Apparently, the US isn’t the only country experiencing one of the worst measles outbreaks in decades (though it might be the only country that had at one time in the not-too-distant past declared the disease to be eradicated).
The WHO warned on Tuesday that Europe has recorded a total of 34,300 measles cases in 42 countries, putting the region on track to record more than 200,000 cases in 2019, more than double the roughly 80,000 cases reported last year, which was nearly triple the number of cases reported in 2017, according to Reuters.
So far, the vast majority of cases have been in Ukraine, which recently completed a contentious election held against the backdrop of a still-simmering conflict in the Eastern part of the country.
Despite rising vaccination rates, the WHO said large gaps in coverage in troubled areas like Ukraine, Albania and Romania have contributed greatly to the outbreak.
“Although the European Region achieved its highest ever estimated coverage for the second dose of measles vaccination in 2017 (90%),” the WHO said, “countries with measles outbreaks have experienced a range of challenges in recent years including a decline or stagnation in overall routine immunization coverage in some cases, low coverage at subnational level or among some marginalized groups and immunity gaps in older populations.”
Meanwhile, in the US, CDC officials have confirmed an additional 60 cases of measles have been diagnosed since late last month, bringing the total to more than 760, according to NBC News.
The WHO added that if the response isn’t timely enough, the virus will find its way into more pockets of vulnerable individuals, and could eventually spread to more countries, or even beyond the European region.
“If outbreak response is not timely and comprehensive, the virus will find its way into more pockets of vulnerable individuals and potentially spread to additional countries within and beyond the region,” it said in a statement.
“Every opportunity should be used to vaccinate susceptible children, adolescents and adults,” the organization added.
The death toll across the region has climbed to 13, with most of the deaths occurring in Ukraine.
UNICEF published a report last month where it found that 20 million children a year missed out on measles vaccines across the world in the past eight years, creating the circumstances for the current outbreak.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2V7ZCzS Tyler Durden
It was a startling statement for the time. Mario Draghi had only been on the job as President of the European Central Bank for a few months by then, taking over for the hapless Jean Claude-Trichet who was unceremoniously retired at the end of October 2011 amidst “unexpected” chaos and turmoil. It was Trichet who contributed much to the tumult, having idiotically raised rates (twice) during 2011 even as warning signs of crisis and economic weakness were everywhere.
Central bankers had built their platforms on dismissing problems. “Subprime is contained” the mantra for Euro$ #1 was later replaced by “Greece isn’t a big deal” in time for Euro$ #2. Neither had anything to do with the global monetary situation, precisely the point.
Still, Draghi as much in the dark about it as Trichet had to show the world he was serious and therefore, supposedly, different from his predecessor. Sticking with the PIIGS theme, the new head of the ECB having just launched massive LTRO’s tried to sound reasonable about them. Sitting down for an interview in Frankfurt with the Wall Street Journal, the Italian wowed them:
You know there was a time when [economist] Rudi Dornbusch used to say that the Europeans are so rich they can afford to pay everybody for not working. That’s gone.
This was February 2012. The implications were clear, and it would define the way in which everything would later unfold – including Draghi’s infamous promise to “do whatever it takes” to save the euro uttered a few months later.
This was all Southern Europe’s fault. A touch of German in his voice, Draghi was saying that Germany couldn’t and shouldn’t be counted on to bail out Continent. Not just in financial matters, but in overall economy, too.
By Q4 2011, European GDP had turned negative. It was a huge shock coming so soon after the Great (somehow global) “Recession.” Trichet, after all, had proclaimed the recovery a success despite Greece and Italy.
German GDP decelerated, too, only for much of 2012 it stayed positive and buoyed spirits and projections. Perhaps Germany’s economy itself supported by robust “global growth” could do it. Its vast factory sector was a gateway to the rest of the world, especially Asia, which didn’t have to fuss over Portugal and Ireland’s fiscal situations.
As with most central bank projections, however, these amounted to subjective hope predicated on managing expectations. Nowhere was there sound let alone rational analysis. Germany’s factory sector was itself already in recession alongside most of Europe. GDP in the country might’ve stayed positive, but every indication for convergence to the downside was available early in the year 2012.
It wasn’t until November that officials admitted the whole of Europe was in trouble, not just the Southern region. Sticking to the premise that it was PIIGS anyway who eventually dragged down the north, Draghi and the rest committed much the same error as Trichet. They never figured out what was really wrong and therefore never really fixed it.
Here we are all over again, only with the roles somewhat reversed. In 2018 and now 2019, it’s Germany which is leading toward the downside. This isn’t to say that the South is a towering pillar of economic strength; far from it. In terms of relative weakness, right now the German economy is near the top.
According to DeStatis, the German government’s number crunching agency, Real GDP growth was negative in Q3 and basically flat in Q4. Current expectations are that output accelerated a little in Q1 2019, maybe as much as 0.1% growth (DeStatis will report next week on Q1). It’s not the specific expectation but the trend – slowly getting better, from autumn and winter gray back into spring and summer green.
The season for these green shoots gained a little more color when last week EuroStat reported Q1 2019 GDP for the whole of Europe came in at 0.379% quarter over quarter. It seems to confirm the idea that the soft patch was just that; a transitory combination of one-off factors lazily dissipating so that the boom can eventually resume (next year, perhaps).
For that to happen, though, Europe needs to resolve Germany’s weakness. Mario Draghi as much as any other central banker is counting on “global growth” to resynchronize on the plus side. German problems suggest it would be wise notto.
While GDP may be positive again in Q1, maybe like 2012 for a few quarters thereafter, German industry is still under pain of severe contraction. DeStatis reports today that unadjusted factory orders, a leading indication, were 7.2% less in March 2019 than in March 2018 (which were 3% less than in March 2017).
It was the fifth consecutive month of contraction, four of them at rates consistent with 2012’s Europe-wide recession. Seasonally-adjusted, factory orders were a tiny sliver higher in March than in February, not at all the same thing as green shoots considering the steep drop in them starting last December.
Does Europe’s economy rebound without Germany? Can the German economy contribute without its factories? What is the global economy really like?
The bond market version including expected rate cuts in the United States is not nearly as far-fetched as many claim; nearly all those claims beginning with central bank models, forecasts, and “analysis.” Central bankers have had it all wrong all along. Lumbering toward his own looming retirement, Mario Draghi has fully proved himself no different than Trichet.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2JpBWF4 Tyler Durden
Last month, we reported that CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis’ world trade volume fell 1.8% in the three months to January compared to the preceding three months as a synchronized global downturn gained momentum.
Four months later, and the performance of the global manufacturing sector remained depressed in April. This is the month where global trade data should trough, in preparation for a 2H rebound. However, that is not the case – as a synchronized global downturn intensifies.
IHS Markit reported that rates of global expansion in output, new orders and employment were fragile, and below their long-term trend lines, while new export data dropped.
The J.P.Morgan Global Manufacturing PMI, a composite index produced by J.P.Morgan and IHS Markit in partnership with ISM and IFPSM, posted 50.3 in April, down from 50.5 in March, teetering on the edge of contraction, to record its lowest level since June 2016.
“The weakness in the global manufacturing sector was most evident in the intermediate and investment goods sectors, both of which saw production and new orders contract during April. The consumer goods industry fared better, with growth of both output and new business accelerating during the latest survey month. Consumer goods was also the only category to see new export work increase, albeit only moderately,” said IHSMarkit.
The decrease in export business was widespread for the eighth consecutive month. Softness was observed in Greater China, the Eurozone, Brazil, the UK, South Korea, Turkey, the Philippines, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Poland, and the Czech Republic.
“The global manufacturing sector remained subdued at the start of the second quarter, with the PMI barely above the 50.0 mark and rates of expansion in output and new orders still lackluster and well below long-run trend levels. In particular, the capital goods sector PMI underscores that business capex remains stalled. International trade flows remain a significant drag on the manufacturing sector. New export business has now decreased for eighth successive months,” David Hensley, Director of Global Economic Coordination at J.P.Morgan said.
The International Monetary Fund warned last month: this is a “delicate moment” for the global economy as many countries are experiencing a severe slowdown.
The global economy has “lost further momentum” in the last six months, said IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde.
Lagarde pinned the deceleration of global growth on “the impact of increased trade tensions.”
Not surprisingly, the stock market’s 2019 uptrend has ignored the deterioration in global growth, as investors focus on trade optimism and a dovish Federal Reserve that has expanded the market’s P/E multiple. However, with President Trump’s surprise threat to raise the 10% tariff on $200BN of Chinese goods to 25% on May 10 in what BofA has called a “major escalation” – the whole narrative of expanding multiples in preparation for a 2H rebound could all but be fantasy at this point.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2DUl6KQ Tyler Durden
A few months after Britain voted to leave the European Union I posted an articlethat questioned whether the decision could prove beneficial to globalist institutions. At the time the general consensus amongst writers and broadcasters within the independent media was that the result came as a unwelcome surprise to the elites. The expectation was that political and financial interests would attempt to overturn the will of the electorate, thus ensuring the UK would never be allowed to fully depart the EU.
Up until the latter end of 2016 this had also been my position. As a ‘leaver‘ I held next to no belief that the result would be fulfilled. But having looked into the events leading up to the referendum, as well as the changing stance on monetary policy by central banks, it became apparent to me that the economic consequences following the vote (and subsequent warnings of the dangers of a no deal outcome) had the capacity to work in favour of internationalists.
Over the past two and half years I have published over a dozen articles and numerous economic updates that present evidence as to why I believe institutions like the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements would capitalise from what the central banking community have coined a ‘disorderly Brexit‘. It is due to this that I have become increasingly cautious in supporting the UK’s exit from the EU.
Which brings me to one of my latest articles (Warnings of an Under Resourced IMF Point to Imminent Economic Downturn). One reader was motivated to ask whether my analysis on Brexit might subconsciously be suggesting that to remain in the EU would now be the best option. Here is an extract of the comment in question:
The fact that you approach this from something of an outside position, as per observer status, removes most of my doubt that you might actually be suggesting remaining in EU is a better option . To do so would obviously be very dubious, as full sovereign control of national law, closer political accountability , and so on, are something of an anti-thesis to globalist intent.
I would like to be assured that the warnings on Brexit are an attempt by yourself to focus on one facet that deserves attention and scrutiny should a no deal Brexit be the eventual outcome, as opposed to having some other unstated aim in terms of how this political circumstance should be resolved.
After reading this comment I felt that my perspective on how globalists could exploit a no deal Brexit outcome was in danger of being perceived as support for the European Union. To be clear, this is not the case. If the UK electorate is asked to participate in a second referendum on Brexit, I would not offer support for remaining in the EU. But equally, I would not endorse the options of either leaving with a withdrawal agreement or under World Trade Organisation terms.
To explain, the problem with Brexit (and with the political system in general) is the dogma of ideology. Prior to the original referendum, political allegiance was defined as being of the ‘right‘ or of the ‘left‘. Once this was ascertained, it then came down to how far on the right or on the left you stood. If your views were subsequently deemed as moderate you would likely be classified as frequenting the ‘centre ground‘. Here you had a choice of being right of center or left of center. Either way, the majority of people continued to rally behind the Conservative party or Labour.
Whether of the right or the left, both ideologies contain within them factions who support differing ideals. But the one ideal that stands above all others in 2019 is Brexit. Lines of division have been fashioned on this single subject alone.
Post referendum, the traditional political landscape has been in a process of realignment. Allegiance is now predicated on support for either leaving the European Union or remaining part of the bloc. Whereas previously you were judged on how far in one particular direction your politics travelled, now it is a question of the extent to which your loyalty lies over the EU. Soft Brexit? Hard Brexit? No Brexit? It is within these boundaries that the establishment is controlling public discourse.
We are encouraged to pick a side and dedicate our efforts to fighting for that particular cause. This has led to it becoming a vitriolic contest between those who advocate internationalism and deeper integration, and those who champion national sovereignty and Britain controlling its own laws and borders. Out of this environment has come new political manifestations in the shape of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party and Change UK.
But my most pressing concern is that nowhere in the discourse – not in the mainstream or independent media – is there any concerted effort to question Brexit from a position of impartiality. Were more people prepared to relinquish their bias, the idea that leaving the EU could be part of an agenda to embolden financial institutions might not appear so outlandish.
On the surface it may appear contradictory that institutions that promote internationalism could in fact favour the rise of Brexit for their own ends. But whilst figureheads like Bank of England governor Mark Carney and IMF managing director Christine Lagarde speak out against the UK’s exit, a greater level of scrutiny over their actions and communications points to an undercurrent of malevolence in their intent.
As has long been established, the fall in the value of sterling after the first referendum, followed by a spike in inflation above the mandated target of 2%, allowed for the BOE to begin raising interest rates. This came amidst central banks cultivating a narrative of ‘normalising‘ monetary policy. Without Brexit, the BOE had no immediate rationale for their actions.
Since they began raising rates, the bank’s commentary has shifted to what they perceive would be the likely fallout from a ‘no deal‘ Brexit. They anticipate the pound falling perhaps to below parity with the dollar, inflation to reach beyond 6% and the UK falling into recession. Out of all possible ramifications, it is the effect on sterling that worries me the most. As discussed in previous posts, a currency crisis is an entirely different phenomenen to a financial crash. And if the language emanating from central banks is an indication, a crisis of this nature – combined with other global events – would likely be exploited as part of the growing narrative of ‘money in the digital age‘.
With that said, neither I nor any other observer can stipulate for certain that Britain leaving the EU is the desired outcome for globalists. But from an individual standpoint, the reason I cannot countenance the UK leaving the EU under a ‘hard‘ Brexit is because I believe such an outcome would present an opening for financiers to attempt to gain further control over the economic system. The primary tools for them achieving this would be a combination of currency manipulation, heightened inflation and the ensuing monetary policy response. Based on the underreported commentary of the Bank of England, an inflationary Brexit would result in the bank tightening interest rates rather than cutting them.
It was five years ago that Christine Lagarde laid the blueprint for the ‘reset‘ of the global economic system. As history dictates, significant economic change is routinely orchestrated through the manufacturing of conflict. This is why when people insist that Brexit will never be allowed to happen, I do not think they are fully factoring in the globalist model of creating crisis scenarios in order to manipulate themselves into a position of providing a pre-determined solution.
Unless people step away from their predilection for ideology, then they are not going to register the fact that globalists are using Brexit as a tool to segregate the population, a ploy that is successfully managing to direct attention away from central banks and their stated goals and intentions.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2VOKpbp Tyler Durden
For more than two weeks contaminated oil from Russia has clogged the giant Druzhba pipeline, the main delivery line for multiple EU countries, especially impacting Belarus, Poland and Germany. Russia is Germany’s largest energy supplier — and with no word on just how long the blockage will last — it is likely to prove financially disastrous as there’s an estimated37 million barrels of contaminated crude accumulating in pipelines spanning from Belarus to Ukraine to Hungary.
Far from being a mere technical disaster, Russian authorities had previously revealed the developing “dirty oil” crisis to be intentional — the result of organized crime and an attempt to cover up mass theft on the part of oil executives.
Image source: EPA-EFE
Russia’s Investigative Committee announced Tuesday in a statement that four private oil firm executives have been arrested with two more being sought.
They are alleged to have pumped low quality contaminated oil near the Volga River city of Samara “to conceal thefts,” according to the statement. Interfax reported the suspects names as Svetlana Balabay, Rustam Khusnutdinov, Vladimir Zhogolev and Sergei Balandin, all of which will remain in pre-trial detention through June.
The charges range from damaging crude oil pipelines and theft, to engaging in organized crime. Russia’s Investigative Committee further said the group was attempting to hide oil theft worth over 1 million rubles (or $15,300). The suspects are associated with the little-known Nefteperevalka, Petroneft Aktiv and Magistral oil firms.
It is Nefteperevalka firm which reportedly owns the section of the Druzhba pipeline where investigators think the contamination originated in April. The criminal nature of the crisis was first revealed when a high concentration of organic chloride – which is destructive to refining equipment and typically used by small producers – was discovered in the Russian crude transit, causing engineers to halt service.
The Russian investigators’ statement indicated that “In March-April 2019, to hide the theft, several suspects supplied non-compliant oil” to a supply point near Nikolaevka settlement in the Samara region of Russia.
Gigantic Druzhba pipeline route across eastern into central Europe.
The Druzhba pipeline is one of the longest in world, connecting Western Siberia to Europe. The fact that it’s been paralyzed for the past two weeks has caused embarrassment concerning Russia’s dependability as a key energy source for Europe.
However in some places “clean oil” has begun to transit the pipeline again, Belarus’s state-run oil-transport firm Belneftekhim confirmed days ago.
And on Tuesday Ukraine also said it was ready to resume shipments of Russian crude oil to the EU. Earlier reports noted that the major East European cities of Warsaw, Budapest and Prague were forced to tap into their emergency reserves.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2J7VjmU Tyler Durden
The global trend in international relations is often difficult to discern.But one can be helped in this task by looking at two events, organized in Washington and Beijing, comparing the different themes, participants, objectives, and broached for discussion.After all, we are talking about the two largest economies in the world, two colossi directing and shaping global culture, behavior and world opinion.
The last few weeks have offered the international community an opportunity to reflect. Two events took place in Washington and Beijing that, in terms of impact, depth, participation and issues discussed, are striking contrasts.
In Beijing at the Belt and Road Forum over 40 world leaders discussed the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a project that will transform the entire Eurasian continent, improving free trade between dozens of countries by investing in transport infrastructure as well as in energy and technological cooperation. The leader of this silent industrial revolution is China’s Xi Jinping, casting ancient ambitions and perspectives into the new millennium, anxious to once again acquire the leading role in global civilization.
The BRI is a gigantic project that will continue to expand in the years to come and at the rate the current technology allows, while of course remaining cognizant of the needs of the countries involved in the Chinese project. The numbers of participants at Beijing’s BRI event are astonishing, with more than 5,000 delegates, 37 heads of state (including that of G7 member Italy), and 10 of the most important members of ASEAN. A hundred and twenty-five countries have signed intentions to cooperate grand project, and 30 organizations have ratified 170 agreements that total a projected investment by the People’s Bank of China of over 1.3 trillion dollars from 2013 to 2027. This is what Robin Xing, Morgan Stanley’s Chief China Economist said:
“China’s investment in B&R countries will increase by 14% annually over the next two years, and the total investment amount could double to $1.2-1.3 trillion by 2027.”
It is a revolutionary project that will characterize the next few decades if not centuries. It will offer a stark contrast to the American drive for hegemonic domination by demonstrating the capacity of humanity to overcome conflicts and wars through cooperation and shared prosperity.
Washington is left demanding loyalty in exchange for nothing (but with Donald Trump, even this little is uncertain). Unable to inflict damage on Russia and China, the US focuses on pressuring her European allies through a trade war of duties, tariffs, technological bans ( Huawei’s 5G) and sanctions (against Iran and European banks) in order to favor US companies.
Reflecting the moral of Aesop’s fable “The North Wind and the Sun”, Beijing behaves in the opposite manner, offering in the BRI project win-win cooperation and the benefits that accrue from this. The project tends to improve people’s living standards through the huge loans extended to improve such basic infrastructure as railways, schools, roads, aqueducts, bridges, ports, internet connectivity and hospitals. Beijing aims to create a sustainable system whereby dozens of countries cooperate with each other for the collective benefit of their people.
The Eurasian continent has struggled over the last few decades to attain the same level of wealth as the West as a result of wars of aggression and economic terrorism committed by countries in search of a utopian global hegemony.
The Chinese initiative aims to offer to all the countries involved equal opportunities for development based not on military and/or economic power but on a real capacity to improve the well-being of all parties involved.
As Asia Times explained in an excellent article on Beijing’s most recent BRI forum:
“BRI is now supported by no less than 126 states and territories, plus a host of international organizations. This is the new, truthful, realistic face of the “international community” – bigger, more diversified and more representative than the G20.”
This Chinese initiative could have only taken place in a post-unipolar world with multiple centers of power. Washington is perfectly aware of the changes that have occurred over the last 10 years, and the accompanying change in attitude of policy makers can be seen in the drafting of two documents that are fundamental for every US administration, namely, the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and the National Defense Strategy (NDS).
These two documents explain how the United States sees the world and what it intends to do to fight the emerging multipolar world order. Compared to Obama and his administration, Trump, Bolton and Pompeo are more anchored to the current reality, understanding well that Russia and China are their equal militarily. Obama, of course, infamously dismissed Russia as a regional power no more than five years ago.
Trump cannot afford a conflict with Venezuela, Iran or North Korea, whether militarily or politically. In the case of Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil do not seem too keen on sacrificing themselves on behalf of Washington; and there are no jihadists to arm and launch against defenseless civilians as happened in the Middle East, so there is no force in the field capable of defeating a strongly patriotic nation dedicated to resisting US imperialism. Attacking Iran would result in a devastating Iranian response targeting US troops deployed in dozens of bases scattered throughout the Middle East and inflicting losses that would be too costly for Washington, making any gains made pyrrhic. As for North Korea, Kim cannot be touched thanks to nuclear deterrence.
What remains for Trump and his neocons are empty threats of war, documents declaring Russia and China as opponents to be defeated, and a great deal of war propaganda for the purposes of filling up the coffers of US arms manufacturers.
And now we come to the event organized in Washington as Beijing was busy discussing how to revolutionize three-quarters of the globe. The Brookings Institute, a think tank, organized a meeting that lasted several hours to discuss “The future of US extended deterrence“, focussing on the tools needed to deal with an attack from America’s opponents.
Anyone who has any experience with such conferences knows that it is often companies linked to the arms industry that fund such events, thereby encouraging speakers, guests and politicians to take a very hawkish line for the purposes of scaring the population into justifying an increase in arms spending.
This is exactly what happened at the event organized by Brookings, where the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense from the Trump administration, David Trachtenberg, explained to the audience how the US nuclear deterrent is now coming to the end of its life cycle after a period of 30, 40 or 50 years. The Undersecretary did not mention the overall figure that would be needed to modernize Washington’s entire nuclear triad (estimates put the figure at around a trillion dollars) and preferred instead to speak about a general increase in the defense budget of $60-70 billion dollars to begin to address the problems.
Often the numbers do not prove everything but are nevertheless useful in helping us better understand certain events. Former US President Jimmy Carter provided a useful explanation for how the Chinese came to surpass the United States:
“The US is the most warlike nation in the world, forcing other countries to adopt our American principles. How many miles of high-speed railroads do we have in this country? China has around 18,000 miles (29,000 km) of high speed rail lines while the US has wasted, I think, $3 trillion on military spending; it’s more than you can imagine. China has not wasted a single penny on war, and that’s why they’re ahead of us. I think the difference is if you take $3 trillion and put it in American infrastructure, you’d probably have $2 trillion leftover; we’d have high-speed railroads that are maintained properly. Our education system would be as good as that of, say, South Korea or Hong Kong.”
Washington pressures its allies to join in seeking to damage Washington’s adversaries but ends up pushing allies and opponents closer together, as occurred when it walked away from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) agreement with Iran while the Europeans remained committed to it. Washington may be able to lean on European allies for the time being, but with the vast BRI project increasingly attracting the attention of Europeans, these days may be numbered, especially with the BRI project bringing the prospect of doing away with the US dollar as a reserve currency necessary for trade between countries.
Trump and his administration are acting in a multipolar context as if they are still in a unipolar one, behaving like a hegemonic superpower that does not care about the consequences of its actions, even against allies. This arrogant attitude will come back to bite the United States, not only undermining its economy but also the viability of the US dollar remaining as the global reserve currency.
By Trump behaving like a bull in a china shop, friends and enemies alike are forced to seek ways to counterbalance the United States economically and militarily. Of course Europe still remains subservient to the US, but other countries not in Washington’s good books seem to have understood the historical period we are going through, preferring dialogue and balancing between powers (a typical example being Erdogan’s Turkey, which is in neither camp but uses both for its own purposes) rather than an absolute declaration of loyalty to one side or the other.
China and Russia are perfectly comfortable operating in today’s fluid geopolitical environment, as this gives them the opportunity to offer countries resisting Washington’s hegemony the military and economic means to persevere and eventually prevail. It is an extremely effective strategy as it places before Washington red lines that cannot be crossed, reducing or eliminating the possibility of a new conflict (something that perhaps even Trump basically appreciates, given that this remains the last election promise that he has not yet broken).
Observing these two conferences held in Beijing and Washington within a week of each other, with their contrasting emphases, only highlights the differences between these two countries.
On one side, China seeks integration, cooperation and development for the collective benefit of almost three billion people.
On the other side, we see the US discussing the modernization of its nuclear triad, whose only contribution to humanity is its ability to wipe it out, only there to bully and intimidate those not prepared to kowtow to Washington’s diktats.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2J66rkf Tyler Durden
The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Self-Protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD) Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) Program, has completed a series of tests last month that successfully shot down “several” missiles with a ground-based laser.
The SHiELD program has developed a directed energy weapon that will eventually be molded into an aircraft pod. Fifth-generation fighter jets and drones will soon have the ability to destroy surface-to-air (SAM) and air-to-air (AAM) missiles with laser beams.
“This critical demonstration shows that our directed energy systems are on track to be a game changer for our warfighters,” said Dr. Kelly Hammett, director of AFRL’s Directed Energy Directorate.
During the tests, the laser weapon was mounted onto the end of a trailer with a gas turbine power plant. The laser weapon shot down several air-launched missiles in flight, but AFRL officials wouldn’t tell Defense One how many were destroyed for national security reasons. It was also reported, that the final weapon system will be constructed in a smaller and lighter design, as well as ruggedized for supersonic speeds.
“The successful test is a big step ahead for directed energy systems and protection against adversarial threats,” said Maj. Gen. William Cooley, AFRL commander. “The ability to shoot down missiles with speed of light technology will enable air operation in denied environments. I am proud of the AFRL team advancing our Air Force’s directed energy capability.”
We have reported over for the last half decade that the Pentagon has experimented with ground-based and ship-based lasers against air, land, and sea vehicles; at less than $1 per shot, the weapon is set to become one of the most cost-effective defense systems on the modern battlefield.
Defense One said the significant technical challenge that the Air Force has, is the miniaturization of the laser weapon to fit into a pod underneath a plane, nevertheless, developing a power supply that can generate 100s kilowatts while airborne.
Directed energy weapons have made monumental leaps in performance and maturity due to the AFRL. This game-changing technology will bring new capabilities to fifth-generation stealth fighters on the modern battlefield in the next 3-5 years.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2V7q6lp Tyler Durden
As an alternative to meat, one scientist has suggested that humans will acquire the habit of eating maggots in order to reach their protein intake requirements. “Maggot sausages” will be the “meat” of the future according to an Australian scientist, Dr. Louwrens Hoffman.
Food scientists at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia are incorporating insects such as maggots and locusts into a range of specialty foods, including sausage, as well as formulating sustainable insect-based feeds for the livestock themselves.
“Would you eat a commercial sausage made from maggots? What about other insect larvae and even whole insects like locusts? The biggest potential for sustainable protein production lies with insects and new plant sources,” said Dr. Hoffman.
Hoffman says that the meat industry is not sustainable, but people can start eating insects instead.
“An overpopulated world is going to struggle to find enough protein unless people are willing to open their minds, and stomachs, to a much broader notion of food,” said Hoffman.
The scientist says that conventional livestock production will soon be unable to meet global demand for meat. That means that other “fillers” and alternatives will be needed to supplement the food supply with sufficient protein sources, according to The New York Post.
“In other words, insect protein needs to be incorporated into existing food products as an ingredient,” he says. “One of my students has created a very tasty insect ice cream.”
The Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI) team is focusing on disguising insects in pre-prepared foods, says Hoffman, as studies have shown Westerners shy away from eating whole insects.
Hoffman admitted that eating bugs might seem unpalatable to Westerners, “for many millions of people around the world they are a familiar part of the diet.” He also calls for a “global reappraisal of what can constitute healthy, nutritional and safe food for all.”
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2YdXJDL Tyler Durden
Hundreds gathered at an outdoor college fundraiser in downtown Sacramento Friday evening; residents were abruptly interrupted when a drone buzzed overhead and dropped Nazi propaganda flyers, reported The State Hornet.
Flyers landed on Sacramento State’s annual “Bites on the Bridge” Farm-to-Fork dinner held on Guy West Bridge, a suspension bridge for students linking the school with campus dorms.
Additional reports said flyers were also dropped around the Golden 1 Center, where thousands were waiting to enter the stadium for an Ariana Grande concert.
The flyers, marked with swastikas and statements like “stop the TV whore takeover” and “the press is the enemy,” went viral on social media.
CSUS President Robert S. Nelsen issued a statement condemning the flyers shortly after The State Hornet reported the incident.
“Sacramento State condemns in the strongest terms the dissemination of hate speech and propaganda Friday evening at our annual fundraising dinner on the Guy West Bridge. The anonymous act of spreading such vile material is offensive and runs counter to the principles of inclusion and diversity practiced at Sac State. It did not stop the event, nor will it slow our march toward greater understanding and commitment to the rights and safety of our campus community.”
Dominic Vitiello, a reporter for the student paper, posted pictures on Twitter of the flyers recovered from Friday’s drone drops.
University spokesman Brian Blomster told The State Hornet that the Sacramento State Police Department was informed about the incident and has since launched an investigation into who was operating the drone.
The flyers had a web address to “The Red ‘X’ Society” and various social media accounts, which shows a video last month of a drone releasing flyers over the California State Capitol.
The State Hornet noted Twitter user @TracyMapes tweeted drone images of the State Capitol and the surrounding area one day before the incident. They said the American River College student and Sacramento resident Tracy Mapes had a run-in with the law on suspicion of dropping flyers on two NFL games in Santa Clara and Oakland.
It certainly seems that whoever was operating the drone felt more compelled to spread propganda by drone and leaflets than social media due to the recent Facebook banning of far-right figures.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2LE2Lbc Tyler Durden
Australia is preparing to debut its version of the Chinese regime’s high-tech system for monitoring and controlling its citizens. The launch, to take place in the northern city of Darwin, will include systems to monitor people’s activity via their cell phones.
The new system is based on monitoring programs in Shenzhen, China, where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is testing its Social Credit System. Officials on the Darwin council traveled to Shenzhen, according to NT News, to “have a chance to see exactly how their Smart Technology works prior to being fully rolled out.”
In Darwin, they’ve already constructed “poles, fitted with speakers, cameras and Wi-Fi,” according to NT News, to monitor people, their movements around the city, the websites they visit, and what apps they use. The monitoring will be done mainly by artificial intelligence, but will alert authorities based on set triggers.
Just as in China, the surveillance system is being branded as a “smart city” program, and while Australian officials claim its operations are benign, they’ve announced it functions to monitor cell phone activity and “virtual fences” that will trigger alerts if people cross them.
“We’ll be getting sent an alarm saying, ‘There’s a person in this area that you’ve put a virtual fence around.’ … Boom, an alert goes out to whatever authority, whether it’s us or police to say ‘look at camera five,’” said Josh Sattler, the Darwin council’s general manager for innovation, growth, and development services, according to NT News.
The nature of the “virtual fences” and what type of activity will sound an alarm still isn’t being made clear.
The system is being promoted as mostly benign. Sattler said it will tell the government “where people are using Wi-Fi, what they’re using Wi-Fi for, are they watching YouTube, etc. All these bits of information we can share with businesses. … We can let businesses know, ‘Hey, 80 percent of people actually use Instagram within this area of the city, between these hours.’”
The CCP’s smart city Social Credit System is able to monitor each person in the society, tracking every element of their lives—including their friends, online purchases, daily behavior, and other information—and assigns each person a citizen score that determines their level of freedom in society.
The tool is a core piece of the CCP’s programs to monitor and persecute dissidents, including religious believers and people who oppose the ruling communist system.
Chinese human rights lawyer Teng Biao, a visiting scholar at New York University, described the Social Credit System as a new form of tyranny, meant to reactivate the CCP’s totalitarian hold on society.
“In the past, there was the Nazi totalitarianism and Mao Zedong’s totalitarian system, but a totalitarian system powered by the internet and contemporary technology has not existed before,” Teng said in a recent interview with The Epoch Times.
“The CCP is now taking the first step to build such a high-tech totalitarian system, by using credit ratings and monitoring and recording every detail in people’s daily life, which is very frightening.”
The regime also isn’t interested in keeping the technology within its own borders.
It’s exporting the system, and its “China model” of totalitarian government, as a service of its “One Belt, One Road” program. When the CCP builds its infrastructure abroad, its surveillance and social control programs are part of the package.
In Darwin, there has been a push to jump aboard the CCP’s program. The local officials made a “friendship” deal with Yuexiu District, in Guangzhou, China, in 2018. According to John Garrick, a senior lecturer at Charles Darwin University, the deal was branded by Chinese media as “part of President Xi Jinping’s signature Belt and Road Initiative.”
That followed a previous deal between Darwin and the CCP, in which the city signed a 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company and the CCP. The Chinese owner, Ye Cheng, had referred to the deal as being part of One Belt, One Road.
The deals also should raise concern for U.S. Marines stationed in Darwin,under the Obama-era pivot to the Pacific, about whether the CCP is able to monitor data collected on cell phones from its systems in the area. Under a 2011 deal between the United States and Australia, the U.S. troops will be there until 2040.
And of similar concern, the decision of Australia to begin implementing the CCP’s programs for totalitarian social control represents a major development in the CCP’s China model push.
As The Epoch Times has reported, the CCP views Australia as a testing ground for programs it wants to spread to the West. After Australia comes Canada, then the United States—in an apparent imitation of Mao Zedong’s strategy to “surround the cities with the countryside.”
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2DUY2Mm Tyler Durden
You will find more infographics at Statista
