Category: zerohedge

Just two weeks ago, a huge scandal erupted within another 'union' as Germany slammed NATO for "warmongering" destroying the fictional narrative that 'innocent' NATO was merely reacting to evil Russian provocations. Furthermore, as NATO accelerated its encirclement of Russia, with British soldiers deployed in Estonia, US soldiers operating in Latvia and Canadians in Poland, while combat units are being increased in the Mediterranean… 

NATO found another excuse for war, assessing that it may now have grounds to attack Russia when it announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO’s Article V “collective defense” provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country.

Specifically, NATO is alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton’s home computer, this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her U.S. State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian’s then snooping into the U.S. State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the U.S. President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the U.S., trigger NATO’s mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the U.S. government in going to war against Russia, if the U.S. government so decides.

Now, as The Intercept's Zaid Jilani and Lee Fang expose, retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove (yes an ironic name for a warmonger), until recently the supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe, plotted in private to overcome President Barack Obama’s reluctance to escalate military tensions with Russia over the war in Ukraine in 2014, according to apparently hacked emails from Breedlove’s Gmail account that were posted on a new website called DC Leaks.

Obama defied political pressure from hawks in Congress and the military to provide lethal assistance to the Ukrainian government, fearing that doing so would increase the bloodshed and provide Russian President Vladimir Putin with the justification for deeper incursions into the country.

 

Breedlove, during briefings to Congress, notably contradicted the Obama administration regarding the situation in Ukraine, leading to news stories about conflict between the general and Obama.

 

 

But the leaked emails provide an even more dramatic picture of the intense back-channel lobbying for the Obama administration to begin a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine.

 

In a series of messages in 2014, Breedlove sought meetings with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, asking for advice on how to pressure the Obama administration to take a more aggressive posture toward Russia.

 

“I may be wrong, … but I do not see this WH really ‘engaged’ by working with Europe/NATO. Frankly I think we are a ‘worry,’ … ie a threat to get the nation drug into a conflict,” Breedlove wrote in an email to Powell, who responded by accepting an invitation to meet and discuss the dilemma. “I seek your counsel on two fronts,” Breedlove continued, “how to frame this opportunity in a time where all eyes are on ISIL all the time, … and two, … how to work this personally with the POTUS.”

 

 

Breedlove attempted to influence the administration through several channels, emailing academics and retired military officials, including former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark, for assistance in building his case for supplying military assistance to Ukrainian forces battling Russian-backed separatists.

 

“I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized, … ie do not get me into a war????” Breedlove wrote in an email to Harlan Ullman, senior adviser to the Atlantic Council, describing his ongoing attempt to get Powell to help him influence Obama.

 

 

“Given Obama’s instruction to you not to start a war, this may be a tough sell,” Ullman replied a few months later, in another string of emails about Breedlove’s effort to “leverage, cajole, convince or coerce the U.S. to react” to Russia.

 

Breedlove did not respond to a request for comment. He stepped down from his NATO leadership position in May and retired from service on Friday, July 1. Breedlove was a four-star Air Force general and served as the 17th Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe starting on May 10, 2013.

 

Phillip Karber, an academic who corresponded regularly with Breedlove — providing him with advice and intelligence on the Ukrainian crisis —  verified the authenticity of several of the emails in the leaked cache. He also told The Intercept that Breedlove confirmed to him that the general’s Gmail account was hacked and that the incident had been reported to the government.

 

“The last conversation I had about it with General Breedlove, he said, ‘Yeah, I’ve been hacked several times,’” said Karber. He added that he noticed at least one of his personal emails appearing online from the leak before we had contacted him. “I turned this over to the U.S. government and asked them to investigate. No one has given me any answer.”

 

“I have no idea whose account was leaked or hacked,” said Powell, when reached for comment about the emails. Powell said he had no comment about the discussions regarding Obama’s response to the conflict in Ukraine.

 

In the European press, Breedlove has been portrayed as a hawkish figure known for leaning on allied nations to ditch diplomacy and to adopt a more confrontational role again Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine. Breedlove, testifying before Congress earlier in February of this year, called Russia “a long-term existential threat to the United States and to our European allies.”

 

Der Spiegel reported that Breedlove “stunned” German leaders with a surprise announcement in 2015 claiming that pro-Russian separatists had “upped the ante” in eastern Ukraine with “well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of the most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery” sent to Donbass, a center of the conflict.

 

Breedlove’s numbers were “significantly higher” than the figures known to NATO intelligence agencies and seemed exaggerated to German officials. The announcement appeared to be a provocation designed to disrupt mediation efforts led by Chancellor Angela Merkel.

 

In previous instances, German officials believed Breedlove overestimated Russian forces along the border with Ukraine by as many as 20,000 troops and found that the general had falsely claimed that several Russian military assets near the Ukrainian border were part of a special build-up in preparation for a large-scale invasion of the country. In fact, much of the Russian military equipment identified by Breedlove, the Germans said, had been stored there well before the revolution in Ukraine.

 

The emails, however, depict a desperate search by Breedlove to build his case for escalating the conflict, contacting colleagues and friends for intelligence to illustrate the Russian threat. Karber, who visited Ukrainian politicians and officials in Kiev on several occasions, sent frequent messages to Breedlove — “per your request,” he noted — regarding information he had received about separatist military forces and Russian troop movements. In several updates, Breedlove received military data sourced from Twitter and social media.

 

Karber, the president of the Potomac Foundation, became the center of a related scandal last year when it was discovered that he had facilitated a meeting during which images of purported Russian forces in Ukraine were distributed to the office of Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and were published by a neoconservative blog. The pictures turned out to be a deception; one supposed picture of Russian tanks in Ukraine was, in fact, an old photograph of Russian tanks in Ossetia during the war with Georgia.

 

Breedlove stayed in close contact with Karber and other officials who shared his views on the Ukrainian conflict.

 

“Phil, can’t we get a statement to counteract the Russians on use of force? what can I do to help? If the Ukrainians lose control of the narrative, the Russians will see it as an open door,” wrote retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who forwarded on his messages with Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. He also passed along concerns from the Bulgarian president that Bulgaria might be Russia’s next target.

 

In other messages, Clark relayed specific requests for the types of military aid desired by Ukrainian officials. In addition to radar systems and other forms of military equipment, Clark recommended that Breedlove “encourage Ukraine to hire some first rate pr firms and crisis communications firms in U.S. and Europe.” He added, “They need the right tools to engage in information warfare.”

 

Ukraine did hire several D.C. lobbying and communication firms to influence policymakers. In June 2015, the government signed a deal with APCO Worldwide, an influential firm with ties to senior Democratic and Republican officials.

 

In an email in February 2015, Karber told Breedlove that “Pakistan has, under the table, offered Ukraine 500 TOW-II launchers (man-portable version) and 8,000 TOW-II missiles,” adding that deliveries of the anti-tank weapons could begin by the end of the month. “However,” Karber wrote, “Pakistan will not make these deliveries without U.S. approval; moreover they will not even request that approval unless they have informal assurance that it would be approved.”

 

Karber told The Intercept that the Pakistani arms deal never materialized.

 

Breedlove was most recently in the news explaining that he now thinks we need to talk to the Russian government to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. “I think we need to begin to have meaningful dialogue,” he said last week, while reiterating his views on the need for a strong NATO to militarily match Russia. “Russia does understand power, and strength, and unity,” he said.

With all that in mind, we return to German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier's recent exclamation that "anyone who thinks you can increase security in the alliance with symbolic parades of tanks near the eastern borders, is mistaken," and given the 'proof' above that it is indeed NATO that is provoking and warmongering, the unprecedented reality in which NATO's biggest and most important European member is suddenly and quite vocally against NATO and as a result may be pivoting toward Russian, we for one can't wait to see just how this shocking geopolitical debacle for western neocons and war hawks concludes.

The emails were released by D.C. Leaks, a database run by self-described “hacktivists” who are collecting the communications of elite stakeholders such as political parties, major politicians, political campaigns, and the military. The website currently has documents revealing some internal communications of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, among others.

via http://ift.tt/29cIjs4 Tyler Durden

Simple as that…

 

 

Source: MichaelPRamirez.com

via http://ift.tt/2995OEF Tyler Durden

Submitted by JC Collins via Philosophy Of Metrics blog,

The comments this week coming from the so-called elite referencing the ignorant masses have manufactured an aggressive response.  The mainstream media have not picked up on these comments but the alternative media have been on the cultural front lines with well strategized talking points.

It should be noted that I have often referenced the disorganized masses in previous posts.  This phrase stands in contrast to what is being referenced with the term ignorant masses.  Disorganized would suggest non-ignorance with a lack of focus and intent.  Ignorant simply means that the masses are too intellectually inferior for advanced comprehension.

While it cannot be denied that there is a vast component of ignorance maintained within the disorganized masses, this ignorance, for the most part, is not willful and is the product of massive cultural and socioeconomic conditioning.  Being that all people are not intellectually equal, it can be assumed that there are varying degrees of comprehension when it comes to socioeconomic trends and directions.

The one common trait which is shared by all demographics is the expression of self-interest.  The term “Invisible Hand” was first used by Adam Smith in the lead up years to the French Revolution.  The invisible hand described the unintended social benefits of individual actions.  It was reasoned that individuals’ efforts to pursue their own interest may frequently benefit society more than if their actions were directly intending to benefit society.

The French population was guided by this invisible hand as the people expressed their self-interest through anger at the French monarchy in 1789.

In his book Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies, Collected from Good Authorities, John Robison, Professor of Natural Philosophy, and Secretary to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, presented a strong case that the French Revolution was manufactured through the manipulation of the domestic economy by external banking interests.

The book, which was published in 1798, only a few years after the initial revolution, has since been minimized and disregarded as inaccurate and unproven.  This typical smear tactic, which we still see in use today, has done little to address most of the facts and events discussed in the book.  The work is a major announcement of the methodology which was used, and continues to be used, by international banking interests against the ignorant (disorganized) masses.  I have a first printing from 1798 in my own collection and consider it to be one of my most prized possessions.

The accepted causes of the French Revolution are listed on Wikipedia as follows:

1. Cultural: The Enlightenment philosophy desacralized the authority of the King and the Church, and promoted a new society based on “reason” instead of traditions.
2. Social: The emergence of an influential bourgeoisie which was formally part of the Third Estate (commoners) but had evolved into a caste with its own agenda and aspired to political equality with the clergy (First Estate) and the aristocracy (Second Estate).
3. Financial: France’s debt, aggravated by French involvement in the American Revolution, led Louis XVI to implement new taxations and to reduce privileges.
4. Political: Louis XVI faced virulent opposition from provincial parliaments which were the spearheads of the privileged classes’ resistance to royal reforms.
5. Economic: The de-regulation of the grain market, advocated by liberal economists, resulted in an increase in bread prices.  In period of bad harvests, it would lead to food scarcity which would prompt the masses to revolt.

These are all the same causes which John Robison also attributes to the French Revolution.  The difference is that Robison does not accept that idea that these conditions materialized as a natural process of socioeconomics.  For Robison, the intentional manufacturing of these conditions by powers outside France was obvious.

Turning entire populations towards revolution takes years of socioeconomic conditioning and the application of downward pressure on civil liberties while also drawing attention to that downward pressure.  The disorganized masses through the ultimate expression of self-interest, as defined by the invisible hand of Adam Smith, will inevitably rise up and overthrow those they perceive as being the cause of the problem.  The solution to the problem will have been previously weaved into the fabric of the revolution.

In the case of the French Revolution the problem was the monarchy and the solution was the overthrow of that monarchy and the establishment of the state governance framework and central bank methodology.

It would be beneficial to consider that in the modern world globalization and central bank practices are fulfilling the same role as the monarchy.  The solution, which will wear the revolutionary mask of modern-nationalism, will morph into the final objective of global governance and monetary consolidation.  The framework for these objectives has already been weaved into the developing response.

Let’s take another look at the causes of the French Revolution detailed above and apply modern trends to them:

1. Cultural: Like the Enlightenment, the Information Age and developing technology is changing the world at the fastest pace since Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.  The pressure which is building on the old traditions and ways of life is promoting the concept once again of a new society.
2. Social: Like the French bourgeoisie a new caste of “elite” have risen from within the ranks of the commoners (disorganized masses) and have aspired to political equality with the clergy and aristocracy.  The American elite simulacra of political families, such as Clintons, Bushes, etc.., are fulfilling this role whether they realize it or not.
3. Financial: Like pre-revolution France, western governments have accumulated vast amounts of debt fighting wars around the world and unrestrained fiscal spending.  This debt has caused some nations to reduce privileges through austerity measures and increase taxation on the disorganized masses.
4. Political: Like the provincial parliaments in pre-revolution France, nationalist political movements are developing in countries around the world.  This new modern-nationalism will be the tip of the spear for further global governance and monetary consolidation.  The response to BREXIT of deeper monetary consolidation within the EU and the development of an EU Super-State would suggest this to be the case.
5. Economic: Like the de-regulation of the grain market in France, the modern world has experienced a massive amount of de-regulation in everything from energy to banking.  As in the past, this de-regulation has caused additional strain on the disorganized masses and has contributed to the growing sense of unfairness and aggression.

As we can see, all of the components which facilitated the French Revolution are being used in the modern world in various forms.  The methodology which was used in pre-revolution France went on to be used against other nations and fundamentally changed the world and how massive populations were managed and wealth distributed.

Over the last few years I have been writing extensively on the fundamentals of the monetary transition aspects of this new global governance mandate.  On so many occasions I have attempted to present a convincing case to readers that we are being herded down a path which has been engineered with great care and attention.

But unfortunately the large majority of readers have been unable to accept the methodology described and have instead folded under the massive mainstream and alternative propaganda which is fulfilling the same mandates as in the French Revolution.

As before, where the mass population of France could not see the external influence from outside, the disorganized masses of the modern world cannot see that the five causes of revolution described above are being engineered by a power which resides above the nation state and the structure of central banking.

While we are focusing our anger on central banks and our political classes the real framework is being weaved into the well planned out response, which will take the form of modern-nationalism with a focus on repairing the damages which have been hammered into the five effective causes defined as cultural, social, financial, political, and economic.

Each of our own expressions of self-interest, the invisible hand which is manipulated, is being used against us for a larger purpose.

Often I am asked the question of why I think the plans of the elites will work.  I am told that this time it is different.  This time the people have awakened and they are taking their power back.  The obvious answer is that we are talking two different elites.  Most readers consider the elites to be the political and financial classes which have been allowed to develop.  The elite I reference have engineered those used and abused subjects for the specific purpose of attracting the anger and aggression of the disorganized masses.

Some of this methodology and engineering have been further described in the following posts:

How Rothschild Inc. Saved Donald Trump

BREXIT – The New Modern Nationalism is Global Governance

New Age Socialism and the End of Debt-Based Money Creation

All of the above, like this article, are FREEPOM posts, which are meant to spread the message as far as possible.  Some information shouldn’t have a monetary value, and my attempt to spread truth is genuine.

Trends are difficult to reverse, and the disorganized masses are impossible to organize without access to massive media formats.  Blogs such as Philosophy of Metrics are one of the only methods available of attempting to spread truth and awaken the masses to the methodology described above.  The information age has provided this opportunity to stimulate a true awakening.  Unfortunately this open media is being massively infiltrated and used through alternative media to manufacture the aggressive response required.  They serve the same purpose as the commoner leaflets in the lead up to the French Revolution.

It is ironic that the site which is honestly attempting to provide an education on the methodologies and socioeconomic engineering being used is frequently accused of promoting the agenda of the elites. Such is the power and influence of the scripting which is being used.  Like the French population of the past, our populations today are blinded to the real causes and purpose of the events of our time.

The question of why I feel so confident that these plans will work has its obvious answer in the fact that the question even exists.  Like John Robison, I am attempting to do my part for the good of humanity but feel burdened with the lack of acceptance and encouragement from the larger population.

Standing as a man of conviction I will continue to research and present information for those few among us who still remain free in spirit and thought.  The ignorance of the disorganized masses will continue and this post will be attacked across the blogosphere as more JC entitlement and lack of understanding the economic fundamentals.

Renewing the spark of life within each of us is more important than taking a punch in the face.  This transformation of the world's systems will continue and the disorganized masses will bitch and moan about engineered elites and scripted imbalances.  What was before will be again.  But this time I’m awake, and no matter what the world becomes the truth inside can never be altered or destroyed.

via http://ift.tt/296XsbZ Tyler Durden

It's well known that throughout the GOP campaign and into the general election, Donald Trump has done things his own way, and for the most part it has worked out favorably. Most recently Trump made it known that at the GOP convention, there would be more than just traditional politicians to interact with, as the likes of Bobby Knight, Mike Tyson and Mike Ditka have been invited to attend.

What is also known, and has sent the mainstream media and everyone else into a frenzy, is the fact that Trump's cash levels were dwarfed by Clinton at the start of June. Trump wasn't the least bit concerned with the levels of funding, saying "There could be unlimited cash on hand, as I would put up my own money, as I have already done through the primaries, spending over $50 million dollars."

As it turns out, Clinton is going to need all of that cash the campaign is generating because as Bloomberg reports, the Clinton Campaign has run 9,781 ads from June 15-27 at an estimated cost of $6 million, or nearly $500,000 a day.

For context as to the amount of advertising spending Clinton is doing, the $1 million Hillary spent on Orlando television from June 19-26 is significantly more than the $682,000 Obama spent exactly four years earlier seeking re-election.

Clinton has focused heavily on Orlando, Denver, and Raleigh, the markets in battleground states, and in other markets such as Las Vegas, Clinton has only aired a few spots, allowing super-PAC Priorities USA do the bulk of the spending there.

As Bloomberg points out, the Clinton campaign advertising shows no signs of slowing down. Among some of the bigger advertising reservations set to air during the first two weeks of July are $2.7 million on national cable and satellite television targeting specific markets and states, $1.1 million in the Tampa-St. Petersburg market and $853,000 in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Clinton campaign will also continue to rely heavily on Priorities USA to continue the barrage of advertising. Priorities USA says that it plans to spend at least $158 million in digital, television, and radio advertising through election day, including $10.5 million for advertising in Pennsylvania that it announced in the past week. The super-PAC raised more than $88 million through the end of May and says it has $45 million more in commitments.

"Advertising is reality. Campaigns can talk about states being competitive or not competitive, but where they put their TV dollars reveals what they really think." said Ken Goldstein, a University of San Francisco professor.

Goldstein's statement may actually be true, because during the time that Clinton was embarking on an all out media blitz, Donald Trump ran precisely… drum roll please… zero ads.

"I don't even need commercials, if you want to know the truth" Trump said.

* * *

And so there we have it, the reason Trump isn't concerned about having a large cash balance is simply because, at least at this point, The Donald plans on remaining frugal and letting the mainstream media do the advertising for free.

via http://ift.tt/29blmpX Tyler Durden

We begin with this photograph of Lucas Duplan, entrepreneur extraordinaire:

I first wrote about young Mr. Duplan in this post nearly two years ago. My post was about this new firm, Clinkle, garnering tens of millions of dollars in funding to create an app which would let you give little goodies (they called them “treats”) to your friends based on how much you used your credit card.

It seemed like a moronic idea to me, and when at last the product was launched, the reviews were – – how shall I put this – – chilly:

Lucas saw things differently, however. When describing his firm and its product, he stated: “Clinkle is a movement to push the human race forward by changing how we transact.” 

Let’s take that one sentence and focus on two of its bits: first off, “movement”. Clinkle is (or was, as you shall soon read) a “movement”. To which my only intelligent reply is: go fuck yourself. The Bernie Sanders campaign is a movement. The growth over the past twenty years of organic produce is a movement. Putting out some lame-ass app no one uses is not a movement. Sorry, sweetie.

The second bit – “push the human race forward” – is, of course, ten times worse. I am compelled to guzzle down a bottle of ipecac syrup, vomit into a bucket, and invert the aforementioned bucket on top of Mr. Duplan’s arrogant, self-aggrandizing head. But, again, as you shall soon see, none of this is necessary anymore.

Because, as you might guess, Clinkle and its $40 million of funding has yielded nothing more than a puddle of piss evaporating in the midday summer sun of 2016. This should come as no huge surprise, however, given some of the earlier assessment of Duplan’s management prowess:

And the above headline wasn’t apparently the view of just some crank; employees seem to chime in with similar feelings as well:

And, thus, the combination of a ridiculous, useless app and ham-handed management yields different Google results than I suspect Duplan dreamed he would be seeing these days:

There are some more self-aware societies when the instigator of such a mess would have committed seppuku, but the Silicon Valley is famously forgiving, so if you hop onto LInkedIn, you’ll find Lucas’ smiling face, ready for action.

Take note of the portion I highlighted above, however. “Low margin, high cost business so discontinued.” Do you sniff the faint stench of non-responsibility here? Does it seem rather astonishing a person would brush off this multi-zillion dollar fiasco with a shrug of their shoulders. It’s almost like the synopsis of a failed blind date (“Yeah, she looked hot in her picture, but when I met her, she was 300 pounds, so we just went to Chipotle’s.”)  But I guess putting “Product laughed off the face of the planet and investors left behind choking in the midst of scorched earth.” doesn’t lend itself to a good LinkedIn profile. But his explanation (as if anyone was asking) seems awfully goddamned flippant.

Of course, I was naturally curious to see what the former CEO of Clinkle was doing, and right there on his page it shows he is in fact the CEO of Treats (which, I suppose, could be considered a lateral career move, what with being a CEO and all).

There’s one problem, though. As far as I can see, there’s no such thing as Treats, Inc. Well, there is, but I don’t think it’s what this guy is claiming to be the leader of……….

……nor do I think it’s this one………..

What I do know, however, is that the $40 million (or whatever the figure ultimately turned out to be) has resulted in the following home page for Clinkle.

For every success in Silicon Valley, there are a thousand failures. I only hope in sharing this example of one of them, I’ve managed to help push the human race forward. It’s what I do.

via http://ift.tt/29fymeR Tim Knight from Slope of Hope

Submitted by Joseph Jankowski via PlanetFreeWill.com,

The latest EU foreign policy document, titled “A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign And Security Policy“, calls for an extension of the Union's influence in regions as far as Central Asia and Central Africa.

It also outlines “gradual synchronisation and mutual adaptation” between different member states’ individual defence strategies.

The executive summary of the document reads:

It is in the interests of our citizens to invest in the resilience of states and societies to the east stretching into Central Asia, and to the south down to Central Africa. Under the current EU enlargement policy, a credible accession process grounded in strict and fair conditionality is vital to enhance the resilience of countries in the Western Balkans and of Turkey. Under the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), many people wish to build closer relations with the Union: our enduring power of attraction can spur transformation in these countries.

The documents speaks of transforming the current EU system and commits to the deliverance of a global governing body.

EU Foreign Policy Cheif Federica Mogherini writes in the foreword:

We will invest in regional orders, and in cooperation among and within regions. And we will promote reformed global governance, one that can meet the challenges of this 21st century. We will engage in a practical and principled way, sharing global responsibilities with our partners and contributing to their strengths. We have learnt the lesson: my neighbour’s and my partner’s weaknesses are my own weaknesses. So we will invest in win-win solutions, and move beyond the illusion that international politics can be a zero-sum game.

The latest plan outlines how how the EU wants autonomy in defence and security matters.

“European security and defence efforts should enable the EU to act autonomously while also contributing to and undertaking action in co-operation with NATO,” the Brussels document reads.

“Member States need the technological and industrial means to acquire and sustain those capabilities which underpin their ability to act autonomously.”

It goes on to read, “Gradual synchronisation and mutual adaption of national defence planning cycles and capability development practice can enhance strategic convergence between Member States.”

When asked if he believed the document showed Brussels was positioning itself as a rival to NATO, UKIP’s Mike Hookem said: “I’m not sure whether in reality it will be a threat to NATO.”

“Although I am sure it would like to be, because NATO are competent,” says Hookem.

The fear of a European army was at the core of the Brexit campaign as Armed Forces Minister Penny Mordaunt warned that if Britain were to stay in the EU, it would be forced to join the EU’s army.

According to reports from Brussels, the Global Strategy document was kept secret as the UK was preparing to hold a referendum on its EU membership out of fears that it could affect the outcome by boosting the “Leave” campaign’s popularity.

Several European politicians have recently voiced support for the creation of an EU army. As RT reports:

Meanwhile, EU officials repeatedly voiced the idea of forming the Union’s own armed forces. On June 26, the head of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Elmar Brok, said that the EU needs a common military headquarters that could pave the way for a united EU armed force, which would make the block’s policy much more effective and strengthen its role in the world.

 

In 2015, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker called for the creation of a united European army, which he said would be aimed at “deterring” Russia and strengthening the alliance.

“The EU wants its own Empire as former Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso made clear when he was in charge,” UKIP’s defence spokesman Mike Hookem said. 

“This global strategy by the EU is yet another reason why last Thursday’s result was a lucky escape for the UK.”

via http://ift.tt/29n7h8O Tyler Durden

The recent back and forth events between China, the US, and various other countries including Japan as it relates to the South China Sea are well known at this point, however Taiwan has now entered into the picture as well.

Last Saturday, the Chinese government said it had stopped a communication mechanism with Taiwan because of the refusal of the self-ruled island's new government to recognize the "one China" principle.

Reuters explains

China, which regards Taiwan as wayward province, is deeply suspicious of Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, who took office last month, as they suspect she will push for formal independence.

 

Tsai, who heads the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party, says she wants to maintain the status quo with China and is committed to ensuring peace.

 

But China has insisted she recognize something called the "1992 consensus" reached between China's Communists and Taiwan's then-ruling Nationalists, under which both agreed there is only one China, with each having their own interpretation of what that means.

 

In a brief statement carried by the official Xinhua news agency, China's Taiwan Affairs Office said that since May 20, when Tsai took office, Taiwan has not affirmed this consensus.

 

"Because the Taiwan side has not acknowledged the 1992 consensus, this joint political basis for showing the one China principle, the cross Taiwan Strait contact and communication mechanism has already stopped," spokesman An Fengshan said.

Just days later, it was reported that Taiwan planned to test-fire its newest anti-missile system for the first time in the United States in the coming months. Although the missile system was purchased in 2008, before Tsai's leadership, the testing of the missiles coupled with the fact that it would be in the United States surely annoyed China further.

Speaking of missiles, as Communist Party rulers in Beijing celebrated the party's 95th birthday on Friday, Taiwan's Navy fired a supersonic missile allegedly in error and hit a Taiwan fishing boat in waters separating the island from China.

As Reuters reports, the missile did not explode but pierced the boat and killed one Taiwan fisherman. The ship-to-air missile was mis-fired from a 500-ton Navy patrol vessel during pre-inspection in southern Taiwan ahead of a mock exercise Taiwan's Navy Chief of Staff Mei Chia-shu told reporters.

"That this is politically motivated, or this is to create crisis in the surrounding situation, this is not the case" said Taiwan Defense Ministry spokesman Chen Chung-chi.

Taiwan's Defense Ministry also said that it had not detected irregular movements by China's military after the accident.

* * *

We're not sure what to be more concerned about for Taiwan, the fact that its presumably very expensive missile didn't actually explode upon impact, or that China will become even more annoyed – then again, both should probably be on their list of things to worry about.

via http://ift.tt/29zv5Fj Tyler Durden

Via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Have you ever met or advised Hillary Clinton?

 

ANSWER: No. I was asked to meet with Bill when he was first elected in Arkansas after he invited hundreds of people for a dog and pony show. I declined.

There is nothing I could advise Hillary on, for it is never about the country; it is just about her.

The latest scandal surfacing is her schedule as Secretary of State, which a judge has now ordered must be turned over. Hillary’s scheduled meetings while she was Secretary of State shows she was devious and untrustworthy.

At least 75 meetings were identified with longtime loyal donors, corporate contributors, and others that were not recorded in her agenda or were listed with identifying details removed.

Hillary appeared on the central balcony of the New York Stock Exchange in September 2009 to ring the opening bell. Then, minutes later, Hillary attended a private breakfast with influential Wall Street and business leaders. She withheld the identities of those people she met with. These omissions are just the tip of the iceberg of names and events she omitted from her historical record of meetings.

This is typical of Hillary who represents the climax of arrogance and corruption among career politicians. These types of people have been getting away with this for so long that they cannot imagine running a government for any reason other than personal gain.

No, there is nothing I would be able to advise her on because she is not interested in the country. It has always been about her being the first woman president and nothing else. It’s all about paying her for favors. There is nothing I need from Hillary.

via http://ift.tt/298U0lT Tyler Durden

If you ever wanted to get a look inside the mind of Kyle Bass, founder and CIO of Hayman Capital Management, here is your chance. In a wide-ranging discussion with Grant Williams, author of Things that Make You Go Hmm and co-founder of Real Vision TV, he shared his thoughts on position-sizing, China, the appeal of holding gold, central banking, interest rates – and much, much more.

Predictably, the one topic that got the most attention was China, where as widely known Bass has made his next “career” wager, expecting a substantial devaluation of the currency, a process which had stalled out in recent months but has once again picked up speed.

Looking at recent data, and specifically something we pointed out two weeks ago, Bass said the country’s $3 trillion corporate bond market is “freezing up” amid rising defaults and canceled debt sales. “We’re starting to see the beginning of the Chinese machine literally break down.” 

Bass reiterated that China’s lending binge in recent years is unsustainable and it is only a matter of time before this bubble, bigger than the US bubble of 2005/2006 which brought Bass fame and fortune, bursts. He expects bank losses of $3 trillion to trigger a bailout, with the central bank slashing reserve requirements, cutting the deposit rate to zero and expanding its balance sheet – all of which will weigh on the yuan, and lead to a dramatic devaluation.

“They’re going to do everything the U.S. did in our crisis,” said Bass, who has gone public with his China views since at least October. “Every single thing the Chinese central bank and central planners have to do is currency negative for them.”  He added that the Chinese government wants a devaluation, but “they just want to do it on their terms.” By this he is of course referring to the vast exodus of domestic capital as the local population sees the endgame and is scrambling to park its funds offshore (mostly in UK, US and Canadian real estate as well as US M&A, and more recently, in bitcoin), something Beijing is terrified of and is doing all in its power to prevent.

An interesting theme here was Kyle Bass’s devaluation thesis as a contrast to Hugh Hendry‘s recent Chinese optimistic euphoria. This is what Bass told Williams:

Williams: China is something else that you’ve been very vocal about recently. You and this gang of nefarious Texas hedge fund managers who are trying to take down the People’s Bank of China. And again, it’s another, in my reckoning, very well argued case for the devaluation of the yuan. And Hugh Hendry was on talking to Raoul, said, “It’ll never happen. The world’s over if it happens.” And I can see where he’s coming from, but it seems to me that the people that debate on the “they won’t devalue” side are assuming it’s going to be a voluntary devaluation, something that they choose to do, rather than they have to do.

 

Kyle: That’s a perfect point, perfect point.

 

Grant: Because that seems to me, they’re going to have to do it to recap the banks. There’s going to be a reason for them to do it, not a choice.

 

Kyle: Well, it’s going to happen to them. And again, even in your soliloquy there, you say, “They’re going to have to do it.” They’re going to have to allow it to happen. It’s going to happen. I love Hugh, we’ve had a number of debates throughout history, and he’s a fantastic individual and a brilliant mind. But if the reason that it’s not going to happen is because “it can’t happen, because the rest of the world’s going to have so much trouble with it,” that doesn’t give me any solace whatsoever. In fact, you look back to the U.S. financial crisis when I would go meet with various heads of investment banks or investors, and I would say, “This is what’s going to happen, and this is why, and this is how the structures are structured.” And some would look at me and say, “Well, that means Fannie and Freddie will be out of business. And so therefore, the government will never let that happen.” I said, “Well, the government doesn’t have a choice here. It’s too late.” The credit excesses had already been built. And in China, the credit excesses are already built. They’ve got, we can go into numbers, but they have asset-liability mismatches in their system, in the wealth management products, that are more than 10% of their system. And our asset-liability mismatches were two and a half percent of our system, and you know what they did. So their excesses are already, they’re already so far ahead of the world’s excesses in prior crises that we’re facing the largest macro imbalance in world history. And to this day, I can’t figure out why people don’t see it for what it is.

At this point Bass proceeds to discuss some interesting behavioral bises inherent in investing:

Bass: I think the behavioral psychology plays a huge part. And you’ve hit it right on the head. I give you an interesting anecdote. Again, back to the U.S. subprime crisis, I went all over the country raising money for a subprime, two subprime funds and some advisor relationships. And what was absolutely hilarious to me, looking back at the meetings that we had, is we would go to Chicago, and we would say…we’d lay out the thesis, and they would say, “You’re exactly right, this is absolutely going to happen.” It’s not going to happen here in Chicago because of one, two, three and four these points. But that’s because they live there, the NIMBY, the not in my back yard scenario or psychological profile of events, was not going to happen. But it was going to happen to everyone else but them. And then I’d go to Seattle and I’d lay that thesis out and they’d say, “Oh, you’re absolutely right. Never going to happen here because Microsoft’s here and Amazon’s here, and but our houses are fine, but everybody else’s homes, they’re going to drop 35%, and we’re going to invest with you.” And then I’d go to Southern California and I’d go to Texas, and everywhere I went, not one organization or group of investors would agree that it would happen to them, but it was going to happen to everyone else. And that’s again, I think the beginning of what you and I were just discussing with regard to the psychological profile, or more importantly, the behavioral psychology that plays into one’s thought process. Because the first thing…I think the first inalienable right of human nature is self-preservation, and when you get into a thought of, okay, Hugh’s position, is if it…if this were to happen, it would be so globally terrible that therefore, they’re going to not let this happen. I understand that logic and I think you do too, but I believe it’s flawed. And the reason it’s flawed is again, it’s just this…It’s almost like the Kahneman’s availability heuristic, where you only have this certain data set, and you only look at history back…I think the brevity of financial memory is only about three years.

 

* * *

What’s fascinating to me, Grant, is outside of Hugh Hendry, behind the scenes, when you talk with some of the largest asset managers in the world and the largest investors in the world, and you lay out a hundred page PowerPoint of exactly how their banking system and credit system works, and how they are putting off the final day of just realizing a loss cycle. You mentioned Armageddon. It’s not Armageddon. They’re going to have a loss cycle. They’ll recap their banks, their currency will depreciate, pretty materially. It will export deflation to the world one last time. And if you have any money left, it will be the best time in the world to invest, and we both know this.

Bass also sees the humor in shorting China:

Bass: I know there are permabears on China. But from my perspective, it’s just a scenario that I see has come to a head. And one other point that you made…one of my good friends, Dan Loeb, says all the time to me that “there are no short sellers on the Forbes 400 list, so be careful.” And a friend I think told you, don’t invest in Armageddon, it only happens once in a blue moon. All of those things are absolutely true. But to check caution to the wind and hope the central banks get it right from here, I think is an outsized risky proposition.

Bass doesn’t just limit himself to China: he also touches on arguably the most controversial asset of all time – gold.

Williams: What’s your current thinking on gold? Because I know it’s something you’ve had thoughts in the past, but it’s not something I’ve heard you talk about for a while.

 

Bass: Yeah. I look at Global M2, being just under a hundred trillion. And the total amount of mined gold in world history is somewhere around seven trillion. And there’s about…and then gold that’s kind of in circulation in use. We studied…we did a deep dive on gold a few years ago. They call it the yellow metal that has no yield, but with the entire world going to negative rates, then on a relative basis, it’s probably one of the better currencies to own. I buy that wholeheartedly. And seeing which way the central banks are going, you’re going to have to own something.

He also touches on the future of interest rates:

Bass: The spreads between U.S. 30 year treasuries and 10 year treasuries, and Japanese 30 years and 10 years, and European 30 years and 10 years, is as wide as it’s ever been. And so what does that mean? That means that I think U.S. rates are coming down, regardless of what kind of inflationary pressures we have, which is something that we’ve never seen before. Again, a new paradigm given the global central banking conundrum. So when you ask me whether stocks have peaked or not in the U.S., look, if China has the comeuppance we think they’re going to have, soon, then that’s not going to be an equity positive environment.

Bass also discusses the recent collapse in central bank confidence:

Williams: When you talk about this handicapping the central banks, which we’ve all had to do, and it’s essentially impossible. How do a group of free market capitalists handicap a group of academics? We speak different languages. So as we watch this thing move forwards, the guys in the markets assume to a cliff somewhere out yonder in the fog. What do you think tips this thing on? Because to me, it’s purely confidence now. There’s nothing left but confidence in these guys that they can do this. And you bring up the reaction to Kuroda-San going negative in January. And I think the instant reaction of the markets, people are going to look back on that, when the Nikkei fell a thousand points and the yen strengthened by a full bip. That, to me, was the start of people going, “You know, maybe these guys are just throwing things at the wall.”

 

Kyle: You’re right. That was the first time I’ve seen investors show a disbelief in the markets, in central banks. And I agree with you. That was a watershed moment in our business, in attempting to see when there’s a tectonic shift in the belief systems, because we all know that that one of the central banks’ objectives is price stability, whatever that means. I think that means each relevant industry that they oversee trading higher and not lower, it equals price stability. And they didn’t get it, Kuroda-San didn’t get it then, and since then Japan struggled. And this concept of Ricardian equivalence, where you’re issuing debt to quantitatively ease on the monetary policy side, and maybe even allowing, right, the fiscal authorities to continue to spend, it comes into play where people just start saving more. And this idea of negative interest rates realize…it’s interesting, academically negative interest rates look like they work on paper. And in reality, what these central bank heads are realizing, whether you’re in Denmark or Japan or any of these economies, is savers think, “Well, I just need to save more if I’m not going to earn anything on my savings.”

 

* * *

 

We’re already crossing the Rubicon of the helicopter money. And Japan’s talking about a negative lending facility from the BOJ to the banks. So we’re starting to see…the academics will never turn and say, “We were wrong.” The academics will go “more,” and they’ll just go unsterilized. And in the end, we know where that gets all of us.

But the punchline is beyond gold, beyond China, beyond even investing, and has to do with something a central banker once told Bass in what the hedge fund manager describes as an “out of body” epiphany:

Grant: this idea of helicopter money, and the idea of banning cash, and all these things that, when you sit here in the cold like that, you can see exactly why they need to do these things. You watch the narrative unfold in the media, and then the trial balloons get floated. But you’re right, they have to go to helicopter money, they’re really not going to have a choice. And it seems to me that they are going to have to try to ban cash. Because, as you say, the U.S. savings rate has tripled since 2007, and that’s literally the last thing they want or need. So is there any way out for these guys? Because that’s the thesis that I keep checking. I can’t see a way out, absent cold fusion.

 

Kyle: Look, I had a fascinating out of body experience meeting with one of the world’s top central bankers in a private meeting about three years ago. And he said, “You know Kyle, quantitative easing only works when you’re the only country doing it.” He would never say that publicly. And I’ll protect his name, because it was a private meeting. But it was one of those moments where I…it was one of those epiphanies almost, where it’s something you and I knew, but hearing him say it, call it one of the four top central bankers in the world, it was a jarring experience for me, because when I look around the world  today, everyone’s in the same boat. So we’re all trying…we’re attempting through our treasury and our Fed to get the rest of the world to not devalue against us, while we quietly attempt to devalue ourselves against them, and it’s all this…it is the race to the bottom, it is the beggar thy neighbor policies that we all talk about. And I believe that there is no way out.

* * *

A 5 minutes excerpt of the full interview can be watched below:

 

The full hour-long interview is available to Zero Hedge readers with a free 7-day trial subscription to Real Vision TV at the following page.

via http://ift.tt/298WGvZ Tyler Durden

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

If you collapse these extractive, debt-dependent crony-capitalist cartels, you collapse the entire status quo.

Thousands of commentaries have been issued about Brexit in the past week. I've written four myself. Most discuss Brexit as the result of immigration issues, class war, political theater, a reaction against the European Union's bureaucratic power, sovereignty, etc. Other essays focus on the potential upsides or downsides of Brexit.

What few if any commentators present is the idea that Brexit is a symptom of the Crisis of Capitalism.

The current global version of Capitalism is characterized by these overlapping dynamics:

1. Replacing stagnant real growth and income (and thus taxes) with debt.

 

2. Replacing investment in real-world productivity with speculation (i.e. financialization)

 

3. Replacing “everyone must have skin in the game” free-market capitalism with protected, privileged Elites crony capitalism in which the few benefit at the expense of the many.

 

4. Replacing local, decentralized democracy and ownership with central planning.

 

5. Using “extend and pretend” financial trickery to mask insolvency, impaired assets/ collateral and non-performing loans rather than address the debt overhang directly via write-downs and liquidations of impaired assets.

If real (adjusted for inflation) growth and wages were increasing organically (i.e. as the result of free-market dynamics rather than central-planning manipulation) there would be no need for financialization, “extend and pretend” or central planning.

These ills are the status quo's "fixes" to the Crisis of Capitalism, which arises from these causes:

1. It is no longer profitable to hire people to do an expanding range of work, from minding the jumble store on high street to writing software code that has been automated.

 

There is no fix for this. As I explain in my book A Radically Beneficial World, the idea that we can "tax the robots" to generate the $2.4 trillion we'd need to make a Universal Guaranteed Income a reality in the U.S. is pure fantasy, as profits collapse as the cost of those commoditized tools decline.

 

Paying people to do nothing looks like a grand benefit but it is actually terribly destructive because people need purposeful work and a sense of contributing to something meaningful. Paying the majority of people to do nothing is a destructive and financially impossible fantasy.

 

2. Consumer demand is not infinite, and modern production can over-supply the demand of an aging populace. The supply-demand curve has shifted for demographic and structural reasons. The idea that consumer demand can be endlessly goosed higher is false. As demand stagnates and the tools of production are commoditized, production increases (because the money needed to expand production is essentially free) and profits and wages both decline.

 

 

3. What cannot be over-produced burdens the system with a higher cost structure. The core fantasy of neoliberalism is that everything can be made abundant once it is commoditized on a global scale. But this is simply not true of resources such as potash, lithium or ocean fisheries.

 

As scarcities arise from the fact that the planet we inhabit is not infinite, these scarcities tend to drive innovation and a search for substitutes. But substitutes have limits, too. As costs rise, there is less disposable income to pay interest on rising debt or consume more. Spending and consumption stagnate, along with profits and wages.

 

4. The status quo is dominated by cartels and crony-state-capital arrangements that raise systemwide costs to benefit the few at the expense of the many. Healthcare (specifically, Obamacare) is a prime example: costs are soaring because the pool of taxpayer money that can be devoted to healthcare is assumed to be limitless.

 

College costs $150,000 for four years not because education "must cost" $150,000; it costs $150,000 because students can borrow $150,000 from the federal-higher-education cartel. the actual cost is unknown because the cartel has been able to impose staggering price increases for decades.

 

(I make the case that a four-year college degree should cost no more than a few thousand dollars in my book The Nearly Free University and the Emerging Economy.)

 

5. If you collapse these extractive, debt-dependent crony-capitalist cartels, you collapse the entire status quo. All the finance, debt-dependent production and consumption, pensions, insurance and tax revenues that the majority depend on for their income implode once you take away the cartel's monopoly pricing.

Reforming the system implodes the system. This is why Brexit has limited scope to fix the structural causes of Crisis of Capitalism.

*  *  *
A Radically Beneficial World: Automation, Technology and Creating Jobs for All is now available as an Audible audio book.

My new book is #14 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition) For more, please visit the book's website.

via http://ift.tt/29b4sb6 Tyler Durden