Man Catches Fire After Comrade Throws Molotov In Portland; Riot Declared, Tear Gas Deployed Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/06/2020 – 01:45
A Portland protester rioter caught fire after running through a molotov cocktail thrown by a comrade Saturday night, during the city’s 100th straight of protests.
The man attempted to douse the flames as one onlooker shouted “stop, drop and roll!“
Portland police worked with state troopers to force the crowd to disperse, thwarting their attempts to march to the nearby East Precinct, where dozens of police officers were waiting for them, according to Oregon Live.
Dozens of officers arrived to block the crowd’s path on Stark Street. Around 9:20 p.m., some people in the crowd threw at least three Molotov cocktail-like devices toward the police line. Another person lit a firework. One of the devices appeared to wound the foot of a bystander.
The series of explosions prompted police to immediately declare the gathering a riot and order people to leave. Police forced the crowd east and, within minutes, released tear gas onto the crowd. –Oregon Live
Fire bombs were thrown at officers, injuring at least one community member. Police are trying to restore peace and order for the safety of this neighborhood. https://t.co/V3UOCR6Bc4
Portland PD deployed tear gas as protesters tossed fireworks in the street.
Extremely heavy smoke in SE Portland tonight as #antifa riot using Molotov cocktails. One person was already set on fire. BLM-antifa are celebrating more than 100 days of violence in the city. #PortlandRiotspic.twitter.com/hqA5lF9gao
A group of “bipartisan” neoconservative Republicans and establishment Democrats have been “simulating” multiple catastrophic scenarios for the 2020 election, including a simulation where a clear victory by the incumbent provokes “unprecedented” measures, which the Biden campaign could take to foil a new Trump inauguration.
A group of Democratic Party insiders and former Obama and Clinton era officials as well as a cadre of “Never Trump” neoconservative Republicans have spent the past few months conducting simulations and “war games” regarding different 2020 election “doomsday” scenarios.
Per several media reports on the group, called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), they justify these exercises as specifically preparing for a scenario where President Trump loses the 2020 election and refuses to leave office, potentially resulting in a constitutional crisis. However, according to TIP’s own documents, even their simulations involving a “clear win” for Trump in the upcoming election resulted in a constitutional crisis, as they predicted that the Biden campaign would make bold moves aimed at securing the presidency, regardless of the election result.
This is particularly troubling given that TIP has considerable ties to the Obama administration, where Biden served as Vice President, as well as several groups that are adamantly pro-Biden in addition to the Biden campaign itself. Indeed, the fact that a group of openly pro-Biden Washington insiders and former government officials have gamed out scenarios for possible election outcomes and their aftermath, all of which either ended with Biden becoming president or a constitutional crisis, suggest that powerful forces influencing the Biden campaign are pushing the former Vice President to refuse to concede the election even if he loses.
This, of course, gravely undercuts the TIP’s claim to be ensuring “integrity” in the presidential transition process and instead suggests that the group is openly planning on how to ensure that Trump leaves office regardless of the result or to manufacture the very constitutional crisis they claim to be preventing through their simulations.
Such concerns are only magnified by the recent claims made by the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State under Obama, Hillary Clinton, that Biden “should not concede under any circumstances.”
“I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” Clinton continued during an interview with Showtime a little over a week ago. The results of the TIP’s simulations notably echo Clinton’s claims that Biden will “eventually” win if the process to determine the election outcome is “dragged out.”
The Uniparty’s “war games”
Members of the TIP met in June to conduct four “war games” that simulated “a dark 11 weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day” in which “Trump and his Republican allies used every apparatus of government — the Postal Service, state lawmakers, the Justice Department, federal agents, and the military — to hold onto power, and Democrats took to the courts and the streets to try to stop it,” according to a report fromThe Boston Globe.However, one of those simulations, which examined what would transpire between Election Day and Inauguration Day in the event of a “clear Trump win,” shows that the TIP simulated not only how Republicans could use every option at their disposal to “hold onto power”, but also how Democrats could do so if the 2020 election result is not in their favor.
While some, mostly right-leaning media outlets, such as this article from The National Pulse, did note that the TIP’s simulations involved the Biden campaign refusing to concede, the actual document from TIP on the exercises revealed the specific moves the Biden campaign would take following a “clear win” for the Trump campaign. Unsurprisingly, these moves would greatly exacerbate current political tensions in the United States, an end result that the TIP claims they were created to avoid, gravely undercutting the official justification for their simulations as well as the group’s official reason for existing.
In the TIP’s “clear Trump win” scenario (see page 17), Joe Biden – played in the war game by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager and chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton – retracted his election night concession and subsequently convinced “three states with Democratic governors – North Carolina, Wisconsin and Michigan – to ask for recounts.” Then, the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan “sent separate slates of electors to counter those sent by the state legislature” to the Electoral College, which Trump had won, in an attempt to undermine, if not prevent, that win.
Next, “the Biden campaign encouraged Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington, and collectively known as “Cascadia,” to secede from the Union unless Congressional Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms. (emphasis added)” Subsequently, “with advice from [former] President Obama,” the Biden campaign laid out those “reforms” as the following:
Give statehood to Washington, DC and Puerto Rico
Divide California into five states “to more accurately represent its population in the Senate”
Require Supreme Court justices to retire at 70
Eliminate the Electoral College
In other words, these “structural reforms” involve the creation of what essentially amounts to having the U.S. by composed 56 states, with the new states set to ensure a perpetual majority for Democrats, as only Democrat-majority areas (DC, Puerto Rico and California) are given statehood. Notably, in other scenarios where Biden won the Electoral College, Democrats did not support its elimination.
Also notable is the fact that, in this simulation, the TIP blamed the Trump campaign for the Democrats’ decision to take the “provocative, unprecedented actions” laid out above, asserting that Trump’s campaign had “created the conditions to force the Biden campaign” into taking these actions by doing things like giving “an interview to The Intercept in which he [Trump] stated that he would have lost the election if Bernie Sanders had been nominated” instead of Biden as the Democratic presidential candidate.
The TIP also claimed that the Trump campaign would seek to paint these “provocative, unpredecented actions” as “the Democrats attempting to orchestrate an illegal coup,” despite the fact that that is essentially what those actions entail. Indeed, in other simulations where the Trump campaign behaved along these lines, the TIP’s rhetoric about this category of extreme actions is decidedly different.
Yet, the simulated actions of the Biden campaign in this scenario did not end there, as the Biden campaign subsequently “provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress [on January 6th] by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the presidency to Biden,” adding that this was “based on the alternative pro-Biden submissions sent by pro-Biden governors.” The Republican party obviously did not consent, noting that Trump had won the election through his Electoral College victory. The “clear Trump win” election simulation ended with no president-elect being inaugurated on January 20, with the TIP noting “it was unclear what the military would do in this situation.”
Of course, some TIP members, including its co-founder Rosa Brooks – a former advisor to the Obama era Pentagon and currently a fellow at the “New America” think tank, have their preference for “what the military would do in this situation.” For instance, Brooks, writing less than 2 weeks after Trump’s inauguration in 2017, argued in Foreign Policythat “a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders” was one of four possibilities for removing Trump from office prior to the 2020 election.
Full TIP document below:
Who is behind the TIP?
The TIP was created in late 2019, allegedly “out of concern that the Trump Administration may seek to manipulate, ignore, undermine or disrupt the 2020 presidential election and transition process.” It was co-founded by Rosa Brooks and Nils Gilman and its current director is Zoe Hudson. Brooks, as previously mentioned, was an advisor to the Pentagon and the Hillary Clinton-led State Department during the Obama administration. She was also previously the general counsel to the President of the Open Society Institute, part of the Open Society Foundations (OSF), a controversial organization funded by billionaire George Soros. Zoe Hudson, who is TIP’s director, is also a former top figure at OSF, serving assenior policy analyst and liaison between the foundations and the U.S. government for 11 years.
OSF ties to the TIP are a red flag for a number of reasons, namely due to the fact that OSF and other Soros-funded organizations played a critical role in fomenting so-called “color revolutions” to overthrow non-aligned governments, particularly during the Obama administration. Examples of OSF’s ties to these manufactured “revolutions” include Ukraine in 2014 and the “Arab Spring,” which began in 2011 and saw several governments in the Middle East and North Africa that were troublesome to Western interests conveniently removed from power.
Subsequent leaked emails revealed the cozy ties between Soros and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including one email where Soros directed Clinton’s policy with respect to unrest in Albania, telling her that “two things need to be done urgently,” which were to “bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha” and “appoint a senior European official as mediator.” Both “urgent” tasks were subsequently performed by Clinton, presumably at Soros’ behest.
In addition to her ties to the Obama administration and OSF, Brooks is currently a scholar at West Point’s Modern War Institute, where she focuses on “the relationship between the military and domestic policing” and also Georgetown’s Innovative Policing Program. She is a currently a key player in the documented OSF-led push to “capitalize” off of legitimate calls for police reform to justify the creation of a federalized police force under the guise of defunding and/or eliminating local police departments. Brooks’ interest in the “blurring line” between military and police is notable given her past advocacy of a military coup to remove Trump from office and the TIP’s subsequent conclusion that the military “may” have to step in if Trump manages to win the 2020 election, per the group’s “war games” described above.
Brooks is also a senior fellow at the think tank New America. New America’s mission statement notes that the organization is focused on “honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change, and seizing the opportunities those changes create.” It is largely funded by Silicon Valley billionaires, including Bill Gates (Microsoft), Eric Schmidt (Google), Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn), Jeffrey Skoll and Pierre Omidyar (eBay). In addition, it has received millions directly from the U.S. State Department to research “ranking digital rights.” Notably, of these funders, Reid Hoffman was caught “meddling” in the most recent Democratic primary to undercut Bernie Sanders’ candidacy during the Iowa caucus and while others, such as Eric Schmidt and Pierre Omidyar, are known for their cozy ties to the Clinton family and even ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
The Never Trumpers
Aside from Brooks, the other co-founder of TIP is Nils Gilman, the current Vice President of Programs at the Berggruen Institute and, prior to that, worked for Salesforce, a major tech company and government contractor. Gilman is particularly focused on artificial intelligence and transhumanism, recently telling the New York Times that his work at the Berggruen Institute is focused on “building [a] transnational networks of philosophers + technologists + policy-makers + artists who are thinking about how A.I. and gene-editing are transfiguring what it means to be human.” Nicholas Berggruen, for whom the Berggruen Institute is named, is part of the billionaire-led faction, alongside Blackstone’s Steve Schwarzman and Eric Schmidt, who seek to develop A.I. and the so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution” in conjunction with the political leaders and economic elite of China.
They are critics and rivals of those in the “nationalist” camp with respect to A.I. and China, who instead prefer to aggressively “leapfrog” China’s A.I. capabilities in order to maintain U.S. global hegemony as opposed to a “new order” promoted by Berggreun, Schmidt, Schwarzman and Henry Kissinger, another key member of the “cooperation” faction. The battle over the U.S.’ future A.I. policy with respect to China appears to be a major yet widely overlooked reason for some of the antipathy towards Trump by those in the “cooperation” faction, including those who employ TIP’s founders, given Trump’s tendency to, at least publicly, support “America First” policies and increased tensions with China. In contrast, the Biden family is invested in Chinese A.I. companies, suggesting that Biden would be more willing to pursue the interests of the “cooperation” faction than Trump.
While the identities of the TIP’s founders and current director have been made public, the full member list of the TIP has not. However, the TIP’s “sister” organization, called The National Task Force on Election Crises (NTFEC), does have a public membership list and several of its members are also known to be part of the TIP. Some of these overlapping members include Michael Chertoff, former head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Michael Steele, former chairman of the RNC and Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to former Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Chertoff, Steele and Wilkerson, though Republicans, are part of the so-called “Never Trump” Republican faction, as are the TIP’s other known Republican members. Thus, while the “bipartisan” nature of TIP may be accurate in terms of party affiliation, all of known TIP’s members – regardless of party – are united in their opposition to another term for the current president.
Other known members of the TIP include David Frum (the Atlantic), William Kristol (Project for a New American Century, The Bulwark), Max Boot (the Washington Post),Donna Brazile (ex-DNC), John Podesta (former campaign manager – Clinton 2016), Chuck Hagel (former Secretary of Defense), Reed Galen (co-founder of the Lincoln Project) and Norm Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute).
Of their known members, the most outspoken is Lawrence Wilkerson, who has fashioned himself the group’s “unofficial” spokesperson, having done the majority of media interviewspromoting the group and its “war games.” In an interview in late June with journalist Paul Jay, Wilkerson notes that the TIP lacks transparency and that, aside from their “war games,” their other activities are largely confidential.
He specifically stated that:
“There is some confidentiality about what we agreed to, and what we’ve put out publicly, and who’s responsible for that, and other aspects of our doing that. The Transition Integrity Project is to this point very, very close, whole, and confidential.”
In that same interview, Wilkerson also noted that the current “combination of events” involving the recent unrest in several U.S. cities, the coronavirus crisis, the national debate over the future of policing, the economic recession and the 2020 election was the foundation for a revolution in the U.S. He told Jay that:
“I want to say this is how things like 1917 and Russia, like 1979 and Tehran, and like 1789 in France. This is how these sorts of things get started. So we’ve got to be very careful about how we deal with these things. And that worries me because we don’t have a very careful individual in the White House.”
Pre-planned chaos – who benefits?
While it certainly is possible that, in the event of a clear Biden win, President Trump could refuse to leave the White House or take other actions that would challenge the faith of many Americans in the national election system. However, while the TIP claims to be specifically concerned about this eventuality and about “safe guarding” democracy without favoring either candidate, that is clearly not the case, as their simulation of a clear Trump win shows that extreme, “undemocratic” behavior, in their view, is permissible if it prevents another four years of Trump. Yet, this clear double standard reveals that an influential group of “bipartisan” insiders are intent on creating a “constitutional crisis” if Trump wins and are planning for such a crisis regardless of the 2020 election’s results.
Well before the TIP or any of their affiliated groups emerged to conduct these doomsday election simulations, other groups were similarly engaged in “war games” that predicted complete chaos in the U.S. on election day as well as the imposition of martial law in the U.S. following the emergence of unprecedented unrest and disarray in the country.
Several of these I detailed in a series earlier this year, which mainly focused on the “Operation Blackout” simulationsconducted by the U.S.-Israeli company, Cybereason. That company has considerable ties to the U.S. and Israeli intelligence and its largest investor is Softbank. Notably, Softbank is named by the Eric Schmidt-led National Security Commission on AI (NSCAI) as forming the “backbone” of a global framework of A.I.-driven companies favored by the “cooperation” faction as a means of enacting the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” in cooperation with China’s economic and political elite.
In addition to Cybereason, several mainstream media reports and a series of suspect “predictions” from U.S. intelligence and other federal agencies released last year had seeded the narrative that the 2020 election would not only fail spectacularly, but that U.S. democracy “would never recover.” Now, with the TIP’s simulations added to the mix and the advent of the previously predicted chaos throughout the country with the 2020 election just two months away, it is clear that the November 3rd election will not only be a complete disaster, but a pre-planned one.
The question then becomes, who benefits from complete chaos on and following the 2020 election? As the TIP suggested in several of their simulations, the post-election role of the military in terms of domestic policing, incidentally the exact expertise of the TIP’s co-founder Rosa Brooks, looms large, as most of the aforementioned doomsday election simulations ended with the imposition of martial law or the military “stepping in” to resolve order and oversee the transition.
The domestic framework for imposing martial law in the U.S., via “continuity of government” protocols, was activated earlier this year under the guise of the coronavirus crisis and it remains in effect. Now, a series of groups deeply tied to the Washington establishment and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies have predicted the exact ways in which to engineer a failed election and manipulate its aftermath.
Who would stand to benefit the most from the imposition of martial law in the United States? I would argue that one need look no further than the battle within Washington power factions over the future of AI, which has been deemed of critical importance to national security by the public sector, the private sector and prominent think tanks. The Schmidt-led NSCAI and other bodies determining the country’s AI policy plan to implement a series of policies that will be deeply resisted by most Americans – from the elimination of individual car ownership to the elimination of cash as well as the imposition of an Orwellian surveillance system, among other things.
All of these agendas have advanced under the guise of combatting coronavirus, but their advance can only continue to use that justification for so long. For groups like the NSCAI, Americans must welcome these AI-driven advances or else, even if it means Americans face losing their jobs or their civil liberties. Otherwise, these groups and their billionaire backers argue, the U.S. will be “left out” and “left behind” when it comes time to set the new global standards for AI technology, as the U.S. will then be left in the dust by China’s growing AI industry, which is fed by its own implementation of these technologies.
By keeping Americans angry and distracted by the partisan divide through pre-planned election chaos, a “New America” waits in the wings – one that is coming regardless of what happens on election day. That is, of course, unless Americans quickly wake up to the ruse…
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Dwp27E Tyler Durden
“In Complete Shock”: China’s Lead Chip Maker Denies PLA Military Ties As Trump Mulls Blacklisting Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/05/2020 – 23:20
Executives of Chinese companies which produce chips — vital in every device that stores data from computers to mobile phones to barcode scanners — are increasingly worried their industry is next on the Trump sanctions hit list, also after widespread reports that Beijing plans to in desperation ramp up its lagging domestic semiconductor development over the next decade as continued outside access to the most advanced chips looks increasingly in doubt.
Some are speaking out, attempting to make crystal clear to Washington that they are not puppets of either the Chinese state or PLA military. The country’s largest and leading homegrown chipmaker, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC), is vehemently denying its technology is for military use after Reuters on Friday said Trump is mulling adding the publicly traded company to a US blacklist.
Via DigiTimes
The Shanghai-based company expressed that it is “in complete shock” over contents of the report, which said earlier this past week that “the Pentagon made a proposal to place SMIC on the entity list to the End User Committee, a panel led by the Commerce Department that also includes the State and Energy Departments and makes decisions about entity listings.”
A follow-up official Semiconductor Manufacturing International statement said Saturday:
“The company manufactures semiconductors and provides services solely for civilian and commercial end-users and end-uses. We have no relationship with the Chinese military.”
The statement added, “Any assumptions of the company’s ties with the Chinese military are untrue statements and false accusations.”
At moment there’s an inter-agency review underway in Washington over whether to add the company to the list, which would immediately require American suppliers to obtain a specially approved license in order to ship materials to the company. If it goes on the list, SMIC would go the way of Huawei in facing huge hurdles and intense scrutiny any time it does business with Western companies.
Meanwhile some are counter-threatening various nuclear option scenarios, a rapid downward spiral:
US/China tit-4-tat horror.
“The suggestion from econ prof Li Daokui that China curb exports of medicines as a means of countering US economic curbs on Chinese access to semiconductor products is plainly wrong, dangerous…”https://t.co/2jIKw0CoJv
Consider the dire warnings issued at the World Semiconductor Conference held in Nanjing at the end of August of the fragile early state of China’s domestic capabilities.
Bloomberg relates of one of the more revealing conference moments:
“The entire chip industry is too fragile to defend itself. We are at least 20 years behind comparing to Silicon Valley from scale and quality of talent to size of the ecosystem,”said Wang Xuguang, chief executive officer of AINSTEC, a Suzhou-based company that develops 3D visual chips. “If we can prosper (with the U.S.), that’s the best, but if the situation doesn’t allow this to happen, we need to think what we have on our hands.”
Crucially, China remains the world’s largest importer of chips, and will spend some $300 billion to import semiconductors this year.
The country still faces a huge technology gap in this area which Chinese developers have struggled to close over and ahead of more advanced industry rivals in the US, Japan, and Europe.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lXpHQQ Tyler Durden
With rising integration among China, Iran and Pakistan, India is integrated only with its own inconsistencies…
There was a time when New Delhi was proudly selling the notion of establishing its own New Silk Road – from the Gulf of Oman to the intersection of Central and South Asia – to compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Now it looks like the Indians have stabbed themselves in the back.
In 2016, Tehran and New Delhi signed a deal to build a 628-km rail line from strategic Chabahar port to Zahedan, very close to the Afghan border, with a crucial extension to Zaranj, in Afghanistan, and beyond.
The negotiations involved Iranian Railways and Indian Railway Constructions Ltd. But in the end nothing happened – because of Indian foot-dragging. So Tehran has decided to build the railway anyway, with its own funds – $400 million – and completion scheduled for March 2022.
The railway was supposed to be the key transportation corridor linked to substantial Indian investments in Chabahar, its port of entry from the Gulf of Oman for an alternative New Silk Road to Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Upgrading rail/road infrastructure from Afghanistan to its neighbors Tajikistan and Uzbekistan would be the next step. The whole operation was inscribed in a trilateral India-Iran-Afghanistan deal – signed in 2016 in Tehran by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and then Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.
The unofficial New Delhi excuse revolves around fears that the project would be slammed with US sanctions. New Delhi actually did get a Trump administration sanctions waiver for Chabahar and the rail line to Zahedan. The problem was to convince an array of investment partners, all of them terrified of being sanctioned.
In fact, the whole saga has more to do with Modi’s wishful thinking of expecting to get preferential treatment under the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy, which relies on a de facto Quad (US, India, Australia, Japan) containment of China. That was the rationale behind New Delhi deciding to cut off all its oil imports from Iran.
So far all practical purposes, India threw Iran under the bus. No wonder Tehran decided to move on its own, especially now with the $400 billion, 25-year “Comprehensive Plan for Cooperation between Iran and China”, a deal that seals a strategic partnership between China and Iran.
In this case, China may end up exercising control over two strategic “pearls” in the Arabian Sea/Gulf of Oman only 80 km away from each other: Gwadar, in Pakistan, a key node of the $61 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and Chabahar.
Tehran, so far, has denied that Chabahar port will be offered on a lease to Beijing. But what is a real possibility, apart from Chinese investments in an oil refinery near Chabahar, and even, in the long run, in the port itself, is an operational link between Gwadar and Chabahar. That will be complemented by the Chinese operating the port of Bandar-e-Jask in the Gulf of Oman, 350 km to the west of Chabahar and very close to the hyper-strategic Strait of Hormuz.
How corridors attract
Not even a Hindu deity on hangover could possibly imagine a more counter-productive “strategy” for Indian interests in case New Delhi backs off from its cooperation with Tehran.
Let’s look at the essentials. What Tehran and Beijing will be working on is a de facto massive expansion of CPEC, with Gwadar linked to Chabahar and further onwards to Central Asia and the Caspian via Iranian railways, as well as connected to Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean (via Iraq and Syria), all the way to the EU.
This game-changing progress will be at the heart of the whole Eurasian integration process – uniting China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and of course Russia, which is linked to Iran via the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC).
For the moment, for all its hefty reverberations in multiple areas – upgrade of energy infrastructure, refurbishing of ports and refineries, construction of a connectivity corridor, investments in manufacturing, and a steady supply of Iranian oil and gas, a matter of national security for China – there’s no question that the Iran-China deal is being effectively downplayed by both sides.
The reasons are self-evident: not to raise the Trump administration’s ire to even more incandescent levels, considering both actors are considered “existential threats”. Still, Mahmoud Vezi, chief of staff for President Rouhani, guarantees the final Iran-China deal with be signed by March 2021.
CPEC, meanwhile, is on a roll. What Chabahar was supposed to do for India is already in effect at Gwadar – as transit trade to Afghanistan started only a few days ago, with bulk cargo arriving from the UAE. Gwadar is already establishing itself as a key transit hub to Afghanistan – way ahead of Chabahar.
For Kabul, the strategic factor is essential. Afghanistan essentially depends on overland routes from Pakistan – some can be extremely unreliable – as well as Karachi and Port Qasim. Especially for southern Afghanistan, the overland link from Gwadar, through Balochistan, is much shorter and safer.
For Beijing, the strategic factor is even more essential. For China, Chabahar would not be a priority, because access to Afghanistan is easier, for instance, via Tajikistan.
But Gwadar is a completely different story. It’s being configured, slowly but surely, as the key Maritime Silk Road hub connecting China with the Arabian Sea, the Middle East and Africa, with Islamabad collecting hefty transit funds. Win-win in a nutshell – but always taking into consideration that protests and challenges from Balochistan simply won’t disappear, and require very careful management by Beijing-Islamabad.
Chabahar-Zahedan was not the only recent setback for India. India’s External Affairs Ministry has recently admitted that Iran will develop the massive Farzad-B gas field in the Persian Gulf “on its own” and India might join “appropriately at a later stage”. The same “at a later stage” spin was applied by New Delhi for Chabahar-Zahedan.
The exploration and production rights for Farzad B were already granted years ago for India’s state company ONGC Videsh Limited (OVL). But then, again, nothing happened – due to the proverbial specter of sanctions.
Sanctions, by the way, had been in effect already under Obama. Yet at the time, India and Iran at least traded goods for oil. Farzad B was scheduled to be back on track after the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. But then Trump’s sanctions iced it again.
It doesn’t take a PhD in political science to ascertain who may eventually take over Farzad B: China, especially after the signing of the 25-year partnership next year.
India, against its own energy and geostrategic interests, has in fact been reduced to the status of hostage of the Trump administration. The real target of applying Divide and Rule to India-Iran is to prevent them from trading in their own currencies, bypassing the US dollar, especially when it comes to energy.
The Big Picture though is always about New Silk Road progress across Eurasia. With increasing evidence of closer and closer integration between China, Iran and Pakistan, what’s clear is that India remains integrated only with its own inconsistencies.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2F3vpjx Tyler Durden
Reports Linking 30-35% Of Big-Ten Athletes With COVID To Myocarditis Were Inaccurate Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/05/2020 – 22:20
With the media poised to pounce on negative Covid headlines at any chance they are given, it is more important now than ever to make sure that those headlines are accurate.
Inaccurate headlines can cause an uproar, as we found out last week when it was falsely reported that an astonishing 30% to 35% of Big Ten college athletes that were positive for Covid also had myocarditis – inflammation of the heart muscle. It was an astonishing figure that may left the world thinking: if 30% to 35% of college athletes were getting it, surely everyone else was, too.
The reports generated sprawling headlines in national media over the next few days, like this one in USA Today:
“When we looked at our COVID-positive athletes, whether they were symptomatic or not, 30 to roughly 35 percent of their heart muscles are inflamed … and we really just don’t know what to do with it right now. It’s still very early in the infection. Some of that has led to the Pac-12 and the Big Ten’s decision to sort of put a hiatus on what’s happening,” Penn State Doctor Wayne Sebastianelli said on Monday.
Reports like the one in USA Today read: “…cardiac scans of Big Ten athletes who contracted COVID-19 showed ’30 to roughly 35 percent of their heart muscles’ indicated symptoms of myocarditis.”
The figured sounded enormous to us; in fact, we almost did a write up on the headline earlier this week but decided to hold off to see if more information would become available.
And, lo and behold, more information did become available. Turns out the earlier headlines simply weren’t true.
In what can only be described as a barrage of corrections from places like The Washington Post and CNN published less than 48 hours from the original report, it was revealed that the doctor was “unintentionally citing outdated numbers”.
A spokesman for the school’s health department clarified: “During his discussion with board members, (Sebastianelli) recalled initial preliminary data that had been verbally shared by a colleague on a forthcoming study, which unbeknownst to him at the time had been published at a lower rate.”
The continued: “Additionally, some have inferred his comments may have related directly to Penn State student athletes. At this time, there have been no cases of myocarditis in COVID-19 positive student-athletes at Penn State.”
Regardless, the Big 10 conference has already announced that it would be postponing fall sports as a result of the coronavirus. A conference spokesperson said:
“As time progressed and after hours of discussion with our Big Ten Task Force for Emerging Infectious Diseases and the Big Ten Sports Medicine Committee, it became abundantly clear that there was too much uncertainty regarding potential medical risks to allow our student-athletes to compete this fall.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QYfpBT Tyler Durden
Since at least as early as the mid-1990s, the term “militia” has been increasingly used by journalists and scholars on the left in connection with alleged “right-wing extremists.”
Over time, the term “militia” has been used to describe nearly any group of nonleftist armed men, and has been generally used in close connection with terms like “extremism,” “violence,” and “vigilante.” We have been reminded of this in recent years during riots in places like Ferguson, Missouri (in 2014), and Kenosha, Wisconsin (in 2020). In both cases, armed volunteers attempted to assist private sector business owners with protecting their property from looters and rioters. And in both cases, the volunteers were described with terms such as: “violent,” “militia,” “extreme,” and “white vigilante.”
Historically in the United States, however, the term “militia” had entirely different connotations. Throughout much of the nineteenth century, militias were considered to be common institutions central to civic and community life. They were a common fixture of local festivals and celebrations, and they functioned in some ways as fraternal orders function today.
Although some critics of the militia idea have attempted to claim militias existed primarily to suppress slave rebellions, the fact is militias were common and widespread in Northern states where they had no role whatsoever in maintaining the institution of slavery. In fact, militias often served an important role in providing opportunities and community cohesion for new immigrants.
The Local Militias of the Nineteenth Century
What’s more, many militias were independent of a centralized state militia system and functioned largely as private entities. They elected their own officers, were self-funded, and trained on their own schedules. Although they were ostensibly commanded by the state governors, this system of functionally private militias became an established part of daily life for many Americans. These were local volunteer militias with names like the “Richardson Light Guard,” the “Detroit Light Guard,” or the “Asmonean Guard.” They were essentially private clubs composed of gun owners who were expected to assist in keeping law and order within the cities and towns of the United States.
They were separate from the so-called common militias, which developed in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and which in many cases were staffed with conscripts, were funded with tax dollars, and were commanded by an established state bureaucracy.
But by the Jacksonian period, new volunteer militias began to arise. As noted by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, the United States by the 1830s had seen “a remarkable growth in the privately organized volunteer militia. The number of volunteer units had been expanding steadily since the American Revolution, but after the war of 1812, it exploded. Three hundred sprang up in California alone between 1849 and 1856.”
These groups were, in the words of historian Marcus Cunliffe, “volunteer companies existing independently of the statewide system of militia, and they held themselves aloof from the common mass. They provided their own uniforms.”
They also elected their own officers, did their own fundraising, staffed their own governing boards, and sought out for themselves a secure position within the communities where members lived. In earlier decades, especially the 1830s and 1840s, these groups tended to be “elite” in the sense that they attracted upper middle– and upper-class members of the community. This was in many cases because of the cost of funding these volunteer militias.
As a member of the Detroit Light Guard remembered, “at that time the company got nothing from the State. They had to pay for all they got, uniforms and all.”
But by the 1850s, firearms and uniforms were becoming more affordable to the middle and working classes. This brought in many new members from outside the local elite circles of established families. Moreover, some militias were able to solicit funding from wealthy members of the community who acted as patrons. The case of the Richardson Light Guard (RLG) is instructive:
The RLG came into being in South Reading, Massachusetts, in 1851, in response to a perceived shortage of militiamen in the years following the Mexican War. At the time, all that was necessary for the militia to be regarded as legally sanctions was for the group to “petition the governor” for what amounted to a nod of approval. This was granted. But at that point, the group still lacked funding. Although members paid dues, historian Barry Stentiford notes that “Dues were not enough [to] cover the expenses of the fledgling company, and committee members had to use their own money to carry out its business.”6
Members came up with a plan to offer “honorary memberships” to wealthy members of the community. The largest donor in this scheme was a man named Richardson, after whom the militia was soon named. Funding from prominent community members also added legitimacy to the group and ensured it would continue to be regarded as acommunity-sanctioned group of armed men.
Although the RLG enjoyed legal sanction, it was essentially a private organization, and Stentiford notes, “At its inception, the RLG belonged to its members, and to prominent residents of the town of South Reading. The town of South Reading, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the federal government occupied a diminishing hierarchy of influence.”
In other words, while everyone admitted local, state, and federal officials enjoyed some form of control of the militia, this authority was tentative at best.
Massachusetts wasn’t the only place were militias were privately funded and privately controlled. When Iowa became a US territory in 1838, for example, an “official” territorial militia was formed. On the other hand:
The formation of local militia groups was more relaxed in comparison to the State militia service. To form a local militia group one would simply ask for local men to sign up, name the group, possibly elect officials or form by-laws, and then write to the Iowa Territory legislature to introduce themselves and request weapons….If you received a positive letter back and weapons, you were a militia group in the Territory of Iowa.
Indeed, this sort of local—and even private ownership—was an increasingly common method of organizing militias by midcentury. Hummel concludes that “Because many volunteer units were privately organized, recruited, and equipped, the militia became a partially privatized system as well.”
Because of their local nature, many militias reflected local character as well—and access was hardly limited to national ethnic majorities. By the 1850s, immigrants had come to dominate many volunteer militias, with Irish, Scottish, and German militias becoming especially common. The Scottish militiamen wore kilts as part of their parade uniforms. The Italians created a “Guardia Nazionale Italiana.” Robert Ernst notes that the “significance of the immigrant military companies is evident in the fact that in 1853, more than 4,000 of the 6,000 uniformed militia in New York City were of foreign birth.”
Nor were militia groups limited to Christians. Jack D. Foner recounts in the American Jewish Archives Journal:
Jews in New York City formed military companies of their own. Troop K, Empire Hussars, was composed entirely of Jews, as was the Young Men’s Lafayette Association. A third unit, the Asmonean Guard, consisted of both Jewish and Christian employees of The Asmonean, one of the earliest Anglo-Jewish weekly newspapers. “Our employees,” commented the newspaper, “have been seized with this military mania, as they have enrolled themselves into an independent corps.”
As militias became more middle class, their names changed as well. Militias began to refer to themselves with names that might be used for sports teams today, including terms like “Invincibles,” “Avengers,” and “Snake Hunters.”
Dress uniforms were often extravagant and modeled on Napoleon’s troops earlier in the century. These groups were even known to impress foreigners. As one Englishman remarked: “They marched in sections, with a splendid band at their head and…it would be impossible to find a more military-looking, well-drilled body of men.”
These volunteer militias were attractive to potential members, because these groups served many social functions as well. As noted by historian Briton Cooper Busch, “in peacetime, all [volunteer militias] helped their communities celebrate festivals, holidays, and funerals with marches, balls, and banquets, helping out in emergencies, and often building an esprit de corps which established a basis for effective wartime service and even elite reputations.”
In many cases, membership in a local militia provided opportunities for social advancement, and “it was not uncommon for individual families to have long associations with these institutions.” For newcomers to any community, whether or not of foreign origin, “the militia company provided a means for newer residents to embed themselves into the fabric of the community.”
The volunteer militias played a similar role to that of the volunteer fire brigades of this period, which in many communities came to be dominated by immigrant groups and served as a way to and advance the social and economic lives of newcomers.
Militias Replaced by Full-Time Government Police and Centralized “National Guard”
Needless to say, this model of American militias is long gone from the imagination of nearly all Americans. Modern-day journalists and scholars have been hard at work attempting to connect militias, past and present, either to slavery or to fringe groups and vigilantism.
Moreover, many Americans now regard the idea of privately controlled bands of armed men with trepidation and fear.
As the size and scope of taxpayer-funded bureaucratic agencies grew throughout the nineteenth century, private volunteer militias were deemed increasingly unnecessary and undesirable. The late nineteenth century was a period during which states and the federal government went to great lengths to end the old system of locally controlled militias, and this was topped off by the Militia Act of 1903 which largely ended state autonomy in controlling state military resources as well. By 1945, the National Guard was well on its way to becoming little more than an auxiliary to the federal government’s military establishment, although some remnants of the old decentralized system remained.
When it comes to urban environments, these militia were in many respects replaced by today’s state and local police forces, which unlike the volunteer militias are on the job full-time and enjoy immunity and privileges far beyond what any militia member of old might have ever dreamed of having. Rather than private self-funded militias called out only occasionally to quell riots and uprisings, we have immense, taxpayer-paid police forces with military equipment, SWAT teams, and riot gear to carry out no-knock raids (often getting the address wrong).
The old militia system was by no means flawless, but this switch to a more centralized bureaucratic system is not without costs of its own, both in terms of dollars and the potential for abuse.
Moreover, as has become increasingly apparent in recent years, National Guard troops and local police forces are clearly inadequate to provide safety and security for private homes and businesses. Half of the nation’s violent crimes remain “unsolved” as police focus on petty drug offenses rather than homicides. Meanwhile—as happened in both Ferguson and Kenosha—National Guard troops focus their protection on government buildings while private businesses burn.
The dominant shapers of public opinion would have us believe that volunteer groups of armed men must be regarded with horror. Yet it is increasingly clear that the institutions that have replaced the militias of the past still leave much to be desired.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZaJRNv Tyler Durden
That’s because new research from the University of Oxford’s Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and the University of the West of England has found that the swab-based technique used for most COVID-19 testing is at risk of returning “false positives” since copies of the virus’s RNA detected by the tests might simply be dead, inactive material from a weeks-old infection. Although patients infected with COVID-19 are typically only infectious for a week or less, tests can be triggered by virus genetic material left over from a weeks-old infection.
The team’s research involved analyzing 25 studies on the widely used polymerase chain reaction test. PCR tests use material collected with a swab – the most common type of test around the world, and especially in the US – then utilize a “genetic photocopying” technique that allows scientists to magnify the small sample of genetic material collected, which they can then analyze for signs of viral RNA.
What the researchers here have effectively found is that these PCR tests just aren’t sensitive enough to distinguish if the viral material is active and infectious, or dead and inert.
For those who desire a more comprehensive understanding of how these tests work, the chart below can be helpful.
Professor Carl Heneghan, one of the authors of the study, said there was a risk that a surge in testing across the UK was increasing the risk of this sample contamination occurring and it may explain why the number of Covid-19 cases is rising but the number of deaths is static.
“Evidence is mounting that a good proportion of ‘new’ mild cases and people re-testing positives after quarantine or discharge from hospital are not infectious, but are simply clearing harmless virus particles which their immune system has efficiently dealt with,” he told the Spectator.
Professor Heneghan added that international scrutiny might be required to avoid “the dangers of isolating non-infectious people or whole communities.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3by5rjX Tyler Durden
If there is one expression that has defined the political arguments of 2020 it is Black Lives Matter and its many derivatives like All Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter and so on. But why is this the case? There is something in these statements that is very powerful, political and deeply ideological. Something about this reasoning is very effective. So, let’s take a look at its internal mechanics.
When people scream Black Lives Matter what do they really mean and why this particular wording has dominated recent political discourse?
Image: Just what exactly would lives “mattering” look like?
A Utopian Statement and the Dangers of Utopian Thinking
The first question we should ask is at what point someone’s life begins to matter to us. What does this “mattering” amount to? For something to matter to someone it has to be of enough importance to dedicate time/action/resources to it. If someone owns a dog (a non-human thus neutral entity to discuss) then providing it with food, time for interaction, and some degree of medical care would show that this dog’s life matters to its owner. If someone just leaves their animal on a chain outside in winter, throwing it the occasional rotting loaf of bread, then it would seem to not matter very much. Then again perhaps compared to being abandoned in the woods life on the chain might not be so bad for it.
But if we look beyond the individual dog owner, then all the millions of dogs in far off lands that live very well or conversely are eaten for meat do not matter because there is no means by which one could possibly somehow be supportive of all canines around the globe.
The dog owner could delude himself into thinking that by sharing videos about the evils of that dog meat festival he is somehow caring for all of man’s best friends planetwide. Perhaps hitting “share” is more than doing nothing, but anything seems massive when compared to absolute zero. The dog owner can provide care for his dog which is within the scope of his direct influence, he simply cannot exert concerned action across the entire Earth’s dog population.
One could argue that the above example doesn’t apply because governments can have influence over the lives of their subjects universally. The State can and does have vastly more power, wealth, resources and the ability to change lives than any one individual. So can a massive entity like the U.S. government with its millions of employed minds in theory make every dog’s life matter?
Apparently not, because all the efforts made by the government to solve problems x, y, and z, although they may improve the situation, never truly solve them. There has never been a moment in human existence where the U.S. government was able to care for every member of a certain group to the extent that a pet owner looks after their furry friend. Governments try to solve problems with law, bureaucracy and some occasional carrots and sticks. These are Technocratic Approaches which on their surface show some level of concern for a specific issue. But has any law ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt that XXX Lives Matter?
It is impossible for all lives of any large group to matter, it is not the way our minds or government works. As the quantity of faces grows in any group their names start to fade and they blur into a statistical mass. This is where the whole “One man’s death is a tragedy…” logic comes from.
This means that the belief in XXX Lives Matter is a Utopian belief. It is impossible for all lives of a certain group to matter due to the massiveness of the scope and debatable nature of the definition of “matters” as stated above. Thus, to believe in this line of thinking means the believer is confident that either…
Utopian Heaven-on-Earth style goals are achievable via protesting/activism/government.
The impossibility of this demand is a means of delegitimizing the regime in power.
Firstly, Utopian thinking sounds like another word for good-hearted optimism or hopefulness for the future, but it has a dark side. When one is sure that paradise can be achieved on Earth, then any barriers in the way of progress towards perfection can and must be crushed. You have to crack a few eggs to make a Utopian omelette. The French Revolutionaries, were sure that if they just got rid of the nobility everything would work out, The Russian Revolutionaries were sure that if they deleted the Kulaks from history then a Communist Utopia would start, and we all Know what Nazi Germany’s “Final Solution” entailed. When we believe in an impossibly idyllic state of existence we can often fall prey to Extremism as a means to achieve it.
Regarding the second point, if we look at the demands of Color Revolutionaries they are always vague. They usually revolve around freedom or ending repression or something else that is abstract and hard to measure. Somehow in the country that Washington does not like X situation is happening and must be resolved, the current regime is the cause of X or cannot stop it and must be removed so this X issue can be settled. The key to this equation is making X impossible like giving everyone freedom or convincing a group of millions that their lives will matter, all you need to do is get in a new leader by hook or by crook.
Image: Street violence may determine whose lives actually matter.
Conflicting Statements vie for Dominance
If we shift away from Utopian thought to the perspective of straight bigotry then the picture looks very different. When one wears a T-shirt that says XXX Lives Matter, regardless of what is going on in the individual’s subconscious, what they are demanding is in effect preference for their favoured group. If a group is actually in danger or is repressed does not matter, the individual activist believes that this group’s plight deserves preferential attention in the media and government. This means that any of these sorts of statements could be an assertion of dominance. If XXX Lives Matter then YYY and ZZZ Lives are of less importance and do not need to be discussed or pandered to in Washington.
Furthermore, when one screams that certain lives matter they are trying to assert a dominant narrative. When someone says Black Lives Matter this ranges from a firm belief that Blacks in America are not living the American Dream on equal footing to a full-blown Cultural Marxist view that Blacks are inherently the victims of some sort of colonial racial hierarchy. When someone in their MAGA hat yells out that Blue Lives Matter they are basically saying that they are a Statist and the State is good. This person despite their “Don’t Tread on Me” and “Taxation is Theft” bumper stickers believes deep down that the authorities that rule over them are not only good but generally benevolent and that you should just submit to power like they do. These two examples are derived from very different narratives about what has and is happening in America.
It Cannot Be Denied
XXX Lives Matter also functions as an “if-then” statement. If Black Lives Matter then you must pursue some Radical Leftist agenda, hate Trump and knock over statues. If Blue Lives Matter then you must always stand for the national anthem, vote Trump and side with the police even when a Black man in handcuffs winds up bleeding out from bullet holes in the gutter.
Essentially, the conclusions that one should draw from these statements has already been worked out and is not up for discussion. Any form of rejection or questioning of the “then” part of this if-then statement means that you are against XXX group. It is the classic “if you don’t agree with me you’re a bad person” style reasoning which continues to win ideological battles deep into our 21st century.
As a lad of America’s Rust Belt I would argue that the death of decent paying medium-skilled jobs especially those at factories are a core issue for race relations in my hometown. It was a lot easier to get along when Blacks and Whites went to factory jobs together, got the same salaries, had face-to-face interactions and felt stability in their lives. If Black Lives Matter why does employment rarely come up as an issue and if it does it is only in terms of “Affirmative Action” which only furthers racial stress?
That is because reasoned debate is not part of XXX Lives Mattering. Any attempt to sway away from the preconceived mainstream conclusion of this given social problem is pure heresy. My desire to see Blacks and Whites have the value of their lives improved through labor is probably racist. XXX Lives Matter cannot be denied or debated.
And the Ideological Weapon of the Year Award goes to…
Each type of XXX Lives Matter comes with it a deep seeded historical narrative and ideological worldview that is very often in conflict with one or more of its competitors and in many ways the street and political conflicts of America in 2020 will very much determine whose lives will actually matter in the upcoming decades. Whoever will scream the loudest will matter the most.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3bxBnoY Tyler Durden
MLB Ratings Crash As Wokeness Takes Its Toll Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/05/2020 – 20:20
Primetime ratings for Major League Baseball are in freefall, as the season began with players kneeling for the National Anthem and standing for Black Lives Matter.
The scoreboard at Oracle Park in San Francisco, Aug. 26
The league joins the ‘highly political NBA,’ which has turned off a large portion of its audience and seen ratings suffer as a result.
People are tired of watching the highly political @NBA. Basketball ratings are WAY down, and they won’t be coming back. I hope football and baseball are watching and learning because the same thing will be happening to them. Stand tall for our Country and our Flag!!!
Sunday, baseball’s flagship primetime night, has been particularly bad. As Sports Media Watch reports, last Weekend’s edition of Sunday Night Baseball was down 30 percent over last year.
The site reported that the “Braves-Phillies earned a 0.8 and 1.20 million on ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball (including ESPN2 Statcast coverage) — down 30% in ratings and 33% in viewership from week five of last season (5/5/19: Cardinals-Cubs: 1.1, 1.81M), but up a tick and 2% respectively from last year’s comparable date (9/1/19 Mets-Phillies: 0.7, 1.19M).
Saturday wasn’t much better – with Sports Media Watch reporting that “FOX averaged a 0.9 rating and 1.36 million viewers for regional Major League Baseball last Saturday afternoon (Braves-Phillies or Indians-Cardinals), marking its smallest MLB audience in two years.”
Meanwhile, a study cited by Breitbart reveals that most fans think the NBA’s politicization, along with its fealty to China, has made them stop watching.
Get woke, go broke.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/320OmMr Tyler Durden
The early classical economists — Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Mill, Marshall, and others — were keenly interested in the role that the young and the aged played in building wealth.
Living at a time when birth rates were high and populations were expanding, they wanted to determine how demographic growth changed wages, savings, and output; which classes benefited; and whether a larger population was a long-term blessing.
Two centuries on, Peter Peterson, in his book Gray Dawn, warns that we might pose a different question: What happens to the wealth of nations when the populations get old and begin to shrink?
In this chapter, we look at the effects of demographic shift… not because it is the only trend in place, but because it is one easily missed.
The Twin Pressures of Population Growth and Diminishing Available Resources
In his book Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World, the historian Jack Andrew Goldstone argues that the great revolutions of Europe — the English and French revolutions — had one thing in common with the great rebellions of Asia that destroyed the Ottoman Empire and dynasties in Japan and China.
All these crises occurred when inflexible political, economic, and social institutions were faced with the twin pressures of population growth and diminishing available resources.
Across Europe in the early 1700s, populations began to increase as mortality rates from disease (such as plague) and famine declined, and birth rates remained high. A large excess of births over deaths during much of the early modern period produced a baby boom.
According to demographer Michael Anderson, the population in Europe doubled in the 100 years between 1750 and 1850. The “age of democratic revolution” in the late 1700s, including the French Revolution, coincided with an expansion in the proportion of young people.
Demographics and the French Revolution
A large, unruly, and youthful rural population was a leading cause of social stress in France prior to and during the Revolution. The population of France grew by 8 to 10 million people in the eighteenth century.
By contrast, in the previous century, the population had only increased by a million. Around 1772, Abbé Terray began the first serious survey of demographics in France. Terray pegged the population at 26 million.
By 1789, the eve of the French Revolution, Louis XVI is thought to have had nearly 30 million subjects in his realm — more than 20% of the entire population of non-Russian Europe.
These numbers, suggests a study published by George Mason University, had to have some effect. Arguably, they changed France both politically and economically. And, we might add, cost Louis his kingdom… and his neck.
Russia
Likewise, the Russian population doubled between the 1850s and the beginning of World War I. From 1855 until 1913, the population of the Russian Empire increased from about 73 million to about 168 million.
The stress of feeding and providing shelter for that many people was too great for the existing order. The principal problem in the countryside was shortage of land. Rapid population growth meant that the size of allotments decreased from an average size of just over five hectares in 1861 to less than three in 1900.
In the West, industry absorbed the swelling population, but Russia could only put about one third of its new population on the assembly line. There was a growing feeling that, unless something was done, the countryside would soon explode. The peasants had a simple solution to their problems — confiscate all private lands owned by the landlords.
In a paper presented at the European Population Conference 2001, the Russian historian Lev Protasov suggested that prior to the Russian Revolution, demographic factors played an important role in stirring up the masses.
Curiously, a striking number of the radicals who helped foment the revolution were born in 1880. “The 1880s’ generation,” says Protasov, “made up almost 60% radicals and dominated the left factions: 62% of socialist revolutionaries, 58% of the Bolsheviks, 63% of the ‘national’ socialists and 47% of the Mensheviks. To be sure the powerful showing of young radicals in the early 20th century has been noted by historians.”
In rural areas, peasants spit out children like watermelon seeds, leaving villages overwhelmed and “overheated.” Infant and child mortality rates fell thanks to better health care, nutrition, and sanitation.
“The Russian political cataclysms of 1905 and 1917 were ‘prepared’ not only by economic or political causes,” concludes Protasov, “but by nature acting out its own laws. The demographic bursts in the last decades of the 19th century, not only sharpened modernization problems, but speeded up the marginalization of society and gave abundant ‘human material’ to the first lines of the future revolution makers.”
Youth and Revolution
In his Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington considers demographics to have been a major factor in political revolutions going back to the Protestant Reformation.
“The Protestant Reformation,” writes Huntington, “is an example of one of the outstanding youth movements in history.”
Citing Jack Goldstone, Huntington continues, “a notable expansion of the proportion of youth in Western countries coincides with the Age of Democratic Revolution in the last decades of the 18th century. In the 19th century successful industrialization and emigration reduced the political impact of young populations in European societies. The proportion of youth rose again in the 1920s, however, providing recruits to fascist and other extreme movements. Four decades later the post-World War II baby boom generation made its mark in the demonstrations of the 1960s.”
Population explosions have caused trouble. But now populations are falling. The effect could be equally devastating:
As all developed nations rely on taxes paid by young workers to support aging retirees, a declining and aging population will arrive just when the Western societies need more young people most.
Whereas young people generally exhibit a rebellious and revolutionary influence on society, what happens when people grow old? The exact opposite.
Turning Japanese
Fearfulness and loss of desire commonly accompany aging. Older people tend not to want as many things in life as young people. They lose their desire to impress friends, relatives, and partners.
Instead of buying items they don’t need, they tend to become fearful that they will not be able to obtain what they do need. There is nothing peculiar about this; it is just nature’s way of recognizing diminishing opportunities.
A man in his forties can start over. But in his late sixties, he no longer has the energy or the desire to do so. He therefore starts saving everything — tinfoil, money, rags — for fear he will not be able to get them when he needs them.
This is how an elderly individual tends to behave. But what does an aging society look like? We need only look across the ocean — to Japan.
They have been fighting a deflationary environment since the early 1990s, with no end in sight.
The rest of the developed world could also be turning Japanese — fighting a deflationary environment with no end in sight.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3i74rWO Tyler Durden
