Author: admin

France is getting greener.

A series of measures have been announced aimed at making the economy more environmentally friendly such as a ban on outdoor heaters at bars and restaurants, more efficient domestic heating systems and two regional parks. Most importantly though, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, the country has set a goal to reduce nuclear’s share of electricity generation from its current 70 percent to 50 percent by 2035.

The change in direction comes amid the controversial construction of the Flamanville EPR nuclear reactor by state-utility EDF which is more than a decade over schedule and is expected to cost €12.4 billion compared to an initial budget of €3.5 billion. It is finally expected to start operation in 2023. France also appointed former green politician and nuclear critic Barbara Pompili minister for the environment earlier this month.

As this infographic, based on the 2019 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, shows, no country is as reliant on nuclear energy as France.

You will find more infographics at Statista

It operated 58 reactors last year, second only to the United States’ 97, and they accounted for 71.7 percent of total electricity generation. The U.S. reactors had a 19.3 percent share of total electricity generation.

After France, the countries most reliant on nuclear power are all concentrated in Eastern Europe. Reactors generate between 50 and 55 percent of all electricity in Slovakia, Ukraine and Hungary. Sweden is also high up on the list with just over 40 percent, with Belgium (39 percent) and Switzerland (37.7 percent) close behind.

Authored by Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Is there any good reason why Germany is still occupied by the United States? After 75+ years one could make a strong argument that the Nazi threat is over. Donald Trump would seem to agree with this sentiment and directly stated that he wants to continue to reduce the number of American soldiers on the territory of today’s friendlier tolerant and geopolitically submissive Deutschland. The logic by which U.S. forces are stationed across the globe has been called into question many times and very often has no sellable answer. Trump himself agrees with the dubious nature of the need to have an American army base in every possible location. He even told the graduates of West Point that “We are not the policeman of the world”. This a very unusual statement from an American President, so is Trump’s threat to remove troops from Germany practical, ideological, or some odd reflection of his famed narcissism?

So how exactly did Trump threaten Germany with a troop withdrawal? On his most beloved platform of communication with the masses the President of the United States recently tweeted the following…

Germany pays Russia billions of dollars a year for Energy, and we are supposed to protect Germany from Russia. What’s that all about? Also, Germany is very delinquent in their 2% fee to NATO. We are therefore moving some troops out of Germany!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2020

The amount of U.S. forces in Germany, even before this demand by Trump was a good number for a flaccid superficial occupation but not a real determining factor in preventing a foreign invasion, but then again Germany is surrounded by allies and Switzerland so maybe one soldier would be good enough. With the Cold War having ended in the early 90s, from 2006-2018 the number of American personal occupying Germany went from around 72,000 to a bit over 32,000. A month before this historic tweet Trump had already threatened to remove 9,500 U.S. soldiers from Germany, shifting many to Poland, i.e. closer to Russia.

Since Germany did not pay up, after having a month to think about it, it would seem that the manpower shift has been increased to 12,000 men. So if this is a mob-style threat of “pay for protection or pay the price” then it really doesn’t seem worth it for Germany to bother, if they actually have the free will not to pay.

So what is the difference if Berlin does or does not pay their tribute to NATO?

Germany refuses to pay up

• They remain occupied but by less men.

• They become marginally weaker to a proposed highly unlikely Russian threat.

Germany decides to pay up

• They remain occupied by the current number of men.

• They remain as weak/strong to proposed highly unlikely Russian threat as they were before.

The threat traditional land based invasion happening between major powers in the 21st century seems impossible. No matter how much the clowns in the Mainstream Media portray modern war through a filter of WWII understanding, this does not make it true.

Photo: Men with guns provide no protection for Germany in a WWIII scenario.

A conflict between Russia and the West would be conducted by missiles with nuclear warheads. But for the sake of argument let’s say things change and infantry become a viable means of winning big wars again. In this instance having your troops deep in the heartland of the EU away from the Russian front makes no sense. The exception to this would be air force bases as having one’s fighters and bombers off the front line is not a problem, but the idea that “guys with guns” is somehow protecting Germany from Russia is mental even if infantry warfare became viable again.

Furthermore, what exactly would Russia gain by making a bayonet push the Reichstag actually get Moscow? The opportunity to occupy territory with no resources that traditionally hate them? Moscow has neither the means nor the motive to bother, making a Russian threat a very weak justification to do anything with tanks and men. Soft Power works against Russia, Hard Power cannot.If we look at things from this perspective this threat from Trump, it all seems rather empty and pointless, but if we take a look at it from the perspective of NATO’s future and not Germany’s national security we get a much different picture.

Germany refuses to pay up

• They and any who refuse to pay are slowly weaned off of NATO.

• This can weaken an organization Trump does not like or force the weaker nations to beg for American protection from the Chinese/Russians who are scarier overlords.

Germany decides to pay up

• NATO becomes a profitable protection racket that continues to serve American interests without putting so much burden on the back of the core of the organization.

Trump was very critical of NATO during his electoral campaign and seems to continue to be a skeptic. And perhaps this pressure on the big anti-Russian alliance could be a win-win scenario for Trump. If the member nations start paying up/contributing then this no longer becomes a burden for America while providing the same benefits that it always did. If the nations do not pay up, which could be bad for their health, then Trump does not seem particularly worried about this troublesome organization changing or dying out.

Certain member nations, especially those close to Russia are very weak and very poor, if they lose NATO protection then their destiny will be in their own hands which should prove to be a very terrifying thought to the leadership of these micronations – having to deal with great powers on their own two feet and not as a vassal of greatness.

In summation

It is obvious to everyone that the U.S. has long overstayed its “10-year Allied occupation” of then Nazi Germany, which is a country unrecognizable in comparison to today’s core of the EU. Presenting the need to protect Germany from the Russians makes little sense, but a little is infinitely more than zero.

Being occupied by ~20,000 U.S. soldiers is not much different than paying up to be occupied by ~30,000 U.S. soldiers from a German perspective.

Airbases in Germany could matter in a theoretical (and extremely unlikely) traditional conflict with Russia. Posting infantry in the country would contribute nothing in a conflict.

As a NATO skeptic, putting pressure on the organization is a win-win scenario for Trump as either he pushes it towards the breaking point to get rid of it or forces it to become profitable/beneficial to the United States and thus worth keeping.

Weaker NATO nations near Russia have no choice but to pay up to the West because their stability rests on being a complete part of it and having its protection.

Trump may want to coerce the Germans to buy oil/gas products from someone else.

Casino stocks roared back to life in early July on prospects of easing Chinese travel restrictions for Macau would lead to booming tourism in the world’s largest casino hub. But as we found out Saturday morning, via Reuters, that’s wasn’t the case as gaming revenues crashed.

Gaming revenues for Macau collapsed 94.5% in July, on a YoY basis, despite travel restrictions to the area relaxed. Gambling in a pandemic, or mainly the fear of being around other people in a closed, indoor space was enough to deter Chinese mainlanders. 

July’s gaming revenue figure was around $163 million and in line with analysts’ expectations of a 95% drop. 

“Casinos are staring at heavy losses for the second quarter, with not much hope for a near-term recovery as a resurgence in coronavirus cases muddies the outlook for when China will reinstate travel visas,” said Reuters. 

Even with travel restrictions eased, Macau last month saw about 2,000 visitors per day, or about 98% reduction in traffic from its usually 108,000 daily average in 2019. 

Shares in MGM Resorts International soared in early July on prospects MGM Macau would see an influx of mainland Chinese as Macau started to reopen. Judging from the continued decline after the pop in optimism, along with Reuters’ Macau gaming revenues for the month, the road to recovery appears to be a bumpy one. 

Here’s our reporting on collapsing gaming revenue in the gambling hub: 

• Macau Orders All Casinos To Close For Two Weeks Over Virus Outbreak
• Macau Gaming Revenue Collapses 87.8% In February
• Macau Gaming Revenues Down 97% As Travel Restrictions Take Toll

MGM Macau is heavily discounting room rates into August. 

As for Las Vegas, we noted last week, it could take three years for the gambling city in the US to recover. 

Macau’s continued plunge in gaming revenue through the summer doesn’t bode well for the global V-shaped recovery narrative.

 

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The great investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald gave an hour-long lecture on how America’s billionaires control the U.S. Government, and here is an edited summary of its opening twenty minutes, with key quotations and assertions from its opening — and then its broader context will be discussed briefly:

“How Congress Maintains Endless War – System Update with Glenn Greenwald” – The Intercept, 9 July 2020

2:45: There is “this huge cleavage between how members of Congress present themselves, their imagery and rhetoric and branding, what they present to the voters, on the one hand, and the reality of what they do in the bowels of Congress and the underbelly of Congressional proceedings, on the other. Most of the constituents back in their home districts have no idea what it is that the people they’ve voted for have been doing, and this gap between belief and reality is enormous.”

Four crucial military-budget amendments were debated in the House just now, as follows:

1. to block Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

2. to block Trump from withdrawing 10,000 troops from Germany

3. to limit U.S. assistance to the Sauds’ bombing of Yemen

4. to require Trump to explain why he wants to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty

On all four issues, the pro-imperialist position prevailed in nearly unanimous votes – overwhelming in both Parties. Dick Cheney’s daughter, Republican Liz Cheney, dominated the debates, though the House of Representatives is now led by Democrats, not Republicans.

Greenwald (citing other investigators) documents that the U.S. news-media are in the business of deceiving the voters to believe that there are fundamental differences between the Parties. “The extent to which they clash is wildly exaggerated” by the press (in order to pump up the percentages of Americans who vote, so as to maintain, both domestically and internationally, the lie that America is a democracy — actually represents the interests of the voters).

16:00: The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee — which writes the nearly $750B annual Pentagon budget — is the veteran (23 years) House Democrat Adam Smith of Boeing’s Washington State.

“The majority of his district are people of color.” He’s “clearly a pro-war hawk” a consistent neoconservative, voted to invade Iraq and all the rest.

“This is whom Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats have chosen to head the House Armed Services Committee — someone with this record.”

He is “the single most influential member of Congress when it comes to shaping military spending.”

He was primaried by a progressive Democrat, and the “defense industry opened up their coffers” and enabled Adam Smith to defeat the challenger.

*  *  *

That’s the opening.

Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government’s military budget. They’re all corrupt. And then he went, at further length, to describe the methods of deceiving the voters, such as how these very same Democrats who are actually agents of the billionaires who own the ‘defense’ contractors and the ‘news’ media etc., campaign for Democrats’ votes by emphasizing how evil the Republican Party is on the issues that Democratic Party voters care far more about than they do about America’s destructions of Iraq and Syria and Libya and Honduras and Ukraine, and imposing crushing economic blockades (sanctions) against the residents in Iran, Venezuela and many other lands. Democratic Party voters care lots about the injustices and the sufferings of American Blacks and other minorities, and of poor American women, etc., but are satisfied to vote for Senators and Representatives who actually represent ‘defense’ contractors and other profoundly corrupt corporations, instead of represent their own voters. This is how the most corrupt people in politics become re-elected, time and again — by deceived voters. And — as those nearly unanimous committee votes display — almost every member of the U.S. Congress is profoundly corrupt.

Furthermore: Adam Smith’s opponent in the 2018 Democratic Party primary was Sarah Smith (no relation) and she tried to argue against Adam Smith’s neoconservative voting-record, but the press-coverage she received in her congressional district ignored that, in order to keep those voters in the dark about the key reality. Whereas Sarah Smith received some coverage from Greenwald and other reporters at The Intercept who mentioned that “Sarah Smith mounted her challenge largely in opposition to what she cast as his hawkish foreign policy approach,” and that she “routinely brought up his hawkish foreign policy views and campaign donations from defense contractors as central issues in the campaign,” only very few of the voters in that district followed such national news-media, far less knew that Adam Smith was in the pocket of ‘defense’ billionaires. And, so, the Pentagon’s big weapons-making firms defeated a progressive who would, if elected, have helped to re-orient federal spending away from selling bombs to be used by the Sauds to destroy Yemen, and instead toward providing better education and employment-prospects to Black, brown and other people, and to the poor, and everybody, in that congressional district, and all others. Moreover, since Adam Smith had a fairly good voting-record on the types of issues that Blacks and other minorities consider more important and more relevant than such things as his having voted for Bush to invade Iraq, Sarah Smith really had no other practical option than to criticize him regarding his hawkish voting-record, which that district’s voters barely even cared about. The billionaires actually had Sarah Smith trapped (just like, on a national level, they had Bernie Sanders trapped).

Of course, Greenwald’s audience is clearly Democratic Party voters, in order to inform them of how deceitful their Party is. However, the Republican Party operates in exactly the same way, though using different deceptions, because Republican Party voters have very different priorities than Democratic Party voters do, and so they ignore other types of deceptions and atrocities.

Numerous polls (for examples, this and this) show that American voters, except for the minority of them that are Republican, want “bipartisan” government; but the reality in America is that this country actually already does have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisanly evil. In fact, it’s almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality. That’s the way America’s Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that the ‘news’-media don’t publicize. However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its billionaires) do likewise, and since they cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the public don’t even know this. They don’t know the reality. They don’t know how corrupt and evil their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That’s the extent to which they actually ‘participate’ in ‘their’ Government. They tragically don’t know the reality. It’s hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the billionaires’ ‘news’-media. These are the truths that can’t pass through those executives’ filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can function this way — and, of course, none does.

A mysterious incident related to a serious breach of secure airspace over America’s largest nuclear power plant has been unearthed through Freedom of Information Act documents gained from the government.

It’s leading to new fears that America’s energy infrastructure is prone to attack and potentially being knocked offline, akin to the drone and missile attack which temporarily halted all Saudi oil exports last year at Aramco’s Abaqaiq oil processing facility. Forbe’s presents the astonishing details as follows:

A tiny armada of between four and six unmarked drones flew over the Palo Verde Generating Station nuclear power plant in Arizona on the nights of September 29 and 30, 2019, with plant security proving unable to stop them and authorities still uncertain who was operating them or why.

The newly accessed Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) documents had called the incident a “drone-a-palooza” as it involved swarms of inexpensive, likely off-the-shelf drones flying in large numbers over restricted airspace and near sensitive structures of Arizona’s Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant.

The documents conclude that it’s still as yet unknown who or what entity sent them or who was operating them during the illegal incursion.

“Documents gained under the Freedom of Information Act show how a number of small drones flew around a restricted area at Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant on two successive nights last September,” Forbes writes further. “Security forces watched, but were apparently helpless to act as the drones carried out their incursions before disappearing into the night. Details of the event gives some clues as to just what they were doing, but who sent them remains a mystery.”

The FOIA documents underscore the incident was confusing and chaotic for security on the ground, as the security logs suggest:

“Officer noticed several drones (5 or 6) flying over the site. The drones are circling the 3 unit site inside and outside the Protected Area. The drones have flashing red and white rights and are estimated to be 200 to 300 hundred feet above the site. It was reported the drones had spotlights on while approaching the site that they turned off when they entered the Security Owner Controlled Area. Drones were first noticed at 2050 MST and are still over the site as of 2147 MST. Security Posture was normal, which was changed to elevated when the drones were noticed. The Licensee notified one of the NRC resident inspectors.”

And on a subsequent night, the logs indicate:

Four (4) drones were observed flying beginning at 2051 MST [on Sept. 30, 2019] and continuing through the time of this report (2113 MST). As occurred last night, the drones are flying in, through, and around the owner controlled area, the security owner controlled area, and the protected area. Also, as last night, the drones are described as large with red and white flashing lights. Spotlights have not been noted tonight.

The licensee has not changed their security posture. The licensee continues to monitor the drones.

As of 0355 EDT, no drones have been observed at the site since before 0020 MST. LLEA [local law enforcement agency] surveyed the area and were unable to locate drones on the ground or anyone controlling the drones.

Guards at the high secure facility were without any ability to deter the drones overhead.  Subsequent media reports in the wake of the internal security memos going public say that county police were deployed to scour the area for the drone operator or operators but to no avail. 

The whole unsolved incident highlights that it appears America’s network of nuclear power sites essentially remain defenseless when it comes to drone incursions. 

It appears that at least at the Palo Verde site, the facility was not equipped with drone detection gear or jamming technology which could have disabled the drones. However, the sprawling facility is reportedly due to receive drone and small aircraft detection gear, but it’s unknown whether other sensitive facilities are also due for a security ungrade.

* * * 

Some details on America’s largest nuclear power plant at Palo Verde:

Authored by Carlton Meyer via AntiWar.com,

Chris Stevens was an ambitious US State Department employee who volunteered to participate in the overthrow of the Libyan government in 2011.

He covertly arrived in Libya in early 2011 aboard a Greek cargo ship with CIA personnel and set up operations in Benghazi to coordinate illegal shipments of weaponry into Libya and organized attacks on the Libyan army.

After Africa’s most prosperous nation was in ruins, Stevens became the US Ambassador to Libya in Tripoli and was given a new mission of shipping tons of arms to Syria to destroy that nation.

He traveled to Benghazi in September 2012 to check on progress and was attacked. Stevens was captured, beaten, and killed.

The Obama administration hid these facts and proclaimed Chris Stevens an American hero who had traveled to Benghazi to mediate peace among warring factions when he was killed by terrorists.

* * *

Watch how the covert op turned disastrous & into a continuing cover-up:

For all its monetary generosity, despite injecting $3 trillion reserves into the banking system (if not the economy), the Fed remains stuck with two big problems. The first one, as we touched on earlier, is that the newly printed money is unable to make its way into the broader monetary plumbing and spark the much needed inflation that will do away with the trillions in debt, although as we also noted, the Fed now has a plan to deposit digital funds directly into individual US accounts (using a “household app” in the words of former Fed economist Julia Coronado).

The other problem is that despite all its attempts to stimulate equity animal spirits, the bulk of new fund has flowed into bonds, not stocks. In fact, YTD equity outflows amount to $39BN while inflows to bonds and commodities are over $200BN, with a whopping $1.145 trillion going to cash via money-markets.

And so with so many investors stubbornly buying the one asset class the Fed does not want to be in wide demand (even as it monetized some $3 trillion of it), and even with trillions more in new debt to be paradropped by the US Treasury – something which has failed to taper demand for 10Y Treasurys whose yields just hit an all time low – the hunt for yield is getting harder than ever for fixed-income investors.

According to the FT, a record 86% of the $60 trillion global bond market tracked by ICE Data Services traded with yields no higher than 2%, with more than 60% of the market yielding less than 1 per cent as of June 30.

At the same time, global negative yielding debt has soared to $14.6 trillion, from $11 trillion in January, and rapidly approaching the all time high of $17 trillion hit one year ago.

Meanwhile, just 3% of the investable bond universe today yields more than 5%, a share that is close to an all-time low, and represents a precipitous drop from levels seen roughly two decades ago. Consider that in the late 1990s, nearly 75% of bonds traded with yields above 5 per cent, while sub-2% yields comprised under 10%  of the market. That was before central banks took over capital markets, and responded to the a series of financial crises by slashing interest rates to ever lower, and eventually negative rates, and launching trillions in bond-buying programs that fundamentally altered the investing landscape.

This has pushed investors into riskier segments in search of income, compelling them to lend to lower-quality companies and countries.

“Yield-chasing behavior has become much more pronounced,” said Matt King, Citi’s legendary credit strategist. “If you are a pension fund or an insurance company, you are forced to go down in quality and take extreme risk.”

It all came to a head in this year’s Covid-19 crisis, when the Fed again cut interest rates to near zero, and pledged to buy an unlimited quantity of government debt (and has been doing so, monetizing all gross Treasury issuance in 2020). The central bank also launched a number of emergency programs to shore up an unprecedented range of securities — including IG, junk bonds and municipal debt – which sent investment grade prices to all time highs and disconnected them from fundamentals. Investors expect additional stimulus measures to be announced at either this week’s Fed meeting or the next one in September.

After the latest round of interventions, real yields on US Treasuries — which strip out expectations for inflation — have dropped to all time lows of -1%.

This move “is the direct consequence of all of the central bank support”, said King. “It is the main force driving investors to pile into risky assets” such as gold and cryptos, both of which are at or near all time highs.

Authored by Anthony Mueller via The Mises Institute,

The lockdown in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the implementation of long-held plans to establish a so-called new world order. Under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF), global policymakers are advocating for a “Great Reset” with the intent of creating a global technocracy. It is not by coincidence that on October 18, 2019, in New York City the WEF participated in “Event 201” at the “high-level” pandemic exercise organized by the John Hopkins Center for Health Security.

This coming technocracy involves close cooperation between the heads of the digital industry and of governments. With programs such as guaranteed minimum income and healthcare for all, the new kind of governance combines strict societal control with the promise of comprehensive social justice.

The truth, however, is that this new world order of digital tyranny comes with a comprehensive social credit system. The People’s Republic of China is the pioneer of this method of surveillance and control of individuals, corporations, and sociopolitical entities.

For the individual, one’s identity is reduced to an app or chip that registers almost any personal activity. In order to gain a few individual rights, and be it only to travel to a certain place, a person must balance such apparent privileges with his submission to a web of regulations that define in detail what is “good behavior” and deemed as beneficial to humankind and the environment. For example, during a pandemic, this sort of control would extend from the obligation of wearing a mask and practicing social distancing to having specific vaccinations in order to apply for a job or to travel.

It is, in short, a type of social engineering which is the opposite of a spontaneous order or of development. Like the mechanical engineer with a machine, the social engineer—or technocrat—treats society as an object. Different from the brutal suppressions by the totalitarianism of earlier times, the modern social engineer will try to make the social machine work on its own according to the design. For this purpose, the social engineer must apply the laws of society the way the mechanical engineer follows the laws of nature. Behavioral theory has reached a stage of knowledge that makes the dreams of social engineering possible. The machinations of social engineering operate not through brute force, but subtly by nudge.

Under the order envisioned by the Great Reset, the advancement of technology is not meant to serve the improvement of the conditions of the people but to submit the individual to the tyranny of a technocratic state. “The experts know better” is the justification.

The Agenda

The plan for an overhaul of the world is the brainchild of an elite group of businessmen, politicians, and their intellectual entourage that used to meet in Davos, Switzerland, in January each year. Brought into existence in 1971, the World Economic Forum has become a megaglobal event since then. More than three thousand leaders from all over the world attended the meeting in 2020.

Under the guidance of the WEF, the agenda of the Great Reset says that the completion of the current industrial transformation requires a thorough overhaul of the economy, politics, and society. Such a comprehensive transformation requires the alteration of human behavior, and thus “transhumanism” is part of the program.

The Great Reset will be the theme of the fifty-first meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2021. Its agenda is the commitment to move the world economy toward “a more fair, sustainable and resilient future.” The program calls for “a new social contract” that is centered on racial equality, social justice, and the protection of the nature. Climate change requires us “to decarbonize the economy” and to bring human thinking and behavior “into harmony with nature.” The aim is to build “more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies.” This new world order must be “urgently” implemented, the promotors of the WEF claim, and they point out that the pandemic “has laid bare the unsustainability of our system,” which lacks “social cohesion.”

The WEF’s great reset project is social engineering at the highest level. Advocates of the reset contend that the UN failed to establish order in the world and could not advance forcefully its agenda of sustainable development—known as Agenda 2030—because of its bureaucratic, slow, and contradictory way of working. In contrast, the actions of the organizational committee of the World Economic Forum are swift and smart. When a consensus has been formed, it can be implemented by the global elite all over the world.

Social Engineering

The ideology of the World Economic Forum is neither left nor right, nor progressive or conservative, it is also not fascist or communist, but outright technocratic. As such, it includes many elements of earlier collectivist ideologies.

In recent decades, the consensus has emerged at the annual Davos meetings that the world needs a revolution, and that reforms have taken too long. The members of the WEF envision a profound upheaval at short notice. The time span should be so brief that most people will hardly realize that a revolution is going on. The change must be so swift and dramatic that those who recognize that a revolution is happening do not have the time to mobilize against it.

The basic idea of the Great Reset is the same principle that guided the radical transformations from the French to the Russian and Chinese Revolutions. It is the idea of constructivist rationalism incorporated in the state. But projects like the Great Reset leave unanswered the question of who rules the state. The state itself does not rule. It is an instrument of power. It is not the abstract state that decides, but the leaders of specific political parties and of certain social groups.

Earlier totalitarian regimes needed mass executions and concentration camps to maintain their power. Now, with the help of new technologies, it is believed, dissenters can easily be identified and marginalized. The nonconformists will be silenced by disqualifying divergent opinions as morally despicable.

The 2020 lockdowns possibly offer a preview of how this system works. The lockdown worked as if it had been orchestrated—and perhaps it was. As if following a single command, the leaders of big and small nations—and of different stages of economic development—implemented almost identical measures. Not only did many governments act in unison, they also applied these measures with little regard for the horrific consequences of a global lockdown.

Months of economic stillstand have destroyed the economic basis of millions of families. Together with social distancing, the lockdown has produced a mass of people unable to care for themselves. First, governments destroyed the livelihood, then the politicians showed up as the savior. The demand for social assistance is no longer limited to specific groups, but has become a need of the masses.

Once, war was the health of the state. Now it is fear of disease. What lies ahead is not the apparent coziness of a benevolent comprehensive welfare state with a guaranteed minimum income and healthcare and education for all. The lockdown and its consequences have brought a foretaste what is to come: a permanent state of fear, strict behavioral control, massive loss of jobs, and growing dependence on the state.

With the measures taken in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, a big step to reset the global economy has been made. Without popular resistance, the end of the pandemic will not mean the end of the lockdown and social distancing. At the moment, however, the opponents of the new world order of digital tyranny still have access to the media and platforms to dissent. Yet the time is running out. The perpetrators of the new world order have smelled blood. Declaring the coronavirus a pandemic has come in handy to promote the agenda of their Great Reset. Only massive opposition can slow down and finally stop the extension of the power grip of the tyrannical technocracy that is on the rise.

By Ye Xie, Bloomberg macro commentator

Three things we learned last week:

1. A major pivot by Xi has China turning inward

At the Politburo meeting on Thursday, President Xi Jinping reiterated his recent call for “dual circulation,” emphasizing self-sufficiency in supply and demand. The combination of a weak global economy and anti-China sentiment in the West means China has to rely more on itself. The shift suggests China will substitute some imports, including technology, with local supply, and reorient some exports to domestic markets. In other words, global trade, which is already contracting, is likely to remain sluggish due to Xi’s pivot inward. This isn’t good news for countries that sell to China, including Germany and most emerging markets. The chart below shows how closely correlated China and U.S. imports are to the performance of global stocks.

Trade data this week is likely to confirm that imports and exports remain weak in China.

2. Dollar’s decline is about to slow down

The Bloomberg Dollar Index fell to a two-year low last week. But its decline may start to slow. The pandemic is showing signs of leveling off in the U.S., and it’s picking up in other countries, including Spain and Japan. A reversal of the virus’s trend globally would remove one of the negatives for the dollar. European stocks underperformed the U.S. last week, underscoring that the dynamics may already be at play.

Still, investors are bracing for radical changes in the Fed policy in September, which sent five-year Treasury yields to record lows. The long-term structural weaknesses for the dollar — including valuation and twin deficits — are still there. That means any respite is likely to be short-lived for the U.S. currency.

3. Volatility may pick up in August with a looming fiscal cliff in the U.S.

The U.S. and Europe posted record GDP contraction last quarter. And American jobs data this week is likely to show that employment growth slowed significantly in July. While most companies have managed to beat low expectations for their earnings, U.S. lawmakers are struggling to pass another economic relief package, and the extra federal unemployment benefits of $600 a week that had been helping to prop up the economy have expired. Expect some volatility in August — that’s when it tends to pick up.

Things to Know:

• China’s ByteDance Ltd. is prepared to sell its music-video app TikTok’s U.S. operations after President Trump threatened to order the move, according to people with knowledge of the situation
• The grace period for wealth management rules will be extended to the end of 2021 due to impact of the coronavirus on the finance industry, China’s central bank said in a statement
• Hong Kong delayed a key Legislative Council election scheduled for September for a year due to a recent surge in Covid-19 cases, fueling more outrage among the city’s opposition
• The U.S. Treasury announced sanctions against a Chinese company and two individuals linked to it, amid tensions between the two nations over issues ranging from trade to Beijing’s treatment of ethnic minorities
• Gold surged to a fresh record, fueled by a persistent dollar weakness and low interest rates

In the race to find a vaccine for COVID-19, an ethical debate is brewing over whether it’s justifiable to deliberately infect healthy volunteers with the disease in the hopes of achieving a scientific breakthrough sooner, according to the South China Morning Post.

And while consenting adults should be allowed to take whatever risks they want, there’s a known unknown regarding this relatively new illness – namely, why do most people who contract coronavirus range from asymptomatic to ‘worst flu of my life,’ only to fully recover, while others – known as ‘long haulers‘ – remain ill for months, experiencing ‘waves’ of debilitating symptoms with no end in sight.

We don’t know much about long haulers – particularly one’s chances of becoming one if infected with COVID-19.

Deliberately infecting people for research is done through what’s known as a “human challenge trial” (HCT) – which can be done concurrently with phase III vaccine trials. Deciding on HCTs for COVID-19 will be a panel of experts at the World Health Organization (WHO) – which includes Wuhan ‘Bat Woman’ Shi Zhengli, whose lab has fallen under suspicion as the source of the COVID-19 outbreak despite her repeated denials.

The advisory panel must contend with three ‘particularly contentious’ questions, according to SCMP:

Meanwhile, over 150 scientists and academics, including 15 Nobel laureates, have signed an open letter to the Director of the US National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, asking the US government to collaborate with international teams to prepare for HCTs. That said, they also called for a ‘high-quality ethical review’ before they could start, according to the report.

“HCTs for Covid-19 have a tremendous amount of advocacy behind them that is unprecedented, for two main reasons. First, the advocacy group 1Day Sooner has been working hard to keep media attention focused on HCTs. Second, the widespread damage that has already been done by Covid-19 leaves the public grasping for any way to speed up vaccine development,” said Northwestern University bioethicist, Seema Shah – the primary author of the Zika ethics panel report.

Some scientists, however, have voiced serious concerns over whether the risks to volunteers is justified.

In an opinion piece published on the US medical website STAT, Michael Rosenblatt, chief medical officer of Flagship Pioneering and former chief medical officer of pharmaceutical giant Merck, wrote: “These authors, like 1Day Sooner’s volunteers, are well-intentioned but wrong.”

Rosenblatt, who is also an adviser to Moderna, said HCTs took months to prepare and Covid-19 vaccine development would not be accelerated by testing young volunteers.

“The volunteers might end up having risked their own health without truly helping those who are in greatest need of vaccine protection,” he said, referring to the elderly.

“An equally disturbing scenario is what if one of the first volunteers dies, either due to the play of chance, a problem with the vaccine, or the individual’s genetic make-up? This is unlikely to happen, but it can, and did, in another setting with consequences that stretched far beyond the single tragic death,” he wrote. He was referring to the death of an 18-year-old volunteer in the first gene therapy trials in 1999. The death put similar research on hold for years. -SCMP

What’s more, since no ‘weakened’ SARS-CoV-2 strains have been manufactured for use in HCTs, volunteers would be injected with ‘wild strains.’

“If HCTs are green-lighted now, when there is substantial uncertainty about the risks, they could set a new precedent for the level of risk and uncertainty that is tolerated in research,” said Shah. “If there are bad outcomes in these trials, or if the vaccines tested in them have safety issues when given to the general public, HCTs could hurt public trust in vaccines in the longer term.”