Author: admin

Authored by Raymond Ibarhim via The Gatestone Institute,

“Christian persecution ‘at near genocide levels,'” the title of a May 3 BBC report, cites a lengthy interim study ordered by British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and led by Rev. Philip Mounstephen, the Bishop of Truro.

According to the BBC report, one in three people around the world suffer from religious persecution, with Christians being “the most persecuted religious group”. “Religion ‘is at risk of disappearing’ in some parts of the world,” it noted, and “In some regions, the level and nature of persecution is arguably coming close to meeting the international definition of genocide, according to that adopted by the UN.”

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is also quoted on why Western governments have been “asleep” — his word — concerning this growing epidemic:

“I think there is a misplaced worry that it is somehow colonialist to talk about a religion [Christianity] that was associated with colonial powers rather than the countries that we marched into as colonisers. That has perhaps created an awkwardness in talking about this issue—the role of missionaries was always a controversial one and that has, I think, also led some people to shy away from this topic.”

Whatever the merits of such thinking, the fact is that many of the world’s most persecuted Christians have nothing whatsoever to do with colonialism or missionaries. Those most faced with the threat of genocide — including Syria’s and Iraq’s Assyrians or Egypt’s Copts — were Christian several centuries before the ancestors of Europe’s colonizers became Christian and went missionizing.

The BBC report highlights “political correctness” as being especially responsible for the West’s indifference, and quotes Hunt again in this regard: “What we have forgotten in that atmosphere of political correctness is actually the Christians that are being persecuted are some of the poorest people on the planet.”

Although the BBC report has an entire heading titled and devoted to the impact of “political correctness,” ironically, it too succumbs to this contemporary Western malady. For while it did a fair job in highlighting the problem, it said nothing about its causes — not one word about who is persecuting Christians, or why.

The overwhelming majority of Christian persecution, however, evidently occurs in Muslim majority nations. According to Open Doors’ World Watch List 2019[WWL], which surveys the 50 nations where Christians are most persecuted, “Islamic oppression continues to impact millions of Christians.” In seven of the absolute worst ten nations, “Islamic oppression” is the cause of persecution. “This means, for millions of Christians—particularly those who grew up Muslim or were born into Muslim families—openly following Jesus can have painful consequences,” including death.

Among the worst persecutors are those that rule according to Islamic law, or Sharia — which academics such as Georgetown University’s John Esposito insist is equitable and just. In Afghanistan (ranked #2) , “Christianity is not permitted to exist,” says the WWL 2019, because it “is an Islamic state by constitution, which means government officials, ethnic group leaders, religious officials and citizens are hostile toward” Christians. Similarly, in Somalia, (#3), “The Christian community is small and under constant threat of attack. Sharia law and Islam are enshrined in the country’s constitution, and the persecution of Christians almost always involves violence.” In Iran (#9), “society is governed by Islamic law, which means the rights and professional possibilities for Christians are heavily restricted.”

Equally telling is that 38 of the 50 nations making the WWL 2019 are Muslim majority.

Perhaps the BBC succumbed to silence concerning the sources of Christian persecution — that is, succumbed to “the atmosphere of political correctness” which it ironically highlighted — because in its own report, it did not rely on the WWL. The problem with this interpretation is that the study the BBC did rely on, the Bishop of Truro’s, is saturated with talk concerning the actual sources of Christian persecution. In this regard, the words “Islam” and “Islamist” appear 61 times; “Muslim” appears 56 times in this review on persecuted Christians.

Here are a few of the more significant quotes from the Bishop of Truro’s report:

• “The persecution of Christians is perhaps at its most virulent in the region of the birthplace of Christianity—the Middle East & North Africa.”

• “In countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia the situation of Christians and other minorities has reached an alarming stage.”

• “The eradication of Christians and other minorities on pain of ‘the sword’ or other violent means was revealed to be the specific and stated objective of [Islamic] extremist groups in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, north-east Nigeria and the Philippines.”

• “[T]here is mass violence which regularly expresses itself through the bombing of churches, as has been the case in countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia.”

• “The single-greatest threat to Christians [in Nigeria] … came from Islamist militant group Boko Haram, with US intelligence reports in 2015 suggesting that 200,000 Christians were at risk of being killed… Those worst affected included Christian women and girls ‘abducted, and forced to convert, enter forced marriages, sexual abuse and torture.'”

• “An intent to erase all evidence of the Christian presence [in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, north-east Nigeria and the Philippines] was made plain by the removal of crosses, the destruction of Church buildings and other Church symbols. The killing and abduction of clergy represented a direct attack on the Church’s structure and leadership.”

• “Christianity now faces the possibility of being wiped-out in parts of the Middle East where its roots go back furthest. In Palestine, Christian numbers are below 1.5 percent; in Syria the Christian population has declined from 1.7 million in 2011 to below 450,000 and in Iraq, Christian numbers have slumped from 1.5 million before 2003 to below 120,000 today. Christianity is at risk of disappearing, representing a massive setback for plurality in the region.”

The BBC should be commended for (finally) reporting on this urgent issue — even if it is three years behind the times. As the Truro report correctly observes, “In 2016 various political bodies including the UK parliament, the European Parliament and the US House of Representatives, declared that ISIS atrocities against Christians and other religious minority groups such as Yazidis and Shi’a Muslims met the tests of genocide.”

At the very least, it appears that the BBC has stopped trying to minimize the specter of Christian persecution as it did in 2013, when this situation was just starting to reach the boiling point.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2X9Ahrm Tyler Durden

Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has been removed from office in a stunning culmination of a scandal wherein a political ally was caught red-handed on tape discussing bribes from a woman he thought was the niece of a Russian oligarch.  

The so-called “Ibiza-gate” scandal, named after the Spanish island where the video was secretly filmed in 2017, resulted in far-right Freedom Party (FPOe) leader and Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache resigning his posts.

On Monday opposition leaders in parliament went further and held a no-confidence vote, ousting the country’s leader Chancellor Kurz from office, in a first in Austria’s post-war history.

Social Democrat (SPÖ) leader Pamela Rendi-Wagner, who had initially proposed the no confidence vote, slammed Kurz during the proceeding, saying, “You have said a lot, but have not yet said that your government has failed. You alone are responsible for it.”

The video had previously forced Kurz to end his coalition with the FPOe and call for early elections, but parliament has insisted the now former chancellor take full responsibility for the corruption scandal, in spite of the 32-year old leader’s conservative People’s Party (OeVP) doing well in EU parliament elections, expected to gain 34.9% of the vote and pick up two extra seats.

Per the AFP:

The no-confidence vote against Kurz and his government took place in a special sitting of parliament with more than half of MPs withdrawing their support, making him Austria’s shortest-serving chancellor.

Submitting the motion against Kurz, the head of the SPOe, Pamela Rendi-Wagner, accused him of an unprecedented “uncurbed and shameless power grab”.

Austria’s president Alexander Van der Bellen named Vice Chancellor Hartwig Löger as the interim leader and a “transitional government” will be named.

The now famous “honey-trap” video that has now effectively brought down the ruling Austrian government was summarized by the BBC as follows:

It has widely been labelled “Ibiza-gate”, after the Spanish island where the video was recorded.

It was secretly filmed in 2017 just weeks before the election which saw both the FPÖ and Chancellor Kurz’s party perform well.

In the footage, released by German media, Freedom Party leader and Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache can be seen relaxing and drinking for hours at a villa with FPÖ parliament group leader Johann Gudenus, while they meet a woman, purported to be the niece of a Russian oligarch.

Mr Strache appears to propose offering her public contracts if she buys a large stake in the Austrian newspaper Kronen Zeitung – and makes it support the Freedom Party.

He is heard suggesting that a number of journalists would have to be “pushed” from the newspaper, and that he wants to “build a media landscape like [Viktor] Orban” – referring to Hungary’s nationalist leader.

The video’s mysterious origins remain subject of fierce debate and speculation after it was published over a week ago by two German newspapers, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Der Spiegel.

It’s been described as the result of “an elaborately prepared and well-funded sting operation” which some have accused Russian intelligence of orchestrating.

It remains as yet unclear if now disgraced Vice-Chancellor Strache will still take one of FPÖ’s three predicted three seats in European parliament. 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2EAZ8wM Tyler Durden

Authored by Binoy Kampmark via OrientalReview.org,

The vultures of the British conservative party have gathered, and the individual who seemed to thrive in failure, to gain momentum in defeat, has finally yielded.  UK Prime Minister Theresa May will leave the way for change of leadership on June 7.  Never known for any grand gestures of emotion, the Maybot finally gave way to it.

It had begun rather optimistically in 2016.  May would preside over a Britain leaving the European Union in good order.  She even dared suggest that an agenda of domestic reform might be implemented.  Neither has transpired, and clues were already apparent with the blithely optimistic trio in charge of overseeing the Brexit process: David Davis, as a fabulously ill-equipped Brexit Secretary, Liam Fox holding the reins as international trade secretary and Boris Johnson keeping up appearances at the Foreign Office.  But for all that it was May who seemed to insist that all was possible: the UK could still leave the customs union and single market, repudiate free movement and wriggle out of the jurisdiction of the European Court.  Independent trade deals with non-EU countries would be arrived at but similar trading agreements could still continue in some form with the EU. And there would be no Irish border issue.

Problems, however, surfaced early.  May’s leadership style problematic.  Her cabinet reshuffles (read bloodletting) did much to create animosity.  Some eight ministers were sacked in the first round, with all but one under 50 at the time.  They were, as Stephen Bush puts it, “right in the middle of their political careers, a dangerous time to leave them with nothing to lose.”

Her decision to go to the polls in 2017 to crush the opposition was also another act of a folly-ridden leader.  From a position of strength from which she could instruct her party on the hard truths of Brexit instead of covering their ears, she gave Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn ample kicking room to revive his party while imposing upon herself a considerable handicap.  EU negotiators knew they were negotiating with a significantly weakened leader.

Then came the cold showers, initiated by such wake-up alarms as shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer’s suggestion in 2017 that a transitional phase would have to come into effect after the UK had thrown off the EU.  As Starmer observed at the time, “Constructive ambiguity – David Davis’s description of the government’s approach – can only take you so far.”

May duly suffered three horrendous defeats in Parliament, all to do with a failure to pass the Withdrawal Agreement, and fought off the daggers of usurpation within her own party. She had also had to convince the EU that two extensions to Brexit were warranted. The last throw of the dice featured bringing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to the negotiating table.  To a large extent, that had been encouraged by the third failure to pass the Withdrawal Agreement on March 29th.

On May 21, the prime minister outlined the latest incarnation of a plan that has never moved beyond the stage of life support.  It had that air of a captain heading for the iceberg of inevitability.  She remained committed “to deliver Brexit and help our country move beyond the division of the referendum and into a better future.”  It was spiced with the sweet nothings of forging that “country that works for everyone”, all with “the chance to get on in life and to go as far as their own talent and hard work can take them”.

She hoped for alternative arrangements to the Irish backstop. The new Brexit deal would “set out in law that the House of Commons will approve the UK’s objectives for the negotiations on our future relationship with the EU and they will approve the treaties governing that relationship before the Government signs them.”  A new Workers’ Rights Bill would be introduced to guarantee equivalent protections to UK workers afforded to those in the EU, perhaps even better.  No change to the level of environmental protection would take place, something to be policed by a new Office of Environmental Protection.  But May’s concessions on the subject of a customs union and a proposed second referendum as part of the package, both largely designed to placate Labour, were too much for her cabinet.  Her resignation was assured.

The resignation speech was a patchwork attempt to salvage a difficult legacy.  It was “right to persevere, even when the odds against success seemed high.”  But it would be for her “successor to seek a way forward that honours the result of the referendum. To succeed, he or she will have to find consensus in parliament where I have not.”

She had led “a decent, moderate and patriotic Conservative government on the common ground of British politics”. She spoke of “a union of people”, standing together regardless of background, skin colour “or who we love”.  In an effort to move beyond a pure and exclusive focus on Brexit, she tried to single out such domestic achievements as gender pay reporting and the race disparity audit.  This led such conservative outlets as The Spectator to wonder whether such initiatives had “invented victimhood where none existed.”

There will be as many post-mortems on May’s tenure as Brexit proposals.  Steve Richards, writing for The New European, felt May never had a chance.  It was a period of uncertainty made permanent.  With each Brexit secretary resignation, with each parliamentary defeat of the exit plan, “nothing much happened, only an accumulative sense of doom.”  That was a ready-made outcome.

The list of contenders seeking to replace May is a who’s who of agents, less of assuring stability than guaranteed chaos shadowed by enormous question marks.  Furthermore, anyone willing to offer themselves up for replacement is likely to face similar treatment to that given May.

The current stable of contenders are of varying, uneven talents.  Environment secretary Michael Gove and former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab were rather late to the fold.  They joined Matt Hancock, Jeremy Hunt, Boris Johnson, Esther McVey, Andrea Leadsom and Rory Stewart.  Political watchers and the party faithful will be keeping an eye on wobbliness and wavering: foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt had campaigned in the 2016 referendum to remain in the UK; likewise the self-touted tech-savvy Hancock.

With an individual such as Boris Johnson, you are assured a spell of chaos.  Incapable of mastering a brief, his temperament is utterly hostile to stable ministerial appointments.  He tries to make up for that with a buffoonish, public school air that treats certain character flaws as gifts of eccentricity.  While he is liked amongst the conservative fan base, his parliamentary colleagues are not so sure.  The Bold as British formula is only going to carry you so far; the hard negotiators in the EU will attest to that.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2K5quip Tyler Durden

As global trade falls off a cliff to levels last seen during the recession, stoking fears about the potential re-run of a period most investors would probably rather forget, a free-trade savior has emerged in an often overlooked corner of the world: The African Union, which has just ratified what will purportedly become the largest free-trade zone by population that the world has ever seen. According to RT, it could boost trade in Africa by as much as 50%.

While the US ratchets up trade tensions with Europe and Japan and threatens to ratchet up tariffs on Chinese imports, the African Continental Free Trade Area, or AfCFTA, will become the largest free trade deal since 1995 when it takes effect on Thursday.

The Egyptian Foreign Ministry said over the weekend that the remaining 22 ratifications had been received. The last two were from Sierra Leone and the Sahrawi Republic, and were received by the African Union on April 29. All but three countries – Benin, Eritrea and Nigeria – of the 55 countries in Africa have signed on to the deal. According to the UN, if Nigeria joins the AfCFTA, then intra-African trade could grow by more than 50% in the next five years.

The African Union’s trade commissioner Albert Muchanga told Fortune: “When you look at the African economies right now, their basic problem is fragmentation.”

“They’re very small economies in relation to the rest of the world. Investors find it very difficult to come up with large-scale investments in those small markets,” he said, adding: “We’re moving away from fragmentation, to attract long-term and large-scale investment.”

AfCFTA has been a flagship project of the African Union’s “Agenda 2063” development vision for roughly half a decade. The initial proposal was approved by the African Union in 2012 and member states started working on a draft in 2015.

In March 2018, the leaders of 44 African countries endorsed the agreement during a summit in Rwanda. Participants in the agreement are even considering the possibility that they might use a common currency.

Of course, aside from the members themselves, one of the biggest beneficiaries of this deal will be Beijing, which has longstanding bilateral trade deals with dozens of countries in Africa, from which it imports raw materials. Africa is also home to one of the greatest concentrations of BRI-related projects.

And given Washington’s protectionist bent under the Trump Administration, the timing couldn’t be better.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2W5GyHY Tyler Durden

Authored by Rio Stockton via Renaissance Report,

March 19th 2003, US forces in coalition with the United Kingdom and others initiate war on Iraq in a conquest to overthrow the ruthless dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. During this time President George W. Bush famously announced, “At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” The Bush administration had built practically one hundred per cent of their case for war on the premise that Saddam Hussein was keeping “weapons of mass destruction” and was ready to use them. But soon after, it became imminent that the origins of these claims were baseless.

Soon after the initial invasion of Baghdad, coalition forces were able to swiftly topple Hussein’s regime and capture Iraq’s major cities in the span of just 3 weeks whilst sustaining only minor casualties. At this stage, all seemed well after President Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1st 2003. But despite this victory, instead of immediately pulling US troops out of Iraq, Bush attempted something that up until then was anathema to Republicans – nation building. Most Americans at this time recognised that the US had stabilised the Middle East and would then ensure a peaceful transition to a new democratically elected government and free society.

But this would end in unequivocal failure after a growing insurgency prolonged 8 years of intense guerrilla warfare, which according to the BBC resulted in 4487 US personnel killed, over 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and US financial costs projected anywhere between $802 billion all the way to possibly as high as $3 trillion when additional impacts on the US budget and economy are considered.

So what did all of this turmoil and devastation achieve? Well instead of achieving the primary goal of regime change in Iraq, it achieved many thousands of deaths of Iraqi troops/civilians and coalition forces, the loss of trillions of taxpayer dollars, destabilization of the Middle East and no so-called weapons of mass destruction were found after searches and interrogation of Saddam Hussein following his capture on December 16th 2003. But most notably, in the years since leaving Iraq, the resurgence of al Qaeda – which was on the ropes after the surge has led to a substantial increase in ethno-sectarian terrorism making it seem as if all of our efforts were ultimately futile.

Despite this utter tragedy of a War, some still believe to this day that it was the right decision. Take it from national security advisor for the Trump administration John Bolton; “I don’t think that there is any doubt that the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was the correct decision.”

Bolton, who also served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Organization of Affairs under the Bush administration continues to champion the war In Iraq and is also pushing for in his own words “regime change in Iran… There is a viable opposition to the rule of the Ayatollahs, the only option is to change the regime itself.” Bolton along with other war hawks such as Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley pushed hard for war in Iraq; and based off of their rhetoric alone could drive the US on the verge of conflict with Iran. But how feasible is this in actuality?

Now, although history never repeats itself, sometimes it rhymes and these rhymes can help us to understand the present. One of the first steps toward war in Iraq began with economic sanctionsin order to hinder the progress of lethal arms programs, such as the development of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. And the similarities between what occurred then and what is occurring now are striking.

Over the last month, the Trump administration has applied what could be deemed as smothering force, by ending sanctions waivers to any country, meaning that all countries who do not end their imports of Iranian oil will be subject to sanctions. The aim, of course, is to drive Iranian oil exports down to essentially zero. This coupled with the classifying of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization and the deployment of ships and bombers to the Persian Gulf is all a consolidated effort to throttle Iran into submission. Although this appears to have not achieved its intended purpose.

Instead, it appears to have only stiffened Iran’s resolve, shifting it from wary patience to calibrated confrontation against an enemy it has long mistrusted. According to analysts, Iran’s leaders will not capitulate to what they view as economic and physiological warfare, nor will they negotiate under duress.

Make no mistake, this is the first palatable step toward regime change in Iran. Increased US pressure has had a pernicious and dangerous effect on the Iranian people, more specifically far-right Shia Islamists who have been further emboldened by these economic sanctions. Even the more moderate Hassan Rouhani (President of Iran) has shifted his tone stating that he would begin to walk away from the 2015 restrictions imposed by the Iran nuclear deal. But instead of treading lightly, the US responded with further sanctions on Tehran, reviving a crisis that had been previously contained for the past 4 years.

On Friday, Trump announced that the US will be sending 1500 troops to the Middle East in order to provide protection for existing troops in the region amid heightened tensions with Tehran. This, of course, was all triggered by US sanctions on Tehran in the first place and, as of now, the Shia Islamists in Iran who have long warned against placing any trust in the US are becoming more emboldened and gaining ever-more momentum and validity, further escalating us toward direct conflict.

In short, this all seems like a pre-planned effort to initiate regime change in Iran. In Trump’s own words after ending the Iran nuclear deal, “The country is devastated… I never knew it would be this strong.” But if Iran is pressured enough into ignoring restrictions and commencing development of nuclear weapons, the US will then have a seemingly viable reason to launch a war on Iran and the neo-cons would then be granted their so-called puppet state in the Middle East. Increasing pressure on Iran is just the beginning.

In essence, this all seems far too similar to Iraq whereby President Bush used the fallacy that Saddam Hussein was keeping weapons of mass destruction in order to lure the American people to his side, but could we really witness a direct repeat here?

Well, it all depends on the amount of influence that Bolton, Pompeo and other war hawks have on the President’s decisions, but thus far that influence appears to be insurmountable. We can still recall during the 2016 Republican Presidential debates when Trump argued that “we should’ve never been in Iraq… we have destabilized the middle east.” Although the President still aligns with those views, tweets such as ” If Iran wants to fight that will be the official end of Iran. Never Threaten the United States again!” certainly won’t go far to comfort you. In spite of that, I think it’s safe to assume that most people have grown accustomed to such outlandish behaviour by now.

Instead, we should be observing action over words. Most recently, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee rejected a Democratic proposal to require congressional approval before the U.S. can take military action against Iran. Without congressional approval, Trump could now potentially spiral the US into further endless conflict in the Middle East.

Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan attempted to dampen down concerns over the situation telling reporters, “We have deterred attacks based on our re-posturing of assets, deterred attacks against American forces. Our biggest focus at this point is to prevent Iranian miscalculation. We do not want the situation to escalate. This is about deterrence, not about war.” Regardless of how you stand on the situation with Iran, one thing is for certain; a war in Iran would be far more costly, far more devastating and far more deadly than we could have ever imagined in Iraq.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/30Mbeg9 Tyler Durden

Do you find yourself running and gunning in 2 a.m. gaming sessions after telling your spouse hours earlier you just need to get past the next checkpoint? 

Do you have a “pattern of persistent or recurring gaming behavior” that takes priority over “other life interests and daily activities” despite the “negative consequences” which may result? 

Bad news tired gamers; according to the World Health Organization, you may have “Gaming Disorder.”

In the latest revision of the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD) released last year and coming into effect on January 1st, 2022, “gaming disorder” is now a thing. According to a beta draft of the ICD noted by Geek.com, it’s described as follows: 

Gaming disorder is characterized by a pattern of persistent or recurrent gaming behavior (‘digital gaming’ or ‘video gaming’), which may be online (i.e. over the Internet) or offline, manifested by:

1) impaired control over gaming (e.g. onset, frequency, intensity, duration, termination, context)

2) increasing priority given to gaming to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other life interests and daily activities

3) continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences.

The behavior pattern is of sufficient severity to result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The pattern of gaming behavior may be continuous or episodic and recurrent.

The gaming behavior and other features are normally evident over a period of at least 12 months in order for a diagnosis to be assigned, although the required duration may be shortened if all diagnostic requirements are met and symptoms are severe. –Geek.com

“There is increasing and well-documented evidence of clinical relevance of these conditions and increasing demand for treatment in different parts of the world,” said a WHO spokesman in January. 

Indeed, according to Statista the number of “active video gamers” has grown to over 2 billion worldwide, and is projected to reach 2.7 billion by 2021. 

There are even NSFW Reddit forums aimed at gamers who want to check out gamer girls’ ‘loot boxes’ so to speak. Several of them. So while you may have an addiction, know that there’s hope. And if you’re just fine with that, there are entire communities of fellow gamers who can validate your proclivities. 

According to Sky, gamers are pissed. 

A statement from the Global Video Game Industry Associations read: “We are concerned [the WHO] reached their conclusion without the consensus of the academic community.

“The consequences of today’s action could be far-reaching, unintended, and to the detriment of those in need of genuine help.”

It also said that the WHO’s guidance was not based on “sufficiently robust evidence”.

Some experts also agree that there is not enough evidence to define video game addiction as an illness. –Sky

And according to a report published by the Journal of Behavioral Addictions, there is a “weak scientific basis” behind the new classification. 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2MfJGwo Tyler Durden

Submitted by SouthFront.org

The Arctic remains one of the few areas of the globe with relatively little human activity and therefore limited prospects for international conflict. Even during the Cold War the Arctic remained comparatively under-resourced by both adversarial blocs. The main theater was Europe, supporting theaters included the Mediterranean and the Middle East, but the Arctic was mainly visited by strategic nuclear platforms such as submarines and bombers which rehearsed their WW3 missions there.

The end of the Cold War gradually raised the Arctic’s importance, and it did so for two reasons. The current multipolar power distribution means the addition of two independent or largely independent political actors, namely the EU and China, and the shifting of the global economic “center of gravity” eastward. This development is increasing Russia’s importance as the economic and political link between the EU and China. However, while the European and Asian economic powerhouses are exploring various forms of economic linkages with Russia serving as a vital component of the relationship, United States is actively seeking to drive a wedge between them by isolating the EU from Russia and therefore also China, and fully subordinating Europe to its economic and political interests. Whether the EU acquiesces to being merely a US protectorate or asserts its independence remains to be seen, however, in the meantime the Arctic is acquiring importance as a trade route linking Europe and Asia. The second reason for the Arctic’s importance is the presence of considerable reserves of energy resources in the region on which the global economy will depend. National control over these resources or lack thereof will in turn determine the power ranking of the country in question.

And since we are increasingly in a world where “possession is 9/10ths of the law”, anyone seeking to access the Arctic and maintain permanent presence there will have to maintain a sizable force of icebreakers in order to ensure navigation in areas which are temporarily or permanently ice-bound. Each of interested powers already maintains an icebreaker fleet whose size and importance is only going to increase in the coming decades.

Russia

Having the longest coastline facing the North Pole and maritime and trade interests in the region going back centuries, it is no surprise the Russian Federation maintains the largest and the most modern icebreaker fleet in the world, with no country even coming close to it. It is also the only country to operate nuclear icebreakers, vessels whose powerplant ensures remarkable endurance and which can plow through ice pack with the aid of hot water jets, courtesy of the reactors.

As of 2019, the nuclear icebreaker fleet consists of four active and one reserve vessels. The active ships include two-reactor, 75,000hp “Yamal” and “50 Years of Victory”, and two single-reactor 50,000hp “Taimyr” and “Vaygach”. The “Sovetskiy Soyuz” remains in reserve, to be used in the event of another ship becoming not operational. The fleet is rounded off by the “Sevmorput” nuclear-powered barge-carrier, capable of independent operations in the ice. The nuclear icebreaker fleet is complemented by five Project 21900 conventional icebreakers, each powered by a 30,000hp diesel powerplant.

The aging of the nuclear fleet means they will be replaced in the coming decade by the LK-60Ya (Project 22220) nuclear-powered icebreakers. They are also two-reactor designs, but boasting slightly greater power than their predecessors at 80,000hp. The first two ships of the class, “Arktika” and “Sibir” have already been launched, the third “Ural” is under construction. A total of five ships of this class are planned, all to enter service during the 2020s.  The LK-60Ya (Project 22220) icebreakers will be followed by LK-120Ya “Lider” (Project 10510) boasting not only vastly greater power (160,000hp) but also greater width, to enable even the largest of ships to use the Northern Sea Passage. Overall, the plan is to have not fewer than 13 heavy icebreakers in service, of which 9 will be nuclear-powered, by 2030. This represents both a quantitative and qualitative expansion of the force, an indicator of the importance of the Arctic to Russia.

United States

By comparison, and in spite of Alaska being part of the United States, the US Coast Guard operates exactly one (1) heavy icebreaker dating back to the 1970s, the Polar Star, with an 78,000hp diesel/gas turbine power plant. A second ship of the class, the Polar Sea, is ostensibly in reserve but has not been to sea in many years and is likely being cannibalized for spare parts to sustain the Polar Star in service which even so remains prone to mechanical breakdowns due to its advanced age and heavy use caused by an absence of alternative ships with similar capabilities.

When it comes to the expansion of its icebreaker fleet, the United States also lags behind the Russian Federation. Currently the plan is to procure three heavy and three medium polar icebreakers within the next decade, with the first of the new ships to be delivered in 2023 and the final in 2029. However, it should be noted that the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, and its modernization programs have suffered after the service was merged with the DHS which is a very much post-9/11 creation whose current budget priorities also happen to include the infamous “wall” separating the United States and Mexico.  Therefore the icebreakers will remain vulnerable to the DHS budget battles, and may also be affected by the looming next US financial crisis.

Canada

The United States may to some extent rely on Canada’s icebreaker fleet, which includes two heavy (36,000hp) and five medium icebreakers. However, its construction program is not as ambitious as Russia’s or even the United States. Only one new icebreaker, the 45,000hp John G. Diefenbaker is expected to join service in the 2020s, replacing one of the current heavy icebreakers. This would mean that for the first time in decades Canada would face icebreaker inferiority relative to the United States. Given US Secretary of State Pompeo’s recent assertion that Canada’s claims to the Northwest Passage are “illegitimate”, it appears that Canada is about to lose control over its portion of the Arctic to the United States.

China

While the PRC is not generally considered an Arctic power, its interest in trade routes means that even though it operates exactly one ship capable of ice-breaking operations, the Xue Long scientific research vessel built in Ukraine in the 1990s, there is an ongoing discussion in China over the importance of the Arctic to its economy. Therefore it is not surprising that China is in the process of developing a heavy nuclear-powered icebreaker comparable to the Russian vessels currently in service, which will likely enter service during the 2020s. Given the pace of Chinese ship-building in general, should China decide to enter the Arctic power play in earnest, it will be able to quickly out-match the United States and Canada in that realm.

Conclusions

Looking at the current situation and the emerging trends, it would appear that the two Eurasian powers, Russia and China, will remain dominant in the Arctic at least during the coming decade. While the United States is starting to get into the game, it is clearly very low on its list of priorities. The fact that the US capabilities are being stretched very thin indeed and the sorry state of America’s finances mean that US Arctic capabilities, military or otherwise, will receive veritable crumbs in terms of funding. Canada’s sovereignty is being gradually eroded by the United States and may lose its status as an Arctic player altogether in the next decade, particularly if icebreaker construction will have to compete for funding with the F-35 fighters which the United States is bent on imposing on Canada. China remains the wild card. At the moment, it seems content to rely on Russia’s icebreaking capabilities in the region, however, should US-China competition in the region intensify, the PRC will become more proactive in exerting its influence in the region.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WwQ1aC Tyler Durden

President Trump is already predicted to win the 2020 election by three different economists, according to former Obama administration official, Wall Street executive and Brookings Institution board member Steve Rattner. 

In an op-ed for the New York Times titled “Trump’s Formidable 2020 Tailwind,” Rattner notes how three prominent economists have predicted another term for the man who snatched victory from the jaws of Hillary Clinton in 2016. 

How big is Trump’s tailwind? Yuge, according to the three economists. 

One of the first — and perhaps still the best — of these models was created by Ray Fair, a professor at Yale. He found that the growth rates of gross domestic product and inflation have been the two most important economic predictors — but he also found that incumbency was also an important determinant of presidential election outcomes.

How did Ray Fair’s model do with Trump? “According to the model, Donald Trump should have received 54.1 percent of the vote; in actuality he received 48.8 percent,” according to Rattner. 

A good part of Mr. Trump’s edge in 2016 was the incumbency factor — after eight years of a Democratic president, voters would ordinarily have wanted a Republican. (Since 1952, only one man has become president following eight years of a president of the same party.) In 2020, incumbency will be a tailwind for Mr. Trump as the vast majority of presidents are chosen for a second term. –New York Times

Meanwhile, the current economy should also help Trump in 2020, assuming it doesn’t crater. 

It should also be noted that these models are not polls, and several polls have Biden ahead of Trump in the 2020 election. Of course, one should bear in mind that while Ray Fair’s models have been accurate, most polls got 2016 dead wrong. 

Two other prominent economists have observed similar findings to Fair. 

It’s worth noting that the Fair model is hardly alone in its forecast. Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, has looked at 12 models, and Mr. Trump wins in all of them. Donald Luskin of Trend Macrolytics has reached the same conclusion in his examination of the Electoral College. –New York Times

Of course, it’s possible that attempts to manipulate the electoral college may change things a bit.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WvMwkM Tyler Durden

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

The dystopian future George Orwell warned us all about in his iconic novel, 1984 has quickly become our reality. Widespread facial surveillance in the “land of the free” is an “imminent reality.”

A tech privacy report, that has been swept under the rug by the mainstream media has declared that Americans are about to live through the very world Orwell wrote of. Georgetown researchers are warning Americans about a sophisticated real-time face surveillance system that’s about to become an “imminent reality” for millions of citizens across the country. Ground zero, though, appears to be Detroit.

The “America Under Watch” report is a warning that authorities in select U.S. cities may soon be able to pick you out from a crowd, identify you, and trace your movements via a secret network of cameras constantly capturing images of your face.  Mass surveillance of every single human being living in the U.S. has become a nightmarish dystopian reality.

DataWorks says it offers software which “provides continuous screening and monitoring of live video streams.” The system is also designed to operate on “not less than 100 concurrent video feeds.”

According to the research team’s report, live footage is captured by cameras installed around Detroit as part of Project Green Light, a public-private initiative to deter crime (and violate the privacy rights of everyone) which launched in 2016. The expanse of the police department’s facial recognition policy last summer, however, means the face recognition technology can now be connected to any live video, including security cameras, drone footage, and body-worn cams.

You’ve been warned.  This technology will not remain limited to Detroit. Illinois, meanwhile, is home to one of the most advanced biometric surveillance systems in the country. The report added that the Chicago Police Department (CPD) and the Chicago Transit Authority have had face surveillance capabilities since “at least 2016.”

Similar facial surveillance is now also, apparently on the horizon for other large cities, including New York City, Orlando, and Washington D.C. Oddly enough, San Francisco,  known for its authoritarian control of the public, became the first US city to ban facial recognition software used by police and other municipal agencies last week.

This report has prompted the authors, Clare Garvie, and Laura M. Moy, to call for a “complete moratorium on police use of face recognition” to give communities a chance to decide whether they always want to be monitored in their streets and neighborhoods.

The American mainstream media is also doing their “due diligence” by hiding this report and it’s obvious why they have done so.  The U.S. could very soon resemble communist China with the citizens having no rights and limited ability to even ask the government for permission, while the government does whatever they want with the power willingly handed to them by the ignorant masses.

Read the entire report titled “American Under Watch” here. 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2wmBgZh Tyler Durden