First Time Since 1934 – Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” To Be Reprinted In France
Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio continues to pitch the idea that the global business cycle is headed for economic doom, sort of like what happened in the 1930s. Dalio warns of populism and nationalism spreading throughout the world and is most analogous to the years before World War II.
History seldom repeats, but there are instances where it rhymes — and maybe Dalio is right about the direction the world is headed.
As the rise of nationalism and populism flourishes throughout Europe, several reports, mostly from French sources, say for the first time since 1934, a publisher in France will start selling “Mein Kampf” (“My Fight”), the book written by Adolf Hitler in 1925.
The book will be released to the public in France in 2020, will be accompanied by a critical edition written by fifteen French and German historians, reported Le Journal du Dimanche.
Initially, the reissue of “Mein Kampf,” was announced in 2015, but the news of it caused a tremendous uproar that plans for reissue were quickly shelved by publishing house, Fayard. “The Fayard publisher intends to carry out as planned the publication of “Mein Kampf “- which falls into the public domain in January 2016 – in a new translation by Olivier Mannoni that will be authoritative,” said the publisher in 2015.
The book is “considered as one of the engines of Nazism,” is “struck with a kind of taboo because we are so afraid of the lies it contains that we refuse to talk about it,” Mannoni said in 2015.
News of the reissue circulated Twitter like wildfire last week. Many users agreed that the new book could be a terrible idea.
Some users said the book is already available online. Amazon is selling several translations for under $20.
The book was banned in Germany for seven decades for its anti-Semitic text before it was reissued in 2016.
The rhythm of the 1930s is possibly getting louder, well, at least maybe in Dalio’s mind.
But there are similar trends of populism and nationalism gaining momentum in Europe and across the world at the moment — similar to what was seen in the 1930s when “Mein Kampf” circulated across Europe.
Today, like the 1930s, failed central banking across the world could be leading to the next global downturn. Failed monetary policy has produced the widest economic inequality between rich and poor on record, another reason for the rise of nationalism and populism. On top of it all, the threat of war in certain parts of the world is the highest ever.
And with that being said, the last time “Mein Kampf” was printed in France, populism and nationalism were soaring, several years before World War II. Does all of this mean that the 2020s will be an extremely volatile period for the world?
Europe is crumbling, & Britain’s elite desperately want to be part of the wreckage…
Brexit isn’t going to happen. Left or Right – Lexit or Rexit – it’s over. It’s time to make peace with that idea.
Penned in by the absurd Benn Act, No Deal is off the table, which means Britain will be forced to either remain or accept a deal that’s Remain by another name.
The Letwin Ammendment and Johnson’s unsigned extension request are just morbid theatre. Unneccasary nails in a well-sealed coffin.
It’s all very Weekend at Bernies’ – A lame cast of characters, puppeteering Brexit’s corpse to keep up a tired joke that was never funny to begin with.
Parliament has become an absurd pantomime, where a clown Prime Minister – his majority willfully destroyed – sets up straw men that the “opposition” bayonet with increasingly maniacal glee. No thought is given to policy or consequences, only increasing the tally of Boris Johnson’s parliamentary defeats.
Labour, and the bedraggled, hysterical remainers in the Lib Dems/TIG/Green Party, have become nothing but contrarians – automatically gain-saying anything tabled by the government for the simple joy of humiliating the nation’s Court Jester in Chief.
Corbyn has been so successfully gaslighted by his remain-heavy PLP he doesn’t even realise he’s betraying his life-long principles, his mentor Tony Benn, and entire swaths of the Labour’s Northern heartlands, who all voted to leave.
When a general election does come, it will mean nothing.
Labour will likely be destroyed as working-class voters either flock to the Brexit Party or simply collapse into the apathy of the voiceless, and stay home.
If Labour scrapes together enough voters from Remain country in Scotland and London to claw their way to a small majority, well their socialist manifesto will be crippled by the EU’s austerity policy and restrictions on nationalisation.
In either event, Corbyn will be replaced by a New Labour non-entity of little renown and less worth. The papers will declare socialism dead (again), and maybe clap Corbyn on the shoulder for doing “well, considering” and “changing the conversation”.
We’ll be invited to celebrate the new (inevitably) female leader as a sign of “progress”, while society continues to slip backwards.
Whether the hardcore Remainers get their “People’s Vote” or not, and whichever of the carousel of undesirables happens to be Prime Minister when it all eventually wraps up, Brexit is dead. Parliament killed it.
This on-going, slow-burn sabotage is hard to watch – but it’s not what this article is about.
What it’s about is a question. An important question. One that should weigh heavily on the shoulders of Remainers on the eve of their – for want of a better word – victory:
Do we really want this? Does the EU, right now, really look like something we want to be a part of?
Let’s run down the situation on The Continent.
PARIS, FRANCE – DECEMBER 2018 (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)
France is miserable, sick of austerity. Sick of spending cuts and falling standards and neo-liberal economics promising a trickle-down that never seems to come.
In Paris – and many other French cities – the Yellow Vests are nearing their fiftieth straight week of protests, and don’t seem to be slowing down (Hopefully they plan something nice for their first birthday).
People have lost eyes, hands, even lives. The Hong Kong protests – so long front-page news in the UK – have been a picnic in comparison.
In Hungary, an elected President is held hostage by the bureaucracy of the EU. Whatever you think of Orban, he was democratically elected to enact the political promises he made during his campaign. That Brussels can sanction him, and threaten to remove Hungary’s voting rights, is perverse. Anti-democracy in the name of democracy.
They say it’s about “protecting European values”, but is it?
That’s pretty hard to believe, considering the situation elsewhere in Europe…
Spain will join France in the flames soon. They already sent thirteen politicians to prison for sedition.
Take a moment to consider that – actual “sedition”.
This comes after sending in riot police to break up a peaceful referendum. Spanish police beat voters, arrested protesters and destroyed ballot boxes.
Spanish riot police teaching an old woman about European Values.
Madrid has faced no punishment, or even criticism, for this. They – unlike Orban – have escaped any sanction or censure. Police attack Catalonian independence protests on the streets of Barcelona…and Brussels’ silence is deafening.
(Imagine Russia had just jailed 13 opposition politicians for sedition. Imagine Maduro was blinding protestors with rubber bullets. The difference in coverage and attitude would be breathtaking.)
What is the difference between Budapest and Paris? Or Moscow and Madrid?
Well, Orban is anti-EU (as are the Gilets Jaunes). The governments of France and Spain are Pro EU, with a ferocity that fully justifies the capital P.
Follow a pro-EU agenda of austerity, uncontrolled immigration and globalisation and you can blind as many protesters as you want.
The harder you look, the more it seems “European values” is slang for “European power”.
We hear about peace, but we don’t see it. We hear about prosperity, but we don’t feel it.
Austerity is choking the birthplace of democracy to death, and its – again, for want of a better word – “leaders” are spending tax revenues on propaganda and the military.
Is that going to help a single ordinary citizen out of poverty? Are these moves designed to make life fair, equal or easy for ordinary citizens? Or consolidate and enforce authority?
Look at Europe. Really look at it. It’s burning. And yet Remainers sit amongst the flames and say everything’s fine.
We are lectured on “European Values”, but that phrase has been meaningless for years, and every day edges closer and closer to full-on parody.
Europe is a sinking ship the rats in Parliament refuse to leave.
You’d really think the American people would have caught on by now. No sooner did Russiagate fizzle out like a wet firecracker did the Democrats, completely indifferent to the dire consequences, toss another incendiary into the public square. Sooner or later something has got to blow, and maybe it already did.
As Americans experience the brutal whiplash of going from the Mueller probe to presidential impeachment in a matter of days, all pretensions of democratic procedure to guide the show trial have been tossed from the clown car. With the boot-licking media to back their every whim and fancy, the Democrats are dragging the Republic to the brink of destruction as they threaten to take down the 45th POTUS, and without a single witness in the dock.
Adam Schiff now doesn’t seem to want the Whistleblower to testify. NO! Must testify to explain why he got my Ukraine conversation sooo wrong, not even close. Did Schiff tell him to do that? We must determine the Whistleblower’s identity to determine WHY this was done to the USA..
Last month, Adam Schiff, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said the identity of the shady whistleblower who revealed second-hand details of a call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be made public “very soon.” That claim looks set to be the fifth ‘Pinocchio’ awarded to Schiff in almost as many days.
On Sunday, the truth-impaired Senator said the whistleblower at the heart of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry might not testify in court over concerns about the individual’s safety. That pathetic excuse should incur the wrath of the mainstream media every bit as much as it has incurred the wrath of the Trump administration. Moreover, it cheapens the incalculable sacrifice that every whistleblower assumes when they attach their identities to explosive revelations; without their identity publicly known the claims do not carry the same weight. Unless the whistleblower is fully prepared to lose his career and risk jail time, much like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and numerous others, a cloud of doubt will forever hang over the claims, and even more so in the Ukrainegate affair since we are talking about nothing more than hearsay.
Schiff’s notorious shiftiness didn’t end there. He actually cited Trump’s candidness in releasing the full transcript of the conversation as another reason as to why the ‘courageous’ whistleblower should enjoy full anonymity. This almost makes Trump himself appear as the whistleblower.
“Given that we already have the call record, we don’t need the whistleblower who wasn’t on the call to tell us what took place during the call,” Schiff said in an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation. In other words, Trump was doomed to be damned if he released the transcript or he didn’t.
The Democrat’s determination to bring down Trump was confirmed earlier when Schiff was caught in yet another lie.
On September 16, the Democratic Senator told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he did not know the identity of the whistleblower. He repeated the same claim the next day when he told MSNBC’s Morning Joe that neither he nor his staff had “spoken directly with the whistleblower.” It is now known that his claims were bald-faced lies, and serious enough to bring the impeachment clown car to a screeching halt. Yet the rules of the game, as is proven time and time again, are always adjusted to suit the Democrats. In fact, the whistleblower may have committed a felony for failing to disclose in his or her official complaint that they had first brought the information to the attention of House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff.
Schiff has little to worry about, however, since the media does not react to Democratic transgressions with nearly the same amount of hysteria as it does with the Republicans, which explains why Trump is fighting a constant uphill battle.
This is where the push for impeachment is becoming a dangerous venture for the Democrats. The people are not stupid, and it does not require the shrewdest political tool to understand that the scales of justice are weighted heavily in favor of the Democrats. From Hillary Clinton escaping punishment for using her home computer to send classified government documents, to former Vice President Joe Biden bragging about arranging a billion-dollar quid pro quo with Kiev to sack Ukraine’s top prosecutor, who just happened to be investigating Biden’s son, Hunter, the Democrats rarely have anything to fear as far as justice is concerned. Yet this special status has certainly not gone unnoticed; with social media revolutionizing the ‘town square,’ the blatant hypocrisies and outright crimes are obvious to everyone.
BOOM: Rand Pail Calls For Probe Into 4 Key Democrat Senators Regarding Ukraine👇🏻https://t.co/oYXKWD5VC3
Just as Russiagate was a conspicuous effort on the part of the Democrats and their lapdog media to deflect attention away from the contents of Clinton’s emails, not to mention the identity of the leaker (as opposed to the ‘Russian hackers,’ that is), Ukrainegate is a desperate attempt to focus attention on a harmless phone call between two state leaders so as to bury the news of corruption at the highest levels of the Obama administration, up to and including not only Joe Biden, but former Secretary of State John Kerry as well. In other words, we are talking about obstruction of justice on a mind-boggling scale, and which could only be pulled off with the full support of the mainstream media. A free-thinking, independent journalistic community would have called foul on such shenanigans long ago.
Lest anyone forget, the Democrats have been under investigation by Attorney General Bill Barr and federal prosecutor John Durham. These two are currently traveling the world in an effort to determine “the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement on Sept. 25.
In fact, Barr and Durham’s ‘mission’ kicked off back in May, long before the smoke and mirrors of yet another Trump ‘transgression’ took front and center in living rooms across the country. Indeed, while every American has heard of the impeachment inquiry, few realize that the Democrats are under investigation for far greater crimes should they be found guilty, that is. Now, in the event that Barr and Durham attempt to present their findings to the public, the Democrats will scream in one persecuted voice that Trump is attempting to ‘obstruct justice,’ which will certainly be the greatest irony considering the source.
In other words, there are two vehicles – one filled with Democrats, the other Republicans – careening towards an intersection at a high rate of speed, and neither looks willing to yield to the other. This is the situation confronting America at the present time: a smashup of epic, deadly proportions, quite possibly on par with its first civil war. Such a seemingly inevitable event, however, would never have been remotely possible had the media been a fair and just provider of news and information as opposed to being an instigator and provocateur of the first order.
Now, should the Democrats get the impeachment they’ve been dreaming about ever since they lost the 2016 presidential election, at least 50 percent of the American public will understand full well that the scales of justice are tilted against them. That will be the moment when the United States is forced to confront its worst crisis in many years, simply because the Democrats have become so terrified of a longstanding political technology known as ‘free and fair elections.’
Hong Kong Property Prices Plunge For 8 Straight Weeks
A new report from Centaline Property, a research firm providing private data on the property market in Hong Kong, has shown property prices are experiencing their worst downturns since late last year during the global growth scare, which sent global equity markets crashing.
Centaline’s report said property prices in the city have plunged for eight straight weeks, mostly tied to an extreme economic deceleration in the region as macroeconomic headwinds continue to increase.
The Central Plains City Index (CCL) is a monthly leading index that tracks property prices in Hong Kong. Regional investors use CCL to track the changing trend of the Hong Kong property market.
As a whole, the CCL Leading Index has tumbled to 180.32, -.36% w/w, -1.62% m/m, and has recorded the lowest level in 27-weeks.
The CCL Leading Index for Large-Scale housing in Hong Kong printed at 181.44, -.32% w/w, -1.70% m/m, and now at a 28-week low.
The CCL Leading Index for Small and Medium-Sized Units printed 180.26, -.37% w/w, -1.71% m/m, and now at the lowest levels in 27-weeks.
The three major leading indexes for Hong Kong property prices (above) slid for eight consecutive weeks, falling -4.29 %, -4.70%, and -4.54%, respectively.
As shown below, 75% of the top regions in Hong Kong saw the CCL leading index drop, indicating price deceleration continued through late summer into fall.
And with a recession and social unrest expected to deepen in Hong Kong through year-end, it’s likely that CCL’s leading property price indicators will point down into 1H20.
The United States of America emerged victorious from the Second World War, and came out stronger than any other country in the world. The allies- notably the Soviet Union- won the war but emerged much weaker.
They needed to reconstruct their countries and rebuild their economies, with the US demanding huge retrospective payments for its support. The US became a superpower with nuclear bomb capability and an imposing power of dominance. Industrial countries rebuilt in what the Germans called their Wirtschaftswunder and the French les Trentes Glorieuses, the thirty years of post-war prosperity. Meanwhile the US leveraged its prosperity to spread its hegemony around the world.
US power was enhanced with the beginning of Perestroika and after the fall of the Soviet Union. In the new millennium the US establishment declared the “War on Terror” as justification to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, while attempting to subdue Hezbollah in Lebanon, changing the régime in Libya and attempting to destroy Syria, all with the goal of reshuffling and forming a “New Middle East”.
In the Levant, the US has dramatically failed to reach its objectives, but it has succeeded in waking Russia from its long hibernation, to challenge the US unilateral hegemony of the world and to develop new forms of alliance.
Iran has also challenged the US hegemony incrementally since the 1979 “Islamic Revolution”. Iran has planned meticulously, and patiently built a chain of allies connecting different parts of the Middle East. Now, after 37 years, Iran can boast a necklace of robust allies in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan– who are all ready, if necessary, to take up arms to defend Iran.
Iran, in fact, has greatly benefited from US mistakes. Through its lack of understanding of populations and leaders around the world, it has universally failed to win “hearts and minds” in every Middle Eastern country where it imposed itself as a potential ally. The arrival of President Donald Trump to power helped US allies and the anti-US camp to discover, together, the limits and reach of US sanctions.
Russia and China took the lead in offering a new, softer model of an alliance, which apparently does not aim to impose another kind of hegemony. The offer of an economic alliance and partnership is especially attractive to those who have tasted US hegemony and wish to liberate themselves from it by means of a more balanced alternative.
During this period of Trump’s ruling, the Middle East became a huge warehouse of advanced weapons from varied sources. Every single country (and some non-state actors) has armed drones- and some even have precision and cruise missiles. But superiority in armaments by itself counts for very little, and its very balance is not enough to shift the weight to one side or another. Even the poorest country, Yemen, has done significant damage to oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a country highly equipped, militarily, and with the most modern US hardware in the Middle East.
US President Trump was informed about the evident failure to change the régime in Syria and the equal impossibility of dislodging Iran from the Levant. He most probably aimed to avoid the loss of lives and therefore decided to abandon the country that his forces have occupied for the past few years. Nonetheless, his sudden withdrawal, even if so far it is partial (because he says, a small unit will remain behind at al-Tanf, to no strategic benefit since al-Qaem border crossing is now operational) – came as a shock to his Kurdish and Israeli allies. Trump proved his readiness to abandon his closest friends & enemies overnight.
Based on the 2006 proposed plan to redrawn the borders of the Middle East by retired Army lieutenant colonel Ralph Peters, which he referenced as “blood borders”.
Trump’s move offered an unexpected victory to Damascus. The Syrian government is now slowly recovering its most important source of food, agriculture and energy. North-East Syria represents a quarter of the country’s geography. The northern provinces have exceptional wealth in water, electricity dams, oil, gas and food. President Trump has restored it to President Bashar al-Assad. This will also serve Trump’s forthcoming election campaign.
Assad trusts that Russia will succeed in halting the Turkish advance and reduce its consequences, perhaps by asking the Kurds to pull back to a 30 km distance from the Turkish borders to satisfy President Erdogan’s anxiety. That could also fit the Turkish-Syrian 1998 Adana agreement (5 km buffer zone rather than 30 km) and offer tranquillity to all parties involved. Turkey wants to make sure the Kurdish YPG, the PKK Syrian branch, is disarmed and contained. Nothing seems difficult for Russia to manage, particularly when the most difficult objective has already been graciously offered: the US forces’ withdrawal.
President Assad will be delighted to trim the Kurds’ nails. The Kurds offered Afrin to Turkey to prevent the Syrian government forces controlling it. The Kurds, in exchange for the State of their dreams (Rojava), supported US occupation and Syria’s enemy, Israel. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu bombed hundreds of targets in Syria, preferring ISIS to dominate the country and pushing Trump to give him the Syrian-occupied Golan Heights as a gift- although the US has no authority over this Syrian territory.
Hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, millions of refugees were driven from their homes and hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on destroying Syria. Nonetheless, the Syrian state and President Assad have prevailed. Notwithstanding the consequences of the war, Arab and Gulf countries are eager to return to Syria and participate in reconstruction. Whoever rules Syria, the attempt to destroy the Syrian state and change the existing régime has failed.
Russia is one of the most successful players here, on numerous fronts, and is now in a position President Putin could only have dreamed about before 2015. Numerous analysts and think tanks predicted Moscow would sink into the Syrian quagmire, and they mocked its arsenal. They were all wrong. Russia learned its lesson from the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. It offered air and missile coverage and brilliantly cooperated with Iran and its allies as ground forces.
President Putin skillfully managed the Syrian war, striking a balance and creating good ties with Turkey, a NATO ally- even after the downing of his jet by Ankara in 2015. Russia wanted to collaborate with the US but was faced with an administration with persistent “Red-Soviet” phobia. Moscow proceeded without Washington to solve the Syrian war and defeat the jihadists who had flocked to the country with support from the West (via Turkey and Jordan) from all over the world.
Russia showed off its new arsenal and managed to sell a lot of its weapons. It has trained its Air Force using real battle scenarios, fought alongside the Syrian and Iranian armies, and a non-state actor (Hezbollah). It defeated ISIS and al-Qaeda 40 years after its defeat in Afghanistan. President Putin has distinguished himself as a trustworthy partner and ally, unlike Trump- who abandoned the Kurds, and who blackmails even his closest ally (Saudi Arabia).
Russia imposed the Astana process instead of Geneva for peace talks, it offered countries to use their local currencies for commerce rather than the dollar, and it is dealing pragmatically with Iran and Saudi Arabia, and with Assad and Erdogan. The Americans, by their recklessness, showed themselves incapable of diplomacy.
Moscow mediated between the Syrian Kurds and the central government in Damascus even when these had been under US control for years. Putin behaved wisely with Israel even when he accused Tel Aviv of provoking the killing of his officers, and stayed relatively neutral in relation to the Iran-Israel struggle.
On the other hand, Tel Aviv never thought Syria would be reunited. Today Damascus has armed drones, precision and cruise missiles from Iran, supersonic anti-ship Russian missiles- and has survived the destruction of its infrastructure and so many years of war.
Israel has lost the prospect of a Kurdish state (Rojava) as an ally. This dream has gone now for many decades to come and with it the partition of Syria and Iraq. The “Deal of the Century” makes no sense anymore and the non-aggression deal with the Arab states is a mirage. Everything that Trump’s close advisor, Prime Minister Netanyahu, wanted has lost its meaning, and Israel now has to deal with the Russian presence in the Middle East and bear the consequences of the victory achieved by Assad, the Russians, and the Iranians.
After the Kurds, Israel is the second biggest loser- even if it has suffered no financial damage and no Israeli lives have been lost in combat. Netanyahu’s ambitions can no longer be used in his election scenario. Israel needs to prepare for living next door to Assad, who will certainly want back Syria’s Golan- a priority for Damascus to tackle once domestic reconstruction is on its way. He has been preparing the local resistance for years, for the day when Syria will recover this territory.
Elon Musk Has Officially Pissed Off Pablo Escobar’s Brother
In what is just another normal day of business for the circus over at Tesla, Roberto Escobar, former accountant to his druglord brother Pablo, has now vowed to “take down” Elon Musk, according to the Sun.
The animosity stems from the allegation that Musk stole the idea for his “Not-A-Flamethrower” from Escobar during a visit to the Escobar compound in the summer of 2017.
In January of 2018, Musk’s Boring Company released the large blowtorches that are shaped like guns. He named them “Not-A-Flamethrower” as a result of U.S. customs officials telling Musk they wouldn’t allow the sale of “flamethrowers” nationwide. All 20,000 of the products that were manufactured were sold out within days.
But Escobar says that he was the one who suggested the concept to Musk’s engineer months before they were released, inspired by his brother’s purported habit of burning money to keep warm.
Escobar launched his own flamethrower earlier this year and also threatened to sue Elon Musk for IP theft. Musk glibly jabbed back at Escobar on Twitter, reminding him that “It’s Not A Flamethrower, Mr. Escobar.”
Escobar now seems dead set on legal action. He told the Telegraph:
“We will soon file a $100 million case against him in America, and I will try my best to make sure he loses his stronghold in Tesla Inc. He knows exactly what he has done to us.”
His brother, Pablo Escobar, was one of the most well known Colombian drug lords who monopolized the trade of cocaine into the U.S. in the 1980’s and 1990’s. He was reportedly worth about 45 billion pounds at the time of his death, which made him the “wealthiest criminal in history”.
Robert acted as co-founder of his brother’s cartel and was the organization’s accountant.
But the real question here may lie behind the lede. Tesla skeptic Mark Spiegel astutely asked on Twitter:
The most bizarre thing about this story is that Musk never denied Escobar’s claim that one of his engineers visited Escobar’s compound in the summer of 2017.
Both Tulsi Gabbard and the Green Party of the United States have issued scorching rebukes of Hillary Clinton for baseless accusations the former Secretary of State made during a recent interview claiming that both Gabbard and former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein are aligned with the Russian government.
“I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said in a transparent reference to Gabbard.
“She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset.”
Clinton provided no evidence for her outlandish claims, because she does not have any. Gabbard has repeatedlydenied centrist conspiracy theories that she intends to run as a third-party candidate, a claim which establishment pundits have been making more and more often because they know there will never be any consequences when their claims are disproven. There is no evidence of any kind connecting either Jill Stein or Tulsi Gabbard to the Russian government.
Of course, this total lack of evidence hasn’t dissuaded Clintonites from falling all over themselves trying to justify Mommy’s claims anyway.
“Russian ‘assets’ are not formal relationships in the USIC [US Intelligence Community] sense of the word,” CNN analyst and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa explained via Twitter.
“If you are parroting Russian talking points and furthering their interests, you’re a source who is too dumb to know you’re being played to ask for money.”
“It’s important to point out here that a Russian ‘asset’ is not the same thing as a Russian ‘agent’,” tweeted virulent establishment narrative manager Caroline Orr. “An asset can be witting or unwitting; it’s any person or org who can be used to advance Russia’s interests. It’s pretty clear that Tulsi satisfies that criteria.”
“One doesn’t have to be on the Kremlin’s payroll to be a Russian asset. One doesn’t even have to know they are a Russian asset to be a Russian asset. Have you not heard the term ‘useful idiot’ before?”tweeted writer Kara Calavera.
Yep, yeah, that makes perfect sense. One doesn’t have to actually have any formal relationship with the Kremlin to be a Kremlin asset. One doesn’t have to know they’re a Kremlin asset to be a Kremlin asset. The Kremlin doesn’t even need to know one is a Kremlin asset for them to be a Kremlin asset. Nothing has to have happened except the accusation of being a Kremlin asset. It’s just kind of a vague, shapeless nothing thing that doesn’t necessarily have any actual meaning to it at all besides the way it makes people feel inside. It’s more like a religious belief, really.
Isn’t it interesting how that works? Establishment loyalists get a damaging and incendiary tag that they can pin on anyone who disagrees with them, with the sole evidentiary requirement being that disagreement itself.
Author and antiwar activist David Swanson noticed this bizarre intellectual contortion as well, tweeting, “Notice that they carefully define ‘Russian asset’ to mean not necessarily an asset and not necessarily with any connection to Russia.”
Notice that they carefully define “Russian asset” to mean not necessarily an asset and not necessarily with any connection to Russia. https://t.co/Yp6rR1EElh
Establishment narrative managers have been performing this obnoxious trick for years; this is just the most publicly it’s been brought into the spotlight. They claim someone is a Russian asset, then when asked to provide proof that the person is working for Russia, they say they might be an “unwitting” Russian asset, or a “useful idiot”, who does the Kremlin’s bidding without realizing it by sharing ideas and information which the Russian government agrees with. Which is just another way of saying that they hold positions which diverge from the microscopic Overton window of establishment-authorized opinion.
Such positions typically consist of some form of opposition to longstanding US military agendas, such as America’s failed policy of regime change interventionism. Both Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard have inserted skepticism of US military policy into mainstream political discourse, which is tremendously inconvenient for the people whose job it is to manufacture consent for new wars and endless military expansionism.
The “Russian asset” smear has given the establishment narrative managers the ability to make incredibly inflammatory and scandalous accusations about anyone who opposes the US establishment foreign policy consensus, without ever having to back them up with facts. It’s no obstacle for me if I can’t prove that you have any connection to the Russian government, because I can still smear you as a Russian asset by saying your views align with Moscow’s interests, or by noting that Russian news media has done news reporting on you as our friend Neera Tanden does here:
Never mind the fact that there are many, many reasons to oppose the US establishment foreign policy consensus which have nothing to do with Russia. Never mind the fact that the US establishment foreign policy consensus has been an unmitigated disaster that has only made the world worse and is pushing the US-centralized power alliance toward a point where a direct military confrontation with Russia, China and their allies becomes inescapable. Never mind the fact that Russia is far from the only country in the world that wishes America would scale back its aggressive military expansionism. It has been firmly established beyond any doubt that it is now literally impossible for an American political figure to vocally oppose US warmongering without being labeled a Russian asset.
In reality, “Russian asset” is nothing more than a completely meaningless noise that war pigs make with their face holes, no more coherent and communicative than the barking of a dog or the chattering of a squirrel. If we were to come up with a definition for that term which reflects the way it is actually being used in modern political discourse, that definition would be something like, “An incantation which magically makes political dissent look like something treasonous and Machiavellian.”
Establishment narrative managers are getting more and more aggressive with the psychological bullying tactics they are using against political dissidents. Applying a ridiculous, meaningless pejorative to anyone who disagrees with mainstream US foreign policy views is just one more ugly tool in their infernal toolbox. It is not normal, healthy or acceptable to accuse someone of being a Russian asset just because they disagree with the authorized commentators of the American political/media class, and when they make such accusations they should be publicly shamed for it.
China Kills Tarantino Movie Over Controversial Bruce Lee Fight Scene
China has killed the distribution of Quentin Tarantino’s film “Once Upon a Time In Hollywood,” one week before its major debut at box offices across the country, reported the Los Angeles Times.
The widespread release of the film was planned for Oct. 25th. Chinese regulators canceled those plans over a controversial fight scene featuring an actor inaccurately portraying legendary Chinese martial arts master, Bruce Lee, said a source familiar with the film.
Chinese film regulators didn’t explain their cancellation decision. But another source familiar with the movie told The Hollywood Reporter that Shannon Lee, Bruce Lee’s daughter, “filed a complaint to China’s National Film Administration” due to the inaccurate portrayal of her late father. She said Tarantino’s film made her late father look “arrogant” and “boastful.”
The decision to prevent the movie from debuting is a massive blow to Sony and the Chinese distributor Bona Film Group, that is because China has the largest box office market in the world.
Shannon Lee, chief executive of Bruce Lee Family Co., said in July Tarantino’s film was a “mockery” of her father.
“The script treatment of my father as this arrogant, egotistical punching bag was really disheartening — and, I feel, unnecessary,” Lee told The Times.
Tarantino responded to Lee’s comments in late summer by saying, “Bruce Lee was kind of an arrogant guy. The way he was talking, I didn’t just make a lot of that up.”
The controversial scene in question involves a fight between Mike Moh, the actor who portrays Bruce Lee, and Brad Pitt’s character, stuntman Cliff Booth, where a fight eventually leads to Moh [Lee] getting bodyslammed into the side of a car.
In an interview with Birth.Movies.Death, Moh, revealed in Aug., that the original script had “major issues” when it came to an accurate portrayal of Bruce Lee.” I’m not going to tell you what the original script had exactly, but when I read it, I was so conflicted because he’s my hero – Bruce in my mind was literally a god. He wasn’t a person to me, he was a superhero. And I think that’s how most people view Bruce.”
A source close to the situation tells The Hollywood Reporter that the auteur is taking a take-it-or-leave-it stance in the wake of Chinese regulators pulling the film.
Tarantino had another run-in with Chinese regulators back in 2012 when he released Django Unchained, which the movie was pulled from theaters after graphic scenes showed excessive nudity and violence.
Django Unchained was re-released after an edit, supervised by Chinese regulators, the movie then flopped, making only $2.7 million, opposed to hundreds of millions of dollars.
The latest distribution debacle comes at a time when tensions between the US and China are at high levels due to an ongoing trade war.
Earlier this month, we reported how China canceled all broadcasts of NBA games due to a now-deleted tweet by Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey supporting protestors in Hong Kong.
China’s censorship doesn’t stop at the movies or the NBA. Apple, South Park, and Activision Blizzard, all have recently been targeted by the Chinese government to remove content or face penalties that could result in a denial of access to Chinese markets.
Here’s Why 97% Of Congress Get Re-Elected Each Year
Submitted by Adam Andrzejewski, first published in Forbes
How is 97 percent of Congress able to get re-elected each year even though only 17 percent of the American people believe our representatives are doing a good job?
It’s called an incumbent protection system. Taxpayers have a right to know how it works.
Recently, our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com, mashed up the federal checkbook with the congressional campaign donor database (source: OpenSecrets.org). We found powerful members of Congress soliciting campaign donations from federal contractors based in their districts.
We followed the money and found a culture of conflict-of-interest. The confluence of federal money, campaign cash, private employment, investments, prestigious committee appointments, political power, nepotism, and other conflicts are a fact pattern.
Furthermore, members of Congress own investment stock in, are employed by, and receive retirement pensions from federal contractors to whom they direct billions of taxpayer dollars.
Moreover, members sponsor legislation that affects these contractors. The contractor’s lobbyists then advocate for the legislation that helps the member and the contractor. Oftentimes, the contractor’s lobbyist also donates campaign cash to the member.
Here are five case examples detailing the conflict-of-interest among five powerful members of Congress:
Rep. John Larson (D-CT1): United Technologies (UT) executives, employees, political action committee, and affiliated lobbyists are the #1 campaign donor to Larson’s committee ($377,050). UT collected federal grants (subsidies) $83.8 million and federal contracts $16.1 billion (2014-2018). Mr. Larson owns UT stock 2012-2018 (last disclosure). Larsen is a ranking member on House Ways and Means.
Seven years ago, Larson’s wife got a state job from the wife of a campaign donor, who was also the state insurance commissioner. She beat out 199 other candidates and was the only one to fill out a job application. Since her hiring, she’s earned an estimated $600,000 in cash compensation.
Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK4): The Chickasaw Nation and affiliates are the #1 campaign donor to Cole’s committee ($258,461). The Nation received $700 million in federal grants and $434,000 in surplus military equipment from the Pentagon, including mine-resistant vehicles, night vision goggles, mine-detecting sets, and rifles that shoot .308 rounds. Cole is a ranking member on House Appropriations.
Since 2002, Cole’s campaign committee has hired Cole’s private political consulting partnership: Cole, Hargrave, and Snodgrass. Cole’s campaign has paid his firm a total of $224,000.
Since 2003, Mr. Cole has earned roughly $320,000 in “management fees” from his firm – while also serving in Congress. He’s also disclosed receiving $175,000 – $575,000 in “dividends/capital gains” and his “equity interest” in the firm is listed as between $250,000 – $500,000.
The Chickasaw Nation responded regarding their donations and any perceived conflict-of-interest issues with Rep. Tom Cole:
As an active participant in the political process working to enhance the quality of life of our citizens, we support candidates who have similar policy views.
The Chickasaw Nation spokesperson
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN5): Vanderbilt University’s executives and employees are the #1 all-time campaign donor to Cooper’s committee ($135,261) – including $21,500 from just-retired chancellor Nicholas Zeppos. Vanderbilt has received $2.6 billion in federal payments (2014-2018) including grants ($2.3 billion); direct payments ($31.2 million); and contracts ($187 million). Cooper is a ranking member of the Budget committee.
Mr. Cooper was employed by Vanderbilt during the period 2005 through 2017 and disclosed earnings of $250,500 in cash compensation. He made between $20,000 and $23,500 a year teaching a graduate level class in Vanderbilt’s HealthCare MBA program at the Owen Graduate School of Management as an adjunct professor.
Former Rep. – Current Governor Kristi Noem (R-South Dakota): Sanford Health’s executives, employees, and lobbyists are the #1 all-time campaign donor to Noem’s federal committee ($110,462). Top executives provided Noem campaign donations early in her career including $7,500 from CEO Kelby Krabbenhoft.
In 2019, Noem was sworn in as governor of South Dakota. She’s appointed two Sanford executives to head up state agencies. Noem’s transition chief was a Sanford lobbyist.
Governor Noem has proposed aiding the state’s nursing home industry by raising the rate of Medicaid payments and providing $5 million in grants to help innovate facilities. Sanford Health owns 32 nursing homes in South Dakota.
Does Sanford Health really need taxpayer aid? This “nonprofit” organization has annual revenues of $3.7 billion, assets of $2.8 billion, and paid it’s CEO $2.2 million last year.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI12): Although Dingell wasn’t elected to Congress until 2014, a member of the Dingell family has held MI-12 congressional seat for 86 years.
The executives and employees of the University of Michigan (U-M) are the #1 campaign donor to Dingell’s committee ($61,502). This is despite the fact that Dingell sits on two prominent U-M boards: the Ford School of Public Policy and the Depression Center. Trustees and university employees of those boards have donated to her campaign.
One of Dingell’s duties on the board of the Ford School is to help the school raise money and network.
Dingell is a ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On March 21, 2019, she signed an earmark letter to the Department of Transportation (USDOT) in support of $7.5 million in grants to U-M and other partners regarding research on self-driving cars. In a press release, Dingell took credit that USDOT authorized the grant in August 2019.
The University of Michigan responded regarding their donations and any perceived conflict-of-interest issues with Rep. Debbie Dingell:
Our employees are free to make personal campaign contributions to any elected official they may wish to support.
University of Michigan spokesperson
Nothing we discovered is illegal. At arms-length, all of the transactions are legal. And that’s the problem.
We polled our subscribers and 1,900 people responded: 96 percent thought it was unethical for a member of Congress to solicit campaign donations from federal contractors based in their districts. Furthermore, 92 percent said it was an important or very important issue.
The American people get it. Members should refuse to accept campaign donations from federal contractors and their affiliates.
Note: A request for comment was sent to all members and contractors mentioned in this piece. No members of Congress responded to our comment requests. Contractor respondents included: The University of Michigan, full comment, here; The Chickasaw Nation, full comment, here. Sanford Health didn’t respond to this request, however, they issued this comment earlier, here.
New Study Shows Humans Think More Efficiently When A Robot Stands Nearby And Insults Them
A study performed by the American Association for the Advancement of science found that the presence of a “threatening humanoid robot” nearby can actually help improve human cognitive performance.
The study set out to learn more about how the presence of humanoid robots would affect human cognition. The study gave humans a simple test, called the Stroop task, in which they were told to identify the color of a word while ignoring the actual word itself. For instance, the test may present the word “BLUE”, but in green text – in that case, the answer would be “green”.
The study tested its hypothesis that the presence of robots may energize additional control from humans by having adults perform the Stroop task twice: once, alone and the other, in the presence of a humanoid robot that would offer either a positive (empathy) or negative (contempt, lack of empathy, negative evaluations about the participant’s intelligence) response.
The robot was animated at a distance using two smartphones for the controls of its gestures and speech. At the end of the session that the robots participated in, participants rated them on personality traits and whether they were positive or negative.
The study found that “individuals’ attentional control improved notably in the presence of the bad robot.” Stroop task performance improved exclusively in the presence of the negative robot, whereas it remained nearly the same in the presence of no one, or the positive robot.
The findings counter previous ideas, that postulated that just the presence of the robot, without the feedback, could facilitate or inhibit performance:
These findings run counter to a purely mechanistic approach that reduces the effects of robotic presence to physical action or noise distraction, which may facilitate or inhibit performance depending on task difficulty (9). According to this approach, both robotic presence conditions—regardless of their emotional tone (positive or negative)— should have resulted in a performance change compared with isolation (all the more so be- cause the robot’s appearance and behavior during task performance were identical in both conditions). Instead, Stroop performance changed exclusively in the bad social robot condition.
Not only that, but the negative robot had the same impact on Stroop performance as in earlier studies with negative human presence. The conclusion is simple: that potentially threatening others “improves the selectivity of attention to relevant information at the expense of competing cues.”
The study concludes that the heightened state of alertness helps energize attentional control:
Therefore, not only can the behavior of robots change humans’ perception of robots during HRI (10), but these attributions are susceptible to making the simple presence of robots likely to affect human cognition as a function of the interaction type. Thus, the present findings constitute evidence that the presence of social robots may energize attentional control, especially when the emotional valence and anthropomorphic inferences associated with the robot being present require a heightened state of alertness.
