Trump’s Lawyer: Trump Didn’t Pay Porn Star $130,000, I Did

President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, told the New York Times that he paid $130,000 to porn star Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. “Stormy Daniels) out of his own pocket, and that neither the Trump Organization or the Trump Campaign had anything to do with the 2016 transaction.

What a nice guy! 

“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Mr. Cohen told The New York Times. “The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.”

Cohen refused to answer further questions from the NYT, including whether President Trump was aware of the payment, what Cohen’s motivation was or whether similar payments to others had been made over the years. 

Trump has denied the affair, while Ms. Clifford’s signature appeared on a statement released by Mr. Cohen in January denying it as well – however she has refused to directly answer questions about it.

The Wall Street Journal reported in January that Cohen arranged for a $130,000 payment to be made to the porn star as part of a nondisclosure agreement one month before the 2016 election. 

Following the report, nonprofit watchdog group Common Cause filed a complaint with the DOJ and the Federal Election Commission claiming that the payment to Clifford violated campaign finance laws because it was an “unreported in-kind contribution to the president’s 2016 campaign.”

Mr. Cohen said that he had given a similar statement to the Federal Election Commission in response to a complaint filed by the government watchdog group Common Cause, which filed a complaint saying that the payment, which was made through a limited liability company that Mr. Cohen established, was an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign.

Officials with Common Cause also sought to determine whether the payment was made by the Trump Organization or another person.

The complaint alleges that I somehow violated campaign finance laws by facilitating an excess, in-kind contribution,” Mr. Cohen said in his statement. “The allegations in the complaint are factually unsupported and without legal merit, and my counsel has submitted a response to the F.E.C.” –NYT

In a 2011 interview with In Touch magazine, Daniels detailed her consensual affair which happened in 2006, which she claims happened shortly after Trump’s youngest son, Barron, was born. 

Stormy (given name: Stephanie Clifford) confirms in her own words that she had sex with Donald Trump in his Lake Tahoe, NV, hotel suite in 2006 — a story that was corroborated to In Touch in 2011 by her good friend Randy Spears and supported by her ex-husband Mike Moz. Stormy also took and passed a polygraph test at the time of the interview.

Stormy told In Touch, “[The sex] was textbook generic,” while discussing the fling they had less than four months after Donald’s wife, Melania, gave birth to their son, Barron. “I actually don’t even know why I did it, but I do remember while we were having sex, I was like, ‘Please, don’t try to pay me.’” –In Touch

Cohen told the NYT that he would not make any additional comments regarding the matter. 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2EnRjbW Tyler Durden

Macron Vows To Reform Islam In France: “It Is Time To Bring In A New Generation”

Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

French President Emmanuel Macron, in a declared effort to “fight fundamentalism” and “preserve national cohesion,” has promised to “lay the groundwork for the entire reorganization of Islam in France.”

According to Macron, the plan, similar in ambition to Austria’s Islam Law, is aimed at seeking to “better integrate” Islam in France in order to “place it in a more peaceful relationship with the state.”

A key priority is to reduce outside interference by restricting foreign funding for mosques, imams and Muslim organizations in France. The plan’s overall objective is to ensure that French law takes precedence over Islamic law for Muslims living in the country.

In a February 11 interview with the Journal du Dimanche, Macron said that the plan, which is being coordinated by the Interior Ministry, will be announced within the next six months:

“We are working on the structuring of Islam in France and also on how to explain it,” Macron said.

“My goal is to rediscover what lies at the heart of secularism—the possibility of being able to believe as well as not to believe—in order to preserve national cohesion and the possibility of having free religious conscience.”

Emmanuel Macron, President of France. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

 

Macron also said that he was consulting a broad array of experts and religious leaders for their input into the reform plan: “I see intellectuals and academics, such as [French Islam expert] Gilles Kepel, and representatives of all religions, because I think we need to draw heavily on our history, the history of Catholics and Protestants.” He added:

“I will never ask any French citizen to be moderate in his religion or to believe moderately in his God. That would not make much sense. But I will ask everyone, constantly, to absolutely respect all the rules of the Republic.”

Macron’s plan, as currently conceived, is vague and short on details, but appears to involve three broad pillars: determining who will represent Muslims in France; delineating how Islam in France will be financed; and defining how imams in France will be trained.

Representation of Muslims in France

A key aspect of Macron’s plan is to reform the French Council of the Muslim Faith (Conseil français du culte musulman, CFCM), the official interlocutor between Muslims and the state in the regulation of Islam in France. The organization, which represents approximately 2,500 mosques in France, was established in 2003 by then Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.

The CFCM has long faced criticism for being ineffective and contentious, largely because the rotating presidency has allowed interference by foreign countries—mainly Algeria, Morocco and Turkey—seemingly to prevent Muslims from integrating into French society. Macron said the objective was to end what he called “consular Islam” and to open the CFCM to “the most integrated” Muslims.

“It is time to bring in a new generation,” said Hakim el-Karoui, a French-Tunisian expert on Islam who is advising Macron on the reforms. “We have seen fifteen years of debate to defend the interests of foreign states.”

The Interior Ministry intends to have its reforms in place by 2019, when the CFCM will hold elections to renew its leadership. “The moment is propitious for advancing the necessary reforms,” said Anouar Kbibech, former president of the CFCM.

Macron’s plan also reportedly involves establishing a “Grand Imam of France,” modeled on the position of Chief Rabbi. The individual would have the “moral authority” to represent Islam in front of the state. It remains unclear how such an individual would reconcile the competing strains of Islam to be able to represent them all.

Financing Islam in France

Macron’s second priority is to “reduce the influence of Arab countries,” which, he argues, “prevent French Islam from returning to modernity.” His plan would restrict foreign governments or entities from funding Muslim places of worship and training imams in France. Hundreds of French mosques are being financed by countries in the North African Maghreb and Persian Gulf.

The new plan would also attempt to illuminate the financial dealings of mosques by bringing them under the jurisdiction of a French law that regulates cultural associations. French mosques currently adhere to a law that regulates non-profit associations, which allows for more opaque bookkeeping.

Macron raised the possibility of revising the 1905 “Law on the Separation of the Churches and State,” which established state secularism in France. The 1905 law, among other provisions, banned government funding of religious groups in France. Addressing the prospect that French taxpayers might soon be asked to pay for Muslims to worship in France, Macron said: “The 1905 law is part of a treasure that is ours, but it did not consider the religious fact of Islam because it was not present in our society, as it is today.”

Macron’s plan reportedly also envisages establishing a so-called Halal Tax, a sales tax on halal products to finance Islam in France. The proposal faces fierce resistance from French Muslims, 70% of whom are opposed to establishing the tax, according to an Ifop poll for JDD.

Training Imams in France

Several hundred imams in France are civil servants whose salaries are paid by foreign governments. Interior Minister Gérard Collomb said the French government “should intervene” in the training of imams so that they are “imams of the French Republic,” not “imams of foreign countries.”

In an interview with Radio France Inter, Collomb said: “We can see that today we have a number of difficulties simply because nowadays everyone can proclaim himself to be an imam.”

Macron’s plan has been received with a mix of optimism, skepticism and derision.

Ghaleb Bencheikh, a French-Algerian Islamic reformist and a former president of the Great Mosque of Paris, said that Macron’s approach was “legitimate” and “interesting.” In an interview with Radio France, Bencheikh said:

“There is a terrible paradox that you have to know how to break. We are in a secular state and this sacrosanct principle of secularism stipulates that political authority should not interfere in the structure of a cult, whatever it may be. At the same time, there must be structure and privileged interlocutors of political power. The Muslim leaders are cautious, pusillanimous, they have not managed this structure. As a result, it is legitimate for both the President of the Republic and Interior Minister Gérard Collomb to insist on a healthy structure.”

Le Figaro noted with skepticism that previous French presidents have made similar pledges which ended in failure:

“Will Emmanuel Macron succeed where his predecessors have failed? The urgency, in any event, is very real. Last December, a Muslim leader from Bouches-du-Rhône declared: ‘The Salafists have taken control of the ground in France. There is a void, notably with the problem of imams who do not speak French.'”

In an interview with Les Echos, National Front Leader Marine Le Pen said she was worried about a possible challenge to the law separating churches and state: “There are a whole series of tracks, some of which are unbearable, unacceptable: for example, the idea of ​​a Concordat, the idea of ​​touching the law of 1905.”

She called for France to take hard line on foreign financing of Islam: “I suggest stopping foreign financing of mosques and closing Salafist mosques. Any foreign imam who makes a speech contrary to the values ​​of the Republic must be expelled.”

Florian Philippot, former vice president of the National Front and a Member of the European Parliament, said that Macron’s plan was not aimed at returning to a “secular Republic” but to “protect Muslims.”

In early January, during a meeting at the Elysée Palace with representatives of the six main religions in France (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist), Macron announced that he would deliver a “major” but “dispassionate” speech on secularism during his presidency: “My wish for 2018 is that France become, with you, a model of secularism, knowing how to listen to the country’s voices in their diversity, capable of building on this diversity a great nation reconciled and open to the future.”

Less than a week later, however, Macron abruptly backtracked. The speech apparently was “removed from the agenda” because talking about secularism “in the context only of Islam” would be a “fatal mistake.”

Columnist Hélène Jouan accused Macron of trying to play both sides against the middle:

“Emmanuel Macron is credited with holding a subtle balance between unfailing attachment to Republican principles, and absolute firmness vis-à-vis radical Islam.

“The president prefers to evade. I’m not sure that this will last. A tragic event in France would push him, of course, to reveal himself, at the risk, then, of alienating those who would judge, from the right or left, that he does too much or not enough, to lose his position of ‘centrality’ which he thinks he holds on the question. In the meantime, however, he buys time.”

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2CjZbt0 Tyler Durden

BIS Chief Fears “Systemic Threat” Of Bitcoin, Urges “Pre-emptive Action” From Authorities

While US regulators appear to prefer a “balanced” approach to controlling the cyrptocurency space, and Fed officials “are not worried about Bitcoin,” it appears the new head of the so-called “central-banks’ central-bank” is most definitely concerned.

Bloomberg reports that in his first major public speech as head of the Bank for International Settlements, Agustin Carstens argued that central banks — along with finance ministries, tax offices and financial market regulators — should police the “digital frontier.” He said they must ensure a level playing field and functioning payment systems, and safeguard the “real value” of money.

“Bitcoin is not functional as a means of payment, but it relies on the oxygen provided by the connection to standard means of payments and trading apps that link users to conventional bank accounts,” Carstens said in Frankfurt on Tuesday.

“If the only ‘business case’ is use for illicit or illegal transactions, central banks cannot allow such tokens to rely on much of the same institutional infrastructure that serves the overall financial system and freeload on the trust that it provides.”

Simply put, Carstens argues that there is a “strong case” for authorities to rein in digital currencies because of their links to the established financial system…

“If authorities do not act pre-emptively, cryptocurrencies could become more interconnected with the main financial system and become a threat,” he said.

“Most importantly, the meteoric rise of cryptocurrencies should not make us forget the important role central banks play as stewards of public trust…”

“Private digital tokens masquerading as currencies must not subvert this trust.”

As a reminder, the BIS helps central banks pursue monetary and financial stability and while Carstens – who took over late last year after leading Mexico’s central bank – joins a list of establishment-types expressing reservations, his warnings are the most systemically serious so far with respect the truly disruptive nature of cryptocurrencies (as opposed to the usual ignorantly repeated narrative of criminality, ponzi-scheme, or worthlessness by so many.)

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2Eok5ZW Tyler Durden

Soros & Vestager Versus The Free Internet

Via GEFIRA,

With his investments, Soros has become a billionaire. Unfortunately for many years he interferes in the political and demographic developments in Europe and financially supports the ethnic exchange. Now he turns against CSU, Facebook and Twitter because they endanger his leftist revolution.

As every year, Soros gave his speech on the state of the world at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

The neo-liberal quasi-self-made orphan spoke and spoke, and the open, freedom-loving, society he invited sucked every word of his words like a sponge. Now hardly anyone noticed that Soros wants to take away their freedoms.

In the beginning, Soros talked about Russia, which he calls a mafia state that adopted nationalist ideology, and the US, which in his opinion was to become Trump under such a state. For the axis of evil, he now also counted on Hungary. Nothing new, because he always turned against the governments that try to protect their citizens from the consequences of open borders, the idea of ​​open society. 

What was new was that he scourged social networks. Since they grew into powerful monopolies, according to Soros, they are supposed to influence our behavior and consciousness (especially in elections) too much.

“They deceive their users by manipulating their attention, targeting them to their own economic interests and (…) depending on their services (…) The platforms are similar to gambling companies (…) and force people to renounce their freedom (…). …), to renounce what John Stuart Mill called the freedom of thought “

Is that why Facebook and Twitter are blocked in countries like China, Afghanistan, North Korea? Thanks to the Internet ban, can people think freely and leave their opinions open to all? No, Soros is not about our freedom of expression, it is about us being able to defend ourselves against his manipulations, against the propaganda of his NGO network on these communication platforms. The frontal assault Soros sounds all the more hypocritical than he has stocks of big-tech companies worth $ 113 million. That’s peanuts compared to $ 14 billion he spent over the last 30 years manipulating and destabilizing in many countries, especially in eastern and central Europe, to install open societies. 

Soros continues to announce a war:

“It’s only a matter of time before the global dominance of US IT monopolists is broken. Davos is a good place to announce that their days are numbered.”

This should be followed by regulations and taxation.

Taxation, because Soros gets on the nerves that we can spread our free thoughts for free. Here he mentioned EU Commissioner Margrethe Vestager as an example of how to proceed.

The boss of the antitrust authority kicked Google on the feet and imposed the search engine group for the control of the market for product search 2,424,495,000 euros fine. In 2016, she said, 

“We believe that Google’s behavior has harmed consumers because they only get the results Google wanted; but not the most relevant ones. ”

If you use the keyword “EU criticism” Googling for a while, then the search results and the content of the websites that they can access in this way are certainly not relevant for the European Commission, they are dangerous for them. The next bang she missed the I-Phone manufacturer Apple – the verdict? 13 billion euro tax refund. Vestager is thus an important domino in the trade war between Europe and the USA. It is also a puzzle in the cultural battle on the Internet between the two continents. She will also play a crucial role as the EU’s most powerful woman – she is the chief investigator, prosecutor and judge in one responsible for monopolies, mergers, cartels and state aid – in the private (?) Soros war against freedom of expression. No wonder then:

The question arises: is Vestager adequately controlled by the European Parliament?

Soros called in Davos a danger that American tech companies allegedly bring with it:

 “It could create an alliance between the authoritarian states and these big high-tech monopolies, in which the emerging control systems within the large corporations would be connected with the existing state regulatory agencies , This can lead to the emergence of a system of totalitarian control that even Aldous Huxley or George Orwell did not dream of. 

Neither Huxley nor Orwell also never dreamt that in the age of the most advanced democracies, a private network of NGOs within sovereign states will lead and harm their hostile policies – Soros financially supports NGOs that smuggle migrants to Italy on an industrial scale.

Finally, a quote from our savior: 

“The owners of the Internet platforms consider themselves the rulers of the universe. In fact, they are slaves who will do everything they can to maintain their dominant position. “ 

The ruler of the “free thinking” is now facing a difficult fight against the treacherous American big-tech corporations that want to conquer Europe, against the nationalist Russian mafiosi, against the worthless Polish national-minded politicians who defend their right to self-determination within the EU, against which builds a closed society Trump Republicans, against Orban’s Hungarian nationalist insurgents, these defiant fence-makers. Hopefully he will lose his dominant position in this fight.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2Hb2Z3s Tyler Durden

Macron: “France Will Strike” If Chemical Weapons Used In Syria

French President Emmanuel Macron says he is prepared to “strike” Syria if evidence is found to support claims that President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians, though noted that French intelligence agencies do not have any such proof.

a

On chemical weapons, I set a red line and I reaffirm that red line,” Macron told reporters in Paris on Tuesday. “Today, our agencies, our armed forces have not established that chemical weapons, as set out in treaties, have been used against the civilian population.”

“We have some indications of possible chlorine use [in Syria], but we have no absolute confirmation… So we, alongside the others, are working on trying to confirm this, as we clearly have to get the facts straight.” –French Defense Minister Florence Parly

Facilities used to store and “originate” chemical weapons shipments would be the primary targets, said the French President, who also told reporters that he warned Russian President Vladimir Putin of France’s plans during a phone call last Friday. 

I’ve reiterated it to President Putin, asking to make it very clear to the Syrian regime, which has reaffirmed that it does not use chemical weapons … but we are watching it,” Macron stated.

Macron’s announcement that French intelligence has found no proof of Assad gassing civilians stands in sharp contrast to an April 7, 2017 strike on a suspected sarin gas storage facility at Syria’s Shayrat Airbase by the United States, in which President Trump sent 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles with an estimated value of $100 million (taxpayer dollars) in response to an alleged chemical attack which occurred 72 hours prior. Somehow U.S. intelligence was able to fully investigate the attack and determine its provenance – despite conflicting reports in the media over exactly where the attack took place, what type of gas was used, and the number of casualties.

Observant readers will recall that the President’s deep state / NeoCon haters such as John McCain and Bill Kristol gave him a nod of approval after Trump disappointed the anti-war contingency of his base.

After initial reports said that sarin gas was used, internet sleuths (along with anyone with more than a few brain cells) noted that “white helmets” were cleaning up bodies without wearing protective safety gear – meaning that they would have been exposed to the Sarin as well. The type of gas used was then changed in official reports to a “sarin-like” compound. 

And as Disobedient Media reported on April 6, a day before the Tomahawk attack, there were several conflicting reports emerging from the April 4 gas attack which should have given President Trump pause to perhaps hold off on his $100 million fireworks display while enjoying “beautiful” chocolate cake with China’s Xi Jinping as the bombs were dropping. 

For starters, an anti-Assad reporter on the ground in Syria tweeted that the next day he would be launching a media campaign to cover the airstrikes on the Hama countryside, including the use of chemical weapons he couldn’t have known were about to be deployed.

Second, observers noted that three days before the attack, a doctor on the ground in Khan Sheikhoun, Dr. Shajul Isklam, received several shipments of gas masks right before the incident. 

Also noted was the lack of protective safety gear by those cleaning up the bodies. 

Lastly, Moscow claimed at the time of the April 4th attack that Syrian air strikes on the region were intended on destroying chemical arms labs run by anti-Assad forces:

“According to Russian airspace monitoring systems, yesterday between 11.30 and 12.30 local time the Syrian aviation carried out an airstrike on the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhun, targeting a major ammunition storage facility of terrorists and a cluster of military hardware. The territory of this storage facility housed workshops to produce projectiles stuffed with toxic agents,” Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said. (Tass)

Recent allegations

France’s refusal to engage in Syria until their intelligence agencies have proof comes on the heels of the latest reported chemical attack in Syria last month – conveyed by controversial sources including the anti-Assad White Helmets NGO and the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). 

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quick to blame the Syrian government at an international conference held on January 23 in Paris for the “International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons,” where Tillerson even blamed Moscow for the alleged January attack despite a lack of evidence. Moscow, in turn, criticized the conference as an attempt to subvert the UN’s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. 

According to Russia’s Center for Reconciliation in Syria, a source has claimed that the Al-Nusra terrorist group has brought some 20 chlorine canisters into Syria, while the White Helmets have been staging “first aid” drills with “local residents” suffering from poisoning – which some suspect is in preparation for a staged chemical incident which will be used to justify regime change. 

If you’d like to hear more about these questionable sources while also watching a Canadian journalist shut down a smug MSM reporter at the UN, watch here:

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2EC5sFN Tyler Durden

The Power Of Siberia And China’s Next Natural Gas Moves

Authored by Tom Luongo,

Gazprom’s Power of Siberia pipeline is more than two-thirds complete.  It will be delivering gas to China by the end of this year.  A second pipeline is still under discussion.

A report yesterday from Alex Mercouris at The Duran noted some frustration from China over the irregular liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies coming from its contract partners in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

It seems the Turkemi and Uzbek governments are shaking down China for better prices because gas demand in Western China’s autonomous regions is growing rapidly.  Complicating matters is the tough winter in Europe which spiked LNG demand there as well.

Remember, Gazprom recently announced that delivered volumes to Europe rose by 8% in 2017 over 2016.  And that number is likely to rise again this year.  Even the U.K. is begrudgingly buying Russian LNG from the Yamal LNG project on the Eastern Baltic coast.

China National Petroleum Corp., CNPC, just signed a deal with Cheniere Energy to supply 1.2 million tons of LNG annually.  China’s demand for natural gas has to rise as its leadership deals with the increasing costs of air pollution from running a major portion of its economy on coal.

This is part of the reason why Russia and China hooked up for the original Power of Siberia pipeline in the first place.  And it’s why I have little doubt that a second pipeline is a slam dunk. This would be the expanded Altai Pipeline or Power of Siberia 2 that was postponed in 2015 but is now back on the table.

Last year China and Russia signed an MOU on Power of Siberia 2.  Though no formal agreement has been reached, it’s obvious both parties want this done.  The question for China is likely price.  And they are not above holding out for better terms and cheaper gas prices.

So, they’ll string Gazprom along on price by talking engineering, etc. for a few more months while they wait to see if the projected glut of gas materializes.

Natural gas prices have severely corrected in the past few weeks, down from nearly $3.50/mmbtu to today’s price at $2.62.  Inventory draws were below expectations and U.S. domestic supply is set to outstrip demand this year as record production numbers necessitate changes.  But, this is the U.S. domestic situation.

Hence, China looks like it got a good deal using Henry Hub pricing for its contract with Cheniere.  And this correction is likely what Chinese leadership was hoping for before committing to Power of Siberia 2.

Urals Stalking Horse

This is a pipeline China knows it needs but it still doesn’t want to overpay.  I suspect, however, if Gazprom plays true to form that it will tie its gas price to the price of oil.  And with the new Shanghai oil futures contract now trading this provides an opportunity to deepen interest in it.  Any future gas deals between China and Gazprom can be indexed to that contract rather than West Texas Intermediate or Brent Crude.

Russia wants its Urals grade of medium sour oil to be a global benchmark.  And, that’s exactly what the Shanghai contract trades.

With U.S. production spiking it will be hard to maintain these oil and gas prices.  Brent has corrected back to below $63 per barrel and, looking at the chart, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it correct further towards $55-57 per barrel.  In fact, I know oil prices are likely to correct hard because Goldman Sachs is now calling for $80 oil within six months.

Nothing says, “Short oil,” like a Goldman bullish call on it.

This downturn in prices is putting upward pressure on the Russian ruble, now no longer looking at sub RUB56 versus the U.S. dollar but likely pushing back towards RUB60.  Remember, the Russians don’t care about lower oil and gas prices as much as the other major producers.

The ruble floats openly while the Saudi and Qatari Riyal are both pegged to the dollar.

Moreover, the price of LNG has held up much better than was expected.  The market was supposed to be glutted going out to 2020, but as we’ve already seen European LNG demand has been strong, but Asian demand, especially Chinese, has kept the market surprisingly tight.

LNG imports, according to a report from Poten and Partners in November put China’s LNG imports up 42% year over year while prices stayed above $9/mmbtu.

So, don’t be surprised if we don’t hear something about Power of Siberia 2 in the next few months.  Between the unreliability of China’s central Asian suppliers, falling gas prices and stubbornly high LNG prices, that pipeline is looking more and more economic for China.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2G9ddQo Tyler Durden

Apple Shipped More Watches Than Switzerland In Q4 2017

Despite the fact that the Apple Watch is consistently playing second (or third) fiddle to the iPhone in terms of public attention, the evidence suggesting that Apple has yet another hit product on its hands is piling up.

According to estimates by market research firm Canalys, the Apple Watch had its best quarter ever in Q4 2017. Driven by the release of the Series 3 model including (optional) LTE support, Apple shipped 8 million watches between October and December, bringing its total for the year to more than 18 million units.

As Statista’s chart illustrates, that puts Apple ahead of the entire Swiss watch industry (think Rolex, Swatch etc.) for the quarter, supporting the company’s claims that the Apple Watch became the top-selling watch in the world some time in 2017.

Infographic: Apple Shipped More Watches Than Switzerland in Q4 2017 | Statista You will find more infographics at Statista

For all of 2017, BI reports that the Swiss exported more watches than Apple shipped, and the Chinese still make far more watches than anyone. But as the data indicates, Apple is rapidly gaining ground.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2HfT24W Tyler Durden

The Brutal Truth About Violence When The SHTF

Selco interviewed by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

Are you prepared for the extreme violence that is likely to come your way if the SHTF? No matter what your plan is, it’s entirely probable that at some point, you’ll be the victim of violence or have to perpetrate violence to survive. As always, Selco is our go-to guy on SHTF reality checks and this thought-provoking interview will shake you to your core.

If you don’t know Selco, he’s from Bosnia and he lived through a year in a city that was blockaded with no utilities, no deliveries of supplies, and no services. In his interviews, he shares what the scenarios the rest of us theorize about were REALLY like.  He mentioned to me recently that most folks aren’t prepared for the violence that is part and parcel of a collapse, which brings us to today’s interview.

How prevalent was violence when the SHTF in Bosnia?

It was wartime and chaos, from all conflicts in those years in the Balkan region Bosnian conflict was most brutal because of multiple reasons, historical, political and other.

To simplify the explanation why violence was common and very brutal, you need to picture a situation where you are “bombarded” with huge amount of information (propaganda) which instills in you very strong feelings of fear and hate.

Out of fear and hate, violence grows easy and fast, and over the very short period of time you see how people around you (including you) do things that you could not imagine before.

I can say that violence was almost an everyday thing in the whole spectrum of different activities because it was a fight for survival.

Again, whenever (and wherever) you put people in a region without enough resources, you can expect violence.

We were living a normal life, and then suddenly we were thrown in a way of living where if you could not “negotiate” something with someone, you solve the problem by launching a rocket from an RPG through the window of his living room.

Hate stripped down the layers of humanity and suddenly it was “normal” to level an apartment building with people inside with shells from a tank or form private prisons with imprisoned civilians for slave work or sex slaves.

Nothing that I saw or read before could have prepared me for the level of violence and blindness to it, for the lives of kids, elders, civilians, and the innocent.

Again, the thing that is important for readers is that we were a modern society one day, and then in few weeks it turned into carnage.

Do not make the mistake of saying “it cannot happen here” because I made that mistake too.

Do not underestimate power of propaganda, fear, hate, and the lowest human instincts, no matter how modern and good your society is right now and how deeply you believe that “it can not happen here”.

You’ve mentioned warlords and gangs in several of your articles. Were they responsible for the majority of the violence or was it hungry families?

Fighting of the armies through the whole period of war brings violence in terms of constant shelling from a distance from different kind of weapons.

For example a few multiple rocket launchers (VBR) could bring in 30 seconds the destruction in an area of 3-4 apartment buildings, and being there in that moment and surviving it gives you a completely new view on life.

Snipers were a constant threat and over time you simply grow a way of living that you constant scan area in front of you where your next steps gonna be. Are you gonna be visible and from where? Etc.

Most brutal violence was actually lawlessness and complete lack of order between different factions and militias, so in some periods there were militias or gangs who simply ruled the cities or part of the city where they were absolutely masters of everything in terms of deciding of taking someone’s life.

In lawlessness, you as one person could be really small and not interesting, or join some bigger group of people to be stronger, some family or militia or gang.

An example of a gang would be group of people of some 300 or 500 people who “officially” were a unit or militia and operate for some faction, but in reality they operate mostly for themselves.

That included owning part of the black market, having prison (for forced labor or ransom), attacking people and houses for resources, smuggling people from dangerous areas.

Violence from those kinds of group was the most immediate violence, the most visible in terms of SHTF talking.

If those people came on your door you could obey, fight, or negotiate, but mostly you could not not ask for help from any kind of authority, because there was no real authority.

In any society, no matter where you are living, there are a great number of people who are waiting for the SHTF to go out and do violent things. Small time criminals or simply violent persons who are not openly violent because system is there to punish them for that. It is like that.

Some gang leaders that I knew were actually completely sick people with a strange type of charisma that makes people follow them, weird situations that can happen only in a real collapse.

They are people who just waited for their time to rise.

Those kinds of people together with criminal organization that are already there in any city in the world will be the backbone of SHTF gangs.

Who were the most likely victims?

A very simple answer would be that the most likely victims were people who had interesting things without enough defense.

But it was not always that simple.

For example one of the first houses that got raided in my neighborhood, right at the beginning of collapse while there was still some kind of order, was a rich family’s home.

They had a nice house with bars on the windows, a pretty good setup for defense, and they had enough people inside so they could give pretty good resistance to the mob.

But they got raided simply because they were known that they are rich, so they were attacked with enough force to be overwhelmed.

It was not only about how much manpower you had and how well-organized defense of your home was, it was also about how juicy a target you were.

If you are faced with 150 angry people attacking your home because they are sure you have good stuff inside your chances are low, no matter how good and tough you are.

People who were alone were a pretty easy target and old people without support of family or friends.

It was not always about killing someone or violence. For example, if you were alone and without resources but you had something else valuable like some kind of skill or knowledge you could easily be “recruited” for some faction or group, not by your will of course.

What were some ways to prevent yourself from becoming a victim of violence? How do you recommend that people prepare themselves for the possibility of violence?

It can be done in steps, or in layers.

Do not be interesting (or attract attention) when the SHTF.

This means a lot of things, for this article I can give a few examples with shortened explanations because it is a huge topic:

  • Do not look like a prepper (before or after SHTF). There is no sense in announcing that you are prepping for EMP, civil collapse, apocalypse, or whatever. With that you are risking the probability that when the SHTF, people will remember that you have interesting things in your home
  • Your home should look ordinary. For example, if you are living in the city on a street where all houses look similar, there is not  much sense in making your home look like a fortress. You’ll just attract attention.
  • Your defense should be based on more subtle means. Some examples are having means to reinforce doors and windows quickly when you need it, or to reinforce them from inside. Make changes in your yard to funnel possible attackers where you want them to be (trees, fence, bush…). You can make your home look abandoned or already looted.

Think about what survival is!

Survival is about staying alive, it is not about being comfortable at the expense of losing your life.

I have seen many times people lose their lives simply because they were too attached to their belongings (house, car, land, goods…) so they simply did not want to leave something and run in a particular moment.

Everything can be earned and bought again except life.

Forget about statements like “I will defend it with my life” or “over my dead body” or similar because the real SHTF is usually not heroic or noble. It is hard and brutal. When you are gone you are gone and there might be nobody to take care of your family just because you have been stubborn or trusted in movies when it came to violence.

To rephrase it: Be ready to leave your home in a split second if that means you and your family will survive, no matter how many good things you have stored there.

Be mentally ready for violence

In a way, it is impossible to be ready for violence, especially widespread violence when the SHTF, but you can minimize shock when that happens with some things.

If you are not familiar with what violence is, you can try to get yourself close” to it today (in normal times). It can be done, for example, by doing some voluntary work for example in a local hospital, ER or similar… or simply by working with homeless people.

Sounds maybe strange but activities like this can get you a bit of a feeling of what it is all about, not to mention that you can learn some practical and useful skills for SHTF.

Have means and skills  (physically) to defend – or to do violence

No matter how old or young you are, your gender or religion I assure you that you are capable of doing violence. It is only a matter of the situation and how far you are going to be pushed.

It is not just “some people are capable of violence.” Everybody is capable. Not everybody enjoys doing it or is willing to do it so easily.

In today (normal times) you can learn some violence skills and you should do it, again no matter if you are a woman or old or young.

You should own a weapon and know how to use it. You should practice with it, or have at least some basic knowledge about hand-to-hand combat.

The worst case scenario is to have a weapon that you try for the first time when SHTF.

Be familiar with your means for defense, let your family members know what they need to do in case of attack of your home, have plan, and go through it.

Only through practice will you minimize chances for mistakes.

Use common sense

I know lot of survivalists almost dream about how they are going to use weapons against bad guys when SHTF, and that they will be something like super heroes from movies, saving innocents and killing villains.

Truth is that in a real collapse, a lot of things are kind of blurred and you are not sure who the bad guys are. Good guys turn out to be lunatic gang members who want to bring food to their kids.

There are no super heroes when SHTF, and if some of them show up they end up dead quickly.

There is only you and your skills and mindset and what you prepared.

Use  violence as a last resort because of the simple fact that by using violence you are risking of getting killed or hurt. Remember when SHTF there is maybe no doctor or hospital to take care of your wound.

It is a time when even a small cut can eventually kill you through infection and lack of proper care.

I’m a single mom with a household full of girls. In an SHTF situation, what would our best strategies be to remain safe?

Just like I have mentioned before, strategy is always same for any part of survival, and shooting from the rifle is pretty similar no matter are you man or woman.

Being single mom with household full of girls on first look make you as a ideal target in some situations, but we are talking here in prepper terms so there is no reason not to be perfectly well prepared as a single mom with girls.

But yes I admit it is not perfect situation, even if you are prepared well, some things are sure, you need to connect with other people even more.

House with couple of girls will always look like easy prey for some people.

It is like that.

Were people in the city safer than people in the country? Can you tell us more about rural living during this time?

In my case definitely no.

In the essence it always come to the resources and people.

City meant more people less resources, country (rural) meant less people more resources, and because that level of violence simply was lower. That was most important reason.

There are few more reasons why it was much better in the country.

People in the country (rural settings) were much more “connected to ground”  they were more tough if you like, they grew their own food, had cattle, lived more simple life prior SHTF and when everything collapsed they had less problems getting use to it.

Yes they also did not have electricity and phones, running water or connection to other places but they adapted easier to the new life because they had more useful skills then people in the city.

Life was harder for them too than prior to the collapse, but they had means to get resources: land, woods, river…

Another thing is that people in small rural communities “in the country” were more connected to each other, people knew their neighborhood and some things were easier to organize, like community security watch, help in case of diseases and similar.

What types of weapons did people have for self-defense?

It was different political system prior the collapse where it was not so usual to own a weapon legally. And to own one illegally could mean a lot of troubles.

Right prior to SHTF, it became possible to buy different weapons on the black market but still, a majority of people did not own weapons.

When it all collapsed, it was possible to get a weapon through trade.

Because of the military doctrine here prior to the collapse, we used “East Bloc” weapons. A favorite was AK-47 in all different kind of editions, or older weapons like M-48 rifle, SKS rifle, 22 and similar.

People used what they had, so in one period you would be lucky if you had any kind of pistol and knife.

Later through the different channels weapon become more available so people had them more. A lot of that was actually junk that some warlords somehow “imported”.

Weapons 50-60 years old without proper ammunition, or not in operating condition. A lot of people simply did not have a clue how to use any kind of weapon so a lot of accidental deaths happened.

I remember people storming abandoned army barracks that was mostly looted, but they found in one building a lot of RPGs while other part of the same building was burning.

Two guys were trying to figure out a single-use RPG, and while they were messing with it clearly not knowing how that thing worked, they accidentally armed it and launched a rocket that flew through the crowd, not hurting anyone and exploding in wall 100 meters from where they stood.

They were smiling, clearly happy because they thought they figured out how that thing worked.

What weapons do you suggest to have for SHTF?

It is a never-ending discussion and a favorite prepper topic, and I must say that whole discussion is overrated.

I have used them in a real situation, and tried and tested lot of different kind of weapons and what works for me may simply not work for you.

For example, here for me good choice is AK-47 rifle, maybe for you wherever you are it is very bad choice.

Good advice is : you need to have a weapon that most people have around you because of multiple reasons: spare parts, repairing, ammunition availability, possibility that you can pick that rifle from other people and you know how to use it.

What caliber and similar is a matter of discussion again. I am talking from the point of owning a rifle.

Another thing is that you need to know how that weapon works. Luckily, most of my readers live in an area where gun laws are great comparing to region where I am.

You have much more choices when it comes to owning a weapon and practicing with it. Use that.

And do not forget that using weapon in a real life situation is not like shooting at beer bottles with your friends after a barbecue.

In real life you might be in a situation to use a weapon while you are tired, dirty, and hungry and while someone is screaming next to you.

It is going to be maybe when you are not ready to do that, maybe in pitch dark, maybe after you have been awake for 48 hours.

At least think about that.

When should you use violence?

Contrary to some popular beliefs in the prepper community, the point is to use violence only as a last solution.

The reason is as I mentioned already, the risk that you can be hurt or killed too, but also once you do violence you change your own rules, or push it more forward, and it is easy to get lost in violence.

There are consequences to that, and you are not going to be the same person ever again.

Violence is a tool, not a toy. You need to know how to use it as best as possible, but also to avoid using it when it is not necessary.

It is a good idea to set up a clear set of rules (mentally too) when you are gonna use violence and to try to stick to it.

For example you will use weapon if someone tries to break your home and attack you, and you need to be ready to do that without hesitation.

What else should we know about post-collapse violence?

Think with your head and research.

One thing that is absolutely important when it comes to understanding how violent it is going to be and what can you expect in your own case of SHTF, is to understand how much media can influence people in making their decisions about violence.

In my case, the media built up situation where people feared so much from other people that they actually hated them. They hated them so much that they actually strip them down from humanity.

In a real-life example, it works in a way that people killed other people, including kids and women, because they hated them so much because media told them.

It may look ridiculous and not possible to you, and you might again think “that can not happen here” but please trust your own resources, look for independent information, not mainstream media, in order to get the right information about what is really happening in the beginning of collapse.

Do not be pulled into “popular opinion” just because the “man from TV” (whoever he might be) told you so.

It is easier today. Because of the internet, you have much more choices for correct information than in my time. But still be careful, you might find yourself rioting together with 500 people just because you trusted some media.

*  *  *

More from Selco 

More information about Selco

Selco survived the Balkan war of the 90s in a city under siege, without electricity, running water, or food distribution.

In his online works, he gives an inside view of the reality of survival under the harshest conditions. He reviews what works and what doesn’t, tells you the hard lessons he learned, and shares how he prepares today.

He never stopped learning about survival and preparedness since the war. Regardless what happens, chances are you will never experience extreme situations like Selco did. But you have the chance to learn from him and how he faced death for months.

Real survival is not romantic or idealistic. It is brutal, hard and unfair. Let Selco take you into that world.

Read more of Selco’s articles here: https://shtfschool.com/blog/

And take advantage of a deep and profound insight into his knowledge and advice by signing up for the outstanding and unrivaled online course. More details here: https://shtfschool.com/survival-boot-camp/

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2GeFCER Tyler Durden

Tiny Canadian Bank Unveils Digital Vault For Bitcoins

VersaBank, a tech-based, all-digital Canadian chartered bank, is developing a n ultra high-tech “Blockchain-based digital safety deposit box” for cryptocurrencies and other digital assets.

Last week, the firm announced the hiring of Gurpreet Sahota as Chief Architect of Cyber Security, a former Principal Architect of Cyber Security at BlackBerry Limited, to supervise a team of engineers in developing a novel Blockchain-based digital safety deposit box, known as the VersaVault. The service will be available by June and will serve as a means to store cryptocurrencies, according to the company’s latest press release.

VersaBank describes the VersaVault as the “world’s first blockchain-based safety deposit box,” which will soon be available on a global scale.

Your digital assets are just as valuable as any family jewelry, property deed or stock certificate, but protecting them isn’t nearly as simple. No storage device or commercial cloud service is completely safe, and most blockchain-based secure storage is only for crypto-currency… and offered by companies you’ve never heard of, in places you don’t know. VersaVault is the solution your digital wealth has been waiting for: the impenetrable security and absolute privacy of blockchain encryption, created and managed by a chartered bank in one of the world’s most trusted financial markets. Like a safety deposit box, only you have access to what’s inside, and like a safety deposit box, it’s been built by an institution you can trust to be there for the long run.

It is common that physical assets such as precious metals be stored in Switzerland, Hong Kong, and even Singapore, but when it comes to digital assets, could the country of choice soon be Canada? President and CEO David Taylor sure hopes so, and has positioned the bank to become a global leader in digital asset security from the perspective of safety.

Last month, Coincheck, a Japanese cryptocurrency exchange, told financial authorities that it had lost 500 million NEM cryptocurrency coin, which at January 26 exchange rate amounted to roughly $400 million. By far, this was the most significant crypto theft in history.

“We’re using what banks are all about — safety and security — only what we’re doing now is saying that physical box in the basement is getting obsolete,” Taylor said in an interview at Bloomberg’s Toronto office. “Most people’s really valuable assets are contained in some sort of digital format, whether it be a deed or a contract or a cryptocurrency.”

Our differentiator in this market is to be secure and super private,” added Taylor, 65. “The bank wouldn’t have any kind of back door to open up the vault, we’re just providing the facility that folks could put their digital keys in.”

Taylor said large financial institutions are showing interest in storing their digital assets in VersaVault since the company’s latest press release. He told Bloomberg that pricing has yet to be released, but he did indicate that it will be expensive.

Bloomberg notes that VersaBank is an early mover in the digital asset security space. However, VersaBank is not alone in the space with firms in Asia, Canada, and the United States, who have also made claims to digital asset secuity services.

South Korea’s Shinhan Bank said in November it planned to start a bitcoin vault by mid-year. Outside banking, Palo Alto, California-based Xapo Inc. has offered clients secure storage for Bitcoin for about four years, while Goldmoney Inc., a Toronto-based firm that lets clients buy, sell and store precious metals in vaults in seven countries, started offering Bitcoin storage in September.

Bloomberg explains  that Taylor’s decision to incorporate Blockchain technology into the bank will enable it to rapidly grow in size in a short period of time.

VersaBank, with a market value of about C$158 million ($126 million), 80 employees and C$1.73 billion in assets, has outperformed Canada’s big banks, with shares soaring 24 percent this year versus the 2.9 percent decline of the eight-company S&P/TSX Commercial Banks Index. Last year VersaBank rose 19 percent compared to the 11 percent gain of the banks index. Taylor is now eyeing a bit more growth while staying the course.  

“I’m happy to be a niche player, but can probably double the size we are in assets,” he said. “I think C$3 billion is kind of a nice number.”

It remains to be seen just how much safer a “blockchain-based” crypt will be compared to traditional air-gapped hard drives. Until then, we are confident that the world’s cryptobillionaires will stick to more conventional options, such as this “secret” Swiss bunker where the ultra rich hide their bitcoins.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2nXP9tm Tyler Durden

Army Major Slams Trump’s Toy-Soldier Fantasy

Authored by Army Major Danny Sjursen via TruthDig.com,

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
—Provenance unknown; sometimes erroneously attributed to author Sinclair Lewis

You’ve got to give it to the guy. He sure has a set on him. President Trump is impenetrable and far from subtle.

On Tuesday, Americans were treated to the news that Trump has ordered the Pentagon to plan a “big” military parade. We should hardly be surprised. Our president—he of bone spurs and other Vietnam draft deferments—loves martial displays. We’ve already watched him gleefully sword dance with Saudi Arabian princes and marvel at a triumphant Bastille Day parade in Paris. He really liked the French procession.

In fact, according to a Pentagon spokesman, “The marching orders were: I want a parade like the one in France.”

The man possesses the military maturity of a sophomore from his alma mater, a New York military boarding school in the Hudson Valley, but he sure knows what he wants.

In the coming days, you’ll no doubt be treated to dozens of columns about Trump’s latest request, or, more accurately, his latest order. Expect much discussion of the logistical difficulties inherent in such a cavalcade and speculation about the parade’s monetary cost. But the crisis is deeper still.

The parade is just a symptom. It centers on persistent American militarism and our pariah status in the eyes of the world.

The Trump administration, like the two that proceeded it, possesses not even the semblance of a coherent foreign policy. Who needs strategy when you’ve got pomp, and who better to usher in the show than America’s first reality-TV president?

Make no mistake: This is spectacle, not strategy, pageantry, not prudence. In that sense, nothing better defines our unique militarist moment.

Everything is in play in the martial culture wars waged among Americans. The National Football League is a battleground. Soldiers a-marching and jets a-flying used to be saved for Memorial Day or Veterans Day. Now, it’s a regular Sunday spectacle. Presidents, politicians and “patriots” nearly faint with pride and adulation—a new, compulsory, American ritual. The few African-American players with the audacity to kneel in protest during the national anthem are pilloried, attacked from the very pinnacle of government. It’s a war, in our heads and in our hearts. Militarism is winning.

*  *  *

Trump didn’t invent the misappropriation of military members for partisan political gain. Oh, no. That’s a well-worn trick of the trade. Heck, George W. Bush landed a plane on a damn aircraft carrier. Even Barack Obama was hardly above speeches and photo-ops with the troops. Still, you have to admit that only Trump could elevate this sort of spectacle into an art form, albeit a gaudy one.

Like so much else in Trump’s governing style, this is pure distraction. He’ll entertain the sentimental masses with shiny, low-hanging patriotic fruit while whisking Paul Ryan’s agenda (with a sprinkle of Stephen Miller nativism) through Congress. After all, there’s lots from which to distract in contemporary America. From militarized police patrolling the streets of black and brown neighborhoods to record income inequality, to sporting the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, in a nation where black men are imprisoned at five times the rate of whites. Take your pick.

Zooming out a bit, how do you think America’s upcoming martial parade will play in the rest of the world, especially the Greater Middle East, Uncle Sam’s favorite playground of late?

Let’s take an imaginary tour. I’m not sure the people of Yemen—starving and disease ridden under United States-backed Saudi terror bombing—will find much to celebrate in the U.S. military. The Kurds, America’s erstwhile allies in Syria, might resent Trump’s decision to abandon them to the machinations of Turkey, their sworn enemy. Palestinians won’t be impressed either, seeing as this administration broke with the rest of the world and 70 years of precedent to unilaterally sign away their capital, Jerusalem, to Israel.

Afghans can’t be bothered with U.S. victory parades. After all, their capital city is suffering under regular bombing attacks, and a record number of provinces are now controlled by the Taliban. This after a 17-year string of U.S. military “victories.”

The Nigerians, South Sudanese, Somalis and Yemenis suffering under what experts call the catastrophic “four famines” are liable to ask whether the U.S. military couldn’t provide a bit less terror-chasing and a bit more humanitarian assistance before they and their families starve to death. And, finally, imagine the shock of millions of Mideast refugees blocked from entering the U.S. when they find out the American military is celebrating “victory” in the very wars (think Iraq, 2003) that destabilized their region.

*  *  *

The truth is that most Americans, especially those in Trump’s peculiar coalition—war hawks, tax-cut-hungry CEOs, struggling Rust Belt white males and (strangely, considering their support for a thrice-married New Yorker) evangelical Christians—couldn’t care less about any other countries.

This is now the “America First,” “Make America Great Again” Republican Party, remember? No one in the president’s iron alliance of (40 percent of) Americans is going to worry about how the image of a U.S. military parade plays on the “Arab street.” Self-awareness is not a common American virtue, more’s the pity.

Anyway, the parade will come and go. America’s military will obediently spin its logistical wheels to give the president what he wants—a spectacle to match that of his favorite nemesis doppelganger in North Korea. Half the country will cheer our passing American “heroes.” The other half will grumble about Trumpian narcissism. When it’s all over, most everyone will ignore the creeping militarism that infects American society.

This veteran, for one, will pass on watching Trump’s carnival display. It’s a sad day indeed when one pines for the unrest of the late 1960s, when hundreds of thousands of peace activists, frustrated veterans and even Gold Star mothers regularly descended on Washington to protest an immoral and failing war.

Now, that would be a parade worth watching.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2EBQ5gz Tyler Durden