The Pentagon has admitted that they have been investigating UFOs through a secret government initiative known as the “Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP),” which the Defense department told the New York Post “did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena.“
image: ‘Project Blue Book’
The DoD says that it shut down AATIP in 2012, however spokesman Christopher Sherwood told the Post that the department still investigates potential alien aircraft sightings.
“The Department of Defense is always concerned about maintaining positive identification of all aircraft in our operating environment, as well as identifying any foreign capability that may be a threat to the homeland,” said Sherwood.
“The department will continue to investigate, through normal procedures, reports of unidentified aircraft encountered by US military aviators in order to ensure defense of the homeland and protection against strategic surprise by our nation’s adversaries.”
Nick Pope, who secretly investigated UFOs for the British government during the 1990s, called the DOD’s comments a “bombshell revelation.”
Pope, a former UK defense official-turned-author, said, “Previous official statements were ambiguous and left the door open to the possibility that AATIP was simply concerned with next-generation aviation threats from aircraft, missiles and drones — as skeptics claimed.
“This new admission makes it clear that they really did study what the public would call ‘UFOs,’ ” he said.
“It also shows the British influence, because UAP was the term we used in the Ministry of Defence to get away from the pop culture baggage that came with the term ‘UFO.’ ” –New York Post
AATIP’s existence was revealed in 2017, when former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) claimed to have arranged for the program’s $22 million annual funding. Reid told the New York Times that it was “one of the good things I did in my congressional service.”
The New York Times published the article after the DoD released a 33-second DoD video released by the AATIP, featuring an airborne object being chased off the coast of San Diego by two navy jets in 2004.
On Sunday we reported on an op-ed written by Christopher Mellon in The Hill, on the fact that since 2015, “dozens of Navy F-18 fighter jets have encountered Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAPs) – once commonly referred to as UFOs – off the East Coast of the United States, some not far from the nation’s capital. Encounters have been reported by other military aircraft and civilian airliners elsewhere in the U.S. and abroad, too, including videos shot by airline passengers.”
What these UAPs were and who was flying them – whether friends, foes or unknown forces – remains a mystery. Yet careful examination of the data inevitably leads to one possible, disturbing conclusion: A potential adversary of the United States has mastered technologies we do not yet understand, to achieve capabilities we cannot yet match.
It is long past time for Congress to discover the answers to those questions, and to share at least some of its conclusions with the public. –The Hill
So what’s really out there?
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/30BVRqB Tyler Durden
Bloated governments around the world are faced with worsening fiscal conditions. Strapped for cash, they continue to squeeze every drop of wealth that’s within their reach through money printing and higher taxes. Today, we ask Jeff Thomas to weigh in on how to ensure you don’t become collateral damage in the next crisis.
International Man: We see this trend playing out around the world in the US, across Europe and in third world countries. Desperate governments are always in need of more capital. What does that mean for people who earn money and want to keep it?
Jeff Thomas: The most direct answer is that, if they’re going to survive the situation with their skin on, they’re going to have to rethink the way they hold on to wealth. But more broadly, they’re going to need to understand that the crisis that’s headed their way is not going to look the same as the mini-crashes that occurred in 2000 and 2008. This one is going to be far more devastating for some jurisdictions such as the EU, US and Canada. In those jurisdictions, this will be an endgame situation. Historically, whenever this occurs, the big players – governments included – tend to scrape all the chips off the table, ignoring any previous rules of the game. At such a time, no government, no banking institution, no investment fund is to be trusted.
This will mean that any monetary exposure the individual has with regard to these entities, should be regarded as sacrificial. By this, I mean that any exposed wealth is not necessarily certain to be lost entirely, but it’s quite possible. So any wealth that’s subject to the control of these institutions should be assumed to be wealth that may, suddenly and without warning, be confiscated or otherwise lost.
The greatest difficulty in this is that traditional investments and stores of wealth may no longer be viable, and the individual will have to prepare for this eventuality now, before this occurs.
International Man: To a large extent, everyone is forced to use and earn in US dollars, euros, pesos, etc. These are all paper currencies that are centrally controlled by governments looking to spend more and finance it with the printing press. How do people get what they earn outside of that system?
Jeff Thomas: The answer to this comes in two parts. If the individual only does one, he may still lose everything he’s got. He has to do both if he’s to protect himself. The first part is that, if he lives in one of the endangered jurisdictions, he’ll need to expatriate his wealth to a safer location – a jurisdiction that’s less likely to head south in a crisis. In any crisis, there are always some jurisdictions that remain stable. These jurisdictions actually thrive in a crisis, as the money flows to them rapidly. There’s an old saying that says, “Money tends to go where it’s treated best,” and that’s especially true in a crisis. So, whilst some jurisdictions will be in crisis, others will actually prosper – and therefore be safer – than they were before.
The second part is that, once you’ve liquidated all of your holdings that you can, at home, and have successfully expatriated the proceeds to a safer location, you want to get them into a form that’s as safe as possible. Unfortunately, in a crash, banks worldwide are likely to close without warning. In some jurisdictions, they’ll re-open once they’re assured that there will be no run on the banks, but in the interim, your access to your wealth may be frozen. In an overseas bank, this is better than losing it entirely, as you might have, back home, but it does limit your options for an indeterminate period. Therefore, once your wealth is expatriated, you’ll want to convert much of it out of cash. Real estate is an excellent choice in an overseas jurisdiction, as your home government cannot confiscate it. For one country to take land in another country is an act of war.
The other choice is to buy precious metals and store them in the best facility you can, in the safest jurisdiction you can. In a crisis, the value of precious metals always rises, as does the demand for them. In such a facility it’s also possible to store cash. Unlike a bank, a storage facility doesn’t have the right to confiscate your wealth or to refuse you the right to withdraw it. That means that, as monetary events unfold, you retain the ability to control your wealth.
International Man: In an effort to end America’s Great Depression, President Roosevelt made gold ownership illegal in 1933 – forcing people to turn in their gold in exchange for paper money. How do hard assets like gold, other precious metals and real estate stack up against any future attempts by a government to confiscate or tax it?
Jeff Thomas: In any crisis, there are no guarantees. The best you can do is avoid being the low-hanging fruit. If you live in, say, New York, and all your real estate ownership is in the US and all your cash is in New York banks, you’re as exposed as you can get. The objective is to make it as difficult to take your wealth as possible. If all your wealth is in another country (or countries), your home country has to deal with another country’s laws and go through their courts in order to take what’s yours. Your objective is to make your wealth so difficult to go after that you’re too much trouble to bother with.
I should mention that this approach is working well, as we speak, for those who are employing it. However, it may become essential in a crisis.
Another fact to bear in mind is that, whilst politicians are forever complaining about those countries that respect wealth, those same politicians need a place to keep their own wealth in a crisis. Politicians who know what’s coming want to be sure that safer jurisdictions exist, and although they may rail publicly about those jurisdictions, they’ll privately want to be assured that they themselves will be able to use those same jurisdictions as their own back door.
International Man: What should people consider in their decision to move their wealth and assets outside the control of unfavorable governments?
Jeff Thomas: First, be aware that time is limited. We may have a year or two before it’s necessary, but a market crash could happen at any time. It’s always better to be a year too early than a day too late. Second, I always advise people to select the safest jurisdiction they can find that’s not too far to get to, if an emergency were to occur. For example, Singapore is an excellent choice, but for North Americans, it’s halfway round the world.
Once you’ve selected your best option for an accessible jurisdiction, seek out a storage facility within that jurisdiction that’s not also a banking institution. The OECD, FATCA, etc., are in a great position to blackmail banks, but they can’t do the same to non-banking institutions. That’s one more layer of protection for you.
If the laws of that jurisdiction protect you well, that means that a storage facility within that jurisdiction is protected by those same laws. Again, one more layer.
International Man: What do you look for in a place that might be safe for your money?
Jeff Thomas: I begin with those countries that have no direct taxation of any kind – no income tax, property tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, etc. (Remember – it’s much harder for any government to create a new form of taxation than to simply raise an existing tax). Also, as regards precious metals ownership, look for an absence of taxes or duties that apply to the purchase, ownership, storage or sale of precious metals. This ensures not only an absence of taxes; it also ensures an absence of governmental interference in what you do with your wealth. You can act quickly if you need to without having red tape tie you up.
Second, you’d want a jurisdiction whose government has a consistent history for economic stability that caters to international investors. This is critical. It means that if that country’s economy is dependent upon foreign investment, the political leaders can’t change the rules on you without destroying their own careers. You want them to need you to do well, so that they can remain in their jobs. That’s your insurance policy when times are hard and political temptations are great.
Finally, if you’re able to do so, financially, you’d want to have a bolt hole – a property in a jurisdiction that’s either going to be minimally affected by the coming crisis or will be positively affected. That’s something you’d need to create in advance, as, if conditions turned sour in your home country, you’d want to have your Alamo ready for you. You’d just pack a carry-on and go to the airport, knowing your destination was waiting for you. Making your wealth safe in a crisis won’t help much if you can’t get to it and get your family safe.
I’m not predicting an “end-of-the-world” scenario here, but it would be wise to anticipate significant unrest that may be brief or periodic. Ideally, you’d want to sit that out someplace safer.
* * *
Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the trajectory of broke governments in need of more cash. There are still steps you can take to ensure you survive the turmoil with your money intact. We’ve eliminated the guess work and found an ideal solution that will help keep your savings safe and within your control… even during the worst of times. As you’ll see, it’s one of International Man contributor Jeff Thomas’ preferred options. Click here to find out more.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2HPpps1 Tyler Durden
The very embattled Huawei Technologies has accused a former employee of poaching workers and stealing their proprietary intellectual property in order to launch a competing firm backed by Microsoft and Dell.
In a December 2017 lawsuit, Huawei alleged in 2017 that Yiren “Ronnie” Huang stole technology and recruited 14 of its employees. Huang was hired in 2010 as a principal engineer for the Chinese company’s solid-state drive (SSD) storage group. In June, 2013, Huang left Huawei subsidiary Futurewei along with several others, before incorporating competing CNEX Labs.
“Huang used information he obtained through his employment at FutureWei along with FutureWei’s resources and technology in drafting these patent applications,” Huawei alleged in its complaint.
The San Jose-based CNEX shot back, filing a countersuit in 2018 claiming that Huawei engaged in a multiyear conspiracy to steal their solid-state drive storage technology, which included the assistance of a Chinese university, according to the Wall Street Journal.
In a pretrial hearing last month, CNEX attorneys alleged that Mr. Xu directed a Huawei engineer to analyze CNEX’s technical information.
CNEX said the engineer met with CNEX officials in June 2016, posing as a potential customer to obtain trade secret information, according to a transcript of the April 17 hearing, which was conducted by the court via teleconference. Afterward, the engineer produced a report about CNEX’s technology and submitted it to a competitive-intelligence database maintained by HiSilicon, Huawei’s chip-development unit, according to a CNEX lawyer who cited the engineer’s deposition, the transcript shows.
Mr. Xu also was briefed on an arrangement between Huawei and China’s Xiamen University, according to CNEX lawyers, who said the partnership was part of a plot to misappropriate CNEX’s trade secrets. –Wall Street Journal
CNEX lawyers said that in 2017, Xiamen University tried to obtain a computer memory board under the guise of purely academic research purposes, which CNEX provided under a licensing agreement with a strict nondisclosure provision.
“What was hidden from CNEX was that Xiamen was working with Huawei and had entered into an agreement separately with Huawei to provide them with all of their research test reports,” said CNEX lawyer Eugene Mar. The Chinese company then fed the results of the Xiamen study into various chip projects, one of which is scheduled for release later this year.
A Huawei lawyer acknowledged that Mr. Xu “was in the chain of command that had requested” information about CNEX, and confirmed that a CNEX document had been put into HiSilicon’s competitive intelligence database, known as its “D-box directory,” according to the transcript of the April 17 hearing.
Huawei insists that nothing was stolen, and that the engineer had met with CNEX after he was invited to discuss “their products and their open source technology,” according to the transcripts.
Huang, who had worked in the field for decades including at Cisco, was hired at Huawei’s FutureWei unit in Santa Clara, California, in January 2011. His job was to oversee a group researching various storage technologies that could be integrated into Huawei’s networking products.
Huang says the position was a ruse by Huawei to steal his inventions as part of an “ongoing effort for Chinese technological dominance.” He stayed with the firm for more than two years, and formed CNEX with two former Marvell Technology Group Ltd. executives less than a week after he left FutureWei. –Bloomberg
“Huawei is attempting to use the U.S. federal court system in Texas to steal intellectual property created and developed by American semiconductor innovators,” said CNEX General Counsel Matthew Gloss, who added that the trial “will shed light on the systematic and wide-ranging methods Huawei has used to steal emerging and foundational data center technology expected to support tomorrow’s 5G networks.”
On April 2, District Court Judge Amos Mazzant ruled that CNEX doesn’t have to turn over ownership of Huang’s patents and applications.
The trading of barbs comes amid sensitive trade negotiations between the US and China. After the Trump administration blacklisted Huawei – which it has accused of assisting Beijing in espionage – a slew of technology firms and telecom companies around the world have scrapped plans to sell Huawei handsets and other devices.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2X6lBta Tyler Durden
It’s been exactly one year since US scientists reported a mysterious surge in ozone-destroying chemicals, known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Banned in 1987 under the globally signed Montreal Protocol, there was only one explanation: somewhere out there, in an unknown location, someone must have gone rogue, setting back progress on the ozone hole by a decade or more.
After much speculation, the whereabouts and magnitude of these harmful emissions has been confirmed in scientific research. As earlier reporting in The New York Timeshad already suggested, they seem to be coming from the northeast coast of mainland China.
Since the Montreal Protocol was declared a success in 2013, this highly industrial region has continued to emit, whether accidentally or not, CFC-11: the second most abundant chlorofluorocarbon in the atmosphere. Between the periods of 2008-2012 and 2014-2017, in fact, CFC-11 emissions increased here by roughly 110 percent.
“This increase accounts for a substantial fraction (at least 40 to 60 per cent) of the global rise in CFC-11 emissions,” an international team of researchers writes in a new report.
“We find no evidence for a significant increase in CFC-11 emissions from any other eastern Asian countries or other regions of the world where there are available data for the detection of regional emissions.”
These violations are likely going unreported because even though CFC-11 is illegal, it is also one of the cheapest ways to produce new foam insulation in refrigerators and buildings.
After tracking down documents and international sources, journalists at The New York Times and independent investigators discovered that in some factories in China, illegal CFC use has been slipping through the cracks for years.
The examples given are based in Xingfu, a rural industrial town in China’s Shandong province, and incidentally, that is the very same province that the scientists landed on too.
Gathering atmospheric observations from locations in South Korea and Japan, the researchers compared global monitoring data and atmospheric chemical movements to figure out whether these emissions came from eastern Asia – the area most suspected as the source of CFC-11.
Along with Shandong, the nearby province of Hebei was also implicated. Both regions are big industrial producers heavily involved in the nation’s manufacturing, and while the chemical may not actually be produced here, it’s certainly being emitted at alarming rates somewhere nearby.
“To bring about such an increase … would require new emissions from the disposal and destruction of refrigerators more than 10 times higher than recently estimated for the whole of China between 2014 and 2017,” the authors write, “or a larger and more rapid increase in emissions from the demolition of old buildings than was previously predicted for the entire world over a 20-year period (2020–2040).”
Whether these factories know what they’re doing or not (and the NYT report certainly suggests they understand), their actions pose a serious threat not only to the ozone layer, but also to the climate crisis. CFC-11 has a powerful heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere, so if emissions continue as they are, experts say it would be equivalent to the amount of CO2 produced by 16 coal-fired power stations every year.
China currently produces about one-third of the world’s polyurethane foam, and the emissions so far may only represent a fraction of what has already been manufactured. The rest of the CFC-11 may still be trapped inside a slowly-emitting foam bank, and the only way to know for sure is to find the ones responsible.
Unfortunately, the new research is unable to zoom in any closer on the culprit, so it is still unclear whether these emissions are widespread across both these Chinese regions, or scattered among just a few sources. For now, the hunt continues.
A new wave of investments in automation could stimulate the economy after the next recession. By 2030, automation may eliminate 20% to 25% of current jobs (equivalent to 40 million displaced workers), crushing the bottom 90% of Americans the hardest. Some of these investments include the automation of shipping terminals, reported Bloomberg.
At Pier 400 in Los Angeles, North America’s largest shipping terminal, about 1,700 diesel vehicles pass through the facility daily. The terminal is managed by APM Terminals, a segment of A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S, is expected to replace diesel and gasoline engines with electric, and use autonomous software to replace the workforce.
APM has already started to transform Pier 400 into a smart port, which will be several year processes of establishing robots throughout the facility to move containers more efficiently. To do this, APM recently ordered an electric, automated carrier from Finnish manufacturer Kalmar Global, that can perform three tasks: a crane, top-loader, and truck. Not only would the human element be eliminated from the equation, but also 65,000 miles driven by diesel motors would be replaced with electric engines.
The benefits of automation at the port will flow to the highly skilled workers—as well as APM. As a result, automation could significantly increase income inequality in the surrounding community because of the newly displaced workers, stripped of their jobs by robots.
Anthony Armijo, has worked at the terminal for 15 years said, “I just don’t understand what we’re going to be doing in the future,” he said. “I’m an American citizen. You would think they would have a way for us to make a living.”
Automation and clean-energy initiatives are expected to disrupt hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs, at the terminal by 2021.
“Automation is the path of history,” said Dan Sperling, a member of California’s Air Resources Board and professor of civil engineering and environmental science at the University of California, Davis. “The questions are how much automation really makes sense, and how do you deal with the disruption to the workers?”
Wim Lagaay, president and chief executive officer of APM North America, views automation as a way to stay competitive in the global economy.
“If you don’t have a competitive port, you don’t have volumes, you have nothing,” he said. “Jobs will change, jobs will be created, jobs will be eliminated.”
The deepening trade war has led to a slowdown in trade volume at the terminal. Exports to China through Los Angeles and Long Beach crashed by 35%, and imports from China dropped 11.5% in 1Q19, versus 1Q18.
Automation will help the terminal survive the trade war by lowering operating costs, increase productivity, and allow the facility to work 24/7.
Moody’s Investors Service shows that only 5 of the 44 shipping terminals that are either semi-automated or fully automated are located in the US.
West Coast ports have increased cost pressures and struggle to stay competitive, given their per container costs are 165% higher than East Coast and Gulf Coast ports, according to the Pacific Maritime Association.
The $1.5 billion, fully automated system at Pier 400 will be completed in 2021, will handle more freight and make the terminal more competitive, while cutting pollution.
“The reality is, if you want to be competitive, you do have to go towards automation,” said Lee Klaskow, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst.
The next phase of automation has begun, and it will accelerate for the next decade. Waves of automation have reshaped the economy in the past, take, for example, agricultural automation allowed farmers to shift to factories, and industrial automation enabled factory workers to migrate to the service sector. Each time, the impact of automation on the economy has created increased volatility in the marketplace.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Wo3bGU Tyler Durden
The bilateral trade war between the US and China is gradually becoming a global trade war of global geopolitical and commercial dominance between the US and Chinese spheres of influence.
Shortly after the two largest mobile phone companies in the UK decided against launching Huawei-built 5G phones this morning, and roughly around the time a bevy of Japanese tech and telecom companies including ARM Holdings, Panasonic and SoftBank all imposed a boycott on supplying Huawei with mission critical components joining Australia, and New Zealand as major US allies to end commercial relations with Huawei following the US decision to crack down on the Chinese telecom giant (see “Huawei Feels U.S. Squeeze in U.K., Japan as Partners Curb Business“) the White House is now pressuring another critical Chinese trading partner – South Korea – to cease ties with Huawei.
According to the Chosun Ilbo newspaper, the US recently asked South Korean government to support and join its anti-Huawei campaign.
Forcing Seoul to pick sides in a fight it would rather stay out of – especially since both sides still bear a distinct grudge from the Korean war – the US delivered a message several times to S. Korea’s Foreign Ministry that “using Huawei products may cause security problems” and as a result, the US requested S. Korea’s “active” support of US policy toward China as South Korea is seen as an American ally.
More from Chosun, google translated:
A diplomatic source in Seoul said, “We have been constantly communicating to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that there is a risk of security problems if the US government uses Huawei products through various diplomatic channels. “We have asked for cooperation in the policy.” The United States, which is in full control of Huawei due to trade pressure on China, has demanded that its allies such as South Korea join in.
U.S. State Department official told a S. Korean govt official that LG Uplus should not provide services in sensitive areas in the country and that S. Korea needs to ban Huawei in the end, though not immediately
For now, the pressure campaign has failed to generate success: while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed its sympathy for the concerns of the United States, it has so far been hesitant to take a stand, saying, “it is difficult for the government to intervene in the decision-making of private enterprises” and expressed reservations about the request.
As Chosun adds, citing members of the telecom and IT industry, if the Korean government stops importing Huawei equipment at the request of the United States, it is estimated that the damage to the enterprise amounts to billions of dollars. If China takes retaliation against our company, the damage can snowball.”
On the other hand, South Korea’s own telecom giant, Samsung stands to benefit if Huawei, the world’s second-biggest smartphone vendor (having recently supplanted Apple) is crippled. Of course, if Seoul concedes to US demands, and joins Japan, Australia, New Zealand and other Pacific Rim nations in launching their own trade war against Beijing, China’s retaliation will be furious and will likely result in further collapse in trade among these nations. Which is a problem considering that just yesterday we pointed out the unprecedented plunge in South Korean exports for the first 20 days of the month.
As such, the longer the trade war between the US and China drags on, the more nations will join both either US or China in retaliating against the adversary, in the process plunging global trade even further. Which is also a problem, because as we showed last week, global trade has already plummeted to near depression levels last seen during the financial crisis.
Should trade get even worse, not even central banks will be able to “print” the trillions in trade and commerce that will be indefinitely mothballed.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2X0OYwO Tyler Durden
The Nevada Senate on Tuesday approved a National Popular Vote bill, sending the legislation aimed at undermining the electoral college to Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak.
Assembly Bill 186 was passed by the Senate on a 12-8 vote along party lines, and will bring Nevada into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact – an agreement which would see participating states casting their electoral votes for whoever wins the popular vote, according to the Washington Times.
If signed as expected by Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak, Nevada would become the 16th jurisdiction to join the compact, along with 14 states and the District of Columbia. The compact would take effect after states totaling 270 electoral votes, and with Nevada, the total would reach 195.
While the effort has been billed by organizers as bipartisan, Democrats have embraced the NPV in the aftermath of President Trump’s 2016 victory, which saw the Republican win the electoral vote but not the popular vote. –Washington Times
The move was widely applauded by leftist groups such as Public Citizen, Common Cause and Indivisible.
— Guard The Constitution 🇺🇸 (@GuardTheConst) May 22, 2019
“The movement to abolish the electoral college is winning,” tweeted Public Citizen. Of note, the NPV does not actually “abolish the electoral college” – it renders it irrelevant by requiring electors cast their votes for whoever receives the most votes, regardless of who actually wins in their state.
Supporters of the NPV compact say it will take the power away from a handful of swing states, while critics say it will concentrate power in coastal, populous, primarily liberal strongholds such as California and New York.
“If we go to a national popular vote, why would they even bother coming here? Our constitution says we’re a republic, not a democracy,” said Nevada Assemblyman Jim Wheeler (R) during an April debate. “I voted ‘no’ on the national popular vote because I don’t want Nevada to be a flyover state.”
AB186 would nullify Nevadans vote in the Electoral College. It will be my pleasure to vote NO to giving Nevadans votes to New York City. #NVLegpic.twitter.com/WqPS92xmx2
So far in 2019, Colorado, Delaware and New Mexico have joined the compact, while other Democrat-controlled states are expected to follow. Last week the Maine Senate passed an NPV bill which has been sent to the House, while Oregon’s similar legislation has been approved by the Senate.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2M4Mpc8 Tyler Durden
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means.
– Lord Acton
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
– Buckminster Fuller
If you’ve read anything I’ve written over the past several years, you’ll be acutely aware of my belief that human civilization is currently in a major transition period between two great paradigms of world history. The old world we all grew up in no longer works for most people, yet is being relentlessly propped up by the powerful and their minions who benefit from its parasitic and destructive nature. Despite their best efforts, a system so poisonous, decrepit and corrupt cannot and will not last. At this stage, it’s little more than a Potemkin village fraud barely kept standing courtesy of increasingly intense deception, manipulation and the sheer will of those who profit handsomely from it.
By stating we’re in the transition period, I want to make it clear I believe things are very much already being disrupted and altered beneath the hood of a world which appears indistinguishable from what it was a decade ago on a superficial level. Specifically, I think there are two core aspects of human existence that will be completely transformed in the years to come.
First, within the monetary and financial systems that define how commerce, savings and entrepreneurship function. The emergence and continued momentum of Bitcoin offers evidence that disruption in this realm is already very much underway, albeit still in its infancy.
The second realm I expect will experience massive transformational change relates to forms of human governance. We’ve barely scratched the surface on this one, but nascent signs have started to appear, and I suspect a push towards political systems more defined by direct democracy will become increasingly common in the years ahead. I’ve spent many hours writing about the financial and monetary system, so today’s piece will focus on what appears to be coming with regard to human political evolution.
Direct democracy is something that’s been tried before, so there’s some history to it. Once you start exploring the concept you’ll be immediately confronted with a plethora of terms such as eDemocracy, liquid democracy, referendum, initiative, and recall to name just a few. The purpose of this post isn’t to dig into all of that, although it’s certainly a useful exercise and I’ll provide some helpful links at the end. The purpose of this post is to distinguish direct democracy from the most common form of democratic government functioning on earth today, representative democracy.
We exist in such a profoundly bizarre moment in time. We all know everything’s broken, that the way the world works is archaic and terminal, but we have yet to cross into the next paradigm. Truly an incredible time to be alive.
I like to keep things simple, and simply put, the core purpose of direct democracy is to ensure that voters are more active and empowered in political life than in a representative democracy where you vote for people who you then entrust to vote in your interests. As we can all see by now, this isn’t working.
Even in a government construct such as the one outlined in the U.S. Constitution, with a separation of powers as well as the decentralization inherent in political entities known as states, representative democracy remains a centralizing and corruptible force. In such a system, voters relinquish their rights to have a direct say on the most significant issues of the day, which opens up tremendous opportunities for corruption. All special interests have to do is compromise a few hundred (or less) representatives, which we can all see is quite commonplace and trivial to do. I’ve long believed that the biggest threat to human liberty and progress is centralized concentrations of power, whether that power manifests in government or corporate form. Representative democracy is the most common form of democracy practiced in the world today, and it serves to concentrate power in professional politicians who are then compromised. Not a very good system.
Here are a few related quotes from a recent article I read which are worth thinking about.
In 1964, 76 percent of Americans had faith in the government to do what is right “always or most” of the time. In 2015, that figure fell to only 19 percent.
The world’s current democratic institutions came into being about the same time as the telegram. But while Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has evolved, our systems of governance have not.
The weakness of representative democracy lies in the disconnection between voter and representative, infrequent elections, high voter-to-representative ratios, and the limited choices of a two- or three-party system. Moreover, the concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch of government makes democracy vulnerable to the lobby industry. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that our electoral system supports a market trade of money for influence. Therefore, reducing our democratic system’s reliance on current models of representation may in fact be one of the great opportunities of eDemocracy.
I first recognized the power of direct democracy and change via referendum back in 2012 when the people of the state of Colorado (where I live), voted to legalize and regulate cannabis. To this day, it’s the only vote I’ve ever participated in that actually made a difference and empowered me as a voter and citizen. Had Colorado and Washington not put this decision to the people of their states back in 2012, it’s unlikely that any progress would have been made on this important issue anywhere in the U.S. There’s no way Congress would’ve done anything on the subject, yet many other states have since taken similar action following the success of legalization in the states willing to serve as guinea pigs. Direct democracy functions best from the bottom up, at a grass roots local level, which is something I’ll discuss more in Part 2. It should first and foremost empower people and communities, and if it doesn’t do that, then it’s not progress.
It’s important to note that direct democracy can take on virtually endless forms and structures. Different communities or regions should determine what works best for them. The key unifying principle is the public should have more direct input in what sort of legislation is passed, but there’s more to it than that. Recalls of politicians can be another element, as is the right to veto legislation passed by representative bodies, which are unlikely to disappear, but should be neutered and held far more accountable in realtime.
It’s most likely that future forms of government will consist of a hybrid structure, in which elements of representative democracy remain, but with a strong driving force and the check of direct democratic tools. For example, under liquid democracy voters can delegate their votes to trusted representatives on an issue-by-issue basis, while preserving their ability to participate directly on other issues. Direct democracy is definitely not a one-size fits all concept, and vast experimentation is key to figuring out what works best.
In next week’s post I’ll discuss why direct democracy is best rooted in local action and decision making. I’m a firm believer that most governance decisions should be made at a local level by the people living in particular area. Local regions can then decide to create larger alliances or loose political unions to face certain challenges that require such structures, but there should always be very simple ways to dissolve such arrangements when they no longer work for the communities that entered into them. The fact Catalonia has no simple legal manner to remove itself from Spain highlights the problem of creating rigid political structures.
Finally, here are a few resources on the topic of direct democracy you may find interesting.
Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. As such, there’s no monetization for this site other than reader support. To make this a successful, sustainable thing I ask you to consider the following options. You can become a Patron. You can visit the Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin or send cash/check in the mail.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2HQvGUz Tyler Durden
Japan and the UK have joined the US trade clampdown on China as technology companies scramble to comply with a May 15 Executive Order signed by President Trump, which governs foreign-made telecommunications equipment deemed a national security risk.
Japanese-owned chip designer ARM Holdings has notified its staff to halt “all active contracts, support entitlements, and any pending engagements” with Huawei and its subsidiaries in order to comply with the recent US clampdown, according to the BBC. Based in the UK and owned by Japan’s Softbank, ARM designs and licenses processors used in all types of electronic devices, including smart phones, tablets, laptops, televisions, automotive systems and more.
“ARM is the foundation of Huawei’s smartphone chip designs, so this is an insurmountable obstacle for Huawei,” said Geoff Blaber of CCS Insight, adding: “That said, with an abundance of companies in Huawei’s supply chain already having taken action to comply with the US order, Huawei’s ability to operate was already severely affected.”
In a company-wide memo, ARM told employees that their designs contain “US origin technology,” which would be affected by the Trump administration’s May 15 Executive Order to “protect our country against critical national security threats.”
The US has argued that the Chinese government could force companies such as Huawei to install backdoors on their devices to allow for spying on US networks – an accusation Huawei has repeatedly denied.
Softbank – which is also one of Japan’s largest mobile carriers – has joined with Japan’s largest carriers DoCoMo and KDDI in announcing that they will stop taking orders for Huawei handsets.
KDDI and SoftBank said they made the decision as it remains unclear whether U.S. technology giant Google LLC will continue providing services, including its Android operating system, to the Chinese smartphone-maker following the declaration of a national emergency over technology threats by U.S. President Donald Trump last week. –Japan Times
Meanwhile, Japan’s Panasonic has halted business with Huawei, and will no longer sell them certain components. “The affected products are limited, and there will be hardly any impact on earnings,” said a spokesperson.
Panasonic supplies parts for Huawei phones, and some of the Japanese companies’ products use U.S.-made technology.
The Osaka-based company said it will study whether other products are affected by last week’s U.S. Commerce Department decision, which applies to American-made technology, as well as to products manufactured overseas if the ratio of U.S.-derived content exceeds 25% by market value. –Nikkei
PANASONIC MAY SUSPEND DEALINGS WITH HUAWEI AFTER US BAN: KYODO
This after ARM… and now China declares trade war on Japan and the East China Sea becomes hot again
The UK’s Vodafone and BT subsidiary EE,have also announced that they would pull Huawei’s phones from their 5G networks, according to the Irish Times.
BT subsidiary EE had planned to offer Huawei phones as part of its launch on Wednesday of the UK’s first 5G network, but decided to “pause” this because of uncertainty after the Chinese group was included on a blacklist that forbids US companies to supply it with technology. This could stop Google from providing future versions of its Android system to Huawei.
Vodafone also said it would suspend Huawei’s Mate X phone from its 5G line-up. Vodafone had planned to launch the handset in the summer on its 5G network, but a spokesman said on Wednesday that “Huawei’s 5G handset is yet to receive the necessary certifications”. –Irish Times
EE will continue to use Huawei technology, along with Ericsson, for their 5G network’s radio equipment despite the ongoing political debate surrounding the Chinese company’s supply chain.
Last week the United States placed Huawei and 70 affiliates on its so-called “Entity List,” which will make it much more difficult for the telecom giant to buy parts and components from U.S. companies. U.S. officials said the decision would also make it difficult for Huawei to sell some products because of its reliance on U.S. suppliers.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2ErX8Ha Tyler Durden
In a move that is drawing ire from the left side of the aisle, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced Wednesday that a planned redesign of the $20 bill, set to include Harriet Tubman, will be delayed from its planned release date in 2020, according to CNBC.
The timing of the release had been set to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, but, due to counterfeiting issues, Mnuchin now says that no new imagery is going to be released until 2028.
Mnuchin said during a House Financial Services Committee meeting: “The primary reason we have looked at redesigning the currency is for counterfeiting issues. Based upon this, the $20 bill will now not come out until 2028. The $10 bill and the $50 bill will come out with new features beforehand.”
.@RepPressley: “Do you support Harriet Tubman being on the $20 bill?”
The redesign was announced by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew in 2016, following a 10 month process of seeking input from the public. In 2016, Lew said: “The decision to put Harriet Tubman on the new $20 was driven by thousands of responses we received from Americans young and old. I have been particularly struck by the many comments and reactions from children for whom Harriet Tubman is not just a historical figure, but a role model for leadership and participation in our democracy.”
During President’s Trump campaign for President, he referred to the idea of Tubman on the $20 as “pure political correctness” and instead suggested that she should be on the $2 bill.
In more important news, perhaps somebody should remind the left that if they get their ways in terms of MMT, monetary policy and fiscal policy, it’s not going to matter who is printed on the $20 when it inevitably becomes worthless.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2M0gBVE Tyler Durden
