The fighter jet is a derivative of the Su-27 plane. The Su-35S weighs 19 tonnes, has a service ceiling of 20,000 meters, can develop a maximum speed of 2,500 km/h and has a crew of one pilot. The fighter jet’s armament includes a 30mm aircraft gun, up to 8 tonnes of the weapon payload (missiles and bombs of various types) on 12 underwing hardpoints.
The first foreign purchasers of the Su-35 were China and Indonesia. Russia completed delivery of two dozen of the supersonic jets to China in November 2018 as part of a deal said to be worth about $2.5 billion.
Indonesia reportedly is awaiting delivery its own order of 11 Su-35s, expected by the end of 2019.
Should at some future point Turkey actually possesses advanced Russian fighters in the air, with Russian air defenses on the ground, the mainstay of NATO leadership would certainly find it hard to stomach Ankara’s continued membership in the alliance.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2JJNWja Tyler Durden
Has a war between the United States and Iran become inevitable? That is what some in the mainstream media seem to be claiming, but let us hope that is not true, because such a war would mean immense death and destruction. If the Iranian regime felt that their survival was at stake, they would throw everything in their entire arsenal at the United States and Israel, and they would unleash Hezbollah to commit horrific acts of terror all over the globe. That would include acts of terror inside the United States, and most Americans have absolutely no idea how nightmarish it would be to have Hezbollah terrorists striking soft targets all across the country. And in order to quickly win a war against Iran, the U.S. would probably have to use nuclear weapons, and that is a line that we do not want to cross. This wouldn’t be anything like our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but very few people seem to understand this.
And within the last 48 hours, such a conflict has gotten much, much closer. Here are 5 of the most important developments…
#1 According to President Trump, the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian drone over the Strait of Hormuz. The following comes from NBC News…
President Donald Trump on Thursday said that a U.S. Navy ship “destroyed” an Iranian drone over the Strait of Hormuz — the latest in a series of tense incidents between Washington and Tehran.
Trump told reporters at the White House on Thursday that the USS Boxer — a U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship — “took defensive action” against the Iranian drone that had “closed into a very, very near distance, approximately 1,000 yards.”
The drone was “threatening safety of the ship and the ship’s crew” and “was immediately destroyed,” he said.
#2 The Iranians denied that it was their drone. So either the Iranians are lying (which is a very real possibility), or someone else may be trying to start a war between our two nations. When asked about the drone, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif seemed to indicate that the drone which was shot down did not belong to them…
“We have no information about losing a drone today,” Zarif told reporters at the United Nations before a meeting with Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
#3 But the Iranians have admitted that they have seized a Panamanian-flagged, UAE-based oil tanker. According to Iran, the tanker was seized because it was illegally smuggling Iranian oil “to foreign customers”…
The tanker was seized by Revolutionary Guard forces on July 14 after getting intercepted south of Iran’s Larak Island in the strategic Strait of Hormuz amid allegations that the tanker was smuggling fuel from Iranian smugglers to foreign customers.
It remains unclear to which country or company the tanker belongs but a tanker based in the United Arab Emirates disappeared earlier this week.
#4 The U.S. State Department has condemned Iran for seizing the tanker, and U.S. officials are demanding that they immediately release it…
In a statement, a State Department spokesperson said the U.S. “strongly condemns the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy’s continued harassment of vessels and interference with safe passage in and around the Strait of Hormuz.”
“Iran must cease this illicit activity and release the reportedly seized crew and vessel immediately. We will continue to work closely with our allies and partners to ensure the Iranian regime’s extortion tactics and malign activities do not further disrupt maritime security and global commerce,” the spokesperson said.
#5 It has been announced that the U.S. is deploying 500 troops to Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. As tensions with Iran continue to rise, the number of troops being staged at this base is likely to increase dramatically. The following comes from CNN…
Five-hundred troops are expected to go to the Prince Sultan Air Base, located in a desert area east of the Saudi capital of Riyadh, according to US two defense officials. A small number of troops and support personnel are already on site with initial preparations being made for a Patriot missile defense battery as well as runway and airfield improvements, the officials said.
The US has wanted to base troops there for some time because security assessments have shown Iranian missiles would have a difficult time targeting the remote area.
I don’t know who is doing those “security assessments”, because the truth is that Iranian missiles can easily reach that base.
For a while there it seemed like things had cooled off a bit in the Middle East, and many were hoping that the threat of an imminent conflict had been averted.
Unfortunately, things are now more tense than ever, and a single mistake could set off a chain of events that nobody is going to be able to stop.
“We live in a very dangerous environment,” the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, said Thursday at the United Nations before news of the drone was made public.
“The United States has pushed itself and the rest of the world into probably the brink of an abyss.”
And once we plunge into that abyss, there is no turning back.
Of course most ordinary Americans aren’t really thinking about Iran at all. They are just busy working hard, raising their kids and trying to build their lives. Perhaps they have heard a little bit about tensions with Iran on the news, but most of them have absolutely no idea that we could literally be on the verge of an apocalyptic war in the Middle East.
If a full-blow war with Iran erupts, events are going to start escalating very rapidly and it will set the stage for many of the nightmare scenarios that I have been relentlessly warning about.
A lot of the talking heads on television seem to think that “the worst case scenario” would be having the U.S. dragged into another endless “quagmire” like we witnessed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No, that is definitely not the worst case scenario.
The Iranians have been preparing for this conflict for decades, and they would hit us with everything that they have got.
In order to defeat them quickly, we would have to go beyond just using conventional weapons, and that is somewhere that we do not want to go.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32A4cMp Tyler Durden
In a deeply worrisome development related to Russia’s network of ten nuclear power plants nationwide, two of them suffered significant operating incidents in under only one week, causing multiple reactors to be take offline.
Russia’s TASS reported that a “transformer short circuit” at the Kalinin nuclear power plant (NPP) resulted in “a complete shutdown of two and a partial shutdown of another power unit in the Tver region” early on Thursday. In total 3 out of the 4 nuclear plant’s reactors had to be unplugged.
Cooling towers at the Kalinin nuclear power plant, via Russia Now/The Telegraph
Hours later, as evening fell, Reuters reported one or more of the units suffering shutdown were back online. Russia is well-known as among the world’s largest producers of nuclear energy.
The Kalinin plant is north-west of Moscow in central Russia and has been operational since the mid-1980’s, with the last major known accident in 2016, in which two workers were injured when a power unit short circuited. Its newest reactor, No. 4, went operational in 2011.
Rosenergoatom, a subsidiary of state nuclear corporation Rosatom, issued a statement stressing there was no need for panic or alarm.
“The radiation level at the station and surrounding territory remains without change and is in line with normal background levels,” the company said.
This latest incident follows a similar one which state media reported last Friday involving a a nuclear plant in the central Russian city of Beloyarsk.
A reactor there had to be disconnected when an automatic safety mechanism was triggered; however, it came back online Tuesday after an inspection found no issues.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2LYmAss Tyler Durden
Knife crime has hit a new record high in England and Wales, rising 8% on the previous year new figures show.
“The figures for police-recorded crime revealed there were 43,516 police-recorded offences involving a knife or sharp instrument, which is the highest since comparable records began in 2011,” reports Sky News.
As I have relentlessly argued, the causes of this epidemic are easily identifiable.
– The scaling back of “stop and search” because it’s “racist”.
– The ongoing emasculation of UK police forces who are being trained that mean words and ‘hate crime’ is more important than people dying.
– Fatherless black homes.
– UK street gangs becoming more violent to compete with immigrants from countries like Congo and Somalia.
– The ongoing mass importation of people from violent countries in general.
– Drill rap music that encourages young people to commit murder.
– Political leaders like Sadiq Khan refusing to even admit there’s a problem to protect their own pathetic legacies.
But instead of addressing any of these issues, the political establishment meekly argues that the lack of “youth clubs” for young people and racist police officers are the source of the problem.
Until that politically correct myopia ends, the carnage will continue.
* * *
There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Y1SVku Tyler Durden
A joint Australian-U.S. military exercise, called Talisman Sabre 2019, will continue through early August following this week’s Australian-led amphibious landing at Langham Beach, Queensland, Australia, reported Naval Today.
Forces from around the world (the U.S., New Zealand, United Kingdom, and Japan) practiced one of the most massive beach assault since World War II off the eastern coast of Queensland.
Maj. Gen. Roger Noble, deputy chief of joint operations for the Australian Defence Force, noted the beach assault was the critical portion of the monthlong exercise.
“The relationship between the Australian and the United States is the cornerstone of our regional stability. Practicing [working together] builds our flexibility to achieve our shared aims,” he said.
“A credible amphibious capability significantly broadens the options for Australia and the United States to fulfill these requirements,” Noble said in a statement Wednesday.
Stripes said the Australian military lacks a dedicated amphibious force. Rather, the Australian army rotates soldiers through land and sea postings, and the Australian navy is in command of sailing them close to the beach for attacks.
“This is completely foreign to almost all of us,” said Capt. Matthew Stevens of the Royal Australian Army’s 7th Infantry Regiment, who led the group of soldiers on the amphibious landing craft earlier this week.
The amphibious assault included more than 34,000 personnel, 30 ships, and 200 aircraft, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported Thursday.
Marines started aboard the USS Wasp, USS Green Bay, Royal Australian Navy ships, and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force vessels. The marines then used landing craft air cushion, amphibious assault vehicles, and combat rubber raiding crafts for the beach assault.
As the first wave of Americans and Japanese landed on the beach, a smokescreen was deployed to disorient the imagined enemy.
WATCH || Our amphibious landing was significant because it was done with partner nations. This amazing feat demonstrates our preparedness for future amphibious assaults.
While on land, Australian soldiers observed as two Japanese air-cushioned landing craft drove ashore.
The exercise came after U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson last month encouraged Australian counterparts to become more active in countering China’s military expansion in the South China Sea.
Tensions flared up earlier this week when the Royal Malaysian Navy conducted anti-ship missile war drills in the South China Sea.
There’s also been worsening relations between China and Vietnam, who are currently in a South China Sea stand-off. The latest dispute began two weeks ago when a Chinese geological survey ship started conducting a seismic survey near the Vietnamese-controlled – and China-claimed – Vanguard Reef, and has resulted in coastguard vessels from the two countries patrolling the area.
The South China Sea has overlapping claims, Brunei, the People’s Republic of China, Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan), Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam; all believe they have equal rights to the highly disputed body of water.
And to make matters worse, the Pentagon told Congress it expects to solidify a $2.2 billion arms sale with Taiwan, further irritating China who warns it will sanction U.S. defense firms connected to Taiwan arms deal.
As tensions boil in the South China Sea, it becomes evident why Australia and the U.S. conducted one of the most significant amphibious assaults in more than seven decades: the world is preparing for war with the rising power, China.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2O3QLRT Tyler Durden
Church attendance in the United States is at an all-time low, according to a Gallup poll released in April 2019. This decline has not been a steady one. Indeed, over the last 20 years, church attendance has fallen by 20 percent. This might not sound like cause for concern off the bat. And if you’re not a person of faith, you might rightly wonder why you would care about such a thing.
Church attendance is simply a measure of something deeper: social cohesion. It’s worth noting that the religions with the highest rate of attendance according to Pew Forum have almost notoriously high levels of social cohesion: Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Evangelical Protestants, Mormons and historically black churches top the list.
There’s also the question of religious donations. Religious giving has declined by 50 percent since 1990, according to a 2016 article in the New York Times. This means people who previously used religious services to make ends meet now either have to go without or receive funding from the government. This, in turn, strengthens the central power of the state.
It is our position that civil society – those elements of society which exist independently of big government and big business – are essential to a functioning and free society. What’s more, these institutions are in rapid decline in the United States, and have been for over 50 years.
Such a breakdown is a prelude to tyranny, and has been facilitated in part (either wittingly or unwittingly) by government policies favoring deindustrialization, financialization and centralization of the economy as well as the welfare state. The historical roots of this breakdown are explored below, along with what concerned citizens can do to mitigate its impact on their loved ones.
The local bowling alley was known as the blue-collar country club, and it was the invention of the automatic pinsetter that changed the game, making it faster and more accessible. The first million-dollar endorsement sports deal was Don Carter receiving a million dollars to bowl with an Ebonite signature ball designed for him in 1964.
Business was driven by league play. People would sign up to join a league, which had them in for 30 weeks of once-weekly play. In the course of doing this, they would rub elbows with teammates, opponents and whoever happened to be hanging out in the bowling alley at the time. Between 1940 and 1958, the United States Bowling Congress’ membership exploded from 700,000 to 2.3 million. The Women’s International Bowling Congress’membership climbed from 82,000 to 866,000, with the American Junior Bowling Congress ballooning from 8,000 to 175,000. In their heyday, bowling leagues brought in a whopping 70 percent of all bowling alley income. Now they bring in a paltry 40 percent.
Again, the point here is not that there is something magical about bowling, which acts as a social glue in the United States. Rather, it is that the existence of bowling alleys as a third place in American life was the symptom of a vibrant and healthy civil society, not its cause. People preferred to socialize with others in a place outside of home or work. Putnam is quick to point out that the number of people who bowl in the United States has actually increased since the golden age of bowling – the problem is that they’re all doing it alone.
What this means is that there are significantly fewer connections between people and fewer civic-minded discussions going on now than there were in the past. It also means the loss of identity tied to something other than work and consumer goods (see the explosion of adults spending their money on Star Wars or Harry Potter knick-knacks).
Putnam lays the blame at the foot of technology. Television, and to a much greater extent, the Internet, individualized how people spend their spare time. Still, there is a solid case to be made that the decline of civil society and the resulting loss of social capital is not simply the result of new technologies. It is equally the result of government policies which, through design or through negligence, further erode civil society.
The Destruction of the Rust Belt
It is difficult to talk about the decline of civil society and social capital in the United States without looking at the destruction of the Rust Belt. The decline of the population in Rust Belt industrial cities over the last 50 years is worth a cursory glance before delving further into this topic:
In 1940, Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh were all among the 10 most populated cities in the United States.
By 1980, Cleveland and Pittsburgh had dropped off.
While Detroit hung around in the top 10 until the 2010 census, it was also the first city to have its population drop below one million.
Cities outside of the top 10 in 1940 paint an even starker picture:
Between 1960 and 2010, Buffalo lost over half of its population, plummeting from 532,000 (20) to 261,000 (71).
Cincinnati was hit about this hard during the same time period, with its population dropping from 502,000 (21) to 296,000 (63).
Gary, Indiana is perhaps the most extreme case of Rust Belt depopulation. It lost over half its population between 1960 and 2010, going from 178,000 (70) to 80,000 (unranked).
Most of these massive depopulations are tied closely to deindustrialization and the financialization of the economy. While other factors cannot be ignored, such as central air conditioning, which makes living in cities like Phoenix (439,000 in 1960 and the 29th largest city to 1.4 million and the 6th largest by 2010) much more palatable, a conscious set of policies contributed to the destruction of America’s manufacturing base.
If one sees the United States as nothing more than a group of consumers, there’s nothing to fret about here. If, however, one sees the United States as a nation with a value beyond its simple GDP, the replacement of civil society with the marketplace is a disastrous scenario.
The Destruction of Black Business Districts
Another place where this can be seen is the destruction of the black middle class. A frequently untold story of American life is that by the 1950s, the United States actually had a thriving black middle class. Black business ownership peaked during the years between the end of the Second World War and the Great Society. Every city with any significant black population hosted a black business district where a primarily black clientele spent their money within their own community. Black home ownership was likewise high at this point.
This is all very much a thing of the past.
The per capita number of black employers declined by 12 percent between the years 1997 and 2014. An article by Brian S. Feldman in Washington Monthly notes a significant decline in certain sectors of black business ownership as well, namely grocers, insurers and banks. Black-owned insurance agencies declined by 68 percent between 1989 and 1999 in what Black Enterprise magazine called “a bloodbath.”
The article in question lays this at the feet of not specific government policies, but at the doorstep of a more general trend toward market concentration.
It’s worth looking at the question of wealth and market concentration (separate from the question of so-called “wealth inequality”) from a freedom-minded perspective. The massive amounts of government handouts to big business, in the form of both direct subsidies as well as favorable legislation for regulations and taxes alike, creates an environment favoring those most capable of purchasing influence – namely, big business.
This is not the half-baked conspiracy theory of a college Marxist. No less an authority than the Foundation for Economic Education correctly identifies that the wealth concentration that made the destruction of black small business possible is choking the American economy at the expense of Main Street. Likewise, licensing regimes in a number of states choke the pipeline of small business competition by making it more difficult for people to enter fields, from nail tech to brain surgeon. The FEE likewise identifies health insurance requirements and increasingly rising minimum wage laws as government intervention raising the bar to entry into the market and crushing small business.
There is another, highly unlikely and ironic, culprit behind the decimation of black business and the black community – integration.
This is a position championed by Clay Middleton of the South Carolina House of Representatives. Basically, under segregation, black consumers were limited in their choices of business. They could not, in many cases, go to (for example) white hamburger joints. Instead, they had to patronize the equivalent business for black customers. In many cases, these businesses were owned and operated by fellow black Americans. Black hotels are another example of this phenomenon.
The point is not that Southern states should reintroduce segregation to prop up black businesses, but simply to give a broader and more complete picture of how and why black business districts have disappeared. It also offers some insight into the destruction of small business in America in general.
While cheap, imported widgets from Walmart benefit consumers with lower prices, they also create an intangible and difficult-to-quantify social problem. When big business replaces small business, wealth is not only centralized, it is also centralized outside of the communities that it serves.While larger businesses are arguably more “efficient” economically speaking, the loss of small business (most acutely seen in the black community) provides an illustrative example of how lost economic capital and lost social capital are often closely tied. Without black business, there is less of a “black community” than there is a “black marketplace.”
Strictly speaking, small business (black or otherwise) is business, not civil society proper. However, greater economic leverage of big business in the nation means an economically impoverished civil society.
What did people do before the advent of social welfare programs? This is a question that even few libertarians can answer without stammering something about private charity. And indeed, private charity did play a role in meeting social needs for the less fortunate. However, there is a hidden story in how communities met social needs prior to the advent of the welfare state.
Mutual aid in the 21st century is largely a nonprofit form of insurance, particularly life insurance – a sort of analog to the credit union. However, in earlier days they oversaw a number of social welfare programs.
Mutual aid societies, also known as benefit societies (or friendly societies in the United Kingdom and Ireland) date back to the Middle Ages. Medieval guilds were effectively mutual aid societies organized within skilled trades. In the United States, they were popular with black Americans during post-revolutionary times: the Free African Society dates back to 1787.
One of the key differences between mutual aid and benefit societies and the welfare state is the role of civil society and accountability. Mutual aid societies presented a counterweight to both the state and big business. They offered services such as healthcare, unemployment benefits, disability insurance and other services now provided by big business or state and federal governments.
What’s more, the mutual aid societies generally had a set of values tied to their services. Social values were advanced and an ethos of moral character and self-improvement underpinned membership in a mutual aid society. For example, the Ancient Order of United Workmen forbade its members from selling liquor on penalty of forfeiting their death benefit.
Finally, it’s worth noting the primary difference between mutual aid societies and the welfare state. Members who wanted to collect had to look a peer in the eye and request aid. This had a twin psychological effect: First, it diminished spurious claims. Let’s say “Jim” needed some unemployment insurance. His neighbors are also members of his mutual aid society. They know if Jim actually needs help or if he’s just goldbricking. The flipside is that Jim is also receiving aid from his friends and neighbors. This inspires him to look for work so that he can pay everyone back in his own way, in addition to providing a source of social solidarity during his hardest times.
According to A Life of One’s Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State, in the year 1890, 112,000 Americans were living in housing provided by private charitable organizations. Compare this to 73,000 residing in publicly funded almshouses. What’s more, benefit societies were decentralized. The spirit was one of fraternity, not of paternalism. Reciprocity was a driving ethic, which in turn removed the stigma of receiving charity. People were not receiving handouts, they were receiving support from the very same people whom they had supported in the past.
Additionally, belonging to a mutual aid or benefit society was a lot cooler than receiving welfare. They had secret handshakes, among other secret symbols of membership. What’s more, the humble house-call doctor was a feature of mutual aid society membership. Society locals frequently hired a doctor to service a membership area. They have since been regulated to the point where they provide little in the way of services, except for life insurance and annuities, making them effectively non-profit financial organizations.
In addition to accountability, assistance beyond simple financial support and decentralization, private assistance carries other benefits. For example, philanthropic organizations tend to operate leaner and to be more innovative in how they tackle problems. Such organizations tend to tailor their assistance to the individual in need, rather than offering a one-size-fits-all approach. This is true of individuals and communities alike. Finally, philanthropic and mutual aid societies seek to treat the underlying cause, rather than just the symptom of need.
Such organizations are now limited by the federal tax code 501(c)(4), which greatly restricts the activities such organizations are allowed to participate in. Many of them, such as Mutual of Omaha, underwent demutualization and handed out stocks in place of membership. They are now for-profit financial organizations.
A Decline in Family Life
One of the main pillars of civil society is the nuclear family. Any discussion of the decline of civil society in the United States would be incomplete without a discussion of the decline of family life in the United States.
Perhaps the best numbers to look at with regard to the American family are from the 2010 Census. These are, admittedly, a bit old. However, there is no reason to suspect that the trend has reversed itself and that the nuclear family has experienced some kind of resurgence in the years since that census. If anything, the opposite is probably true. So what does the last United States Census say?
Non-college graduates are more than twice as likely to be single parents.
Affluent families are more common than poor ones.
Pew Research likewise has good data on the state of the American family:
Americans who have never been married reached an all-time high in 2012, with 25 percent of all adults over the age of 25 having never been married. In 1960, this figure stood at 9 percent.
Men were significantly less likely to have ever been married than women.
24 percent of never-married adults were cohabiting with their partner.
For black Americans, the percentage over 25 who had never been married was 36 percent.
Pew Research indicates that it expects this trend to continue and that, while people are getting married later in life, it does not expect a significant increase in marriage as the population ages.
Financial security was cited as the main hurdle to marriage by one third of all those polled who wanted to get married.
46 percent of children live with two parents in their first marriage. In 1980, this number was 61 percent. In 1960, it was 73 percent.
The above-cited figures point toward two conclusions: First, the nuclear family is in sharp decline. Second, it is far more common for educated and affluent Americans to form traditional families.
It’s difficult to assign direct blame to any one factor. The centralization of the economy cited above plays a role, as does the financialization and deindustrialization of the economy. In the 1960s, from where our earliest data comes, it was not difficult for a high school graduate or even a high school dropout to earn a living at a stable job that was effectively a career for life. With this job came a defined benefit pension, healthcare, etc. The wages and benefits made having and raising a family easier.
The welfare state is another significant driver of the decline of the nuclear family. Unsurprisingly, the black family is massively impacted. In 1965, 25 percent of all black children were born out of wedlock. In 2016, that rate had increased to 70 percent and even topped 80 percent in certain urban areas. In the 1940s, this number was five percent, which was comparable to that of white children. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate in 2016 was 52 percent, while for whites it was 30 percent.
The rise in children born out of wedlock cannot be separated from the massive expansion of the welfare state under Johnson’s Great Society. In a report from the Mises Institute, the basic argument is that welfare disincentivizes marriage. In times past, when women had children out of wedlock, it meant an incredibly difficult life balancing whatever work and charity they could get. It also carried a social stigma (from our old friend civil society), which further disincentivized single motherhood.
Today, however, there are a host of social programs specifically for single mothers. A partial list of programs assisting single motherhood includes:
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) commonly known as “food stamps”
Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), another food assistance program
Child Care Assistance Program, Head Start and Early Head Start, all daycare assistance programs
Section 8 housing assistance
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps single mothers pay their utilities
Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), health insurance assistance programs
Supplemental Security Income, often called “disability,” but accessible to those without bona fide physical disabilities
The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the National School Lunch Program, two more food assistance programs
These programs act as a disincentive toward family formation. Benefits are means tested, meaning that if one’s income is low enough, one qualifies. This means that it is advantageous in many cases for couples to remain unmarried so that only one income is counted for the purpose of benefits. Such programs, when coupled with a diminishing stigma against single motherhood, further incentivizes promiscuity and poor mate selection – why not have a child with a man who can’t support it when the welfare state is there to pick up the slack?
The impact of single-parent households is far further reaching than you probably think: In the most extensive study ever done on single parenthood (in permissive, tolerant and liberal Sweden), it was found that children in single-parent households were twice as likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders and addiction. This figure might be conservative, as it only includes hospitalizations. Some other striking statistics about fatherless households include:
63 percent of youth suicides take place in fatherless homes.
90 percent of all homeless youth and runaways are from fatherless homes, which is a whopping 32 times the national average.
85 percent of all children with behavior issues come from fatherless homes, 20 times the national average.
80 percent of rapists with established anger issues come from fatherless homes, 14 times the national average.
71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
70 percent of those in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
85 percent of all juveniles in prison come from single-parent households, 20 times the national average.
90 percent of adolescent repeat arson offenders are from fatherless homes.
Fatherless children are nearly twice as likely to be victims of abuse or neglect.
These striking statistics are a serious indictment of the decline of the nuclear family. If, as is common of behaviors, single parenthood is heritable, we have not yet begun to see a crisis.
The End of Civil Society in the United States
The big takeaway is that in the United States, civil society has declined. While the blame cannot entirely be laid at the feet of big government and big business (individual actors are involved), there is strong evidence to suggest that the crisis in American civil society is driven primarily by the welfare state and government policies favoring deindustrialization, financialization and centralization of the economy.
There is a reinforcing quality about the destruction of civil society. As the size of big government and big business increases, they become more capable of taking greater power. Smaller communities become increasingly reliant upon each, making it harder to resist further growth and greater disempowerment. It’s a vicious downward spiral.
So what’s the solution for a concerned individual or family? It’s not political. Instead, the best one can do to counteract these trends are to become as financially independent as possible, make durable local connections in the community, and learn to think critically in order to insulate oneself from the more pernicious effects of social decay and the power of the state.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2XOOr5G Tyler Durden
On July 21, 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first men to set foot on the moon. Ten more Apollo astronauts followed in their footsteps until 1972 but since then, no human has set foot on Earth’s closest companion in space.
Fifty years later, the race for the moon is starting anewwith several countries and private companies announcing missions. As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, after the successful landings of Chinese probes Chang’e 3 in 2013 and Chang’e 4 in January 2019, who will be the next space agency or company succeeding in landing the next spacecraft or putting the next man (or first woman) on the moon?
Our graphic gives a rundown of the main lunar missions announced to date. Given the remaining uncertainties surrounding some programs, the dates may be subject to change.
After a failed mission by the Israeli private company SpaceIL in April, it is the Indian space agency ISRO that will be up next, with the launch of Chandrayaan-2 moon rover mission currently delayed but to commence in 2019.
Three U.S. companies – Astrobotic, OrbitBeyond and Intuitive Machines – are scheduled to carry out a series of missions in anticipation of astronauts returning to the lunar surface. This is an objective that U.S. President Donald Trump would like to achieve in 2024 and that is supposed to be carried out by NASA in the Artemis 3 and 4 missions.
Another independent private mission, “DearMoon”, could see a Japanese billionaire accompanied by six artists making the first touristic flight around the moon in a SpaceX vessel as early as 2023.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the Moon Treaty has still not been ratified by most space-faring nations to date (except for three member countries of the European Space Agency). This treaty, adopted in 1979, stipulates that the moon may only be used for peaceful purposes and that any activity on the moon must comply with international laws.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Z1grPV Tyler Durden
One cannot speak too highly of Christophe Buffin de Chosal’s The End of Democracy. In a fast paced, readable, yet scholarly fashion, Professor Buffin de Chosal* demolishes the ideological justification in which modern democracy rests while he describes the disastrous effects that democratic rule has had on Western societies. He explodes the myth of Democracy as a protector of individual liberty, a prerequisite for economic progress, and a promoter of the higher arts. Once Democracy is seen in this light, a far more accurate interpretation of modern history can be undertaken. The book is a very suitable companion to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s iconoclastic take down of democracy in Democracy: The God That Failed, released at the beginning of this century. Buffin de Chosal has spoken of a follow up which will be eagerly awaited for.
Democratic Governance
The idea of rule by the people is a scam, one perpetuated by those who, in actuality, are in control of the government. Through the “democratic process” of voting and elections, a small, determined minority can impose its will despite majority opposition:
We often hear it said that ‘in a democracy, it is the people who rule…’
Rule by the people is a myth which loses all substance once confronted with the real practice in democracy. [13]
Quoting from a Russian philosopher, Buffin de Chosal continues his criticism:
The best definition [of democracy] was given by the Russian philosopher Vasily Rozanov. ‘Democracy is the system by which an organized minority governs an unorganized majority.’
This ‘unorganized majority’ is the people, aggregated and individualistic, incapable of reaction because disjointed. [28]
He expands upon Rozanov’s theme:
…[C]ontrary to what [democracy’s] principles proclaim: one can say that the majority almost never wins. Democracy is not the system of the majority, but that of the most powerful minority, and it has this power not simply due to its numbers, but also and above all due to its organization. [31]
Power does not reside in “the people” and certainly not in the individual. In democracy, the only way to express one’s preference or protect one’s rights is through the ballot box every so often. “Each voter,” writes Buffin de Chosal, “in a democracy, is the depositary of a tiny particle of sovereignty, in itself unusable. His sole power consists in dropping a ballot into a box, whereby he is immediately dispossessed of his particle of sovereignty at the profit of those who are going to represent him.” [Ibid.]
Popular democracy has always been condemned and feared by most thinkers since the beginning of human societies. It was not until intellectuals saw democracy as a way they could attain power that they began to advocate it as a system of social order. Prior to the democratic age, most of the learned understood that democracy would result in mob rule and the displacement of natural authority with demagogues. In short, the worst would rise to the top as the author describes the characteristics of a contemporary politician:
The ideal politician, on the other hand, is pliable, convincing, and a liar by instinct. He is not attached to any platform and has no ideological objective. The single thing to which he is truly committed is power. He wants its prestige and advantages, and seeks above all to be personally enriched by it. Any politician who presents this aspect is recognized as fit for power in a democracy…
It is therefore not surprising that democratically elected assemblies are almost exclusively comprised of these kinds of men and women. Elected heads of state almost always fit this profile, and international institutions, such as the European Union, consider it the only acceptable profile…. [35]
Democracy and the State
Since the advent of modern democracy, the principle benefactor of its rule has been the State and the politically-connected financial elites who are in actuality the true rulers of societies. Instead of putting an end to the supposedly despotic rule of the Ancien Régime, which Democracy’s proponents claim to have existed throughout the monarchial and aristocratic age, governance by the people, has instead witnessed an increase in state power and control of individual lives to an unprecedented level in human history. Few, if any, pope, emperor, king, prince, or duke have ever possessed such suzerainty.
In contrast to what has been taught in classrooms, on university campuses, and espoused throughout the media, individual rights and freedoms were far better guarded in the age prior to Democracy’s ascendancy. Pre-revolutionary Europe had social structures which insulated individuals from State power far more effectively than under modern democracy:
The concept of an organic society was abolished at the time of the French Revolution. The corps and orders were suppressed, the privileges were abolished, and everything which allowed the people to protect themselves from the power of the state was banished in the name of liberty. [24]
And in return for giving up the order that protected them from state depredations, the people received “sovereignty:”
They were given the false promise that they would no longer need to defend themselves from the state since they themselves were the state. But if a people organized into corps and orders are incapable of exercising sovereignty, how much more so a people comprising a formless mass of individuals! [Ibid.]
Historically, all of the democratic movements which supposedly stemmed from the people were, in fact, a falsehood, perpetuated largely by revolutionaries who sought to replace the established order with themselves. While legislatures, congresses, and democratic bodies of all sorts have been interpreted as the fruition of the masses’ desire for representation, the reality was quite different:
Democracy is not, in its origin, a system of the people. In England with the advent of the parliamentary system just as in France during the Revolution, it was not the people who were seen at work. Even the Russian Revolution was not a phenomenon of the people. To regard the people or what the communist elegantly call the ‘masses’ as the agent of change or political upheaval is purely a theoretical view, a historical myth, of which one sees no trace in reality. The ‘people’ were the pretext, the dupes, and almost always the victims of the revolutions, not the engines. [13]
Not only was propagation of the myth of popular support for democratic ideals propounded for the survival of the new social order, but putting these tenets into practice was accomplished, in large part, by the role of the “intellectual” an often neglected feature of standard historical analysis and the reason behind much social transformation:
The ‘nation’ met the desires of the philosophers who wanted to transfer power from the monarch to an enlightened, philosophical, and philanthropic class who, moreover, ought to be financially comfortable. The educated bourgeoisie of the time were the protagonists of this idea, and a portion of the nobility formed their audience. [13-14]
The intellectuals promoted Democracy because it would open up for them considerable opportunities for position and income in the nation state. It must be remembered that it was the intellectuals who justified the idea of Absolutism. Later, the intellectuals turned on the monarchies and sided with the emerging republican classes rightly believing that democratic governance would give them greater opportunities for power in the emerging nation states.
Democracy and Modern History
While most historians see the advancement of democracy and the development of legislative bodies over the course of the last centuries as an advancement in the human condition and one that has emanated from the people’s desire for greater political representation, Buffin de Chosal presents a far different and more accurate interpretation. “Democracy,” he asserts, “is not, in its origin a system of the people.” [13] All of the social movements which eventually led to the destruction of Christendom did not come from the people seeking a greater “voice” in their governance.
“The ‘people,’” he argues, “were the pretext, the dupes, and almost always the victims of the revolutions, not the engines.” [Ibid.] Liberty, Equality and Fraternity was not a popular cry, but one coined and used by the “enlightened” classes to mobilize and justify their overthrow of the French monarchy and with it the destruction of the Church.
The French Revolution was built on the idea of the ‘nation,’ which claimed to bring together the intellectual, social, and financial elite of the country. It was on this foundation that democracy was established and that it functioned during almost all of the nineteenth century. [Ibid.]
A similar historical narrative can be seen in England.
The rise and eventual triumph of representative democracy in England was not one that percolated from the masses itching for more freedom. “The appearance of the parliamentary system in England,” Buffin de Chosal contends, “was tied to the great movement of Church property confiscation begun under Henry VIII and continuing until the coming of the Stuarts.” [14]
After Henry gorged himself on the Church’s wealth, he sought to bribe as much of the nobility as possible with his ill-gotten gains to insure his power. An envious Parliament, however, wanted its cut of the loot which led to the great internecine struggle between Crown and Parliament which eventually ended in the suzerainty of the latter with the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The real power from then on rested with an oligarchical legislative branch:
The families who had thus helped themselves to the Church’s goods, morally justified by Protestant ethics, formed the gentry, the class of landowners who sat in Parliament. Parliament was not then, as one might believe today, an organ of poplar representation. It was an instrument in the hands of the gentry to defend its own class interests. [16-17]
That Parliament and the monarchy would become the two dominant ruling structures was the result of the breakdown of the feudal structure which was taking place not only in England, but across Europe. European monarchs continued to gain more and more power at the expense of the feudal landed elite. The gentry’s power and wealth was also on the wane with the rise of commercial centers which most of the time aligned themselves first with the kings and then later with Parliament. The eventual triumph of Parliament, however, did not mean greater democracy for the people:
The financial incentives for England’s adoption of the Protestant Reformation are therefore intimately connected with the bolstering of Parliamentary power. The Parliament in England was used to put the monarchy in check and to replace it with an oligarchic class of wealthy Protestants to whom the kings were required to submit. This is why the overthrow of James II in 1688 was a true revolution. It was not a popular revolution or the overthrowing of a tyranny, but it was the rebellion of a class implementing the transfer of sovereign power for its own profit. [17]
The Market Economy
The author takes a refreshing look at the market economy that sets straight the inaccurate and often times hostile analysis of it that frequently comes from conservative circles. He distinguishes and rightly points out that “pure capitalism” or the “unhampered market” is an “excellent thing” [123]. The free market is intimately tied with private property which is a prerequisite for a just society:
[Capitalism] proceeds from respect for private property. As capitalism is the reinvestment or saved money for the purpose of making new profits, it presupposes respect for property rights and free enterprise. It has existed in Europe since the Middle Ages and has contributed significantly to the development of Western society. [Ibid.]
He insightfully notes that “bad capitalism” often gets lumped in with its “good form” while the latter gets the blame for the baneful excesses of the former. “Monopoly capitalism,” “corporatism,” “the mixed economy,” and “crony capitalism” are not the result of the market process, but stem from “intervention” brought about by the State in favor of its business favorites through participatory democracy. In a truly free market, entrenched wealth is rarely maintained but is constantly subjected to challenges by competitors:
But what one ought to designate as bad capitalism is the concentration of wealth and power this wealth procures. This danger does not stem from capitalism itself but rather from parliamentary democracy, for it is democracy that enables money powers to dominate the political realm. [Ibid.]
The “monied interest” did not exist under “traditional monarchy,” but was a product of Democracy and the protection and extension of the “bad capitalistic” paradigm that came into being and was expanded by the rise of popular representative bodies. Assemblies, legislatures, and congresses, which emerged, became aligned with the banking and financial interests to bring about the downfall of the monarchies.
The concentration of political power could only be attained after the control of money and credit were centralized in the form of central banking and the gold standard was eliminated. Central banks have been an instrumental part of the democratic age, funding the nation state’s initiatives and enriching the politically- tied financial elites at the expense of everyone else.
Wealth concentration is not a by-product of the free market. Rarely are firms able to maintain their dominance for long periods of time. Many turn to the State to get protection and monopoly grants to ensure their position in the economy:
. . . capitalism only becomes harmful when it grants political power to the money powers. This was only made possible thanks to the advent of parliamentary democracy, which was an invention of liberalism. It is therefore the foundational principles of political liberalism (equality before the law, suppression of privileges, centralization of political power, censitary suffrage, and the accountability of ministers to the legislative houses) which have enabled the rise of a wealthy class and its power over society. [124]
Such sound economic analysis abounds throughout his tome.
Future Prospects
The author rightly sees that because of its nature and the type of personalities that it attracts, modern democracy cannot reform itself, but will eventually collapse from financial stress, war, and/or civil strife:
Parliamentary democracy rarely produces true statesmen, as its party system more often promotes ambitious and self-interested persons, demagogues, and even communication experts. These are generally superficial and egocentric individuals with a very limited understanding of society and man. These politicians do not have the makings of statesmen. They are adventurers who use the state to satiate their hunger for power and money or to benefit their party. [147]
Efforts to reform it, however, should not be totally dismissed since they could lead to more fundamental change and ultimately the creation of a new political paradigm for Western governance. Populism and the various movements around the globe which fall into that category should be encouraged. Populism, because of is lack of definite ideological underpinnings, has meant different things at different times to different people. Most populists, however, do not want to get rid of democratic forms of government, but want the system to be more “responsive” of its constituents instead of favoring entrenched political elites. Populism is a symptom of the growing failure of modern democracy’s inability to “deliver the goods” that it promises to a now growing dependency class.
As a means of getting rid of totalitarian democracy, populist movements and themes should always be encouraged:
In Europe, the only political forces today which could, in the more extreme of circumstances assume this rescue role are found on the side of populism. Conservative in its values, sometimes classically liberal when it is a matter of opposing the stifling interventionism of the state, and yet ready to defend social gains . . . populism is the only political current which comes to the defense of those interests of the population denied or ignored by the parties in power. [148]
He adds:
Populist parties, from the simple fact that they can bring together voters from both the left and the right, have a chance of coming to power in the near enough future. The deterioration of security conditions in Europe due to mass immigration plays in their favor. [148-49]
While he does not explicitly discuss it, a more concrete and ideological coherent idea and one of historical precedent, is that of secession. For all those who oppose the democratic order, secession is the most justifiable, logical, and practical strategy for the dissolution of the nation state. Secession movements, therefore, whether they do not outwardly condemn parliamentary democracy and only seek to establish a “better run” system, should always be supported.
Conclusion
The most likely scenario if there is to be a change in Western democratic life will be from a world-wide economic crisis and collapse of the financial system which will render the nation states unable to meet their financial obligations to their citizens. All economies are hopelessly indebted from their welfare state excesses and can never hope to meet their promises which now runs in the trillions. What will emerge in the aftermath of a collapse is hard to predict, but some form of authoritarianism is likely which will be centered on a one-world state with a single, irredeemable currency.
While the financial demise of Western-styled democracy will be evident for all to see, its ideological underpinnings which have justified its existence needs to be extirpated. Any hope of it being reconstituted to better serve “the people” needs to be shot down. There is no better place to start the de-mystification of Democracy than with Christophe Buffin de Chosal’s magnificent, The End of Democracy.
One of President Trump’s favorite talking points is promoting how his economic policies have lifted all Americans. He routinely cites the record low rate of black unemployment and how the economy is the “greatest ever.”
— President Trump tweeted Jan. 2018
“African American unemployment has reached its lowest rate ever recorded — ever! Ever! Remember ‘What do you have to lose?’ What do you have to lose, right? ‘What do you have to lose?’ I said.”
— Trump, at a campaign rally in Southaven, Miss., Oct. 2018
“You look at our economy. You look at jobs. You look at African American — the lowest in the history of our country, unemployment numbers — the best numbers they’ve ever had.”
— Trump tweeted July 2019
“The best economy in our lifetime!” @IngrahamAngle
— Trump tweeted July 2019
“Lots of great things to tell you about, including the fact that our economy is the best it has ever been. Best Employment & Stock Market Numbers EVER. I’ll talk also about people who love, and hate, our Country (mostly love)!”
New census data, reported via The Wall Street Journal, tells an entirely different story in the African-American communities across the country, one where the black homeownership rate has plunged to the lowest on record.
The black homeownership rate increased for three decades and reached nearly 50% in 2004, but all those gains were wiped out in the last decade, hitting a new record low in 1Q19.
The rate stabilized from 1Q16 through 3Q18, has since dove under the 2.5-year range to 41.1%. The rate plunged 1.8% from 3Q18 to 1Q19, which was a period in the economy where the most recent industrial slowdown started.
1Q19 was the first time in 20 years that Hispanics and blacks, the two most significant ethnic minorities in the U.S., have seen a divergence in the path towards the American dream: homeownership.
Policy analyst told The Journal that black communities have developed an indisputable wealth gap that has kept homeownership out of reach.
“We can see that discrimination is still there, although it has changed its form,” said Michela Zonta, a senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress.
The black unemployment rate being at ultra-low levels hasn’t translated into a stronger middle class in inner cities, thus the increase in home buying.
This could mean one of two things: either the jobs being provided are low skill and low wage, or the birth/death adjustment in the black unemployment rate highly overstated the number of employed so that the Trump administration can create enough propaganda in black communities that by the time 2020 comes around, inner cities would ditch Democrats for Republicans.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2O2tFuP Tyler Durden
