UK Study About “Doomsday Preppers” & “America’s Culture Of Fear” Has It All Wrong

Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blopg,

You may have seen some headlines about a new study that says “doomsday prepping” is increasing in the United States because of our “culture of fear.” There are several things to know about this study to understand that they have it all wrong.

First, they don’t understand who preppers are.

Allow me to start with the description of prepping in general. Here’s how the report on the study opens.

“Doomsday prepping” or stockpiling food, medicine, weapons, and other supplies in case of an apocalyptic scenario has long been considered peculiar behavior only exhibited by conspiracy theorists and other extremists in the United States. (source)

I suppose they’ve never heard of wildfirestornadoeshurricanesearthquakes, or even simple power outages over there in Canterbury, England where they wrote this article. I guess nobody over there ever loses his or her job or has a massive personal financial catastrophe and has to rely on the food that has been put back for a rainy day. I guess in their ivory academic tower they haven’t heard of Brexit but if they have the supply line difficulty that has been predicted, they’re darn sure going to wish they knew more about prepping.

The study seems to focus only on political extremists.

The study itself is out of Cambridge University and it is entitled Obamageddon: Fear, the Far Right, and the Rise of “Doomsday” Prepping in Obama’s America. Here’s the abstract.

This article examines the politics of American “doomsday” prepping during Barack Obama’s presidency. It challenges claims that growing interest in prepping post-2008 arose exclusively from extreme apocalyptic, white supremacist, and anti-government reactions to Obama’s electoral successes – claims that suggest prepping to be politically congruent with previous waves of extreme right-wing American “survivalism.” Drawing on ethnography, this paper argues that, while fears of Obama have been central to many preppers’ activities, much of their prepping under his presidency centred on fears that sit outside survivalist politics. Building on this, the article illuminates connections between prepping and America’s twenty-first-century electoral mainstream. Engaging with discussions about the “remaking” of American conservatism during Obama’s presidency, it particularly frames prepping’s growth as being engaged with, and shaped by, currents of mainstream anti-Obama fear that similarly undergirded the Tea Party’s rise within popular Republicanism at this time. (source)

The bibliography paints quite a picture.

I’m too cheap to pay Cambridge £25 to read the entire thing. And-omg-what-if-I-end-up-on-a-list? (sarc.) You can learn a lot from the bibliography, though. Many of the sources they cite are mainstream sources that have been mocking preppers for decades. Some of the articles I recall reading myself and rolling my eyes.

You get the idea. They just went online and searched “crazy doomsday preppers” or something like that and came up with these articles and probably got a hefty grant to do this “research.”  And we all know that the mainstream media loves to paint us as lunatics.

How the authors of this study see preppers

First, they seem to feel the need to add the word doomsday in front of the word preppers because that gives them the oomph for which they’re looking. The citations of the study said they chose respondents from six websites.

Respondents were recruited through appeals published on six prominent prepping websites (for example, www.doomandbloom.net). The websites selected were chosen because their content focusses on the practicalities of prepping – including instruction and guidance on various aspects of storing food and practising disaster medicine – rather than promoting particular political ideas.

And the respondents gave the kind of sensible answers most of us would expect. Except the authors still tried to paint them as political wingnuts. (Emphasis mine.)

In references to issues like Benghazi we see how, despite many preppers’ seemingly sincere disavowal of various conspiracy theories, their fears sometimes drew on speculative and pseudo-conspiratorial reporting through right-wing media. In particular, this case demonstrates how the prominence of the Benghazi attack as a story in right-wing media – around which reporting suggested that members of the Obama administration constructed a false narrative of spontaneous protest leading to the attack – fed into participants’ own assessments of the President. (The House Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee have since confirmed that these comments on protest were based on the CIA’s own conclusions at the time.) Here, respondents did not communicate elaborate theories concerning conspiracy related to Benghazi, as has sometimes been the case in right-wing culture. Nevertheless, mentions that, at a more basic level, the continued nature of the “scandal” had exposed the Obama administration’s poor performance in, and lack of proper commitment to, national security and foreign policy seemed to illustrate ways in which such thinking still indirectly resonated in their considerations on some occasions.

They even cited one lady who openly told them her concerns about Fema.

“The one exception to this within the sample was Gloria, a widowed prepper in Florida who at one point claimed, “FEMA … they do things with ulterior motives … In my opinion … and we all know what opinions are … FEMA has the FEMA camps and I truly feel that, at some point in time that, one of the leader’s executive orders … unsuspecting Americans will be put in these camps. It’s like a prisoner of war camp … guards, lights.”

Of course, preppers are white supremacist Christians.

Based on their carefully selected “evidence” that has pretty much nothing to do with the actual preppers they interviewed, they gleaned that as a whole, ‘preppers’ are all white Christian racist Tea Party members who hate former President Obama.

Because why wouldn’t you believe the mainstream media’s portrayal instead of the people you actually interviewed? This is an ideal example of a study set up to support a foregone conclusion.

Here are a few more citation examples. (Emphasis mine.)

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall and Cappella, Joseph, The Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Amato and Neiwert, Over the Cliff; Street and DiMaggio; DiMaggio; Press, Bill, The Obama Hate Machine: The Lies, Distortions, and Personal Attacks on the President – And Who Is behind Them (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2012)Google Scholar; Skocpol and Williamson; Berry, Jeffrey M. and Sobieraj, Sarah, The Outrage Industry: Political Opinion Media and the New Incivility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Skocpol, Theda and Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander, “The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism,” Perspectives on Politics, 14, 3 (Sept. 2016), 681–99CrossRef | Google Scholar.

Here’s what the study’s author has to say.

Dr. Michael Mills, lecturer in Criminology in the School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, was the person heading up the study. In an interview with Th University of Kent, he said his study was more “nuanced.” (Emphasis theirs.)

It found that, though fear of President Obama and his political agenda played a role, those who engaged in the activity were motivated more by the general culture of fear that informs modern mainstream American society. Further, the research argues that a regular flow of recommendations from the US government on how to prepare for potential disasters, including, for example, advice to stockpile water, have, to an extent, helped fuel the growth of ‘prepping’.

Dr Mills’ research presents a more nuanced view of prepping, which has traditionally been portrayed as an apocalyptic belief in imminent disaster or the end of the world. Rather, modern preppers are responding to a general sense of fear and concern about risks including economic collapse, cyber-attacks, terrorism, pandemics and environmental disasters, causing them to seek self-sufficiency ‘just in case’ the worst should happen. Much of this fear is not derived from extreme ideologies, but nevertheless remains connected to established right-wing politics in America, which views Obama and other Democratic Party leaders exclusively through fear.

He said: ‘Fear is now deeply entrenched in modern American culture and is the principal reason that so many citizens are engaging in ‘prepping’. Many believe that the government’s response in the event of a calamity, whether it’s a natural disaster or an act of terrorism, simply won’t be adequate to meet their needs. Many also believe that, under Democrat leadership, America becomes more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, financial collapse, and international hostility.

‘While the media portrays ‘preppers’ as extremists, our view is much more nuanced. Rather than seeing prepping as an exception within America’s right-wing political culture, we ought to see it as being reflective of increasingly established and popular outlooks.’ (source)

Then there are the liberal preppers.

Oh. Wait. There’s no mention of those preppers.

The study is flawed because it left out an entire demographic of new preppers – the ones who think President Trump signals the end of the world.  Here are several articles that should have been a part of their mainstream bibliography.

Interestingly, there’s no mention whatsoever in the people who are prepping because they’re concerned about the Trump administration.

To sum it up…

Let’s sum up this study and the commentary around it.

#1) The near-constant use of the phrase “doomsday preppers.” I don’t know a single person in my network who considers themselves a “doomsday prepper. They are using a phrase from a horrible television show developed to make us look like batcrap crazy extremists worrying about the literal end of the world. Most of us are more worried about the literal end of our paycheck than Armageddon.

#2) The research itself was biased. The bibliography shows dozens of references to the Tea Party, white supremacists, the “Christian identity movement,” President Obama, and Republicans. There are no references to leftist, liberal, atheist, agnostic, or pagan preppers, who actually make up a fair number of our ranks.

#3) They say it’s all about politics despite evidence to the contrary. The researchers gave more credence to mainstream articles about prepping than to the interviews with actual preppers. Even though Dr. Mills said, “modern preppers are responding to a general sense of fear and concern about risks including economic collapse, cyber-attacks, terrorism, pandemics, and environmental disasters, causing them to seek self-sufficiency ‘just in case’ the worst should happen” the study focused on political themes. Although preppers who were interviewed talked rationally, they only cited the one who discussed a conspiracy theory in their bibliography.

#4) They completely ignore the politically-motivated liberal preppers. Despite the fact that this study was published during the third year of President Trump’s administration, there was absolutely no commentary on Antifa, Democrats who began prepping when Trump was elected, or any type of left-wing extremists, despite the fact that I was able to pull up dozens of articles within seconds with a quick Google search of “liberal preppers.”  In fact, the only mention in the entire bibliography of the current president was “Johnson, 310. See also SPLC, 2017; Neiwert, David, Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump (London: Bloomsbury, 2017) Google Scholar.

Real preppers know it isn’t about fear.

If you’re actually a prepper or survivalist, you know that it isn’t about fear. It’s about common sense and preparation for reasonable and realistic threats.

While certainly there are extremists out there, they aren’t limited to the world of preparedness. Preppers are not limited to one political demographic, one religion, one philosophy, or one race. The reasons we prepare are as varied as the number of families preparing. Most of us quite sensibly prepare for a variety of potential emergencies or crises.

And most of all, prepping is not about doom and gloom.

Does this sound familiar? You’re talking to a friend or family member who isn’t on board with preparedness.  (And it’s even worse when they think they know what’s going on in the world but garner their so-called “information” from network news sources.)  You try for the millionth time to get them to consider stocking up on a few things and they say this:

“Life’s too short for all of this doom and gloom.  Live a little! You’re such a pessimist!”

My response to this is that preparedness is the ultimate form of optimism.

One who practices skills, makes dramatic lifestyle changes, and studies current events critically may come across to the uninitiated as a person who has buried himself or herself in negativity, but in fact, one who prepares is saying to life, “Whatever comes, we are not only going to live through it, my family is going to thrive!” (source)

Clearly, the optimistic, well-balanced approach to a prepared life isn’t what they were looking for in England when they examined our “culture of fear.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZYSo4N Tyler Durden

China Datapocalypse Confirms Deeper Economic Slump – Everything Missed

With currency turmoil and social unrest, China’s economic assault tonight was supposed be the great equalizer – confirming that a few trillion here or there and everything looks awesome and happy, and not a tiny bit angry (and that the Americans are not to blame for everything).

Ahead of today’s data, broadly speaking, macro data globally has been weak, but in China, recent credit growth numbers slumped and steel production slowed, suggesting graver concerns. And so here it is…

  • China Industrial Production BIG MISS +4.8% (+6.0% exp, +6.3% prior)

  • China Retail Sales BIG MISS +7.6% (+8.6% exp, +9.8% prior)

  • China Fixed Asset Investment MISS +5.7% (+5.8% exp, +5.8% prior)

  • China Property Investment MISS +10.6% (+10.9% prior)

  • China Surveyed Jobless Rate MISS +5.3% (+6.0% exp, +6.3% prior)

Now all that is left is to figure out if bad news is good news, or not…

(The principle of “housing is for living in, not for speculation” was mentioned at the politburo meeting again last month.)

Finally, for a few minutes the world spiked after China set the yuan fix slightly stronger; we are not so impressed, nor is the yuan…

And stocks and bond yields tumbling…

So with inflation spiking, currency crashing, social-unrest; will the PBOC flood the nation with cash to ensure happiness at October’s CCP Anniversary?

It’s just that the sugar high from the injection is getting shorter…

Chen Yuan, former deputy governor of PBOC warned that “the trade war is evolving into a financial war and a currency war.”

As goes China, so goes the world.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MhoHbV Tyler Durden

Escobar: How Tehran Fits Into Russia-China Strategy

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

Complex doesn’t even begin to describe the positioning of Iran-Russia in the geopolitical chessboard. What’s clear in our current, volatile moment is that they’re partners, as I previously reported. Although not strategic partners, as in the Russia-China tie-up, Russia-China-Iran remain the crucial triad in the ongoing, multi-layered, long-term Eurasia integration process.

A few days after our Asia Times report, an article – based on “senior sources close to the Iranian regime” and crammed with fear-mongering, baseless accusations of corruption and outright ignorance about key military issues – claimed that Russia would turn the Iranian ports of Bandar Abbas and Chabahar into forward military bases complete with submarines, Spetsnaz special forces and Su-57 fighter jets, thus applying a “stranglehold” to the Persian Gulf.

For starters, “senior sources close to the Iranian regime” would never reveal such sensitive national-security details, much less to Anglo-American foreign media. In my own case, even though I have made several visits to Iran while consistently reporting on Iran for Asia Times, and even though authorities at myriad levels know where I’m coming from, I have not managed to get answers from Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps generals to 16 detailed questions I sent nearly a month ago. According to my interlocutors, these are deemed “too sensitive” and, yes, a matter of national security.

Predictably, the report was fully debunked. One of my top Tehran sources, asked about its veracity, was blunt: “Absolutely not.” After all, Iran’s constitution decisively forbids foreign troops stationed on national soil. The Majlis – Iranian parliament – would never approve such a move barring an extreme case, as in the follow-up to a US military attack.

As for Russia-Iran military cooperation, the upcoming joint military exercises in the “northern part of the Indian Ocean,” including the Strait of Hormuz, are a first-ever such occasion, made possible only by a special agreement.

Analyst Gennady Nechaev is closer to reality when he notes that in the event of growing Russia-Iran cooperation, the possibility would be open for “permanent basing of the Russian Navy in one of the Iranian ports with the provision of an airfield nearby – the same type of arrangement as Tartus and Hmeimim on the Mediterranean coast of Syria.”  To get there, though, would be a long and winding road.

And that brings us to Chabahar, which poses an interesting question. Chabahar is a deep sea port, on the Gulf of Oman and the key plank in India’s mini-Silk Road vision. India invested a lot in Chabahar, to have it connected by highway to Afghanistan and Central Asia and in the future by rail to the Caucasus. All that so India may bypass Pakistan as far as trade routes are concerned.

Chabahar, though, may also become an important node of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative. India and China – as well as Russia – are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Iran, sooner or later, will also become a full SCO member. Only then the possibility “might” – and the emphasis is on “might” – open for the Russian or Chinese navy occasionally to dock at Chabahar, but still not to use it as a forward military base.

Got oil, will travel

On Iran, the Russia-China strategic partnership is working in parallel. China’s priority is energy supplies – and Beijing works the chessboard accordingly. The Chinese ambassador to the United Arab Emirates just issued a trial balloon, mentioning that Beijing might consider escorting oil tankers across the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. That could happen independently or – the dangling carrot – as part of Washington’s Operation Sentinel, which for the moment has managed to find only one “coalition of the willing” member: the UK.

What’s actually happening right now in the Persian Gulf is way more entertaining. As I confirmed with energy traders in Doha late last month, demand for oil right now is higher than in 2018. And in consequence Iran continues to sell most of its oil.

A tanker leaves Iran with transponder off; the oil is transferred to another tanker on the high seas; and then it is relabeled.

According to a trader, “If you take two to three million barrels a day off the market by sanctions on Venezuela and Iran, plus the OPEC cutbacks, you would have to see a higher price.”

There is no higher price. Brent crude remains near a seven-month low, around US$60 a barrel. This means that Iran continues to sell, mostly to China. That trial balloon floated in the UAE might well be China camouflaging its continued purchase of Iranian oil.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has been proving again and again his diplomatic mastery, running rings around the Donald Trump administration. But all major decisions in Iran come from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. That also applies to Tehran’s position in relation to multi-level forms of support from the Russia-China strategic partnership.

What the past few months have made crystal clear is how Russia-China’s magnetic pull is attracting key Eurasia players Iran, Turkey and Pakistan. And make no mistake: As much as Tehran may be extremely proud of its political independence, it is reassuring to know that Iran is, and will continue to be, a definitive red line for Russia-China.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2KJtKia Tyler Durden

China Mocks Trump Tariff Delay As Proof He Is Losing The Trade War

On Tuesday Trump pulled off another signature twitter shock, when just after noon, the President bowed to pressure from U.S. businesses, the stock market and concerns over the economic fallout of his trade war with China, delaying the imposition of new tariffs until December on a majority of consume goods including cell phones, laptop computers, video game consoles, certain toys, computer monitors, footwear, clothing, textiles, kitchen utensils, cookware, some watches, musical instruments, paper clips, children’s chairs, bouncers, some sporting goods, fishing tackle, combs, brushes, cigarette lighters and pipes, vacuum flasks and diapers. As we said earlier, it is almost as if Trump realized that a surge in prices of consumer goods which would inevitably have taken place had the tariffs kicked in on Sept 1…

… would have ruined any plans the Fed may have to cut rates further, just as Trump demanded.

Tuesday’s move to hit the pause button in his fight with China came as senior officials on both sides had their first phone conversation since Trump threatened the tariffs at the beginning of this month. It also cheered markets that had been growing increasingly concerned over the impact of trade tensions on a slowing global economy, and in response, stocks halted a steep two-day slide.

There were some question how Trump picked the list of goods he did to delay tariffs on. According to Axios, “the list of goods from China that won’t be subject to a 10% tariff until Dec. 15 is made up of “products where 75% or more of the 2018 U.S. imports of that product were from China,” according to an email sent to trade groups from the U.S. Trade Representative Office. And while the significance of the 75% cutoff is unclear, it is likely the threshold level for substitute goods beyond which the USTR finds that the risk of an inflationary spike is too high.

So what happens next?

According to Standard Chartered’s Steven Englander, the US will now expect China to reciprocate by buying US agricultural products in the coming weeks. That may very well not happen.But while it is unclear if the lack of a reciprocal “olive branch” would be a dealbreaker for Trump, what is likely is that any widespread shift in sentiment that Trump retreated and waved a white flag of surrender, could very quickly undo the tariff delay as the last thing Trump wants, is to be seen as weak and ineffectual, or his trade war strategy as inefficient, not by his base, and certainly not by his opponent, China.

And yet, in the first reactions to Trump’s announced tariff delay, this is precisely how China is describing today’s event.

As the state-owned, nationalist tabloid Global Times “explains” to the Chinese population, “Chinese experts said the sudden postponing of impending tariffs showed that the maximum pressure tactics of the US are losing their bite when it comes to China.”

As the Chinese tabloid further notes, “these measures are set to greatly reduce the weight of US tariffs, as electronics goods alone account for about $130 billion” and adds that according to “Chinese experts reached by the Global Times on Tuesday night the latest development showed the US maximum pressure tactic is not working on China, but they said it could pave the way for trade talks scheduled for September. However, they were cautious about the potential for any flip-flopping.”

“The US has realized that its maximum pressure strategy to force China back to the negotiating table has not worked as expected. Washington knows that only through talks can the two sides reach a deal,” Wang Jun, chief economist at Zhongyuan Bank, told the Global Times on Tuesday.

The quoted “expert” also said he doubted (correctly) whether the decision would stand, given Washington’s flip-flop approach in trade negotiations: “Trump is looking for a way out. It also shows that both China and the US are highly dependent on each other, and the practice of imposing tariffs does not necessarily bring China to its knees,” said Liang Qi, a professor from Nankai University.

Liang then added that “we also can see that imposing tariffs may harm the interests of the US, making it hard for Trump’s re-election”, suggesting that not only is the tariff delay a tacit ceasefire offer, if not outright surrender, it is also a political gambit that hands over all the leverage to China, which now will have the upper hand to determine the fate of Trump’s re-election depending on how it proceeds with trade negotiations.

Bai Ming, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation said that the tariff increase delay shows the US is not willing to cut off the two countries’ negotiation channels when talks are on the verge of failure.

But Bai warned that it might also be a stalling tactic as the US has found that its extreme pressure on China has not generated the results it had hoped for.

And so, with the Global Times repeating no less than three times that the US tactic of “extreme (or maximum) pressure” has failed, the implication is simple: Trump’s trade war strategy has led him to a dead end, and the result is that China now has the upper hand.

That could be a problem, because even if the Global Times is right in its assessment of the balance of power, all that would take for Trump to change his mind is to be perceived as failing – or worse, weak – in his campaign against China. And that’s precisely what the top power echelon in Beijing is now telegraphing to the population via the state-owned media.

Which leads us to believe that with Navarro still firmly in control of the trade war strategy, it is only a matter of days if not hours, before Trump once again flip flops, just as he did after the G-20 summit where the two nations allegedly reached a “ceasefire” only for it to crash and burn just weeks later.

And so, unless China buys a lot of US agri products in the coming weeks, and we don’t see any specific reason why Xi would want to “bend the knee” to a president Trump who is according to the Chinese media losing the trade war, we fully expect today’s relief rally to reverse quickly as Trump realizes that delay or no delay, a deal with China is simply impossible, as the “trade war” is not about trade at all, but an ever escalating conflict of two civilizations, one which may be resolved on the battlefield, either literally or metaphorically, but will never be decided on a piece of paper.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YGU1r0 Tyler Durden

Millennials Consider Living in ‘Glampervans’ Instead of Overpriced San Francisco Apartments 

As the cost of rents and home prices continue to outpace wages in the Bay Area, one company is building luxurious camper vans for millennials looking for alternative housing options.

The company is called “Glampervan,” which is based in San Francisco, turns commercial vans into full-blown glamping vehicles, has a bed, kitchen, refrigerator, table, and a rooftop deck.

The glorified RV appears to be influenced by broke millennials, who cannot afford to own overpriced homes nor pay inflated rents in the Bay Area. 

Glampervan chief excursion officer Rob Novotny told ABC 7 San Francisco, that the glamper vans were initially designed for millennial weekend glamping trips, but have become a full-time residence for many.

“One that comes to mind is a woman who is spending $5,000 for a 2-bedroom apartment and she actually has all the parking spots all throughout the city worked out already,” chief excursion officer” Rob Novotny explained. “Like, this one is a Thursday; this one is a Wednesday and all that so that she won’t get hassled and stay moving.”

New rules in San Francisco make it illegal for people to sleep in their cars overnight, but that isn’t stopping thousands of people from living in RVs and vans.
 

“Glampervans,” which range from $50,000-$90,0000, can be outfitted with queen-sized beds, a dining table, a kitchen with a sink and refrigerator, cabinet space and even a portable toilet.

“You just take this to your nearest Starbucks or behind a tree and pour it out,” Novotny said about the waste tank while showing ABC 7 how the toilet works.

Glampervan employee Sam Ausden, who lives in his van has a stove, fireplace, and shower.

“It’s been really easy and just allowed me to now establish myself in the Bay Area here without the exorbitant rent prices, but still having my own space to call my own,” Ausden said.

He also said he’d cut his commute time from several hours to a matter of seconds.

“I used to commute two hours a day to work, now I’m five feet to the front door of my office here,” he said.

During a Glampervan expo on Saturday, millennial Damien Rasmussen said he’s seriously considering making the transition from his apartment into a van in the Bay Area.

“I don’t mean to sound harsh but this is the reality here in San Francisco,” he said. “I mean, you’ve been around and see all the people living in their cars and trailers. This at least is making an effort to have something cleaner.”

The only concern Rasmussen has is going from 450 sq feet to 80 sq feet, and also the parking.

“Where do you call your home base?” he asked. “If you cut your ties completely with your apartment, then you can’t get a parking permit, so those are the trade-offs.”

San Francisco officials counted nearly 1,800 people living in their vehicles in 2019, a 45% jump from 2017.

Across the bay in Alameda County, home of Oakland, 2,817 individuals were living out of vehicles, a figure that has more than doubled since 2017.

About 400 miles south in Los Angeles, about 10,000 vehicles are currently acting as shelter for 16,525 people this year.

Oakland has been the first to build a safe parking site and working to develop its second. These sites will have security, bathrooms, showers, and social services.

Overall, the total number of homeless counted in San Francisco in January 2019 was nearly 10,000 – the hidden homeless crisis continues to expand if that is on the street, or in vehicles.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YZ8nhX Tyler Durden

Is Biden The Manchurian Candidate?

Authored by Graham Noble via LibertyNation.com,

The 2020 Democratic National Convention is still 11 months away, so the party’s campaign gurus and communications people need not yet panic about the fact that former Vice President Joe Biden is still the front runner in the nomination race. The worry must be seeping in, though.

Biden manages to say something stupid, offensive, or just flat-out untruthful every time he opens his mouth. If he is the best the Democrats can do for a presidential candidate, then the fat lady is already singing a lament for the party’s demise.

Joe Biden

Just type Biden’s name into any online search engine, and one will find an extensive list of articles detailing the former senator’s many verbal gaffes – which range from puzzling flubs to outrageous distortions of reality. For comedic value, here are a few of Uncle Joe’s most recent and not-so-recent blunders:

At an Iowa town hall event, Biden told his audience that “Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.” Though he immediately tried to correct himself and later conceded that he “misspoke,” the man has a long history of making racially charged gaffes.

As Barack Obama’s running mate, Biden described the future president thusly: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Whites Over Blacks, Truth Over Facts

One cannot help but wonder if “Sleepy Joe” – as President Donald Trump is wont to refer to him – has a deep-rooted belief that blacks simply are not on the same level as whites. When a person has a habit of making off-the-cuff remarks that imply that non-whites are, in general, less able and less acceptable than whites, it is hard to ignore the possibility that the person making those remarks has some ingrained beliefs regarding the racial superiority of white people.

Another recent zinger occurred Aug. 8, again in Iowa, where Democratic candidates are battling it out for this important upcoming primary. “We choose science over fiction,” Biden told the crowd during a stump speech. “We choose truth over facts.”

This, of course, may not have been a gaffe at all. Leftists have crafted their own truth about the world, human society, and economics. Their “truth” has very little to do with facts, so perhaps the 2020 hopeful merely was stating what he and his political kinfolk actually believe.

Biden’s Big Charlottesville Lie

Biden’s favorite misrepresentation of actual events concerns the current president and the aftermath of the 2017 Charlottesville, VA, protests and counter-protests over the removal of a Confederate statue. There is no denying that many of the people who gathered could be described accurately as “white nationalists” and perhaps as “neo-Nazis.” Few honest observers would dispute this, and the most tragic event in Virginia was the killing of a young woman caused by a white nationalist who drove a car into a crowd of counter-protesters.

Biden constantly claims that Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides” of the Charlottesville dispute. On Aug. 8, Biden’s communications director, Bill Russo, even tweeted a transcript of the president’s remarks to journalists shortly after the event. In this transcript, Trump is quoted as telling the reporter: “[B]ut you also had some people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

The president did say those words. In Russo’s tweeted version of the transcript, the first part of Trump’s remark has been edited. In response to a reporter who said, “The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville,” Trump answered, “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group.”

This is Russo’s version of what Trump said: “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves – and you had some very bad people in that group.”

Russo tweeted a copy of the transcript that omitted Trump referencing the fact that the protesters had not identified themselves as neo-Nazis. Clearly, the Biden campaign wanted to create the impression that a group of men openly identifying themselves as neo-Nazis had shown up in Charlottesville and that the president was saying those men were “very fine people.”

Conveniently, Russo did not cite his source for this version of Trump’s remarks. He could not credibly do so, of course, because it was clearly altered for partisan purposes. Whether Russo himself created a doctored version of the original exchange between Trump and reporters at the Aug. 15, 2017, press conference is not clear. Perhaps Biden’s campaign simply borrowed an altered version of the exchange published on some left-wing blog.

Context is everything, of course. On the same day as the presser, Politico published a full transcript of Trump’s remarks. It should be noted that Politico is not a conservative publication and is not in the business of misrepresenting Trump’s words to protect him from criticism.

Although the intended subject of the press conference had been infrastructure, the president was forced to devote a large part of it fielding further questions about Charlottesville.

“[Y]ou had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

Joel Pollak of Breitbart News confronted Biden in Iowa over his mischaracterizing of Trump’s Charlottesville comments. The latter became irate before scurrying away to avoid being challenged further. Pollak pointed out that the president had, in fact, told reporters that neo-Nazis should be condemned.

“He did not,” Biden answered. “Let’s get this straight. He said there were very fine people in both groups. They were chanting anti-Semitic slogans, carrying flags.”

Not every person who has protested the removal of Confederate statues is a neo-Nazi, as the left implies. The president acknowledged this fact while also clearly and unequivocally stating that neo-Nazis and white nationalists “should be condemned totally.” That Biden and his campaign continue to misrepresent these facts is shameful.

Is Biden’s Lead Now Just Embarrassing?

His verbal gaffes, his long history of changing his position on almost every major political issue, and his shady dealings with the Chinese and the Ukrainians make Biden’s presidential prospects seem laughable. Throw in his fondling of women and young girls, and one could be forgiven for thinking the guy is working secretly to get Trump re-elected.

The current state of the Democrats’ nomination campaign makes it seem the party is in a very uncomfortable position. Likely primary voters still heavily favor the former VP, but many in the party – as well as many on the more extreme left of its voting base – are not at all happy with the prospect of presidential candidate Biden.

Hillary Clinton

In September 2016, Hillary Clinton vented her frustration with her own failing presidential bid. “[W]hy aren’t I 50 points ahead [of Trump], you might ask?” she whined. Of course, everybody but Hillary knew why she was not ahead: A lot of Americans cannot stand the sight of her, she ran a terrible campaign, and she openly insulted a large section of the voting public.

By now, some of the leading 2020 Democrat contenders must be asking themselves the same question: Why is Biden, a cross between Mr. Magoo and Homer Simpson, stumbling and lurching from one idiotic comment to the next, still crushing it in the polls?

At this point, it is just plain embarrassing for many Democrats that Biden is the leading contender. It is worth noting, though, that for all of his mind-numbing mistakes and tall tales worthy of Baron von Munchausen, Biden owes his lead to the fact that he is the only candidate not on the extreme left who has national name recognition. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Kamala Harris (D-CA) currently split the lion’s share of the progressive/socialist vote.

Source: RealClearPolitics

When only one of those three remains in the contest, he or she is likely to be polling well ahead of “Middle-Class but Extremely Wealthy” Joe. It is yet to be determined whether the radical wing or the slightly more rational wing of the Democratic Party will win out in the battle to choose the challenger to Trump. Biden already is slipping, and losing his grip on the primary polls’ top spot perhaps is inevitable. At that point, the sighs of relief coming the left might be as loud as thunder.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MWH0mh Tyler Durden

India’s Car Market Just Crashed, Had Its Worst Month In 18 Years

Automobile sales in India are crashing at the steepest pace since December 2000, an auto industry body told Reuters on Tuesday.

The Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) said domestic passenger vehicle sales in July plunged 30.9% to 200,790. It’s the ninth consecutive month of declines and the steepest drop in 18 years.

India has been a significant manufacturing hub for carmakers until 2017, with annual sales of passenger vehicles growing by 33% over the past five years.

The downturn in the automobile industry is a significant obstacle for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government because autos account for 50% of India’s manufacturing output.

Automobile companies, directly and indirectly, employ more than 35 million people.

“If this industry goes down, then everything gets hurt. Manufacturing, jobs, and revenue to the government,” Vishnu Mathur, director general, SIAM, told Reuters on Tuesday, adding that car and motorcycle manufacturers have already slashed about 15,000 jobs.

Federation of Automobile Dealers Associations (FADA) warned that the automobile downturn would continue to cycle down through 2H19, leading to more job losses with dealerships and across the entire industry.

“The majority of job cuts have happened in the last three months…It started around May and continued through June and July,” FADA President Ashish Harsharaj Kale told Press Trust of India.

Kale said, “Right now most of the cuts which have happened are in front-end sales jobs, but if this (slowdown) continues, then even the technical jobs will be affected because if we are selling less then we will also service less, so it is a cycle.”

Already, the auto sector has cut as many as 350,000 jobs; this includes auto manufacturing, auto parts manufacturing, and dealership jobs.

Last month, Bosch Ltd, the largest parts maker in India, published a memo that outlined how it suspended operations at its Gangaikondan plant in Tamil Nadu for a week in late July to “avoid unnecessary build-up of inventory.”

Ram Venkataramani, President, Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA), said the 15% to 20% cut in auto production had triggered an auto crisis in India, could lead to at least one million people being laid off.

The auto crisis – regarded by industry executives as a disastrous downturn that could be one of the worst seen in the country’s history.

Auto companies have asked the Modi government for tax breaks to offset the slump.

“The data shows an urgent need for a revival package from the government. The industry is doing everything possible to increase sales, but it needs government support to prevent the crisis from worsening,” Mathur told reporters in New Delhi.

The current manufacturing slowdown in India is cyclical and isn’t expected to trough for the next several years. Autos were the first domino to fall, and next, it could be the Indian consumer. The bust cycle has begun. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Z4BIrg Tyler Durden

“The Distortion Is Grotesque” – Google Insider Turns Over 950 Pages Documenting Bias To DoJ

Via SaraACarter.com,

A former Google insider claiming the company created algorithms to hide its political bias within artificial intelligence platforms – in effect targeting particular words, phrases and contexts to promote, alter, reference or manipulate perceptions of Internet content – delivered roughly 950 pages of documents to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust division Friday.

The former Google insider, who has already spoken in to the nonprofit organization Project Veritas, met with SaraACarter.com on several occasions last week. He was interviewed in silhouette, to conceal his identity, in group’s latest film, which they say exposes bias inside the social media platform.

Several weeks prior, the insider mailed a laptop to the DOJ containing the same information delivered on Friday, they said. The former insider is choosing to remain anonymous until Project Verita’s James O’Keefe reveals his identity tomorrow (Wednesday).

He told this reporter on his recent trip to Washington D.C. that the documents he turned over to the Justice Department will provide proof that Google has been manipulating the algorithms and the evidence of how it was done, the insider said.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai told the House Judiciary Committee in December, 2018, that the search engine was not biased against conservatives. Pichai explained what algorithm’s are said Google’s algorithm was not offensive to conservatives because its artificial intelligence does not operate in that manner. He told lawmakers, “things like relevance, freshness, popularity, how other people are using it” are what drives the search results. Pichai said even if his programmers were anti-Republican, the process is so intricate that the artificial intelligence could not be manipulated and it was to complicated to train the algorithm to fit their bias.

Google did not immediately respond for comment on the insider’s claims, however, this story will be updated if comment is provided.

The insider says Google is aware most people are unaware or not knowledgeable about these advanced IT systems and therefore unable to determine who is telling the truth.

“I honestly think that a free market can fix this issue,” he told this reporter at a meeting in Washington D.C.

“The issue is that the free market has been distorted and what’s happened is that the distortion is so grotesque and the engineering is so repulsive, all we need to do is just expose what’s going on. People can hear that it is bad but that can be bias. But when they see what Google has actually written with the documents, this will actually be taught in universities of what totalitarian states can do with this type of capability.”

“It will be so revolting that it doesn’t matter what the solution is, a solution will just form as a reaction to this manipulation they have done,” the Google insider said.

He said he’s asked himself many times if he’s overreacting “and every time I simply look back at the documents and realize that I am not.”

“It’s that bad,” he said. “Disclosing Google’s own words to the American public is something I am, must do, if I am to consider myself a good person. The world that google is building is not a place I, or you or our children want to live in.”

Another Google insider, who has come forward already, told O’Keefe and other media outlets recently that it is the programers at Google who use the algorithms to manipulate the information to advance its leftist agenda.

Greg Coppola, a software engineer, told Project Veritas that he doesn’t “have a smoking gun.”

However,  “I’ve just been coding since I was ten, I have a Ph.D., I have five years of experience at Google, and I just know how algorithms are. They don’t write themselves. We write them to make them do what we want them to do.”

“I look at Search and I look at Google News, and I see what it’s doing,” he said.

“I see Google executives go to Congress and say … that it’s not political, and I’m just so sure that that’s not true.”

Department of Justice officials declined to comment on the document dump.

But SaraACarter.com has reviewed the documents and obtained proof from the Google insider that the documents were delivered to the DOJ.

The unnamed Google insider first spoke to O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. O’Keefe has been criticized by the left for outing the political bias of executives and employees of Google and other social media companies.

In the nonprofits most recent video, Project Veritas uses their undercover techniques to get Google employees to talk openly about their disdain for Trump and how their artificial intelligence operates.

Jenn Gennai, who heads Google’s Responsible Innovation Team, did not know she was being filmed by O’Keefe’s group. She told the undercover journalist that “the reason we launched our AI principals is because we’re not putting our line in the sand. They were not saying what’s fair and what’s equitable so we’re like, well we’re a big company, we’re going to say it.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31FkYsq Tyler Durden

Move Over, SpaceX: China’s LinkSpace Successfully Launches And Lands Reusable Rocket

Move over, SpaceX.

LinkSpace, China’s first private rocket company, successfully launched its independently developed reusable rocket on Saturday morning in Northwest China’s Qinghai Province, according to the Global Times

The rocket is 8.1 meters long and flew to a designated height of 300 meters before safely landing with an accuracy of 7 centimeters in 50 second. Wan Mei, vice president of LinkSpace, said:

 “This is a new milestone in China’s reusable rocket research.”

The company said that the rocket can be used multiple times and has a low test cost and capability of rapid iteration. The launch also “successfully tested several other key technologies for reusable rockets, including new ignition and launching technology, and technology of parallel connection of multiple engines.”

On the same day, the company announced a new project for a 14 meter long rocket that can be launched more than 100 times per year after the technology is perfected.

LinkSpace launched its first rocket in October 2018, which carried a small satellite for a state media group. Since 2014, the Chinese government has actively encouraged private businesses to tackle the space industry. There are now more than 60 private companies in the space industry in China. 

Video of the rocket landing can be seen here:

 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Z2gD0z Tyler Durden

Seth Rich’s Ghost Won’t Go Away

Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

As if it weren’t enough of a downer for Russiagate true-believers that no Trump-Russia collusion was found, federal judges are now demanding proof that Russia hacked into the DNC in the first place.

It is shaping up to be a significant challenge to the main premise of the shaky syllogism that ends with “Russia did it.”

If you’re new to this website, grab onto something, as the following may come as something of a shock. Not only has there never been any credible evidence to support the claim of Russian cyber interference, there has always been a simple alternative explanation that involves no “hacking” at all — by Russia or anyone else.

As most Consortium News habitués are aware, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (which includes two former NSA technical directors), working with independent forensic investigators, concluded two years ago that what “everyone knows to be Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee” actually involved an insider with physical access to DNC computers copying the emails onto an external storage device — such as a thumb drive. In other words, it was a leak, not a hack.

VIPS based its conclusion on the principles of physics applied to metadata and other empirical information susceptible of forensic analysis.

But if a leak, not a hack, who was the DNC insider-leaker? In the absence of hard evidence, VIPS refuses “best-guess”-type “assessments” — the kind favored by the “handpicked analysts” who drafted the evidence-impoverished, so-called Intelligence Community Assessment of Jan. 6, 2017.

Dulles: Wielded “conspiracy theorist” as a weapon.

Conspiracy Theorists

Simply letting the name “Seth Rich” pass your lips can condemn you to the leper colony built by the Washington Establishment for “conspiracy theorists,” (the term regularly applied to someone determined to seek tangible evidence, and who is open to alternatives to “Russia-did-it.”)

Rich was a young DNC employee who was murdered on a street in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2016. Many, including me, suspect that Rich played some role in the leaking of DNC emails toWikiLeaks. There is considerable circumstantial evidence that this may have been the case. Those who voice such suspicions, however, are, ipso facto, branded “conspiracy theorists.”

That epithet has a sordid history in the annals of U.S. intelligence. Legendary CIA Director Allen Dulles used the “brand-them-conspiracy-theorists” ploy following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy when many objected — understandably — to letting him pretty much run the Warren Commission, even though the CIA was suspected of having played a role in the murder. The “conspiracy theorist” tactic worked like a charm then, and now. Well, up until just now.

Rich Hovers Above the Courts

U.S. Courts apply far tougher standards to evidence than do the intelligence community and the pundits who loll around lazily, feeding from the intelligence PR trough. This (hardly surprising) reality was underscored when a Dallas financial adviser named Ed Butowsky sued National Public Radio and others for defaming him about the role he played in controversial stories relating to Rich.On August 7, NPR suffered a setback, when U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant affirmed a lower court decision to allow Butowsky’s defamation lawsuit to proceed.

Judge Mazzant ruled that NPR had stated as “verifiable statements of fact” information that could not beverified, and that the plaintiff had been, in effect, accused of being engaged in wrongdoing without persuasive sourcing language.

Isikoff: Russians started it. (Wikipedia)

Imagine! — “persuasive sourcing” required to separate fact from opinion and axes to grind! An interesting precedent to apply to the ins and outs of Russiagate. In the courts, at least, this is now beginning to happen. And NPR and others in similarly vulnerable positions are scurrying around for allies.??The day after Judge Mazzant’s decision, NPR enlisted help from discredited Yahoo! News pundit Michael Isikoff (author, with David Corn, of the fiction-posing-as-fact novel Russian Roulette). NPR gave Isikoff 37 minutes on its popular Fresh Air program to spin his yarn about how the Seth Rich story got started. You guessed it; the Russians started it. No, we are not making this up.

It is far from clear that Isikoff can be much help to NPR in the libel case against it. Isikoff’s own writings on Russiagate are notably lacking in “verifiable statements of fact” — information that cannot be verified. Watch, for example, his recent interview with Consortium News Editor Joe Lauria on CN Live!

Isikoff admitted to Lauria that he never saw the classified Russian intelligence document reportedly indicating that three days after Rich’s murder the Russian SVR foreign intelligence service planted a story about Rich having been the leaker and was killed for it. This Russian intelligence “bulletin,” as Isikoff called it, was supposedly placed on a bizarre website that Isikoff admitted was an unlikely place for Russia to spread disinformation. He acknowledged that he only took the word of the former prosecutor in the Rich case about the existence of this classified Russian document.

In any case, The Washington Post, had already debunked Isikoff’s claim (which later in his article he switched to being only “purported”) by pointing out that Americans had already tweeted the theory of Rich’s murder days before the alleged Russian intervention.

Persuasive Sourcing’ & Discovery??

Butowsky’s libel lawsuit can now proceed to discovery, which will include demands for documents and depositions that are likely to shed light on whatever role Rich may have played in leaking to WikiLeaks. If the government obstructs or tries to slow-roll the case, we shall have to wait and see, for example, if the court will acquiesce to the familiar government objection that information regarding Rich’s murder must be withheld as a state secret? Hmmm. What would that tell us?

Butowsky: Suit could reveal critical information. (Flickr)

During discovery in a separate court case, the government was unable to produce a final forensic report on the “hacking” of the Democratic National Committee. The DNC-hired cyber firm, CrowdStrike, failed to complete such a report, and that was apparently okay with then FBI Director James Comey, who did not require one.

The incomplete, redacted, draft, second-hand “forensics” that Comey settled for from CrowdStrike does not qualify as credible evidence — much less “persuasive sourcing” to support the claim that the Russians “hacked” into the DNC. Moreover, CrowdStrike has a dubious reputation for professionalism and a well known anti-Russia bias.

The thorny question of “persuasive sourcing,” came up even more starkly on July 1, when federal Judge Dabney Friedrich ordered Robert Mueller to stop pretending he had proof that the Russian government was behind the Internet Research Agency’s supposed attempt to interfere via social media in the 2016 election. Middle school-level arithmetic can prove the case that the IRA’s use of social media to support Trump is ludicrous on its face.

Russia-gate Rubble

As journalist Patrick Lawrence put it recently: “Three years after the narrative we call Russiagate was framed and incessantly promoted, it crumbles into rubble as we speak.” Falling syllogism! Step nimbly to one side.

The “conspiracy theorist” epithet is not likely to much longer block attention to the role, if any, played by Rich — the more so since some players who say they were directly involved with Rich are coming forward.

In a long interview with Lauria a few months ago in New Zealand aired this month on CN Live!, Kim Dotcom provided a wealth of detail, based on what he described as first-hand knowledge, regarding how Democratic National Committee documents were leaked to WikiLeaks in 2016.

The major takeaway: the evidence presented by Dotcom about Seth Rich can be verified or disproven if President Trump summons the courage to order the director of NSA to dig out the relevant data, including the conversations Dotcom says he had with Rich and Rich may have had with WikiLeakspublisher Julian Assange. Dotcom said he put Rich in touch with a middleman to transfer the DNC files to WikiLeaks. Sadly, Trump has flinched more than once rather than confront the Deep State — and this time there are a bunch of very well connected, senior Deep State practitioners who could faceprosecution.

Another sign that Rich’s story is likely to draw new focus is the virulent character assassination indulged in by former investigative journalist James Risen.

Not Risen to the Challenge

Risen: Called Binney a “conspiracy theorist.” (Flickr)

On August 5, in an interview on The Hill’s“Rising,” Risen chose to call former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney — you guessed it — a “conspiracy theorist” on Russia-gate, with no demurral, much less pushback, from the hosts.

The having-done-good-work-in-the-past-and-now-not-so-much Risen can be considered a paradigm for what has happened to so many Kool-Aid drinking journalists. Jim’s transition from investigative journalist to stenographer is, nonetheless unsettling. Contributing causes? It appears that the traditional sources within the intelligence agencies, whom Risen was able to cultivate discreetly in the past, are too fearful now to even talk to him, lest they get caught by one or two of the myriad surveillance systems in play.

Those at the top of the relevant agencies, however, are only too happy to provide grist. Journalists have to make a living, after all. Topic A, of course, is Russian “interference” in the 2016 election. And, of course, “There can be little doubt” the Russians did it.

“Big Jim” Risen, as he is known, jumped on the bandwagon as soon as he joined The Intercept, with a fulsome article on February 17, 2018 titled Is Donald Trump a Traitor?” Here’s an excerpt:

“The evidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win is already compelling, and it grows stronger by the day.

“There can be little doubt now that Russian intelligence officials were behind an effort to hack the DNC’s computers and steal emails and other information from aides to Hillary Clinton as a means of damaging her presidential campaign. … Russian intelligence also used fake social media accounts and other tools to create a global echo chamber both for stories about the emails and for anti-Clinton lies dressed up to look like news.

“To their disgrace, editors and reporters at American news organizations greatly enhanced the Russian echo chamber, eagerly writing stories about Clinton and the Democratic Party based on the emails, while showing almost no interest during the presidential campaign in exactly how those emails came to be disclosed and distributed.” (sic)

Poor Jim. He shows himself just as susceptible as virtually all of his fellow corporate journalists to the epidemic-scale HWHW virus (Hillary Would Have Won) that set in during Nov. 2016 and for which the truth seems to be no cure. From his perch at The Intercept, Risen will continue to try to shape the issues. Russiagaters major ally, of course, is the corporate media which has most Americans pretty much under their thumb.

Incidentally, neither The New York Times, The Washington Post, nor The Wall Street Journal has printed or posted a word about Judge Mazzant’s ruling on the Butowsky suit.

Mark Twain is said to have warned, “How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again!” After three years of “Russia-Russia-Russia” in the corporate — and even in some “progressive” — media, this conditioning will not be easy to reverse.

Here’s how one astute observer with a sense of humor described the situation last week, in a comment under one of my recent pieces on Consortium News:

“… One can write the most thought-out and well documented academic-like essays, articles and reports and the true believers in Russiagate will dismiss it all with a mere flick of their wrist. The mockery and scorn directed towards those of us who knew the score from day one won’t relent. They could die and go to heaven and ask god what really happened during the 2016 election. God would reply to them in no uncertain terms that Putin and the Russians had absolutely nothing to do with anything in ‘16, and they’d all throw up their hands and say, ‘aha! So, God’s in on this too!’ It’s the great lie that won’t die.” 

I’m not so sure. It is likely to be a while though before this is over. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YMPT9b Tyler Durden