Author: admin

Authored by Robby Soave via Reason.com,

Anyone who still doubts that woke progressives can pose a material threat to the pursuit of truth should consider the case of David Shor. A week ago, as protests over the unjust police killing of George Floyd took place in major cities across the country, Shor—a 28-year-old political scientist at the Democratic consulting firm Civic Analytics—tweeted some observations about the successes and failures of various movements. He shared research by Princeton University’s Omar Wasow, who has found that violent protests often backfire whereas nonviolent protests are far more likely to succeed. The impulse behind Shor’s tweet was a perfectly liberal one: He feels progressive reforms are more palatable to the public when protesters eschew violence.

But many progressive activists on social media didn’t care whether the impulse was liberal, or even whether it reflected reality. They denounced Shor as a racist for daring to scrutinize the protesters, even if his aim was to make them more effective. One activist accused Shor of using his “anxiety and ‘intellect’ as a vehicle for anti-blackness.” Then she tagged Civis Analytics, and invited the company to “come get your boy.”

Get him, they did. Civic Analytics promptly fired Shor.

Liberal writer Jonathan Chait blames Shor’s firing on “the spread of distinct, illiberal norms throughout some progressive institutions over the last half-dozen years.” Chait knows what he’s talking about: In 2015, he wrote an influential New York article titled “Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say: How the language police are perverting liberalism.” Chait defined political correctness as “a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate,” and he arged that “the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.”

To understand why the “new p.c.” attained that influence, it’s necessary to revisit another influential magazine article from the same year: “The Coddling of the American Mind,” an Atlantic essay penned by the social scientist Jonathan Haidt and the civil libertarian attorney Greg Lukianoff. Their article was later expanded into a book, in which Haidt and Lukianoff blamed an increase in “safetyism“—an impulse to be sheltered not just from physical harm but emotional turmoil—for some of the new hostility to free speech. Their thinking has deeply informed my own writings about the censorious streak in campus activism: In my decade or so of covering higher education, I’ve reported hundreds of examples of progressive students citing their personal sense of safety as the reason they were demanding that punitive actions be taken against some other individual or entity that had offended them.

While some critics have dismissed the idea that the antics of safety-obsessed college students matter very much to the broader culture, I’ve long warned that the small number—proportionally speaking—of young people inclined toward these tactics could do serious damage elsewhere. As I wrote in my book Panic Attack, “It’s not impossible to imagine the same kind of thing happening in the workplace: picture a boss who is afraid to reprimand negligent young employees out of concern that they will say their PTSD is triggered.”

Recent events at The New York Times are an almost perfect demonstration of how this is playing out. Staffers angry about an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) claimed that its publication threatened their very lives. They specifically chose “running this puts black Times staff in danger” as their mantra because it invokes workplace safety. When the authority figure—the boss, the principal, the government—is responsible for ensuring safety, and safety is broadly defined as not merely protection from literal physical violence but also the fostering of emotional comfort, norms of classical liberalism will suffer. (One activist told me that for him, safety requires other people to affirm him.) The Times conflict ended with opinion page chief James Bennet out of his job.

He’s not the only one. UCLA recently suspended a lecturer, Gordon Klein, after he declined a demand that he make a final exam “no-harm”—that is, it could only boost grades—for students of color traumatized by the events in Minneapolis. Klein refused, in accordance with guidance from UCLA’s administration not to give students much leeway on exams. In response, the activists launched a change.org petition to get Klein fired, and the school suspended him. His irritated reply to the activists—that he would not give preferential exam treatment to students because of their skin color—has prompted UCLA to investigate him for racial discrimination.

University of Chicago economist Harald Uhlig, who had the temerity to criticize some of the more radical demands the protesters have made, is now being pressured to resign as editor of the school’s Journal of Political Economy. In this case, it’s not random students doing the pressuring, but some of the biggest names in economics: New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, University of Michigan professor Justin Wolfers, and even former Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, who told the Times that “it would be appropriate for the University of Chicago, which is the publisher of the Journal of Political Economy, to review Uhlig’s performance and suitability to continue as editor.”

The Times article is a master class in guilt-by-insinuation. The authors could not find a single fact to support the notion that Uhlig is a racist or that he has used his position to thwart black scholars. But he holds some views that would be in conflict with the more progressive Black Lives Matter protesters—he doesn’t approve of rioting, and he criticized NFL players for kneeling—and that apparently is suspicious enough.

Chait’s piece on Shor includes another, equally powerful example: Intercept journalist Lee Fang, a man of the left by any measure, was denounced as a racist and publicly shamed by a colleague for daring to interview a black protester who criticized violent tactics. The colleague

called him racist in a pair of tweets, the first of which alone received more than 30,000 likes and 5,000 retweets.

A journalist friend of Fang’s told me he felt his career was in jeopardy, having been tried and convicted in a court of his peers. He was losing sleep for days and unsure how to respond. “All of us were trying to protect his job and clear his name and also not bow to a mob informed by an attitude that views that you disagree with are tantamount to workplace harassment.”

The outcome of this confrontation was swift and one-sided: Two days later, Fang was forced to post a lengthy apology.

Fang was plainly terrified, and not unreasonably fearful of losing his job and being branded a racist forever. The Volokh Conspiracy‘s David Bernstein called Fang’s forced apology “Maoist-style.” It’s a hyperbolic analogy, referencing the infamous “struggle sessions” of Mao Zedong’s totalitarian communism regime. Thankfully, the dissenters from woke orthodoxy are not being tortured or executed for wrongthink. But they do face tremendous pressure to avoid saying anything that might provoke an online mob, or an illiberal colleague, or an activist with different priorities—even if that thing they want to say is plainly true.

This new reality has important social consequences: for the individuals caught in the crosshairs, but also the institutions attempting to navigate these very treacherous waters.

Given that so many cancellations hinge on the accusation that safety is being undermined, I would suggest a different metaphor than Mao.

Mine is no less hyperbolic, but it puts the focus where my reporting—and Haidt and Lukianoff’s research—suggest it should be.

In 1793, the Committee of Public Safety took charge of the French Revolution on a promise to “make terror the order of the day.” Evidence-free show trials and ideological purges followed, consistent with the radical leaders’ belief that public safety requires public terror.

Needless to say, critics of today’s radicals do not live in terror of being sentenced to the guillotine. But losing employment and social standing is no small matter. Having a job is usually connected to having health care and economic security: the ability to afford food, housing, and medicine. While some people weather and overcome their cancellation—even profiting from it—others aren’t so lucky. We hear a lot about the cases where things worked out eventually (this Olivia Nuzzi piece is a must-read), but many cases never produce a sympathetic backlash that aids the cancelled. And being shamed online by thousands of people over a trivial offense is an unpleasant and exhausting experience, even if it doesn’t permanently impact your employment.

This is not to say that every person being cancelled at the moment is a martyr for the cause of free speech. Los Angeles magazine has a list of the recently cancelled. Several were accused of fostering unpleasant work environments. Were they guilty? Maybe so. Recentlty ousted Bon Apetit editor-in-chief Adam Rappaport, for instance, seems like an unpleasant person to work for. Food writer Alison Roman, on the other hand, was dragged on social media for 1) daring to criticize Chrissy Teigen, and 2) wearing an offensive Halloween costume more than a dozen years ago. The photo of Roman was circulated on Twitter by the journalist Yashar Ali, a friend of Teigen with a history of fiercely defending her. Ali claimed the costume was intended as a “chola” stereotype of Mexican-Americans; Roman countered that she was dressed up as Amy Winehouse. Ali deleted his tweet but said he thought it was fair game because Roman had a history of “being called out for appropriation.” (Twitter users immediately dug up a photo of Teigen in a culturally appropriative Halloween costume.)

Ironically, the same subset of people ostensibly exercised about emotional safety – the woke left – seem frequently inclined to level unsubstantiated accusations that inflict emotional harm. This makes it difficult to believe that these Twitter warriors’ true aim is the promotion of psychological comfort. Did any of them consider Uhlig’s mental health after the man was baselessly accused? Does anyone care about Roman, who probably did not expect her enemies to ransack her Myspace page for evidence of racism and then pillory her for a photo taken when she was 23? What about Shor, thrown to the wolves for making a reasonable objection to what one wing of the protesters was doing?

That sounds like terror, not safety. Call it the 1793 Project.

From battles on the front lines to social distancing from friends and family, COVID-19 has caused a massive shake-up of our daily lives.

After second-guessing everything from hugging our loved ones to delaying travel, Visual Capitalist’s Iman Ghosh notes that there is one big question that everyone is likely thinking about: will we ever get back to the status quo? The answer may not be very clear-cut.

Today’s graphic uses data from New York Times’ interviews of 511 epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists from the U.S. and Canada, and visualizes their opinions on when they might expect to resume a range of typical activities.

Life in the Near Future, According to Experts

Specifically, this group of epidemiologists were asked when they might personally begin engaging in 20 common daily activities again.

The responses, based on the latest publicly available and scientifically-backed data, varied based on assumptions around local pandemic response plans. The experts also noted that their answers would change depending on potential treatments and testing rates in their local areas.

Here are the activities that a majority of professionals see starting up as soon as this summer, or within a year’s time:

The urge to be outdoors is pretty clear, with 56% of those surveyed hoping to take a road trip before the summer is over. Meanwhile, 31% felt that they would be able to go hiking or have a picnic with friends this summer, citing the need for “fresh air, sun, socialization and a healthy activity” to help keep on top of their physical and mental health during this time.

Public transport and travel of any form is one aspect that has been put on hold, whether it’s by plane, train, or automobile. Many of the surveyed epidemiologists also lamented the strain the pandemic has had on relationships, as evidenced by the social situations they hope to restart sooner rather than later.

The worst casualty of the epidemic is the loss of human contact.

– Eduardo Franco, McGill University

On the other hand, there are certain activities that they considered too risky to engage in for the time-being. A large share are putting off attending celebrations such as weddings or concerts for at least a year or more, out of perceived social responsibility.

Perhaps the most surprising finding is that 6% of epidemiologists do not expect to ever hug or shake hands as a post-pandemic greeting. On top of this, over half consider masks necessary for at least the next year.

The Virus Sets the Timeline

Of course, these estimates are not meant to represent every situation. The experts also practically considered whether certain activities were avoidable or not—such as one’s occupation—which affects individual risk levels.

The answers [about resuming these activities] have nothing to do with calendar time.

– Kristi McClamroch, University at Albany

While many places are trickling out of lockdown and re-opening to support the economy, some officials are still warning against prematurely lifting restrictions before we fully have a handle on the virus and its spread.

Authored by Diane Dimond, op-ed via The Epoch Times,

What the hell is going on in this country? When did we, the majority, stop speaking up for ourselves? Crimes against common sense seem to happen every week, yet most of us stay silent.

Or is it that the media only highlights those who scream the loudest, leaving the impression that what they demand must be implemented?

The most vocal citizens today are the self-righteous members of the so-called woke pack. You know, those who see themselves as the arbiters of all social and racial justice, and if you don’t believe as they do, you are the enemy.

The ideals of critical thinkers seem to go virtually unremarked upon.

So, I ask here, since when did it become acceptable for politicians to order police to abandon their station and allow demonstrators—some armed with guns—to occupy square blocks of an American city? Seattle’s mayor has explained away her occupying force as a “summer of love protest” group.

Does no one worry that this takeover of downtown Seattle might end badly or spread to other cities?

It is every citizen’s constitutional right to assemble and peacefully protest. But who in their right mind thought joining those recent, massive street demonstrations in the midst of a life-threatening pandemic was a wise idea? And now that we see a rise of COVID-19 cases in several states, many of the woke, bizarrely, point the finger of blame at opposition party politicians for not halting the spread of the disease.

Do we lack the common sense to see the coronavirus spike is our own doing?

The “cancel culture” that exists today pushes aside all clear thinkers who dare express an opinion or ask a clarifying question. “All white people are racist. … The rich are criminals. … All police are bad,” they say. Even television cops are to be condemned. TV producers of “Live PD” and “Cops” crumbled to demands and canceled their programs. The main police-dog character on the kid’s cartoon “Paw Patrol” was targeted for elimination.

Think of the negative effect all this anti-cop fervor will have on both children and future police recruiting.

But if you disagree with these new revolutionaries, who are determined to make the rest of us bend to their beliefs, you are bitterly attacked and ostracized.

Author J.K. Rowling of “Harry Potter” fame nearly fell victim to the cancel culture squad recently when she chided a headline that read, “People Who Menstruate.” She accurately pointed out that it is women who menstruate. Well, that brought howls of condemnation from the LGBTQ community and reminders that some people who have transitioned from female to male still have a monthly reminder of their assigned birth sex.

Since when does a tiny minority of a population get to decide how the rest of us think or express ourselves? Isn’t their hyperbolic response to contrary views exactly like the bullying they so frequently rail against?

And, OK, I will ask: Why isn’t it OK to stand up for all humanity and state the obvious that “all lives matter”? That statement does not denigrate black lives; rather, it places black lives on the same high platform as all others. I am weary of the word play and the twisted meanings given to innocent statements.

And, finally, let’s consider the recent move to destroy our history, as if it, too, could or should be erased. Protestors have demanded countless statues of Civil War leaders—including the emancipation president, Abraham Lincoln—be removed. Likewise for monuments depicting conquistadors who colonized the American west. Did some of those historical figures act in ways we consider abhorrent today? Absolutely, but pretending history didn’t happen is to bury our heads.

If you follow their line of thinking, we should stop teaching students about World Wars I and II because atrocities took place. The horrors of Hitler’s pogrom against Jews should never be mentioned. The Vietnam War, the civil rights struggle of the ’60s and Kent State all had decidedly ugly aspects. Do we ignore those events because remembering might make someone uncomfortable?

Students of this country’s history know the shortcomings of our system. Nothing is perfect, and adjustments are underway. But considering radical ideas like disbanding law enforcement, criminal takeovers of inner cities and controlling others’ conversations is just plain foolish.

As the virus pandemic has metastasized into an economic downturn, tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs and are struggling to service mortgage payments.

New research offers a glimpse into struggling households, discovers out of the 2,000 American homeowners polled, over half (52%) of respondents say they’re routinely worried about making future mortgage payments and nearly half (47%) considered selling their home because of the inability to service mortgage payments. 

The study, conducted by OnePoll and the National Association of Realtors, determined 81% of respondents had experienced unexpected financial stress due to the virus-induced recession. Over half (56%) reduced spending so they could service mortgage payments.

Since mid-March, or about the time when the lockdowns began, nearly half (47%) of homeowners have explored alternative ways of making money. About two-thirds of respondents (64%) started side projects, while 53% sold valuables to supplement income. 

“The swift and unprecedented impact of COVID-19 left many people in a financial emergency, and we want to make sure struggling homeowners know they have relief options, especially during Homeownership Month,” said the National Association of Realtors President Vince Malta.

“Realtors and lenders can identify programs and aid designed to help meet loan obligations. Acting quickly may help homeowners stay in their homes and keep the money they have already invested into it,” Malta said. 

From clothing (71%) and take-out (66%) to streaming TV services (46%) and groceries (45%), respondents said their spending habits had been significantly reduced so they could service mortgage payments. 

In a separate report, more than 4 million homeowners are in mortgage forbearance plan – representing 7.54% of all mortgages, delinquencies are set to surpass the great recession, which peaked at 10%. 

Oxford Economics said 15% of homeowners would fall behind on their monthly mortgage payments in a ‘tidal wave’ of delinquencies, which was similar to the prediction by Moody’s chief economist, Mark Zandi, who said that as many as 30% of Americans with home loans – or around 15 million households, may stop paying if the US economy remains closed through the summer or beyond.

Google search “sell home” rose during lockdowns. 

All of this says a lot about the economy: households are struggling, they cant afford real estate, consumption will remain low, as the prospects of a V-shaped recovery this year continue to wane. 

Authored by Ben Norton via TheGrayZone.com,

Mexico’s oligarchs and establishment political parties have united in a secret alliance to try to remove left-wing President López Obrador from power, with help from the media, Washington, and Wall Street. Leaked documents lay out their devious strategy.

Some of the most powerful forces in Mexico are uniting in a campaign to try to topple the country’s first left-wing president in decades, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. And they apparently have support in Washington and on Wall Street.

Known popularly as AMLO, the Mexican leader is a progressive nationalist who campaigned on the promise to “end the dark night of neoliberalism.” He has since implemented a revolutionary vision he calls the “Fourth Transformation,” vowing to fight poverty, corruption, and drug violence — and has increasingly butted heads with his nation’s wealthy elites.

López Obrador has also posed a challenge to the US foreign-policy consensus. His government provided refuge to Bolivia’s elected socialist President Evo Morales and to members of Evo’s political party who were exiled after a Trump administration-backed military coup.

AMLO also held a historic meeting with Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel, and even stated Mexico would be willing to break the unilateral US blockade of Venezuela and sell the besieged Chavista government gasoline.

These policies have earned AMLO the wrath of oligarchs both inside and outside of his country. On June 18, the US government ratcheted up its pressure on Mexico, targeting companies and individuals with sanctions for allegedly providing water to Venezuela, as part of an oil-for-food humanitarian agreement.

The value of the Mexican peso immediately dropped by 2 percent following the Trump administration’s imposition of sanctions.

These opening salvos of Washington’s economic war on its southern neighbor came just days after López Obrador delivered a bombshell press conference, in which he revealed that the political parties that had dominated Mexican politics for the decades before him have secretly unified in a plot to try to oust the president, years before his democratic mandate ends in 2024.

The forces trying to remove AMLO from power include major media networks, massive corporations, sitting governors and mayors, former presidents, and influential business leaders. According to a leaked document, they call themselves the Broad Opposition Block (Bloque Opositor Amplio, or BOA).

And they say they have lobbyists in Washington, financial investors on Wall Street, and major news publications and journalists from both domestic and foreign media outlets on their team.

El pdte. @lopezobrador_ difundió un documento llegado a Palacio (cuyo origen y autenticidad desconocemos) que propone la conformación de un bloque opositor para arrebatar la presidencia en el 2021, en el que participan partidos, empresarios, medios, intelectuales, periodistas. pic.twitter.com/zfXSlGdUYP

— Jesús Ramírez Cuevas (@JesusRCuevas) June 9, 2020

‘Broad Opposition Block’ BOA plot to demonize AMLO with media propaganda

In a press conference on June 9, the Mexican government published a leaked strategy document purportedly drafted by the Broad Opposition Block, titled “Let’s Rescue Mexico” (Rescatemos a México). The AMLO administration said it did not know the origin of the leak.

These pages consist of an executive summary of “Project BOA,” outlining what it calls a “plan of action” – a blueprint of concrete steps the opposition alliance will take to unseat AMLO.

The cover of the leaked document, the executive summary of the Project BOA plan, “Let’s Save Mexico”

One of the key points in the plan is the following: “Lobbying by the BOA in Washington (White House and Capital Hill) to stress the damage that the government of the [Fourth Transformation] is doing to North American investors.”

The lobbying strategy depends heavily on turning the US against AMLO: “More than comparing it with Venezuela,” the document reads, “BOA should highlight the very high mass migration of Mexicans toward the United States if the crisis of unemployment and insecurity gets worse.”

Then the BOA adds: “Repeat this narrative in the US and European media.”

The section of the BOA plan on lobbying in Washington and using the media to push anti-AMLO messaging

The leaked pages say that BOA has the “international press (USA and Europe)” on its side, along with “foreign correspondents in Mexico.”

The document even names specific media outlets, along with individual journalists and social media influencers, who could help spread their anti-AMLO propaganda. On the list are some of the top news publications in Mexico: Nexos, Proceso, Reforma, El Universal, Milenio, El Financiero, and El Economista.

The list of sympathetic anti-AMLO media outlets and journalists in the BOA document

The “plan of action” makes it clear that this powerful opposition alliance seeks to use its extensive control over the media to obsessively blame AMLO for “unemployment, poverty, insecurity, and corruption” in Mexico.

BOA even states unambiguously in its plan that it will use “groups of social media networks, influencers, and analysts to insist on the destruction of the economy, of the democratic institutions, and the political authoritarianism of the government of the 4T” (using an acronym for the Fourth Transformation process).

This makes it especially ironic that the BOA document reluctantly acknowledges that the López Obrador “government has managed to mitigate the economic impact of the health crisis of coronavirus by giving large amounts of public money to the affected, through social programs.”

The leaked pages likewise admit that AMLO has an approval rating of more than 50 percent — lower than his peak at 86 percent support in the beginning of 2019 or his 72 percent at the end of the year, but still impressive for a region where US-backed leaders like Chile’s Sebastián Piñera or Colombia’s Iván Duque have routinely enjoyed approval ratings of 6 percent and 24 percent, respectively.

#ConferenciaPresidente. Presentan un documento confidencial de un presunto Bloque Opositor Amplio (BOA) para desplazar a Morena y al gobierno actual en las elecciones del 2021. pic.twitter.com/ffoGXoWuVH

— Jenaro Villamil (@jenarovillamil) June 9, 2020

Mexico’s establishment political parties and former presidents unite to oust AMLO

With backing from the US government and utter dominance of media narratives, the Broad Opposition Block plan is to unite all of Mexico’s establishment political parties.

Together, these parties could potentially run candidates under the BOA umbrella, according to the document. Their goal would be, in the 2021 legislative elections, to end the majority that AMLO’s left-wing party Morena won in Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies.

After that, BOA states clearly that it plans to block reforms in the Mexican legislature, and ultimately impeach President López Obrador by 2022 — at least two years before his term ends.

Quite revealing is that the “Let’s Rescue Mexico” document does not mention anything about average working-class Mexicans and their participation in the political process. Nor does it acknowledge the existence of labor unions or grassroots activist organizations, which make up the base of AMLO’s movement and his Morena party.

This is not surprising, considering the BOA alliance lists some of the most powerful figures in the Mexican ruling class.

All the major political parties are included: the right-wing National Action Party (Partido Acción Nacional, or PAN), the center-right Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, or PRI), the centrist Citizens’ Movement (Movimiento Ciudadano, or MC), and even AMLO’s former Party of the Democratic Revolution (Partido de la Revolución Democrática, or PRD).

The list of political parties included in the BOA document

BOA also includes the new political party México Libre, a vehicle for former right-wing President Felipe Calderón, a major ally of George W. Bush who declared a catastrophic “war on drugs” in Mexico, leading to tens of thousands of deaths.

Along with Calderón, BOA lists former President Vicente Fox, another right-wing US ally, as a coalition ally. Fox worked closely with the Bush administration during his term as president to isolate the leftist governments in Latin America, and even tried to undemocratically remove AMLO as mayor of Mexico City and ban him from running for president.

BOA also says it has support from the governors of 14 states in Mexico, along with opposition lawmakers in both the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, judges from the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (TEPJF), and officials from the National Electoral Institute (INE).

Wall Street investors and Mexican oligarchs back anti-AMLO alliance

Joining the entire Mexican political establishment in the Broad Opposition Block is a powerful financial oligarchy, both domestic and foreign.

Along with its “anti-4T lobbyists in Washington,” the leaked document says BOA has “Wall Street investment funds” behind it.

BOA adds that it is supported by “corporations linked to T-MEC,” using the Spanish acronym for the new “United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement” free-trade deal, known popularly as NAFTA 2.0.

The powerful business groups and corporations listed in the BOA document

Some of the richest capitalists in Mexico are associated with BOA. Named in the leaked document is the Mexican corporate behemoth FEMSA and oligarchs from its associated Monterrey Group, which the New York Times once described as a “a tightly knit family of wealthy and conservative businessmen.”

The BOA pages also point to Mexico’s powerful Business Coordinating Council (Consejo Coordinador Empresarial) and Employers Confederation of the Mexican Republic (Coparmex) as allies.

Opposition denies involvement in BOA, while turning up heat on AMLO

In the days after López Obrador’s press conference exposing the Broad Opposition Block, some of the prominent figures implicated in the alliance, such Felipe Calderón, denied involvement.

Some of these political and economic elites even claimed BOA doesn’t exist, seeking to cast doubt on the president’s scandalous revelation and accusing him of fabricating the scandal.

But their efforts are clearly part of a larger campaign by Mexican opposition groups to remove President Andrés Manuel López Obrador from power. As AMLO’s Fourth Transformation moves forward, their destabilization tactics have grown increasingly extreme.

López Obrador himself has warned of the radicalization of the right-wing opposition. As The Grayzone previously reported, the president made an ominous reference to the threat of a potential coup in November 2019.

Referencing Mexico’s former President Francisco Madero, a leader of the Mexican Revolution and fellow left-winger who was assassinated in 1913, AMLO tweeted, “How wrong the conservatives and their hawks are… Now is different… Another coup d’état won’t be allowed.”

Ahora es distinto. Aunque son otras realidades y no debe caerse en la simplicidad de las comparaciones, la transformación que encabezo cuenta con el respaldo de una mayoría libre y consciente, justa y amante de la legalidad y de la paz, que no permitiría otro golpe de Estado.

— Andrés Manuel (@lopezobrador_) November 2, 2019

The next part in this investigative series by The Grayzone will show how far-right forces in Mexico are pushing for a coup against AMLO.

On Friday, we relayed the latest observations from BofA chief investment officer, Michael Hartnett who concluded that there is just one bull market to short – namely credit – “and the Fed won’t let you” by which he means all central banks. As the following table shows, the balance sheet of the G-6 central banks has exploded, with the Fed’s total asset expected to double in 2020 amid an avalanche of money printing.

And visually:

Of course, it’s not just central banks: as Hartnett also explained there is also the 2020 fiscal bazooka which has a way to go, with the massive fiscal stimulus unleashed post-covid taking 3 forms in 2020: spending, credit guarantees, loans & equity.

Hartnett also noted that according to BIS data, US & Australia lead spending (>10% GDP), Europe is using aggressive credit guarantees (e.g. Italy 32% GDP), while Japan/Korea are stimulating via government loans/equity injections.

But the most staggering fact was when one puts it all together.

According to BofA calculations, in addition to the record 134 rate cuts YTD, the amount of total global stimulus, both fiscal and monetary, is now a “staggering” $18.4 trillion in 2020 consisting of $10.4 trillion in fiscal stimulus and $7.9tn in monetary stimulus – for a grand total of 20.8% of global GDP, injected mostly in just the past 3 months!

And to think none of this would have been possible if officials had not collectively decided to shutdown the global economy in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

For the interested, here is a full breakdown of all the fiscal and monetary stimulus as compiled by BofA:

 

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Are you ready for this week’s absurdity? Here’s our weekend roll-up of the most ridiculous stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, risks to your prosperity… and on occasion, inspiring poetic justice.

Eight year old boy arrested for asking if he could buy candy with fake money

At a parade in Switzerland, fake money was thrown around for children to collect.

The obviously fake cash is called “spirit money.” Featuring Chinese symbols, it is meant as an offering to the dead so they can prosper in the afterlife.

An eight year old Swiss boy later asked a shop clerk if he could use the play money to buy candy. To be clear, the kid did not try to trick the shopkeeper, or pass off the money as real.

A normal person would laugh, and politely explain that only central banks are allowed to use fake money.

Instead, this shopkeeper opted to call the police.

Again, a reasonable officer could have stopped it all there.

Instead, the boy and his ten year old brother were taken to the police station. Police took their mugshots, but did not charge them with a crime.

Police did however search the family’s home, where police found some other play money.

These cops essentially confiscated Monopoly money, as if they were busting a counterfeiting operation.

Click here to read the full story.

*  *  *

Police called over BB-gun in background during virtual class

Due to Covid-19 lockdowns, plenty of schools have been holding virtual video classes.

In one class, someone on the call took a picture of an 11 year old boy’s screen. It showed him in his bedroom with a BB gun in the background.

This anonymous snitch told the Principal, who compared this to bringing a weapon to school.

Yeah that makes sense– because a Boy Scout with a BB gun in his room is totally the same thing as a school shooter.

Then the school administration became involved, and alerted the police department.

Police went to the family’s home to search for an unsecured weapon.

If there is any silver lining to this story it’s that police concluded no laws had been broken, and left.

Just a reminder to be wary who you might be inviting into your child’s bedroom.

And if you’re already a member of our premium service Sovereign Man: Confidential, this might be a good time to check out our recent alert about homeschooling.

Click here to read the full story.

*  *  *

Hertz admits its stock is worthless, as it planned to sell half a billion dollars of new shares

The rental car company Hertz is going through bankruptcy.

But Hertz announced Monday in an SEC filing that the company would sell an additional $500 million worth of new shares. And the bankruptcy judge in the case approved!

Hertz then openly admitted that the stock would almost certainly soon be worthless. That’s because as Hertz goes through bankruptcy, senior debt holders will be paid back before the common stockholders.

But that hasn’t stopped people from buying the worthless stock, apparently hoping to “buy the dip”.

But after the plan received a little too much attention– and questions from the SEC– Hertz decided to drop the plan.

Click here to read the full story.

*  *  *

US National debt increased by nearly $1 trillion in the last month

In the past 30 days, the United States national debt has increased by nearly $1 trillion– screaming past $26.2 trillion total, or 128% of GDP.

That means the US government is borrowing over $23 million per MINUTE.

But that’s just the last 30 days. The US government has gone nearly $3 trillion further into debt since March 1.

That is over $9,000 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States. And all you received was a $1200 check…

Now the “Save our Country Coalition” has penned a letter to Congress stating that the federal budget is dangerously close to $10 trillion this fiscal year.

On an inflation adjusted basis, that means the government will spend more fighting Covid than it spent fighting every single 20th century war– plus the 21st century Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan– COMBINED.

The cost of World War I, World War II, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Gulf War, The Iraq War, and the War in Afghanistan combined, does not add up to this fiscal year’s budget.

Click here to read the full story.

*  *  *

On another note… We think gold could DOUBLE and silver could increase by up to 5 TIMES in the next few years. That’s why we published a new, 50-page long Ultimate Guide on Gold & Silver that you can download here.

Travel and tourism have been some of the hardest-hit sectors by COVID-19. The pandemic has been a massive blow to the cruise ship industry, with operators, shipowners, and shipyards feeling the pinch amid a collapse in sails. Now, a bankrupted cruise ship onwer is set to auction one of its vessels next week as there is no travel recovery in sight. 

Bunny’s Adventure and Cruise Shipping Co. Ltd., the registered owner of RCGS Resolute, a five-star ice-strengthened expedition cruise ship that sleeps 184 in 88 cabins, will be auctioned off on Monday, June 22 in Curaçao, a Dutch Caribbean island. 

According to Cruise Industry News, RCGS Resolute has been leased over the last several years by One Ocean Expeditions, a cruise operator specializing in polar expeditions that recently filed for bankruptcy in a British Columbia court. The vessel has had at least two different voyages interrupted by authorities attempting to collect unpaid bills. 

With new management by Columbia Cruise Services, the vessel has been in Curacao for two months. The ship is operating with a skeleton crew, and ship owners are responsible for debts around $4 million. 

Due to the virus pandemic and collapse in travel and tourism, this is probably the worst time to auction off a cruise ship, limited bidders could make the sale of the vessel at a steep discount. 

If cheap enough, maybe Barstool Sports’ Dave Portnoy, since he’s such a big fan of cruise ship stocks (as we’ve previously noted Robinhood traders pile into cruise ship stocks), should look into the auction slated for next Monday. 

What’s a couple of million to Portnoy, who routinely says he’s a better investor than Warren Buffett and claims trading is easy…