Month: July 2024

Authored by Conor Gallagher via NakedCapitalism.com,

“Germany must remain an anchor of stability in Europe,” Chancellor Olaf Scholz said after his coalition finally passed a budget and headed out for summer recess.

It’s unclear exactly how the coalition erased a roughly 25 billion euro funding gap. They didn’t take the trouble to provide a detailed explanation.

Finance Minister Christian Lindner might have been busy doing other things as he posted a picture of himself toting a Stinger missile during a recent military exercise.

Finanzminister und Major d. R. ⁦@c_lindner⁩ war gestern mal wieder zur Turbo-Wehrübung bei der #Bundeswehr, genauer gesagt bei der Flugabwehr (⁦@Team_Luftwaffe⁩) in Todendorf. Auf Instagram postete er ein Bild davon: Stinger auf der Schulter, Rolex am Handgelenk. pic.twitter.com/HVBWBrmzs7

— Matthias Gebauer (@gebauerspon) July 12, 2024

Parts of the budget are leaking out however, and it is being reported that the historically unpopular traffic light coalition of the Greens, Social Democratic Party, and Free Democratic Party cut aid to Ukraine and its contribution to the EU, as well as moved some defense purchases off the 2025 budget, but they will have to be accounted for in future budgets by the next government.

Anyone paying attention knows that Scholz is out of mind to invoke the term “stability” for the state of Germany at the moment. Let’s consider the following:

• He leads the most unpopular government in modern German history. Three quarters of the population are dissatisfied. According to a survey conducted July 1-3, zero percent of Germans said they were “fully satisfied” with the ruling coalition’s work. Even accounting for the margin of error, that’s suboptimal.

• The three parties in the ruling coalition are together polling at around only 30 percent, and they were embarrassed in the June European elections. Scholz’s own party, the once-proud Social Democrats, came in at less than 14 percent in the European elections. That is the party’s worst result in a national election since the founding of the Federal Republic in 1949.

• Washington and Berlin just announced that they’re deploying long-range U.S. missiles that could reach Russia (including SM-6, Tomahawk, and at some point probably hypersonic weapons) on German territory from 2026 for the first time since the Cold War in a move that will almost certainly make the country less secure.

• The Russians are everywhere. The recent news that Russia planned to kill the CEO of arms manufacturer Rheinmetall, comes on the heels of the Russians allegedly behind a fire at a metal factory, espionage on Ukrainian targets in Germany, the murder of a Chechen in Berlin, payments to spread Kremlin propaganda, and all types of “information warfare.”

• The German economy has been stagnant for seven years running, which I suppose is a form of stability.

• Meanwhile, the government in Berlin is cutting social spending, German industry “has taken a permanent hit,” real wages have dropped back to 2016 levels, and the government is investing 12.4 billion euros in the stock market in a new “Generation Capital Foundation” as part of a scheme to continue financing pensions. Stability.

• And still no one can figure out who destroyed those Nord Stream pipelines.

Despite Scholz’s stability reassurances, more upheaval is likely in a few months’ time.

“The Big Worry”

If the freak out over a few political parties who favor repairing ties with Russia and who performed well in the European Parliament elections is already at a 10, expect it to be turned up to an 11 should they continue their rise in the polls ahead of September state elections in Saxony, Brandenburg, and Thuringia.

The EU vote clearly sent a loud message about voter dissatisfaction. The upcoming state elections could present challenges for German support for Project Ukraine by heaping more pressure on the country’s ruling coalition that is already on life support.

Some background on the two parties threatening to upset the apple cart: Sahra Wagenknecht’s old-school left Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) focuses on working class issues, ignores identity politics, and opposes the US-led new Cold War.

The other party is of course the ethno-nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD). It wants to reclaim German sovereignty from the EU and NATO and make nice with Russia since that is in German interests. While the party has attracted widespread working class support, detractors like BSW argue it is no friend of the people, but instead favors a different flavor of oligarchs – German rather than global. What really propelled the AfD into prominence is its outspoken opposition to the dramatic increase in immigrants to Germany in recent years.

Remarkable chart, within just a decade net migration into Germany has been 6 Million people. That’s more or less Berlin and Munich combined. Is it sustainable? pic.twitter.com/s8JZAZ8dVx

— Michael A. Arouet (@MichaelAArouet) June 27, 2024

We can see the effect on the electorate:

There is also evidence that a sizable chunk of AfD support is a way to give a raised middle finger to the current political establishment, which is at record-low approval ratings.

The three states that will be heading to the polls are all former East German states, largely working class with some of the bigger employers in industries like the auto sector, machinery production, and metalworking. The states are on the poorer end when looking at German states:

Source: Statista

Brandenburg (6.1 percent), Thuringia (6.3 percent), and Saxony (6.6 percent) are all a little over the national average unemployment rate of 6 percent.

The fact the elections are taking place in eastern Germany is a boon for the AfD and, to a lesser extent, BSW. We can see how well the AfD performed there in the European elections (blue is the AfD while black is the Christian Democratic Union):

According to Manès Weisskircher who researches social movements, political parties, democracy, and the far right at the Institute of Political Science, TU Dresden, AfD’s support in the East can be primarily traced to three factors:

1. The neoliberal ‘great transformation,’ which has massively changed the eastern German economy and continues to lead to emigration and anxiety over personal economic prospects.

2. An ongoing sense of marginalization among East Germans who feel they have never been fully integrated since reunification and resent liberal immigration policies in this context.

3. Deep dissatisfaction with the functioning of the political system and doubt in political participation.

Voters in the East also had other political parties abandon them, such as The Left (Die Linke), which has completely collapsed after abandoning nearly all of its former working class platform in favor of identity politics in an attempt to appear “ready to govern.” Much like the Greens, The Left increasingly stands for neoliberal, pro-war and anti-Russia policies. Former Left voters increasingly switched to the AfD in response.

Wagenknecht abandoned The Left and formed her own party at the beginning of this year. And the essentially one-woman party is already rivaling Scholz’s 150-year-old SPD for support. In the European elections BSW got almost 13 percent in Saxony, 13.8 percent in Brandenburg and 15 percent in Thuringia. BSW still has a ways to go to catch the AfD, however, but if polling is any indication, there is a good chance that following the September elections, the political establishment in these states will likely face a choice: try to align with BSW to maintain the firewall against the AfD or bring the AfD into government.

Here’s a look at current polling in the states:

Those polls are causing blood pressures to rise in Berlin, Brussels, and Washington. SEMAFOR recently summed up the thinking in those locales with a piece titled “The Big Worry.”

In it they try to explain what’s wrong with the voters that they would vote for the AfD or someone like the “pro-Kremlin” Wagenknecht. Naturally, major fault lies with the Russians according to serious people:

The European Parliament election results showed a stark divide between former East and West Germany, with nearly every constituency in the former Eastern bloc going to the far-right AfD, prompting one economist to comment, “Who said that Germany reunified?” An academic from Saxony told The German Review newsletter that despite their support for Russia-friendly parties, “east Germans don’t like Russia. Instead, they learned during the Cold War that it’s better not to provoke the Kremlin.” Analysts had warned of Russian influence campaigns during the European elections to boost support for far-right parties. In eastern Germany, though, support for the AfD’s stance on Russia and migration has become so entrenched that “there is no influence necessary,” political scientist Hans Vorländer told Semafor.

The Senator piece highlights another trend among the entrenched establishment, which is to equate left and right (in this case, BSW and the AfD) as two sides of the same coin:

Jan Rovny, a political sciences professor at Sciences Po, told Semafor. The far left projects a misplaced nostalgia onto Russia as the “carrier of some kind of Soviet heritage,” he argued, while the right see Putin as an emblem of “Christian, traditional, masculinist Europe.” Strikingly, rather than warring against each other, nationalists today view themselves as providing a united bulwark in the face of a perceived common enemy, Rovny said.

It of course has nothing to do with economic realities of German energy policy or the question of whether it’s wise for Germany to wholly submit to being a military outpost for the US with long range weapons pointed at Moscow (and Russian hypersonic missiles pointed at Berlin). SEMAFOR concludes, “The far left and far right wave different colored flags, but are ultimately similar.”

But they’re really not. At all.

Just a few examples:

• BSW proposes a fairer tax system that benefits the working class, such as the demand for an excess profits tax in the industrial sector. The AfD wants to slash taxes across the board, including those that are progressive and serve to redistribute wealth, such as the inheritance tax

• BSW believes in global warming and wants to continue to take climate action but work to soften the economic blow to the working class. The AfD rejects climate science. In its EU election manifesto, it says that the “claim of a threat through human-made climate change” is “CO2 hysterics,” and it would do away with climate laws that reduce prosperity and freedoms.

• BSW wants to strengthen the social safety net. The AfD stresses the limits of the state’s role.

It’s easy to see why lazy analyses lump left and right together. On the issues that really matter to the Atlanticists that infest the bureaucratic and media offices (unquestioning support for Brussels economic policy and for NATO-led war against Russia) the AfD and BSW do hold similar positions. Both are for an end to sanctions on Russia and to weapon deliveries to Ukraine, and getting out from under the thumb of Washington. The fact the parties are vastly different on economic policies for working class voters hardly registers as important. Maybe the Atlanticists have been so busy for so long trying to equate WWII-era Nazism and communism, it all just comes naturally.

Regardless, what’s clear in these analyses and ongoing lack of any government response to voter concerns is the belief that it is the voters who must change. Who must stop being so backwards, so stupid, and desirous of things they cannot have.

Asked after his party’s embarrassing results in the European elections if he would like to comment on his humiliating defeat Chancellor Scholz said nothing about hearing the concerns of the voters and promising to address those concerns. He simply replied with a defiant “nope.”

And that pretty much sums up where Germany is at the moment. The democratic system has partially broken down as voters make demands and the elected leaders simply say no. Scholz’s foreign minister Annalena Baerbock was more forthcoming in her infamous 2022 comments:

Speaking of Baerbock, she might have taken the satirical cake when she recently took herself out of the running for chancellor next year. The reason? She said the world needs “more diplomacy, not less,” which might sound odd coming from someone notorious for their lack of diplomacy but fits in perfectly with the current government.

Unsurprisingly voters are looking for alternatives.

AfD Prepares to Break Through the Firewall

What else can they throw at the AfD at this point – aside from a complete ban on the party, which could throw Germany into chaos? That possibility remains on the table, and the recent use of a reported 200 masked police officers to raid the office and home of the rightwing Compact Magazine publisher is not a great sign.

The AfD is routinely pilloried in the media. The Nazi comparisons have been repeated endlessly, often for good reason as AfD members just can’t help themselves from admiring the Third Reich such as AfD’s top European Parliament election candidate, Maximilian Krah, who had to step back from campaigning in May after saying that not all Nazi SS members were criminals. There are plenty of other examples, as well.

The party is already under state surveillance.

Spy and corruption cases involving AfD members broke ahead of the European vote.

Despite all that, the party ended up scoring its best nationwide result so far in June, coming second on 15.9% in the European Parliament election.Their next mission is to start breaking down the firewall in Germany that aims to keep the party out of any governments.

“The firewall has already disappeared more or less on a communal level,” Joerg Urban, head of the AfD in Saxony, told Reuters. “The state level is the next step.” 

Originally more of an anti-EU party and refuge for neo-Nazis, the AfD has been able to ride the wave of backlash against government policies that have been disastrous for working people – from the war in Ukraine and a losing sanction war to disastrous energy policies that hit poorer people the hardest to a large increase in immigration at the same time standards of living decline. It is now widely seen by its supporters as a party that will “save” German culture and return the country to fondly remembered days – whether 10 years ago or 85.

Yet the mainstream parties in Germany lack credibility when criticizing the AfD’s ethno nationalism when they also support genocide in Palestine policies, which could include a swift increase in deportations, and are simultaneously taking a much harder line against immigrants in an effort to thwart to the AfD’s rise. Earlier this year the Bundestag passed the Repatriation Improvement Act, which increases the amount of time the state can detain someone before deporting them from 10 to 28 days. It also gives the state more powers to enter homes, makes the suspicion of certain criminal offenses enough to deport people, and  criminalizes certain activities by aid workers who assist asylum seekers, punishable with up to ten years in prison.

It’s an open question as to whether the backlash against the increase in immigration to Germany would be such an issue if it wasn’t coming at a time of budget cuts and sinking standard of living. Regardless, the path chosen by the current government, as well as the one favored by the AfD, is to punish immigrants rather than try to improve living standards.

Will Anyone Truly Represent the Working Class?

Scholz’s coalition hovers around the 10 percent mark across much of Eastern Germany. If he is presiding over the final nail in the coffin of the SPD after a half century of decline accelerated by abandoning the working class, Wagenknecht is working to take the place it (and Die Linke) once occupied.

The problem is, it turns out she’s in more of a battle with the AfD. [3] Scholz’s party suddenly has no real base of which to speak. Just above 18 percent of unionized Germans voted for the SPD in the European election compared to 18.5 for the AfD. Adam Tooze elaborates:

Germans who feel well off are twice as likely to vote Green or FDP than those feeling that they are doing badly. But the SPD too scores 36 percent better amongst Germans who judge themselves to be living well as opposed to those who feel hard-up. The parties whose support tilts the other way are in the opposition: Wagenknecht’s group and the AfD. Support for the AfD is two and a half times larger amongst Germans who judged themselves to be hard up than amongst those who consider themselves well off.

And as Tooze detailed in his detailed breakdown of Germany’s vote for the European Parliament, ‘the real opposition in German society and political preferences is not between the “old” labour movement and the AfD. The real juxtaposition is between the AfD and the Greens.’

The CDU might lead in the national polls and is likely to head the next government, but the Greens and the AfD best represent the ideological forces pitted against one another in Germany. One is a globalist, neoliberal, bourgeoisie, pro-war, pro-NATO party that favors immigration. The other is sovereignist, ethno-nationalist, favors a more national oligarchy, has increasing support of the working class (despite a lack of policy proposals that would benefit workers), and is not opposed to war but insists it be in German interests not Washington.

BSW is trying to crash that party. The September votes in three eastern states could provide a major boost.

As we can see, the German electorate is in a state of flux, driven by the upheaval in the country and the deep dissatisfaction with the ruling coalition. There isn’t a neat way to explain the migration of voters aside from possibly anger. Recent polling shows that 87 percent of AfD voters think the current government should be sent a reprimand; 71 percent of Wagenknecht voters agreed. And both parties are picking up voters from other parties regardless of ideology:

Wagenknecht’s supporters rank peace and the war in Ukraine as their primary concern, and she continues to hammer home her opposition to the conflict, as well as the recent decision to deploy long range US missiles in Germany. Their second biggest concern is immigration. Wagenknecht, born in East Germany to German and Iranian parents, doesn’t want to limit immigration for ethno nationalist reasons like the AfD, but her position can be summed up by her response to a question regarding the issue here:

We don’t think a neoliberal immigration regime, where everybody can in effect go anywhere and then must somehow try to fit in and survive, is a good idea. We need to welcome people who want to work and live in our country and we should learn to do so. But this shouldn’t result in disrupting the lives of those who already live here, and it shouldn’t overstrain collective resources, for which people have worked and paid taxes. Otherwise, the rise of nativist right-wing politics will be inevitable. In fact, the AfD in its present form is largely a legacy of Angela Merkel. In Germany we have a dramatic housing shortage, especially for people with low incomes, and the quality of education in public schools has become appalling in places. Our capacity to give immigrants a chance of equal participation in our economy and society is not endless.

The problem for Wagenknecht remains that Germans rate immigration as their top issue and most trust the AfD. And this brings us to the center of Germany’s democratic breakdown. It would have been hard for the current and past governments to have done a better job promoting the AfD if it had tried.

The rapid influx of millions of immigrants coupled with a stagnating economy, unaffordable housing, and cuts in social services is a recipe for disaster. And so we now have the AfD, which received its seed money from a reclusive billionaire descendant of prominent Nazis, poised to win state elections despite numerous comments by party officials showing at best a lack of understanding about Nazi crimes and at worst an admiration for them while they also argue that Muslims and others are “incompatible” with German culture.

The assist isn’t just from Berlin, either. Voters might be left to wonder what’s so wrong with the AfD when the “responsible” political center in Brussels and Washington backs Nazis in Ukraine, rehabilitates Nazis, enacts mass censorship and other crackdowns, supports genocide, and generally drags us kicking and screaming into their neoliberal fascist vision of the future. And make no doubt about it, should the AfD gradually learn to toe the NATO and EU line, it would no doubt be welcomed with open arms into the halls of power regardless of any admiration for the SS.

Is it worth casting a vote for the AfD, despite its considerable baggage, because the party favors returning sovereignty to Germany, which could help bring about the demise of the EU and NATO? The problem with that rationale is the BSW option, which offers the same opposition to Project Ukraine and NATO as the AfD without any of the fondness for Nazis and a better platform for the working class, so maybe that answers the question.

More broadly, the easy way to defeat a party like the AfD is to give voters material benefits that improve their quality of life; instead we have the opposite happening, and to add insult to injury, voters are insulted as racists for seeking alternatives while their standard of living declines and the “center” plugs its ears and insists on “stability.”

Authored by Alan Dershowitz via The Gatestone Institute,

Now that the Republican convention ended without incidents, we must get back to considering the implications of the near-assassination of former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump two days before the convention began.

Secret Service director Kimberly Cheatle says she will not resign, despite the failure of her agents to secure the rooftop from where the shots were fired at Trump, and despite her refusal to come clean about the causes of the failure.

The Secret Service is being praised for protecting Donald Trump from an assassin. This praise is justified if one focuses on the bravery of the agents who risked their lives to shield Trump from the immediate threat posed by the shooter after he fired the initial shots, but that well-deserved praise must be accompanied by constructive criticism for the failure to prevent the shooting in the first place. The would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks, came within an inch of succeeding. An armed person should never have been allowed to be at a location from which he could take aim at a presidential candidate.

It is not as if this attack could not have been anticipated and planned for. It is quite similar to the shooting of then President John F. Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. The major difference is that Lee Harvey Oswald shot at a difficult moving target, whereas Crooks shot at an easier stationary target. In both cases, there was a failure to secure an obviously dangerous location. One would think that the Secret Service would have learned from their failure in Dallas. They did not.

There must be changes in the protective procedures employed by the Secret Service, especially at large outdoor rallies. Everyone admitted to the venue is vetted for weapons, but apparently there is insufficient protection against potential snipers shooting from outside the actual venue. This failing must be remedied before the next rally. The Secret Service should be devoted exclusively to preventing and responding to attacks on its protectees. It must get out of the unrelated business of investigating currency counterfeiting and other crimes.

This assassination attempt may well be an outgrowth of the increasing acceptance of violence by extremists on all parts of the political spectrum. We do not yet know the specific motivation of Crooks, but it is certainly possible that he may have been influenced by the current rhetoric justifying violence as an appropriate response to perceived injustice. We do know that in addition to possessing a rifle legally purchased by his father, he also had explosives in his car and home. He was determined to murder Trump, though for what reasons we do not yet know. Although there is no direct evidence of his motive, politically-inspired violence is increasingly common, especially among the younger generation of activists.

Our universities are turning out students who engage in violence and are only rarely punished for it. Some faculty members are teaching that noble ends justify ignoble means. The result has been physical attacks on fellow students based on political, ideological and religious disagreements. It is only a short step from physically attacking those with whose policies you disagree, to shooting at political candidates who support such policies.

An atmosphere of violence has become pervasive and is likely to increase as a result of this nearly successful assassination attempt and the growing divisions over the coming election.

The Secret Service must learn from its mistakes and must redouble its efforts to protect candidates from what are likely to be increasing dangers over the next four months and beyond. In its press conference, the Secret Service said it was not changing any plans regarding the Republican convention. Nor did it permit any questions regarding the failures that led to the attack.

Even more important, political, educational, religious and other leaders must denounce violence advocated and practiced by those on their side of the political divide. It is easy to denounce violence by one’s opponents. It is far more difficult, but more important, to denounce violence by one’s allies.

Social media is filled with extremist left-wing praise for Crooks and regrets that he missed. Had he succeeded, there would likely be blood on the streets. This is an even more dangerous time than back in the 1960s, when three major assassinations occurred.

We must do everything in our collective power to prevent a recurrence of the near-assassination and tragedy that occurred in Pennsylvania. We are not doing enough.

Alberta’s oil patch faces a worsening wildfire threat heading into the new week as temperatures rise, according to Alberta Wildfire and Alberta Emergency Management.

The province’s northeast, where most of Canada’s crude oil is produced, is forecast to experience “extreme fire behavior” for next few days. With temperatures in the past few days rising as high as 35C (95F) – with low humidity and winds of 10km/h (6.2 miles/h) to 15km/h and no chance of rain – more than 1,000 Albertans have evacuated homes, including 89 residents of Chipewyan Lake, northwest of Fort McMurray as Alberta has some 144 wildfires burning, including 55 that are out of control.

According to Bloomberg, a total of 377 of the 887 wildfires that have ignited this year have started in July amid hot weather. 80% were caused by lightning.

The problem is that some 154 wildfires burning in the province, of which 58 are out of control on at least 10 hectares (25 acres) in size and within ~10km (6.2 miles) of 348k b/d of oil production and ~24k boe/d of gas output, according to Alberta Wildfire and Alberta Energy Regulator data.

Already some producers are halting output: Suncor curtailed production at its Firebag oil sands site and Greenfire temporarily curtailed output from its Hangingstone sites a week ago. while Cenovus, MEG and Imperial Oil have evacuated non-essential workers from oil sands facilities

Tourmaline said in email that the nearest fire is 4 miles from nearest well and 6 miles from nearest plant and has no effect operationally.

Below is the approximate oil, gas and condensate production, broken down by company, in equivalent of barrels of oil a day that’s within ~10km of at least one out-of-control wildfire that’s at least 10 hectares in size, based on AER geospacial data, May production data and Alberta Wildfire data

Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

They didn’t need to chase this storm, hunt this hurricane, it was already there—bigger and badder than anything seen before at this time of year, this far out in the Atlantic.

Cmdr. Brett Copare knew he was flying into history on June 30 as he steered the P-3 Orion “Kermit” nose-first into a churning wall of towering thunderheads ringing a 450-mile maelstrom that was but a radar flyspeck 48 hours earlier.

“Before we got out there, it was already a Cat 4,” he said, recalling being “awe-struck” and thinking, “A storm this big, this fast … this is unique.”

That flight of unwelcome discovery was one of dozens made by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) aircrews in tracking the Atlantic’s first-ever June category 4 and 5 hurricane as Beryl launched its 6,000-mile, two-week romp from Cabo Verde to Vermont.

On his third day of standby July 11 at NOAA’s Aircraft Operations Center (AOC) at Lakeland Linder International Airport in central Florida, Cmdr. Copare pondered lessons learned—and questions raised—by a storm that “happened so fast,” and was unlike any of the 25 hurricanes he’s flown through.

“Typically, when storms form, we see them when they are at their lowest status, a low-pressure disturbance, and monitor as they gear up,” he said. “This was the reverse of what we normally observe.”

On this haze-gray day, technicians calibrate instruments inside two Lockheed WP-3D Orions—modified U.S. Navy submarine chasers—parked on the tarmac under a gauzy sun.

Inside the AOC’s hangars, mechanics tend to a Gulfstream G-4 and De Havilland Twin Otter while in offices above, meteorologists and scientists ferret through data from storms’ past and monitor National Hurricane Center radar for storms to come.

All are set to go at a moment’s notice. And after Beryl’s rapid intensification, all are aware that notice could come any moment.

“Currently, there’s nothing out there,” NOAA meteorologist and flight director Sofia de Solo said. The lull comes after she flew three G-4 Beryl missions in 10 days.

“As meteorologists, our job doesn’t end when a mission is completed,” Ms. De Solo said, explaining there’s data to review, instruments to fine-tune, and quality control systems to analyze.

But while she “wouldn’t say it’s boring,” standby is not what she says she’s here to do—that being, ride “a scientific laboratory in the sky” to collect real-time data to save lives.

From 45,000 feet above, with horizons hemmed only by the planet’s curved roll, storms are disembodied blots spilling across sky blue, sky black, shimmering as “a very bright big white glow,” a pulsating, living literal ball of energy, Ms. De Solo said.

It’s her “dream job” and there’s no place she’d rather be, she said with the derring-do expected of NOAA’s heralded Hurricane Hunters, the fearless pilots and crews who fly into the eyes of hurricanes.

“We’re prepared. It’s going to be a busy year,“ Ms. De Solo said. ”We’re ready to fly.”

Checking her phone for National Hurricane Center alerts, it’s as if she’s alerting the center: “We’re standing by. We’re ready to go.”

Many NOAA Missions

The Hurricane Hunters are the stars, but not the only operators at NOAA’s Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, which moved from MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa to its custom-built Lakeland AOC in June 2017.

On any day, half the AOC’s 20 pilots, 90 scientists and technicians, two dozen mechanics, and 10 aircraft could be tracking tropical depressions in the Caribbean, mapping coastal estuaries, measuring Rocky Mountain snowpack, or flying for the National Geodetic Survey’s GRAV-D project “calculating the intensity of gravity.”

Most crews are NOAA civilian employees or contractors, but pilots are members of NOAA’s Commissioned Officer Corps, the smallest of eight U.S. federal uniformed services.

NOAA Corp’s 320 officers—there are no enlisted ranks—man 15 research/survey ships and fly specialized data-collecting aircraft, such as those housed at the Lakeland AOC.

A Department of Commerce agency, NOAA coordinates storm-tracking with C-130 “Hurricane Hunter” flights by the U.S. Air Force’s 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, based in Biloxi, Mississippi.

Like many Hurricane Hunter pilots, Cmdr. Copare is a former military aviator. Before transferring to NOAA, he flew Navy “long leg” surveillance/antisubmarine P-3s.

Entering his fourth season, he’s tallied at least 140 “hurricane penetrations, or “pennies,” he estimates, piloting Orions older than their crews straight into storms beginning with Cat 4 Hurricane Ida in 2021.

NOAA’s two P-3s—their fuselages festooned with Kermit and Miss Piggy stencils personally crafted by Muppeteer creator Jim Henson—have flown through more than 100 hurricanes since 1976.

During eight-to-10-hour missions, their 18-to-20 member crews of three pilots, navigators, engineers, technicians, and flight meteorologists, are locked into “Setting 5” work-station harnesses, chart air chemistry, barometric changes, wind speeds, temperature shifts, updrafts, downdrafts, and all the mayhem between in real-time transmit to the National Hurricane Center.

Much data is collected by dropwindsondes, Pringles can-shaped probes that measure wind, temperature, humidity, and pressure as it parachutes through a storm.

Ms. De Solo said she deploys about 30 every mission aboard “Gonzo,” the G-4 also sporting an original Henson stencil.

While crews collect data, pilots plot the storm’s track by flying Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) patterns, or “quadrant-to-quadrant butterflies and circle-eights,” Cmdr. Copare said.

“We start at one corner of the storm, make three to four passes through the core,” he said. “Then, back in. The aim is to find the center path by dead reckoning, each fix to each fix.”

Each “penny to penny” pass at 8,000-to-10,000 feet can take an hour with P-3s usually making three to four every mission.

NOAA provides simulations and training, but replicating a flight through a 120-mph slipstream of fury in a careening canister is hard to do.

“There’s really no way to prepare yourself for what that’s going to be like,” Cmdr. Copare said, noting as the battered plane bounces and heaves, there’s an out-of-body sense with the windshield obscured by rain, all sound blurred in a thunderous, rattling roar, and two-handed focus on cockpit controls.

He recited the mantra repeated since a B-25 Mitchell bomber crew first successfully flew through a hurricane in 1943 because it’s still the best way to describe it.

“It’s like riding a roller coaster through a washing machine,” Cmdr. Copare said.

Read more here…

Eric Lipka, who recently worked for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), has been appointed as the Biden-Harris campaign’s deputy press secretary for Pennsylvania. According to Lipka’s social media profiles, he is a traveling ‘drag queen’ on the weekends.

In an X post on July 17, Lipka revealed, “Thrilled to share I’ve joined the Biden-Harris campaign as deputy press secretary for Pennsylvania!” 

He added, “Let’s get to work, and finish the job!” 

For Lipka, in the key battleground state, he might want to give up weekend drag events and, instead, focus on the Biden campaign because the latest polling data from Emerson College shows Trump leads Biden by a 5-point margin (48% to 43%) in the state, following the assassination attempt last weekend.

This is the new Deputy Press Secretary for PA for the Biden campaign pic.twitter.com/G8GOTUxsXK

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 18, 2024

This was first reported by Fox News. 

‘Erotica the Drag Queen’: Meet the Biden campaign staffer helping with comms strategy in key state https://t.co/IWIiKnjsWP

— Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) July 21, 2024

Furthermore, Democrats have been pressuring Biden to step aside following the disastrous debate with Trump last month. There are concerns the president’s cognitive decline has worsened.

Let’s not forget Jill Biden’s quote, “Decency is on the ballot.” 

“Decency is on the ballot” – Jill Biden pic.twitter.com/yUhUblBv8K

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 23, 2024

And wokeness “is straight up precursor to *violent* revolutionary Marxism,” Eric Weinstein recently wrote on X. 

Weinstein said that the Democratic Party embracing wokeness is inadvertently promoting a communist agenda aimed at destabilizing capitalism and American society. 

Let’s get back to this… 

A majority of Americans are rejecting the woke agenda by showing their support for Trump. 

Authored by Sheramy Tsai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

For decades, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol has been commonly referred to as “bad cholesterol” due to its association with increased risks of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), such as heart attacks and strokes.

However, a new study involving more than 4 million people across China challenges this belief, suggesting LDL may not be as harmful as previously thought—at least, not for everyone.

Research led by Dr. Liang Chen and colleagues reveals a more nuanced picture. While high LDL levels are linked to increased mortality in some groups, they do not pose the same risk for others, they found. The relationship between LDL and mortality varies significantly based on an individual’s cardiovascular disease risk and overall health status.

These findings suggest reconsidering the one-size-fits-all approach to cholesterol management. Instead, personalized treatment strategies may be essential for effectively managing cholesterol and improving health outcomes.

About the Study

The study participants were part of the China Health Evaluation and Risk Reduction through Nationwide Teamwork (ChinaHEART) project, which included individuals aged 35 to 75 from various regions across China.

Participants were divided into three groups based on their risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), a heart disease caused by plaque buildup on artery walls:

• Low-risk group: Individuals with no history of cardiovascular disease and a low estimated risk of developing it.
• Primary prevention group: Individuals with high-risk factors for cardiovascular disease but no established disease.
• Secondary prevention group: Individuals with a history of cardiovascular disease.

Researchers tracked data from these participants, including cholesterol levels and lifestyle choices like smoking and drinking habits. They also considered medical histories, including conditions such as diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The goal was to determine how different LDL cholesterol levels impacted their mortality risk, particularly from heart disease.

Over an average follow-up period of 4.6 years, the study recorded nearly 93,000 deaths, with over 38,000 attributed to cardiovascular issues. The results revealed a U-shaped association between LDL cholesterol levels and mortality in the low-risk and primary prevention groups, indicating that both very high and very low levels of LDL were associated with increased mortality.

In the secondary prevention group, the association was J-shaped, meaning extremely low LDL levels were linked to a higher risk of death, while moderate levels were associated with the lowest risk.

According to the American Heart Association, “normal” LDL levels are considered less than 100 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL). Levels above 160 mg/dL are categorized as high, and those below 70 mg/dL are deemed very low. However, the study found that the optimal LDL levels for reducing cardiovascular mortality varied among the groups:

• Low-risk group: 117.8 mg/dL
• Primary prevention group: 106.0 mg/dL
• Secondary prevention group: 55.8 mg/dL

The American Heart Association states that “various research studies on LDL have shown ‘lower is better.’” However, these findings suggest this may not always be true. The study indicates that “lower LDL-C targets with increasing ASCVD risk should be considered for reducing CVD mortality.”

The study also discovered that people with diabetes might need stricter cholesterol control than those without. It found that the optimal LDL cholesterol level to reduce heart-related deaths in people with diabetes is 87 mg/dL, while for non-diabetics, it is 114.6 mg/dL.

The study authors acknowledged that low LDL cholesterol levels might result from serious health issues rather than cause higher death rates. They excluded people with chronic diseases from their analysis but still found a link between low LDL levels and higher death rates. This suggests other factors, like frailty, might be involved. More research is needed to understand these relationships fully.

Dr. Jack Wolfson, a cardiologist and owner of Natural Heart Doctor, explained the study’s findings to The Epoch Times. He stated that very low LDL cholesterol levels could indicate liver dysfunction, where the liver can’t produce enough LDL. Conversely, very high LDL levels suggest the body isn’t clearing it properly, both scenarios leading to higher health risks.

Evolving Views on Cholesterol

The American Heart Society describes cholesterol as a waxy substance essential for building cell membranes and producing hormones. Cholesterol travels through the bloodstream in particles called lipoproteins, primarily as low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL).

LDL, often called “bad cholesterol,” carries cholesterol to cells and arteries, where it can form plaques, narrowing the arteries and increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke. Conversely, HDL, known as “good cholesterol,” transports cholesterol from the arteries to the liver for elimination, according to an article by Dr. Ami B. Bhatt, a cardiologist and Chief Innovation Officer at the American College of Cardiology.

Dr. Wolfson challenges the notion that LDL is purely harmful. “There’s no such thing as ‘bad cholesterol,’” he said. “All mammals have LDL—they perform many functions. When oxidized, they could be considered ‘bad,’ but this may only reflect general oxidative stress.” He explained that the presence of oxidized LDL (ox-LDL) might indicate underlying issues rather than being the problem itself.

Recent research has shifted the focus from LDL quantity to particle size. Larger LDL particles are less harmful than smaller, denser ones, which are more likely to penetrate arterial walls and form plaques. Experts like Dr. Ronald Krauss, a senior scientist and director of Atherosclerosis Research at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, have emphasized that small, dense LDL particles are more likely to form artery plaques than larger, buoyant ones. Dr. Krauss, who has published more than 400 papers on this topic, highlights the significance of particle size in assessing cardiovascular risk.

The HDL-to-LDL ratio also emerges as a better predictor of heart disease risk than LDL levels alone. A high ratio indicates a greater proportion of protective HDL, reducing cardiovascular event risks, as noted in a 2022 BMC Cardiovascular Disorders study.

Dr. Wolfson cautions against a one-size-fits-all approach to cardiovascular health and cholesterol. “Each individual has a perfect level for themselves,” he said. “What is good for you may be high or low for me.”

He advocates for evaluating inflammation in the body, the underlying cause of heart disease. He recommends markers of inflammation and oxidative stress, such as c-reactive protein, phospholipase A2, and ox-LDL, as better predictors of cardiovascular risk than LDL alone.

As research progresses, a more tailored approach to cholesterol management could improve cardiovascular health outcomes.

By Stuttgart Daily Leader

While La Ñina is helping ease the traffic knots at the Panama Canal, repeated attacks by Houthis — some fatal — have driven shippers to find alternatives to the Suez Canal, said Ryan Loy, extension economist for the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture.

The Panama Canal is a key route for global trade, including for Arkansas commodities such as soybeans and corn. In March, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development said that traffic through the Panama Canal had dropped 49 percent since 2021 and 42 percent in the Suez Canal during the same period.

“About 26 percent of U.S. soybeans and 17 percent of U.S. corn is transported via the Panama Canal,” Loy said. “And this is important to us, especially in Arkansas, because a lot of our grain goes down the Mississippi River to the Port of New Orleans.”

Arkansas’s export soybeans and corn go through the Panama Canal to get to Asia, Loy noted.

Long-term drought across Central America was strangling the Panama Canal. While the passage connects two oceans, the water used to raise and lower ships between the coasts comes from Gatun Lake, a fresh water body. Each ship transit requires 52 million gallons of water. The lake fell to its lowest levels in five years last June, hitting 79.5 feet.

“It was a very dire situation,” Loy said. The alternative to the canal would mean sailing around Cape Horn at the bottom of South America, costly in fuel and fraught with dangerous weather.

Lower lake levels meant shallower water in the locks. The Panama Canal Authority ended up restricting the number of ships making transits. Ships that could make the trip had to carry less cargo to prevent their hulls from hitting bottom.

However, the return of La Ñina has meant replenishing rain for the lake and the canal authority has not only increased the number of ships allowed through, but also allowed heavier ships that sit more deeply in the water.

As of July 11, the canal authority was “increasing the number to 33 ships a day. Then on July 22, they’re going to allow 34 ships a day and on Aug. 5, they will open up one more spot for the Neopanamax ships.”

“Neopanamax” refers to the largest ships than can pass through the canal’s newest locks, which opened in 2016. These vessels can be up to 1,202 feet long, 168 feet wide and have a draft of 50 feet. Draft is the distance between the ship’s waterline and its lowest point.

“This is very close to what they used to do —  38 ships a day — so we’re getting close to normal,” Loy said.  “Just for comparison, in November 2023, they were at 24 ships a day, so you can see how much we’ve kind of improved since then.”

Should drought return the canal to its restricted state and if China’s soybean crop is poor, “that leaves Brazil an opportunity,” he said.

Brazil is a key rival to the U.S. for soybean trade and doesn’t rely on the Panama Canal.

“Brazil can come in and say, we don’t need the Panama Canal. We can transport our grain via rail and trucks to the Pacific. They have a lot of it and it’s much cheaper,” Loy said. “So those are the kind of implications of what could happen if the drought comes back.”

Suez Canal

The Suez Canal is a critical route, carrying an estimated 12-15 percent of global trade.

Since starting in November 2023, Houthi attacks in the Suez Canal have become fiercer, resulting in the deaths of four crewmembers from attacks on two ships, the MV True Confidence and the Tutor.

MarineTraffic.com, which tracks global shipping, reported a 79.6 percent reduction in dry bulk carriers — whose shipments include grain — passing through the Suez, just 24 ships in June, compared to 118 in June 2023. The amount of cargo passing through the canal in May was 44.9 million tons, down from 142.9 million tons in May 2023.

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said many shippers were opting to avoid the canal and the Houthis, including British Petroleum, Evergreen, CMA CGM, Hapag Loyd and Maersk.

Maersk resumed its use of the canal in June, since taking the the Cape of Good Hope route around the tip of South Africa added an estimated $1 million in fuel costs and one to two weeks in additional transit time, according to the U.S. Naval Institute. Rounding the cape is still perilous, with one ship running aground and another losing cargo, according to Bloomberg.

The Suez Canal’s decreased traffic meant the port authority’s yearly revenues were nearly halved, from $648 million last year to $337 million, Loy said.

“The areas surrounding this are also impacted, too, because people’s jobs, people’s livelihoods depend on traffic through the Suez Canal,” he said, and “that’s tough for that region.”

Houthis are only attacking ships affiliated with the U.S., Israel and their allies, affecting insurance premiums for the carriers.

“The total premium for U.S.-based cargo is 1.7 percent of total freight on board,” Loy said. “Because they’re not attacking Chinese ships, the Chinese premium is just 0.2 percent of the value of total freight on board.”

Where does this leave consumers?

“I’m surprised that we haven’t seen much increase in items at the grocery store, even vehicles, or whatever it may be, anything besides grain, that are separate from our inflation issues,” Loy said. “The expected big ripple effect is having a little bit less of an impact than most people thought.”

Scientists from the University of Birmingham in England have detected the “first rumblings”—or first indications—that the sun’s next 11-year solar cycle, Cycle 26, will begin by the decade’s end.

The current cycle, Cycle 25, has reached what scientists call a “solar maximum,” when the sun’s magnetic field flips and its poles swap places. This peak is known for elevated solar activity, including sunspots, flares, and coronal mass ejections.

Researchers from Birmingham recently presented the new data at the Royal Astronomical Society’s National Astronomy Meeting in Hull. The data shows the first signs that the next solar cycle is beginning. 

Astronomers use the sun’s internal sound waves to measure how it rotates, making visible a pattern of bands (solar torsional oscillation) that rotate slightly faster or slower. These move towards the sun’s equator and its poles during the activity cycle.

The faster-rotation belts tend to show up before the next solar cycle officially begins. -researchers 

Research leader Rachel Howe from Birmingham noted a ‘faint indication’ is beginning to show up after analyzing the pattern of the sun’s bands (solar torsional oscillation). The faster-rotation belts tend to show up before the next solar cycle arrives. 

“If you go back one solar cycle – 11 years – on the plot, you can see something similar that seems to join up with the shape that we saw in 2017. It went on to be a feature of the present solar cycle, Cycle 25,” said Dr. Howe.

She said, “We’re likely seeing the first traces of Cycle 26, which won’t officially start until about 2030.”

Researchers have been analyzing solar torsional oscillation patterns on the sun using helioseismic data from the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG), the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) onboard the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, and the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on board the Solar Dynamics Observatory since the mid-1990s. This data now covers Solar Cycles 23, 24, and 25, allowing researchers better to understand the precursors to the next solar cycle. 

Howe has been a student of the stars for 25 years, studying the sun’s rotation through GONG and MDI data. 

“With more data, I hope we can understand more about the part these flows play in the intricate dance of plasma and magnetic fields that form the solar cycle,” she concluded.

Several studies (one here) have suggested the sun will experience a new grand solar minimum between 2030 and 2040. This could decrease solar activity, similar to the Maunder minimum in the 17th century. At that time, Earth experienced a period of global cooling known as the Little Ice Age. 

But in the meantime, the Tonga eruption in 2022 appears to have fueled global warming, not cow farts or Taylor Swift’s private jet.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, alongside other senior officials and agency leaders, have issued a joint statement firmly defending female Secret Service agents during the July 13 assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump.

“In the days following the attempted assassination of former President Trump, some people have made public statements questioning the presence of women in law enforcement, including in the United States Secret Service,” reads the July 20 statement.

“These assertions are baseless and insulting.”

Besides Mr. Mayorkas, the statement was endorsed by 10 other senior Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, including Kimberly Cheatle, director of the U.S. Secret Service, who will appear Monday on Capitol Hill to answer questions about the assassination attempt.

The attempted assassination of former President Trump has raised questions about how 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks managed to position himself on a rooftop with a clear line of sight to the former president, whose ear was injured by a bullet.

The shooting brought the Secret Service director’s stated interest in hiring more women into the spotlight.

“I’m very conscious, as I sit in this chair now, of making sure that we need to attract diverse candidates, ensure that we are developing opportunities for everybody in our workforce, and particularly women,” Ms. Cheatle told CBS News in an interview last year.

 

An array of commentators, including some Republican lawmakers, focused explicitly on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies at the Secret Service, claiming that such programs have undermined its mission.

 

“Under Director Cheatle’s failed leadership, the United States Secret Service has prioritized woke DEI policies over the core responsibilities of the Secret Service, including protecting our nation’s leaders,” Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said in a statement, while introducing a bill to hold Ms. Cheatle accountable for allowing the gunman to fire off several shots—including one that grazed former President Trump’s ear—before being killed by police snipers.

Ms. Boebert’s bill would prohibit “any federal funds from being used to pay the salary or expenses” of Ms. Cheatle.

Earlier in the week, the Secret Service’s chief of communication, Anthony Guglielmi, called out the “baseless assertions” that agents are unqualified.

“As an elite law enforcement agency, all of our agents and officers are highly trained and fully capable of performing our missions,” Mr. Guglielmi said in a statement provided to some news outlets.

“It is an insult to the women of our agency to imply that they are unqualified based on gender. Such baseless assertions undermine the professionalism, dedication and expertise of our workforce.”

The Saturday statement from Mr. Mayorkas and other top DHS officials appeared to focus most acutely on the line of criticism against women being on the front lines in the Secret Service.

“Every single day, in communities big and small across our great country, women are serving in federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, and campus law enforcement,” the joint statement reads.

“They are highly trained and skilled professionals, who risk their lives on the front lines for the safety and security of others. They are brave and selfless patriots who deserve our gratitude and respect.”

Mr. Mayorkas and the other officials added that DHS will continue to recruit, retain, and elevate women in our law enforcement ranks and take “great pride” in doing so.

“Our Department will be the better for it, and our country more secure,” the statement said.

Former President Trump has thanked the agents who were at the rally and praised members of the security team.

“They did a fantastic job,” he told the New York Post on Sunday.

“It’s surreal for all of us.”

The former president’s son, Eric Trump, went further, offering praise for the female agents in particular.

“I know all those agents on stage and they’re the greatest people ever,” Eric Trump told MSNBC on July 16.

“The female that’s in the picture, she was with me for a very long time and she’s one of the greatest human beings you would ever meet.”

Besides injuring former President Trump, the gunman critically wounded two men and killed one.

Via BitcoinMagazine.com,

A response to the recent piece “Reflections on Bitcoin Culture” by Margot Paez, by Joakim Book.

Bitcoin changes our lives.

It’s an almost spiritual observation that we’ve all seen within ourselves. After acquiring some, learning how it works, and to various degrees delving into what this decentralized, uncensorable, proof-of-work money is, we’ve seen our lives change. It echoes history. Some people see god in it.

Bitcoiners have had their lives upended, their perspectives shifted, and their value systems altered. We see how our behavior changed from our pre-Bitcoin selves, our emphasis now squarely placed on real things, hard things, the long term, and the local. We look to our inner selves, and we look after ourselves. We see to our families. We set our own house in order before we criticize the world.

Bitcoin encourages higher-level thinking, of the dynamic kind that once characterized good economics. Once a Bitcoiner, we become less prone to believing commonly accepted just-so stories — more skeptical and interested in verifying rather than trusting.

Anyone who’s been in Bitcoin for a while can point to countless such examples in their own lives. It’s undeniable, therefore, that Bitcoin itself has a culture. It affects change in the people it welcomes; you don’t change Bitcoin, Bitcoin changes you.

The values embedded in it are rules that people who embrace this monetary revolution can’t help but internalize. Whether they understand it or not is unimportant. Bitcoin is for anyone, sure, but you don’t stay that same person after Bitcoin has changed your life; you’re a different “anyone” than when you first opened your fiat eyes.

Bitcoin allowed us to see much of the stupidity of the collective delusions at the base of the state, democracy, central banks, public health, public schooling — public anything, really. It’s the same realization that makes us put huge question marks on climate change worries or trans ideology.

In the world of fiat, anything goes.

You can unverifiably feel oppressed, a man can unverifiably be a woman, anyone who’s sad or distracted can unverifiably feel autistic or depressed. If the lord of the printing press doesn’t feel like there’s enough money around, he makes more. Violently extorting productive members of society is held as a morally good thing and celebrated. The experts and fiat media voices say the world ends in twelve (or five) years, and if you disbelieve them or ask for verification, you’re on par with the Nazis.

In Bitcoin, this playbook doesn’t fly anymore. Identifying as receiving a block reward does nothing, political votes become irrelevant, nobody’s unverifiable feelings reign supreme, and cheating gets harder. UTXOs don’t have a sex. It all goes out the window, revealed and denuded for the nonsense it always was.

Thus, something doesn’t add up in Margot Paez’s recent article thrashing Bitcoin culture.

She writes:

“…popular influencers who are often millennial men spending a lot of time taking photos of themselves flexing their muscles in front of a mirror. I really wonder how big those muscles have to get to protect the fragile ego buried beneath those muscular fibers.”

Big muscles are flexes because they’re unfakeable – like a hash under the difficulty target. A transaction is valid and confirmed or it isn’t. It’s right there, objective, and verifiable to anyone who cares to look.

Pull-ups are flexes because they display truth, regardless of what anyone else thinks about an invisible ego beneath. You can do them, or you can’t; they’re verifiable and undeniable. A muscle-up doesn’t ask for permission or tries to confuse you about nuances to an imagined reality.

This stands in contrast to the fiat, legacy world — of which trans ideology is merely one of the least material but verifiably stupid examples — where words are violence, invisible and unverifiable identities rule, fiat schools can’t teach people to read or count, Uber doesn’t have any cars, and the banks don’t have your money. It’s a broken culture, where the only thing running away faster than the deaths of despair are the deficits in a profligate Treasury, forever bound to send welfare checks to rent-seekers.

It’s a culture dominated by sensitivity instead of truth, that celebrates weakness instead of strength and responsibility and self-improvement, that encourages therapy even though it barely works and shoves you pharmacy-full of meds and injections at the first sign of trouble.

That’s why I’m not sold on this “Progressive Bitcoiner” ethos flying around. Progressives came to Bitcoin and carved out a niche for themselves, and for now that works well as a bridge over from the hyper-leftwing clown world to our world. But you won’t be a Bitcoiner and long remain a progressive; they’re mostly incompatible ideas.

Progressivism came to Bitcoin as a breath of fresh air, but it will ultimately die here.

Bitcoin strips a government of control over transactions and economic value. A progressive requires a large and invasive government to uphold and enact the many things they yearn for. If you still want those goodies, but not the violent organized crime syndicate we call government, you’re merely a libertarian with a strong social ethos. Congrats. I’ve said so before regarding Jason Maier’s A Progressive’s Case for Bitcoin, and I maintain that in time Bitcoin will change him too, like it has the rest of us.

Bitcoin sooner or later forces you into seeing the world of truth and acting in unfakeable ways, looking to what is rather than what’s voiced or recommended by “experts.” On the way there one usually complains loudly about the mean Bitcoiners not seeing the world you do.

It’s not a coincidence that so many Bitcoiners proudly and diligently consume steak. We saw that the nutritional guidelines were gunk (some might even say corrupt), and the people pushing them were obese, ill, and ugly. We ate a bunch of meat and felt better. Do I look unhealthy to you?! we ceremoniously ask.

The LGBTQ flags that Paez defends sit next to flags with “Free Palestine” — even though Palestinians aren’t exactly known for their pro-gay values — and “Slava Ukraini,” celebrating a country that scores among the worst on the Rainbow Europe index and routinely counts as Europe’s second most corrupt country (behind Russia). These are not serious people. You know something is rotten when originally peace-loving leftists celebrate the very warmongering people they should detest.

The ultimate shit-test is the clown world shitshow, not Bitcoiner culture. In fact, the truth and honesty in Bitcoin culture is the antidote.

Quit whining and go do some pull-ups.