iftttwall

Authored by Amir Taheri via The Gatestone Institute,

“The world has stepped into a slippery patch, and we need to steady it.” This is how Benjamin Disraeli saw the international scene in the early 1880s.

André Maurois, the French biographer of the British Prime Minister, claims that Disraeli had become aware that the British Empire could no longer rule the waves alone and that others had to be invited to the banquet of global power. That analysis led to the convening of the Berlin Conference which, starting in November 1884, continued until February 1885.

The British trick was to site the conference in Berlin and flatter Otto von Bismarck, Germany’s “iron chancellor”, into believing that, as the new strongman in Europe, he was running the show. Bismarck, the arch warmonger, was cast as peace-maker trying to temper rivalry among European colonial powers.

Still smarting from its humiliating defeat by the Prussians a decade earlier, France was the other “great power” present, along with the ailing Austro-Hungarian empire. Also invited was Russia, still licking wounds inflicted by its defeat in the Crimean War. The newly independent Italy and the Ottoman Empire, labeled the “sick-man of Europe”, were also given seats at the banquet table.

Smaller players like Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Sweden (which then also included Norway) received tripods at the table. The surprise guest was the United States, the only power not involved in the colonial game but already seen as a contender for world leadership.

While the conference was focused on carving up Africa, more specifically the Congo, it also offered implicit endorsement of the zones of influence established by European colonial powers, while the US achieved recognition of the Monroe Doctrine (1823) that restricted European empire-building activities in the New Hemisphere. The compromise reached in Berlin kept the peace until the First World War.

The question now is whether we need another Berlin conference to reconcile conflicting ambitions that are fomenting instability and war in several regions.

Today, as in the 1880s, big, small and even mini wannabe empire-builders are engaged in a ruthless power game.

The most intense activity comes from Russia and China.

Having recovered from its nightmarish Soviet experience, Russia is reverting to nationalistic ambitions that inspired the conquering tsars for centuries. Russia has annexed territories from Ukraine and Georgia and casts itself as master of Syria’s destiny. It is also trying to carve a zone of influence in Libya while waging what looks like lukewarm war against Western democracies. Using the concept of “near neighborhood,” Russia projects political and at times military power in Transcaucasia and Central Asia. Russia is also treating several countries, notably Serbia and Iran, as glacis in its non-declared empire-building project.

Western powers are beginning to wake up to the new Russian threat, at times with exaggerated rhetoric. A prestigious British weekly, for example, devotes its cover to what it calls Russia’s “plan to destroy Western civilization”. As in the 1950s, when people saw “reds under the bed”, some in the West detect a Russian hand in everything, including Brexit and American presidential elections.

China, for its part, is projecting power all over the world while bullying some neighbors and bribing others into submission. When deemed necessary, it also acts with military force, as it did recently along the ceasefire line with India. China treats some African, Asian and Latin American countries, notably Congo-Kinshasa, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Ecuador as abatis or territory left by previous masters and open for pickings by new reapers.

As in the 1880s, today we also have midget empire-builders.

Turkey is trying to carve out a piece of Syria, and, talking about a revision of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). It hopes to snatch part of Iraq. It is also projecting power in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, north Cyprus, Azerbaijan and Qatar.

Iran is also trying to stay in the game, either through proxies and mercenaries as in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, or as Sancho Panza to Russian and Chinese Don Quixotes.

For its part, India has imposed hegemony on several neighbors, notably Nepal and Bhutan, while finalizing annexation of the disputed part of Jammu and Kashmir.

Overall, in economic, political and even military terms, Western powers, still nominally led by the United States, remain involved in all continents but are increasingly behaving as if their hearts, not to say their pockets, are no longer in it.

Under Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, the US has flirted with isolationism without, however, abandoning front-stage.

Among European powers, France is still active in parts of Africa, including a mini-war against militants in the Sahel. More recently, France has also tried to claim a role as protector and savior of a Lebanon on the edge of systemic collapse.

As for Germany, it seems that its hapless Foreign Minister Heiko Maas has no ambition beyond caressing the corpse of the Obama “nuclear deal” with Iran.

Despite claims that Brexit would allow Great Britain to seek a broader international role, there are no signs that the new leadership in London is capable of developing a global strategy even as a medium-sized power.

The European Union may be an economic giant but remains a political dwarf in terms of global power, a fact borne out by its choice of a fifth-rate diplomat as foreign policy point-man.

The current lukewarm war may never morph into a hot one, but the risk should not be dismissed. Today, projecting power with low-intensity war, often waged through inexpensive proxies as Iran does in Lebanon, or through mercenaries as Russia does in Syria and Libya, enables even relatively poor countries to cast a larger shadow than they deserve. While a full-scale conventional war is too expensive for most nations, fairly inexpensive down-market war via roadside bombs, terrorism, hostage-taking, missile fireworks, cyber-attacks and drone strikes are available even to semi-solvent powers such as Iran and North Korea.

A new Berlin Conference may be needed to cool things down and construct a new rule-based international order. But at a time that even the next G-7 summit may not take place, who is going to take the initiative?

That’s the million-dollar question.

Even though BoJo’s system of localized COVID-19 measures seems to be working, the unrelenting hysteria peddled by the British press has left millions of Britons traumatized.

Now, Carl Heneghan, a professor of Evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, is calling for the government to intervene and “proactively reassure” his young students that the coronavirus won’t kill them if they contract it.

He said exaggerated fears of the virus have led to “people going about their daily lives misunderstanding and overestimating their risk,” something with which many Americans can probably empathize.

And as parts of north Manchester remain on ‘partial lockdown’, the professor said introducing local lockdowns could do more harm than good by forcing people into their homes, potentially infecting other vulnerable people who live with them, especially as the temperature drops.

Professor Heneghan’s work has led to a lowering of the official death toll after he revealed COVID-19 deaths were being counted even if someone had subsequently died of other causes.

As we learn more about the virus, the pandemic could end up no worse than a bad flu season, the professor said, with a touch of hyperbole.

The UK’s large death toll may hint at a larger number of cases left undiscovered, some have argued. Others have blamed failures in protecting the vulnerable populations living in care homes.

Heneghan’s work ‘reframing’ how COVID-19 deaths are counted could eventually lead to the world seeing far fewer deaths than were actually reported (while many still went uncounted). But as we’ve come to understand how to treat COVID-19 more effectively, society hasn’t recalibrated its fear of the virus.

“We reset how we calculate the death rates. We now need to reset how we communicate the risks of the virus.”

“I am concerned people have become overly frightened and throughout this pandemic, the fear instilled in people has been a real problem.”

“Many people misunderstand and overestimate their risk of Covid. This uncertainty is leaving them highly anxious and affecting schools, offices and how we go about our daily lives. The government needs to intervene to explain to people their true risks.”

But as the death rate has declined, it’s notable that cases and deaths have continued to decline even as society has opened up.

It’s all just one more reason to support the Swedish approach.

Authored by Jack Philips via The Epoch Times,

A new outbreak of the Ebola virus has infected 100 people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Equateur Province, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), which said several dozen people have died.

The outbreak was first declared on June 1 in the province, and a cluster was first found in Mbandaka, the capital.

“The outbreak has since spread to 11 of the province’s 17 health zones. Of the 100 cases reported so far, 96 are confirmed and four are probable,” the agency said.

Some 43 people have died from the deadly virus, which causes hemorrhagic fever.

“The outbreak presents significant logistical challenges, with affected communities spanning large distances in remote and densely-forested areas of the province, which straddles the Equator,” said WHO.

“At its widest points, the outbreak is spread across approximately 200 miles both from east to west and from north to south.”

The agency said that providing relief to affected populations can take days. Supplies and first responders have to travel areas that don’t have roads and may have to rely on river boat travel, according to WHO.

Burial workers put on their protective gear before carrying the remains of Mussa Kathembo, an Islamic scholar who had prayed over those who were sick, and his wife Asiya to their final resting place in Beni, Congo DRC, on July 14, 2019.  (Jerome Delay/AP Photo)

In the same province, an outbreak of Ebola occurred in May 2018, killing at least 33 people.

“With 100 Ebola cases in less than 100 days, the outbreak in Equateur Province is evolving in a concerning way,” said Dr. Matshidiso Moeti with WHO.

“The virus is spreading across a wide and rugged terrain which requires costly interventions and with COVID-19 draining resources and attention, it is hard to scale-up operations.”

Earlier in August, Congolese Ebola health workers protested over unpaid wages.

The provincial health minister, Bruno Efoloko, said the governor had concluded negotiations with the striking workers late on Monday afternoon. They were protesting against the health ministry’s recent publication of their pay scales, which they thought were too low, and the government’s failure to pay them since the start of the new epidemic, Keita said.

“The negotiations were successful. The laboratory is now operational,” Efoloko told Reuters, adding that some lab technicians had returned to work after the talks. 

“The national ministry of health promises to examine their claims,” Efoloko said. “We will continue to educate others for an effective resumption of activities.”

In June, Congo celebrated the end of a separate Ebola outbreak in the east of the country, the second-worst on record, which killed more than 2,200 people over two years.

WHO said over the weekend that the current response is indeed in need of funding.

“Without extra support the teams on the ground will find it harder to get ahead of the virus,” said Dr. Moeti.

“COVID-19 is not the only emergency needing robust support. As we know from our recent history we ignore Ebola at our peril.”

He was referring to the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via NationalReview.com,

In a flash, it’s been blown away, revealing the barbarism beneath. The seeds of destruction were planted long ago…

Nine months ago, New York was a thriving, though poorly governed, metropolis. It was coasting on the more or less good governance of its prior two mayors and on its ancestral role as the global nexus of finance and capital.

The city is now something out of a postmodern apocalyptic movie, reeling from the effects of a neutron bomb. Ditto in varying degrees Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco — the anti-broken-windows metropolises of America. Walking in San Francisco today reminds me of visiting Old Cairo in 1973, although the latter lacked the needles and feces of the former.

At the present increasing rate of police defunding, homeless encampments, the emptying of jails and prisons, the green-lighting of rioting and vandalism, the flight of the wealthy, the revolutionary change to Skype/Zoom tele-working, and the exodus of upper-middle-class liberal families to safe houses in the New York and New England countryside, once beautiful New York City is in danger of becoming the nation’s aneurysm. That is, after the “recovery,” it and other blue cities may be seen as permanent weak veins and arteries prone to sudden fatal hemorrhaging that could implode at any moment, and thus may become metaphorically tied off, as the country reroutes around them.

In the old days of 2019, tolerant Americans more or less accepted that finely crafted statues of sometimes less than inspiring and formerly illustrious (to some) heroes were part of our history. For example, integral to California’s rich historical culture were its missions, acknowledged by Father Serra’s numerous eponymous streets and statues. No one in his right mind believed that renaming a mall named Serra at Stanford University would help mitigate the weekend murder rate in Chicago or the endemic poverty of illegal aliens in my own neighborhood.

The same allowance for imperfection by present standards was made for Robert E. Lee, a capable though not brilliant strategist, and by the standards of his time and space considered a good man who fought for a terrible cause. His name and likeliness were reminders to Americans of the tragedy of the Civil War that saw 700,000 Americans die in the struggle to end slavery. Focusing on inner-city gun violence or abortion or integrating the public schools with the scions of the white upper class might do far more for racial relations than toppling more bronze horses and riders. But that is the point: Focus on the irrelevant misdemeanor as therapy for ignoring the existential felony.

But that idea of live and let live with the past is ancient history now — and hundreds of decapitated and defaced statues ago. A mindless mob, appeased and enabled by a terrified establishment, has systematically and with impunity been destroying as many of the referents of American history as it can.

The fools of the bipartisan elite at first believed the iconoclasm was selective, rational, and measured. It was not. The point was never to fixate on the sins of the ancient slaveholder, or the European discoverer of America, or the author of Don Quixote.

Nor was the point to topple the bad in order to commission the better to take its place. (After all, for these statue-topplers, what icon might be substituted, given the array of their progressive heroes such as Wilsonian racists, mass-murdering Maoists, thugs masquerading as revolutionaries such as Che, or liberal icons like the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, or even the interment-signer FDR?)

The point instead was to destroy and deface most all images of America, from Frederick Douglass and Ulysses S. Grant to Lincoln and World War II heroes such as Churchill. The strategy of the Left was that if they could easily wage war on the bronze and stone of the past without repercussions, then as fear and terror mounted, they could turn to the flesh-and-blood enemies of the people in the present. Anyone who with impunity burns books — including the Bible — vandalizes memorials, defaces public buildings, or topples statues at night eventually gets around to trying out such violence on real people of the present. Portland is a good example, as the spoiled of the middle class seek each night to ignite a police station to roast the officers barricaded inside. Another is Chicago, where looters target high-end boutiques mouthing slogans of social justice.

Once upon a time, trying to torch a federal courthouse would earn years in prison. And simply taking over a large chunk of a downtown to re-create Lord of the Flies was unthinkable. Not now…

Today you can go to jail for reopening a gym that requires masks, social distancing, and constant cleansing with antiseptics.

But you will not go to jail if you assemble en masse to riot, unmasked, armored with makeshift padding, umbrellas, and helmets, and you’re free to shout and spray in the faces of officers and fellow looters and rioters alike.

Yet this is the hard phase, the Jacobin moment of the Revolution.

And we have not seen the full extent of the ongoing counterrevolution that will thin out the violent in the streets and in some ways fall more heavily on those who have empowered it. There will be a counterrevolution because without one there is not much of America left. And about 250 million people liked the America prior to March 1 and finally, in extremis, won’t so easily give it up. Washington and Lincoln, after all, do not just belong to some unhinged Antifa thug mad at America because he is mostly mad at himself. To almost every Jacobin tactic, from defunding the police to violent attacks on federal property, the people are opposed. And they make no apologies for their past or present.

What will the counterrevolutionary entail in areas beyond politics?

I wager that the NBA, the NFL, and perhaps even major-league baseball will soon have a come-to-Jesus moment. Either they will continue with the kneeling, the left-wing sloganeering, the mock-heroic logos, and the finger-pointing at their audiences, and thus slowly grow shriller and more irrelevant as Americans refuse to subsidize insults to their persons and country — or they will quietly return to the pre-Kaepernick world (as the NFL, for example, had in 2019) when politics was seen as bad business in a business, for-profit sport.

If the virus, lockdown, recession, and street violence have taught us anything, it’s that Americans don’t need LeBron James offering another pro-Chinese banality, another Kaepernick ad that hails his “courage,” or another appeasing quarterback fresh out of a North-Korean-like reeducation camp, apologizing for his now incorrect honoring of the flag.

The universities told us that they could charge $80,000 a year for the “campus experience,” that piling up $200,000 in debt for a B.A. degree was a wise investment, and that such campus intellectuals and progressives needed to pay no attention to the Bill of Rights. Fine. But all such nonsense was predicated on the belief that their brands were worth the cost, and the experience on campus was both unique and precious.

In the past year, the curtain pulled away and the con was exposed. You can stay home and tele-learn without stepping foot on a campus — a poor substitute for live teaching, but not so poor a substitute given the cost, the debt, and the indoctrination.  The advantage of a Princeton or Stanford degree is now exposed not as proof of a superior education, but simply the purchase of a cattle brand to separate one’s future career from the herd — not much different from having Michael Jordan’s name on an otherwise pedestrian pair of tennis shoes.

At some point the public will want the federal government to turn over the student-loan-guaranteeing business to the universities, which will then cut costs. Endowments of such politicized and warped institutions will soon be taxed. And America will let go of the idea that a 21st-century B.A. degree has anything to do with knowledge, inductive thinking, and learning. After all, somebody “educated” those privileged, prolonged adolescents whom we see nightly in the streets, the environmentalists who leave trash and flotsam and jetsam as their trail, the woke who shout in the face of black police and arrogantly appoint themselves the anarchist brains of BLM, the compassionate who try to burn down, blind, attack the elderly, and destroy anything they cannot themselves create.

Polls show that Americans by overwhelming numbers now believe that the media are hopelessly biased. NBC and other networks and cable outlets are laying off employees. The no-holds-barred arenas of the Internet and social media are replacing newspapers and televised news as sources of public information — not because they are more accurate or less biased, but because consumers can access their bias and inaccuracy at far cheaper prices. Woke journalists have bragged that they no longer need to be anachronistically disinterested in the age of Trump. So why pay a marquee reporter $200,000 when you can get a comparable flack to write the same stuff online for a tenth of the price?

The Sixties generation is going out as it came in: gross, loud, and cowardly, destroying the very institutions for others that it so selfishly consumed for its own benefit.

If we wish to know why America’s veneer of civilization was so thin, and this year so easily scraped away, revealing barbarism beneath, look to a generation’s architects in the university, the media, sports, corporations, and politics who long ago seeded their cultural IEDs and are now giddy they are at last going off, though terrified that the ensuing blasts are reverberating ever closer to home.

Purchasing a gun is difficult these days, especially since demand is soaring as concerned Americans are arming up as the country transforms into a violent mess.

Readers have already been briefed, on multiple occasions, of the developing ammo shortage this year. 

• Fears Of Nationwide 9MM Ammo Shortage Sparks Panic Hoarding

• Surging Gun Sales Triggers Second Ammo Shortage Of This Year

We first shined the spotlight on surging gun and ammo demand at the start of the virus pandemic. Then found demand for weapons and bullets rose in early summer as social unrest unfolded.

Now the Financial Times sheds more color from within gun and ammo manufacturers and distributors of the unprecedented demand in the last six months. 

Arizona-based Ammo Inc, an ammunition manufacturer, reported 2Q20 revenues jumped 125% to $9.7 million. Fred Wagenhals, chief executive of Ammo, said there had been an “extraordinary” demand for its retail hunting, sports shooting, and self-defense products. He said the company is working through a record $45 million backlogs in orders.

Mark Hanish, Ammo’s president of global sales and marketing, described ammo demand for semi-automatic handguns and the AR-15 as “intense.” 

“In past [election] run-ups, your traditional folks who were already gun owners would purchase more. This is brand new people,” Hanish said, attributing the influx of new buyers to the confluence of the pandemic, the election and concern about “civil unrest and uncertainty.”

Hanish said the spike in gun and ammo demand is more for self-protection rather than the fear of losing gun rights. As a result, he said, “I don’t expect people to go back to being complacent” should President Trump win in November. 

Gun stocks soared this summer as Americans panic hoarded guns and ammo. Weapon background checks surged to record highs, rose 79% in July year-over-year amid pandemic fears and violent social unrest gripping major metros.

Another company, Clarus Corporation’s Sierra ammunition brand, reported a 36% increase in sales in 2Q20. The company explained the rise in ammo demand is due to “social and civil uncertainties and the upcoming US elections.” 

In July, Sturm, Ruger & Co. told investors gun sales were up as personal protection became popular with Americans following social unrest. The company reported a 47% increase in gun and ammo sales in 1H20.

Olin Corp, the owner of the Winchester brand, said 2Q20 ammo sales were the strongest since 2016. 

Vista Outdoor, the owner of brands including Bushnell rifle scopes and Federal ammunition, said: 

“We’re seeing stockpiling happening to a certain degree, but the free time has given people more opportunities to recreate in real-time,” Vista Outdoor CEO Christopher Metz told investors. 

If you haven’t figured out by now, America is getting more dangerous, society is imploding under the weight of depressionary unemployment – before you know it, there’s going to be a run on a bulletproof vest.  

Authored by Sara Carter via saraacarter.com

White House Senior Advisor KellyAnne Conway and her husband anti-Trump Lincoln Project founder and lawyer George Conway made a stunning announcement Sunday night that both were leaving their very public and divided political positions to spend more time with their children.

KellyAnne posted her announcement on Twitter in a dropbox PDF belonging to her husbands account. In her announcement, which was not written on formal White House stationary she stated that her children must come first.

“I’m leaving the White House,” KellyAnne Conway said. “Gratefully & Humbly.”

I’m Leaving the White House. Gratefully & Humbly.

Here is my statement:https://t.co/MpYxVfrY2N

God Bless You All.

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) August 24, 2020

The past four years have allowed me blessings beyond compare as a part of history on Election Night 2016 and as Senior Counselor to the President. It’s been heady. It’s been humbling. I am deeply grateful to the President for this honor, and tothe First Lady, the Vice President and Mrs. Pence, my colleagues in the White House and the Administration, and the countless people who supported me and my work. As many convention speakers will demonstrate this week, President Trump’s leadership has hada measurable, positive impact on the peace and prosperity of the nation, and on millions of Americans who feel forgotten no more.The incredible men, women and children we’ve met along the way have reaffirmed my later-in-life experience that public service can be meaningful and consequential. For all of its political differences and cultural cleavages, this is a beautiful country filled with amazing people. The promise of America belongs to us all. I will be transitioning from the White House at the end of this month. George is also making changes. We disagree about plenty but we are united on what matters most: the kids. Our four children are teens and ‘tweens starting a new academic year, in middle school and high school, remotely from home for at least a few months. As millions of parents nationwide know, kids “doing school from home” requires a level of attention and vigilance that is as unusual as these times. This is completely my choice and my voice. In time, I will announce future plans. For now, and for my beloved children, it will be less drama, more mama.

KellyAnne’s resignation letter contained a link to her husband’s Tweet, in which George Conway announced that he would be leaving the never Trump Lincoln Project to also be with his children and family.

“So I’m withdrawing from @ProjectLincoln to devote more time to family matters,” said George Conway. “And I’ll be taking a Twitter hiatus. Needless to say, I continue to support the Lincoln Project and its mission.Passionately.”

So I’m withdrawing from @ProjectLincoln to devote more time to family matters. And I’ll be taking a Twitter hiatus.

Needless to say, I continue to support the Lincoln Project and its mission. Passionately.

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) August 24, 2020

Listen to The Sara Carter Show here.

Authored by Philip Giraldi,

Some Americans continue to believe that when they go to the internet they will get a free flow of useful information that will guide them in making decisions or coming to conclusions about the state of the world.

That conceit might have been true to an extent twenty years ago, but the growth and consolidation of corporate information management firms has instead limited access to material that it does not approve of, thereby successfully shaping the political and economic environment to conform with their own interests.

Facebook, Google and other news and social networking sites now all have advisory panels that are authorized to ban content and limit access by members.

This de facto censorship is particularly evident when using the internet information “search” sites themselves, a “service” that is dominated by Google. Ron Unz has observed how when the CEO of Google Sundar Pichai faced congressional scrutiny on July 29th together with other high-tech executives, the questioning was hardly rigorous and no one even asked how the sites are regulated to promote certain information that is approved of while suppressing views or sources that are considered to be undesirable.

The “information” sites generally get a free pass from government scrutiny because they are useful to those who run the country from Washington and Wall Street.

That the internet is a national security issue was clearly demonstrated when the Barack Obama Administration sought to develop a switch that could be used to “kill it” in the event of a national crisis. No politician or corporate chief executive wants to get on the bad side of Big Tech and find his or her name largely eliminated from online searches, or, alternatively, coming up all too frequently with negative connotations.

Google, for example, ranks the information that it displays so it can favor certain points of view and dismiss others. Generally speaking, progressive sites are favored and conservative sites are relegated to the bottom of the search with the expectation that they will not be visited. In late July, investigative journalists noted that  Google was apparently testing its technical ability to blacklist conservative media on its search engine which processes more than 3.5 billion online searches every day, comprising 94 percent of internet searching. Sites targeted and made to effectively disappear from results included NewsBusters, the Washington Free Beacon, The Blaze, Townhall, The Daily Wire, PragerU, LifeNews, Project Veritas, Judicial Watch, The Resurgent, Breitbart, Drudge, Unz, the Media Research Center and CNSNews. All the sites affected are considered to be politically conservative and no progressive or liberal sites were included.

One has to suspect that the tech companies like Google are working hand-in-hand with some regulators within the Trump administration to “purge” the internet, primarily by removing foreign competition both in hardware and software from countries like China. This will give the ostensibly U.S. companies monopoly status and will also allow the government to have sufficient leverage to control the message. If this process continues, the internet itself will become nationally or regionally controlled and will inevitably cease to be a vehicle for free exchange of views. Recent steps taken by the U.S. to block Huawei 5G technology and also force the sale of sites like TikTok have been explained as “national security” issues, but they are more likely designed to control aspects of the internet.

Washington is also again beating the familiar drum that Russia is interfering in American politics, with an eye on the upcoming election. Last week saw the released of a 77 page report produced by the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) on Russian internet based news and opinion sources that allegedly are guilty of spreading disinformation and propaganda on behalf of the Kremlin. It is entitled “Understanding Russia’s Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem” and has a lead paragraph asserting that “Russia’s disinformation and propaganda ecosystem is the collection of official, proxy, and unattributed communication channels and platforms that Russia uses to create and amplify false narratives.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, The New York Times is hot on the trail of Russian malfeasance, describing the report and its conclusions in a lengthy article “State Dept. Traces Russian Disinformation Links” that appeared on August 5th.

The government report identifies a number of online sites that it claims are actively involved in the “disinformation” effort. The Times article focuses on one site in particular, describing how “The report states that the Strategic Culture Foundation [website] is directed by Russia’s foreign intelligence service, the S.V.R., and stands as ‘a prime example of longstanding Russian tactics to conceal direct state involvement in disinformation and propaganda outlets.’ The organization publishes a wide variety of fringe voices and conspiracy theories in English, while trying to obscure its Russian government sponsorship.” It also quotes Lea Gabrielle, the GEC Director, who explained that “The Kremlin bears direct responsibility for cultivating these tactics and platforms as part of its approach of using information and disinformation as a weapon.”

As Russia has been falsely accused of supporting the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and the existence of alternative news sites funded wholly or in part by a foreign government is not ipso facto an act of war, it is interesting to note the “evidence” that The Times provides based on its own investigation to suggest that Moscow is about to disrupt the upcoming election. It is:

“Absent from the report is any mention of how one of the writers for the Strategic Culture Foundation weighed in this spring on a Democratic primary race in New York. The writer, Michael Averko, published articles on the foundation’s website and in a local publication in Westchester County, N.Y., attacking Evelyn N. Farkas, a former Obama administration official who was running for Congress. In recent weeks, the F.B.I. questioned Mr. Averko about the Strategic Culture Foundation and its ties to Russia. While those attacks did not have a decisive effect on the election, they showed Moscow’s continuing efforts to influence votes in the United States…”

Excuse me, but someone writing for an alternative website with relatively low readership criticizing a candidate for congress does not equate to the Kremlin’s interfering in an American election. Also, the claim that the Strategic Culture Foundation is a disinformation mechanism is overwrought. Yes, the site is located in Moscow and it may have some government support but it features numerous American and European contributors in addition to Russians. I have been writing for the site for nearly three years and I know many of the other Americans who also do so. We are generally speaking antiwar and often critical of U.S. foreign policy but the contributors include conservatives like myself, libertarians and progressives and we write on all kinds of subjects.

And here is the interesting part: not one of us has ever been told what to write. Not one of us has ever even had a suggestion coming from Moscow on a good topic for an article. Not one of us has ever had an article or headline changed or altered by an editor. Putting on my ex-intelligence officer hat for a moment, that is no way to run an influencing or disinformation operation intended to subvert an election. Sure, Russia has a point of view on the upcoming election and its managed media outlets will reflect that bias but the sweeping allegations are nonsense, particularly in an election that will include billions of dollars in real disinformation coming from the Democratic and Republican parties.

Putting together what you no longer can find when you search the internet with government attempts to suppress alternative news sites one has to conclude that we Americans are in the middle of an information war.

Who controls the narrative controls the people, or so it seems. It is a dangerous development, particularly at a time when no one knows whom to trust and what to believe. How it will play out between now and the November election is anyone’s guess.

A weed vending machine, the first of its kind, recently debuted at Strawberry Fields dispensary in Pueblo, Colorado, allows Coloradans to purchase cannabis in a contactless environment, reported The Know. 

Matt Frost, the founder and CEO of Anna, the company behind the vending machines, said these “tricked out vending machines” are designed for customers to purchase flower, edibles, and vape oils without interacting with humans.

Frost said Starbuds in Aurora could soon be the second site for the machines. He explains the benefits: 

“There are experienced cannabis customers who don’t necessarily need that one-on-one interaction with a budtender. They know what they want before they walk in, they’re ready to go in and out. By doing this we’re giving more time back to the people who do need hand-holding and want that education from a live person,” Frost said.

He added, “with COVID and social distancing and contactless, definitely, we have an appeal there, as well.”

Anna has four vending machines operating at Strawberry Fields. Customers can quickly check in to the machine via a digital display by entering their identification information. Once the product is selected, customers pay by cash or card. The machine will then dispense the weed as a standard vending machine does; the entire transaction takes a couple of minutes. 

In addition to Colorado, Frost said his vending machines could soon debut in Massachusetts. He noted his machines could end up in gas stations and retail stores selling non-psychoactive cannabis products. 

“The partnership that we’re about to strike I have to keep under wraps for now, but [it’s] a very significant CBD distribution opportunity that we’re excited about,” Frost said. “I think you”ll be seeing this rollout absolutely in the fall.”

With marijuana sales surging this year, and contactless transactions are all the rage today, it wouldn’t be shocking if weed vending machines are unveiled in other states. 

Authored by Gavin Wax via HumanEvents.com,

Before there was a coin shortage, cash was under attack in the media, and ridiculously hailed as a COVID-19 hazard.

Now, it seems that news outlets have pivoted to making sure the public thinks of a looming cashless society as a “conspiracy theory.”

At the height of anxiety over the coronavirus, CNN berated the American people for using cash. “Do NOT take a bunch of cash out of the bank,” rang one headline; “Dirty money: The case against using cash during the coronavirus outbreak,” read another. CBS News similarly ran an anti-cash story at the time, as did other mainstream networks.

More recent stories, however, have pivoted to feign concern about the growing suspicion of an impending digital coup against paper and coined money. (It’s always fascinating to see how the media manipulates emotions, giving us something to be outraged about one day, and trying to calm us down the next day by trying to convince us we’re outraged about the wrong thing.)

“It’s a concern of some that all money would become traceable, which could be the case, but also could be avoided if systems were designed to provide privacy,” USA Today reported. That’s a big if. In fact, that’s the entire issue at stake, because, as I’ll explain, high profile promoters of cashlessness have an interest in gathering private information en masse.

The Associated Press similarly pounced on Facebook posts that reportedly suggested a “conspiracy” was afoot. “Posts circulating widely on Facebook are suggesting that the shortage of coins in the U.S. is a hoax because it doesn’t make sense for the currency to have ‘disappeared,’” the AP reported. (The literal interpretation of the word “disappeared” was the crux of this supposed fact check. It’s possible the journalists writing articles like those are genuinely concerned about the spread of misinformation, but the condescension is palpable and just feels paternalistic.)

Of course, Americans should be concerned about moves away from cash, and there is nothing wrong about questioning who would benefit and who would lose in a cashless society. If that makes you a conspiracy theorist in the eyes of the average journalist, so be it.

For one thing, big banks and financial institutions would reap obvious benefits, beyond saving on the costs of transacting in coins and paper as well as transporting them. A cashless world would also give these institutions a new resource to exploit: they would have that much more data to collect in bulk on their customers. It was just last year that Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan said, “We want a cashless society.”

For another, there’s the intensity through which cashlessness is being defended. There is no downside to a cashless society for its fiercest proponents. They aren’t worried about finding a side hustle or working for tips. They aren’t kids trying to mow a lawn or who are otherwise priced out or regulated out of the market by minimum wage and child labor laws. The big players thrive in heavily top-down regulatory regimes. The smaller ones, who might moderately improve their standing (like freelancers or startup entrepreneurs), are often reliant on the freedom that cash provides.

Unfortunately, some leftist progressives are enthusiastically spearheading efforts to “help” people in lower economic strata enroll in the post-cash digital system. These initiatives entail subsidizing free checking accounts or other special access to the financial system. (At last, inclusiveness and equality will be guaranteed once that fascist cash is out of the way. The campaign slogan will go something like that).

Instead of policing social media posts for falsehoods (or, more accurately, words that imply falsehoods), journalists could provide more value for their readers by showing what’s valid about their reader’s concerns. There’s a cultural context, an economic context, and a political one too, that inform how a person may or may not feel about the coming cashless society. Each of these narratives, in fact, is more interesting than a “gotcha” fact-check—but they may not come with the sense of relief (or clout) one feels at discrediting a challenge to the prevailing narrative.

TO ELITES, IT’S CONSPIRATORIAL IF ANYONE BUT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IT

There are more downsides to a cashless society.

In the era of Cancel Culture, other more nightmarish consequences are all too easy to fathom. The difference between being banned from social platforms and financial platforms is a matter of degree, and the latter is already happening.

Nevertheless, the advocates continue to drum up support for fintech adoption. For instance, many anti-cash advocates also tend to favor negative interest rates and much freer reign for central banks. Such policies are easier to enact without physical forms of legal tender. 

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has expressed his aversion to negative interest rates “for now” back in May, but President Donald Trump and other monetary theorists support the idea. Negative interest rates mean an end to traditional savings because, what’s not spent from your bank account, will decrease in value according to the newest negative rate. Thus, consumerism becomes all-encompassing and of far greater importance for economic activity. The permanent stimulus of an always-consuming market would become a compulsory force, rather than a relief amid a downturn.

So, the threat of a cashless society is real. It’s not just concocted out of fringe viral Facebook posts, but actually, a topic of ongoing and current discussion among the financial elite. Of course, how urgent the threat is in today’s fast-paced and unpredictable environment, people will have to decide for themselves. But just because people grew concerned about something that wasn’t media-generated doesn’t make it a conspiracy theory.

FROM COMMON USE TO MUSEUM ARTIFACTS—UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

The coin shortage, which is very real, does have a reasonable explanation though, given the lockdown and social distancing orders over the past six months. Smaller businesses are losing out to the likes of Amazon and other online retailers, so coins are being used much less. E-commerce is thriving under COVID-19.

“I think most merchants, especially small merchants and small-transaction merchants, would still prefer to take cash,” said K. Craig Wildfang in an interview with Axios. He is with the law firm Robins Kaplan, which is suing on behalf of retailers against card swipe fees. 

Considering that over 90% of companies fail within two years of a disaster according to the US Small Business Administration (anything from political coups to hurricanes and, of course, pandemics), it is all but guaranteed that there will be fewer businesses around to fight for cash as an option, as long as COVID-19 lockdowns and related emergency orders carry on. Even larger chains, like CVS, Kroger, Walmart, are refusing to give physical change, instead choosing to donate the extra cents to charity or otherwise digitize the value for the customer for their next shopping trip. 

More and more, physical coins are becoming legacy artifacts. As Clifford Thies at the American Institute for Economic Research explains, pennies cost more than their worth to produce. The time lost in counting them in transactions and transporting them also add to the total cost of using pennies. Thies estimates the use of pennies to cost up to $500 million per year, which may be more costly than simply rounding off prices to the nearest nickel, or dollar. 

Thanks to monetary inflation, those same dynamics have an effect on nickels, dimes, and quarters, which are all produced with much cheaper metals than their original form required.

Meanwhile, note the record high prices of gold and silver. The US dollar is being (digitally) printed into oblivion, along with trillions upon trillions of dollars being summoned by the Congress to fund multiple COVID-19 relief bills. Cash may be the last bastion of value, as it retains some scarcity in relation to digitized dollars. And it’s important for people’s livelihood and freedom that it be defended vigilantly.

Don’t let the media shame you into complacence regarding a cashless society. It’s only crazy not to question such a system that clearly some have no qualms about forcing on us all.