Month: June 2018

Facebook provided at least four Chinese electronics companies, including government-linked telecom giant Huawei, unrestricted access to user data, according to a person familiar with the matter but not authorized to speak on the record.

The relationships were part of a recently revealed data-sharing partnership program which included at least 60 major device manufacturers, including Apple, Amazon, Blackberry, Microsoft and Samsung – allowing the companies to integrate various Facebook features into their operating systems which gave them access to user data, and the data of users’ friends without consent.

Huawei in particular has stoked concerns over national security, as lawmakers in Congress and top intelligence officials have raised red flags over whether or not the Chinese government might be able to demand access to data stored on Huawei devices or servers. While Huawei has denied the claims, the Pentagon decided to ban the sales of Huawei smartphones on U.S. military bases. 

Facebook data was only ever stored on Huawei servers, only directly on devices, according to the Washington Post. 

A spokesman for Huawei did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Facebook late Tuesday confirmed that it had worked with Huawei, as well as three other Chinese firms, Lenovo, OPPO and TCL. Facebook said those arrangements were “controlled from the get go — and we approved the Facebook experiences these companies built.”

Facebook’s statement followed a day of silence about its relationships with Chinese firms, which drew a sharp rebuke from Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va). Warner said in a statement Tuesday that Facebook’s relationships with Huawei and TCL raise “legitimate concerns, and I look forward to learning more about how Facebook ensured that information about their users was not sent to Chinese servers.” –WaPo

Facebook says they will be winding down their relationship with Huawei by the end of the week.

The data-sharing agreement, reported Sunday evening by the New York Times, allowed manufacturers to access information on relationship status, calendar events, political affiliations and religion, among other things. An Apple spokesman, for example, said that the company relied on private access to Facebook data to allow users to post on the social network without opening the Facebook app, among other things.

What’s more, the manufacturers were able to access the data of users’ friends without their explicit consent, despite Facebook declaring they would not let outside companies access user data. The catch? The NYT explains.

Facebook’s view that the device makers are not outsiders lets the partners go even further, The Times found: They can obtain data about a user’s Facebook friends, even those who have denied Facebook permission to share information with any third parties.

In interviews, several former Facebook software engineers and security experts said they were surprised at the ability to override sharing restrictions. –NYT

Despite winding down the partnerships in April – including the posting capabilities used by Apple, Facebook has defended the data-sharing agreements, saying they comply with the company’s privacy policies and a 2011 consent decree issued by the FTC. Facebook officials say they don’t know of any cases where user information has been misused. 

“These partnerships work very differently from the way in which app developers use our platform,” said Ime Archibong, a Facebook vice president. Unlike developers that provide games and services to Facebook users, the device partners can use Facebook data only to provide versions of “the Facebook experience,” the officials said.

“These contracts and partnerships are entirely consistent with Facebook’s F.T.C. consent decree,” said Archibong.

Former FTC official Jessica Rich, however, disagreed with that assessment.

“Under Facebook’s interpretation, the exception swallows the rule,” said Ms. Rich, now employed by the Consumers Union. “They could argue that any sharing of data with third parties is part of the Facebook experience. And this is not at all how the public interpreted their 2014 announcement that they would limit third-party app access to friend data.”

And because Facebook does not consider the device makers to be outsiders, the data sharing partnerships go even further, The Times discovered, which is what allows the companies to access user data of a Facebook user’s friends – even if they’ve denied Facebook permission to share information with third parties. 

The discovery of the manufacturer data-sharing agreements comes on the heels of a massive data harvesting scandal in which the social media giant allowed third party apps to gather massive quantities of user information for various political and marketing purposes. In March, political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica was revealed to have misused the private information of tens of millions of Facebook users.  The Cambridge Analytica ordeal shed light on the pervasive collection of data which has come under growing scrutiny since the scandal began in March. 

Facebook’s partnerships with device manufacturers may prove to be a headache for the social media giant, as the Federal Trade Commission is already investigating the company for a string of privacy mishaps – which could at minimum result in siginiviant fines if the agency finds further violations of consumer privacy.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2kSKRRO Tyler Durden

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

A Spiegel editorial compares Italy with a moocher who fails to say thank you for a donation.

Eurointelligence notes that German politicians and media have embarked on a xenophobic anti-European rampage, reminiscent of the discourse of the 1930s.

The editorial by Jan Fleischbauer titled “the moochers of Rome” is seething with contempt. He wonders how to call those who finance their dolce far niente lifestyle with the money of others. No prizes for guessing whom he had in mind. And for good measure he writes that the beggar at least says thank you if you fill his bag. He concludes no respectable nation should asks for help if it can help itself. No respectable nation wants to be known as a moocher. Italians have long passed this stage he concludes.

The French magazine Marianne notes that the Spiegel cover displays arrogance, stereotypes and authoritarianism consistent with their coverage of the political crisis in Italy. It is not an example of solidarity.

After the injudicious comments by Günther Oettinger last week, other German politicians continued in a similar spirit. CDU MP Eckhardt Rehberg warned that Italy is playing with fire and putting the eurozone in danger. And Markus Ferber, a CSU MEP, told the ZDF that in the worst case scenario of insolvency the troika (IMF, ECB and Commission) should march towards Rome and take over control of the Italian finance ministry.

Andreas Kluth wrote in Handelsblatt that Germany represents the opposite of the ideas that unite the southern euro area. Kluth says these two sides cannot be reconciled in the long run, no matter how much Merkel fudges a solution in the short run. Instead the divide gives rise to cultural narratives that use the worst stereotypes. It is this chasm that dooms Emmanuel Macron’s eurozone reform proposals, which Kluth refers to as southern-flavoured. He calls for the proponents to accept a shrinking of the union rather than jeopardising the whole eurozone. Of course, there was no reflection at all about Germany’s own contribution to this crisis.

Lazy Italians and Ugly Germans

The Handelsblatt discusses ‘Lazy Italians’ and ‘ugly Germans’: How the euro sows discord

A common currency was supposed to unite Europeans. Instead, it increasingly divides them, as Italy showed again this week.

Listen to Matteo Salvini, leader of the right-wing League, one of the two populist parties that will form the next Italian government: “We have a basic principle,” he said. “Only Italians make decisions for Italy, not the Germans… A minister the Germans don’t like is exactly the right minister for us.” A colleague added that it was time “to free the country from the chains that Brussels and Berlin have put on our ankles.”

What, you might ask, did Germany even have to do with the events in Rome this week? Good question. Superficially, nothing.

Below the surface, however, Germany has a lot to do with Italy’s political crisis. That’s because Germany represents the opposite of the ideas that, more or less, unite the southern euro area, from Greece to France and Italy. Whereas the south demands “solidarity,” Germany fears a “transfer union,” in which northern money permanently subsidizes bad loans and fiscal licentiousness in the south. Where the south clamors for stimulus, Germany demands austerity. Where the south wants fiscal discretion, Germany insists on strict Ordoliberal rules.

North vs. South

As I have been discussing North vs South (Germany vs peripheral) for well over a decade. These are irreconcilable differences.

The structural flaws in the Euro itself are the root cause of much of the pain.

Structural Flaws

• The ECB runs policy as “one size fits Germany”. Yet, interest rates suitable for Germany are not suitable for other countries.

• Productivity and regulations vary widely from country to country. Greece is a basket case of rules and regulations. French work rules are insane. Despite alleged “freedom of movement”, try setting up a bake shop in Germany.

• Target2 is a structural payment flaw with no solution.

Target2 Imbalances​

​

Target2, which guarantees repayments, is out of balance by close to €trillion.

• Germany is owed €902.4 billion, mostly by Italy and Spain.
• Italy owes creditors €426.4 billion.
• Spain owes creditors €389.3 billion.

How the hell is this supposed to be paid back? The unadmitted answer is: It can’t and won’t unless the ECB steps in and bails Germany out.

The final structural flaw is it takes 100% agreement to change the treaty. This ensures that the Maastricht treaty which created the eurozone can never be revised in a meaningful way. The North-South divide is such there can never be changes.

Merkel compounded the problems with inept immigration policy.

Known Going In

The euro flaws were recognized going in. The bureaucrats insisted the Euro would bring nations together over time.

In good times, there was an illusion the idea worked.

A rise in populism everywhere, even in Germany, proves otherwise.

Lack of European Reform Will Break the Eurozone

Wolfgang Münchau, associate editor of the Financial Times, and founder of Eurointelligence says Lack of European reform, not Italy, will break the eurozone.

Once again, I agree with Münchau on what is happening but disagree about solutions.

Münchau proposes “Italy could use its weight in the upcoming appointments of the EU’s most important jobs: the presidents of the European Commission, the European Council and the ECB.”

He concludes “If you are really pro-euro, my advice is to stop treating the euro as an article of faith but fight for its sustainability. That fight cannot be won in Italy alone. It requires big policy shifts in Brussels too.”

Dream On

The structural flaws noted above show that a big shift in Brussels is impossible.

Moreover, Trump is widening the Eurozone split with his policies on Germany, Iran, and the Russia pipeline.

At least Münchau understands the need for Plan B (leaving). His plan A is structural Fantasyland.

Germany Will Pay

Germany will pay one way or another. Here are the possibilities.

1. Germany and the creditor nations forgive enough debt for Europe to grow. This is the transfer union solution.

2. Permanently high unemployment and slow growth in Spain, Greece, Italy, with stagnation elsewhere in Europe

3. Breakup of the eurozone

Those are the alternatives.

Germany will not allow number 1. It is unreasonable to expect number 2 to last forever. The only door left open is door number 3.

The best move would be for Germany to leave the eurozone. Germany is in the best shape to suffer the consequences.

Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is a destructive breakup of the eurozone, starting in Italy or Greece.

Meanwhile, covers accusing Italy of being ungrateful moochers cannot possibly help matters.

For further discussion of the alternatives please see my September 2016 articles:

1. Michael Pettis Calls Surplus Trade Statements by German Finance Minister “Utter Lunacy”
2. Germany’s Finance Minister Blames ECB For German Trade Surplus; Why the Eurozone Will Destruct

via RSS https://ift.tt/2JwM8fy Tyler Durden

As if the US hasn’t already done enough to exacerbate the humanitarian crisis raging in Yemen, the Wall Street Journal  reported Monday that the Trump Administration is considering a request by the United Arab Emirates for “direct US support” as a coalition of Sunni majority nations prepares to seize the country’s biggest port, known as Hodeidah.

According to WSJ, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has requested an evaluation of the Sunni coalition’s plan to retake control of the port. And with good reason: That’s because some 90% of the imported goods including foodstuffs, medicine and other vital supplies flow into Yemen through the port. Already, the country is under an extreme humanitarian crisis, and cutting off the flow of supplies through the port could make it infinitely worse.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has asked for a quick assessment of the UAE’s plea for assistance such as surveillance drone flights to help a Saudi-led coalition retake Hodeidah, which currently serves as a vital lifeline for the country’s 29 million residents, U.S. officials said.

U.A.E. and Saudi Arabian officials have assured the U.S. that they won’t try to seize the Red Sea port until they get backing from Washington, American officials said. But there is growing concern in the Trump administration that fighting around the city could spiral out of control and force Washington’s hand. Yemeni fighters backed by the coalition are battling Houthis near the city.

“We continue to have a lot of concerns about a Hodeidah operation,” said one senior U.S. official. “We are not 100% comfortable that, even if the coalition did launch an attack, that they would be able to do it cleanly and avoid a catastrophic incident.”

Of course, the “catastrophic incident” that WSJ is referring to the possibility that a strike against the port would instigate a brutal, armed response as the two sides struggle to maintain access to the outside world. And while US officials have continued to hem and haw about the fighting…there’s been some debate over which groups on the agree to

U.A.E. and Saudi Arabian officials have assured the U.S. that they won’t try to seize the Red Sea port until they get backing from Washington, American officials said. But there is growing concern in the Trump administration that fighting around the city could spiral out of control and force Washington’s hand. Yemeni fighters backed by the coalition are battling Houthis near the city.

“We continue to have a lot of concerns about a Hodeidah operation,” said one senior U.S. official. “We are not 100% comfortable that, even if the coalition did launch an attack, that they would be able to do it cleanly and avoid a catastrophic incident.”

Still, the debate over increasing US military support to the UAE and KSA and Saudi Arabia is competing for the attention of top administration officials working furiously to prepare for the planned summit with North Korea in Singapore on June 12. But escalating military operations around the Yemeni port have triggered new urgency in Washington.

But even without direct action, US surveillance drone flights have helped the Saudi-led coalition in its battle to retake Hodeidah, which currently serves as a vital lifeline for the country’s 29 million residents,.

Indeed, as RT points out, the stakes are high. If the port is destroyed or damaged beyond operability, hundreds of thousands of people could die.

But regardless of whether the US explicitly condones the battle. Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be able to provide so much support for its Sunni allies in Yemen without the support of the US. Under President Obama, the US sold some $115 billion in arms to KSA until he put his foot down following the bombing of a funeral procession.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2sC8vqb Tyler Durden

Authored by Rob Slane via TheBlogMire.com,

In Part 1 of this series, I stated why I believe the official narrative on the Skripal case does not appear to hold water. Firstly, the nerve agent A-234 (Novichok) can and has been produced outside Russia, in a number of places, thus disproving the claim that it must have come from Russia. Secondly, the fact that the effects experienced by the Skripals — four hours of moving freely around Salisbury, followed by no irreparable damage — do not remotely fit what the scientific literature says about that substance — almost instantaneous death or a short life with irreparable damage to the central nervous system –, makes it highly unlikely that they were indeed poisoned by it. Indeed, the burden of proof is on those making the claims to show how and why the scientific literature was wrong.

Then in Part 2, I mentioned four aspects of the case, which are undoubtedly significant, but which seem to have been ignored or forgotten. I ended that piece by saying that I hoped to discuss what I consider to be an even bigger aspect of the case; something that may well begin to join some dots together.

And this is what I intend to do in this piece. However, before I do, I should start by saying that what I am about to say is speculative. That is not to say that it is not based on facts. It is. It is based on witness testimony that appeared very early on in the case — three days after the poisoning — and which I deem to be credible since it appeared before the case became completely politicised, which is sadly what subsequently happened. I am then using that testimony to construct what I consider to be the best explanation for what the witness described. And so it is very much a theory. One based on facts, but a theory nevertheless. As such it is of course open to challenge.

Let me begin by quoting a significant chunk of the particular witness testimony, which appeared in the Daily Mail on 7th March. I have highlighted what I consider to be the most revealing bits, and then at the end I will explain why I think they are important and what — in my opinion — they most likely imply:

“Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, 33, left his neat, red brick £350,000 semi detached in Salisbury and made their way to Zizzi in the city centre, less than two miles away. The restaurant, in Castle Street, was busy when they arrived, but they declined the seats offered to them at the front, instead selecting ones at the back, close to the kitchen.

They began with a starter of garlic bread to share followed by two glasses of white wine. They ordered from the menu, choosing the 600 calorie risotto pesce with king prawns, mussels and squid rings in a tomato, chilli and white wine sauce.

But within minutes Mr Skripal had become angry, a witness said. ‘I think he was swearing in Russian,’ said the man, who did not want to be named. ‘She was just sitting there quietly, and didn’t really say anything. They were both smartly dressed, she was in a black coat. They were speaking to each other in Russian.’  He said Mr Skripal appeared annoyed that their main course had taken 20 minutes to arrive – and appeared in a hurry to leave.

‘He was going absolutely crazy, I didn’t understand it and I couldn’t understand him. They had not been seen for a little while by the front of house staff, but I think it was more than that. He just wanted his food and to go. He was just shouting and losing his temper. I would have asked him to leave. He just said “I want my food and my bill”.  ‘The waiter took him the bill at the same time as the main course, which was unusual. I don’t think they paid all of the bill. I think they were given a discount because he was so angry and agitated. He had to wait about 20 minutes for his main course. I think it was easier for the staff just to give him money to leave as he was so angry. They were sitting by themselves at the back of the restaurant but I think people were pleased when they left. They were only there for about 45 minutes. It was a quick lunch. He just wanted to get out of there. She was silent, perhaps embarrassed.’

He added: ‘He didn’t seem to have to wait long for his food. I noticed him first because they were sitting by themselves, and because he was an older man with a younger woman, and because he was losing his temper. ‘He didn’t seem ill physically, but perhaps mentally ill with the way he was shouting.’

The witness said other than appearing angry, there was no sign that either of them were ill.

‘They weren’t poisoned at Zizzi. I saw the chef prepare the food,’ he said. ‘No one could have sneaked in and added anything to his food there, the kitchen is open. The drinks are made at the bar which is by the door, but I think it is unlikely. No one could get to him.’”

So why is this all so significant?

There are a number of things:

In good health

In the first place, it shows that at the time they were in the restaurant, neither Mr Skripal or Yulia Skripal were displaying any signs of being physically unwell. On the contrary, the witness testifies to the fact that Mr Skripal did not seem at all physically ill, and he also stated that Yulia sat there calmly and quietly.

No signs of any poisoning

Secondly, it shows that at that time, neither of them appeared to be showing any symptoms whatsoever of having already been poisoned. On the contrary, the fact that they ordered and then ate their food is a very strong indication that they hadn’t. If Mr Skripal’s agitated state could be explained by a prior poisoning — by the deadliest nerve agent known to man remember — how likely would it be that he would have felt well enough to order and consume his dish of risotto pesce with king prawns, mussels and squid rings in a tomato, chilli and white wine sauce. Not the kind of food that someone feeling dodgy is likely to wolf down, as he appears to have done.

The agitation must therefore be explained by something else

Thirdly, the obvious conclusion suggested by the two points above is this: Mr Skripal’s agitation had nothing whatsoever to do with him feeling the effects of having already been poisoned. Rather, it was because of something else entirely.

Of course this leads to the question of what it was that caused his agitation. Here we must take the facts, and begin to make suppositions based on them.

The witness’s testimony of Mr Skripal’s behaviour makes it abundantly clear that he was very much in a hurry to leave. And as stated above, this agitation and hurry can have had nothing whatsoever to do with feeling physically unwell from the effects of poisoning, since he displayed no such signs and because he went ahead and ate his food – very quickly it would seem.

Now tell me: if you saw someone in a restaurant getting in a hissy fit over a relatively short wait for his food, angrily demanding that he be served, asking for the bill to be brought at the same time as the main course, wolfing the food down, and generally looking like he was in a hurry to leave, what would you conclude? My guess is that you would conclude that the person was in a hurry because they needed to get somewhere by a certain time. Seems obvious, doesn’t it?

And so it seems to me from Mr Skripal’s behaviour, plus the witness’s impression, that there is a startlingly simple and obvious explanation for what was going on at Zizzis that afternoon: Mr Skripal was in a hurry to eat and to leave, not because he was unwell, not because he was suffering any physical effects of being poisoned by A-234 some four hours previous, but because he needed to be  somewhere to meet with someone at a certain time. And where did he have to get to in such a hurry? Why, the park bench in The Maltings, sometime between 3:45 and 4:00pm.

I hear an objection. When I ran this supposition past a friend, they replied by saying that although it all sounds very plausible, how do we know that Mr Skripal was not just generally mentally ill? After all, the witness says that although Mr Skripal didn’t seem physically ill, he was “perhaps mentally ill with the way he was shouting.”

To this, I would respond as follows: firstly, it is well known that he was a frequent visitor to Zizzis, and had this been his normal sort of behaviour, it is likely that he would have exhibited it before and been prevented from entering. But secondly, and far more crucially, is the behaviour of his daughter. According to the witness, she just sat there and said nothing. She made no attempt to calm him down in front of the staff and other diners. Had he been mentally ill, it is likely that she would have made some attempt to explain his behaviour apologetically to the staff. Yet she does not, which suggests that she was well aware of the reason for his agitation, and – like him – just wanted to get out of there as quickly as possible.

And so I submit that the most plausible explanation for Mr Skripal’s agitation, and his seeming hurry to leave, was that he wanted to eat quickly, in order to get to The Maltings, where he had a pre-arranged rendezvous at the now infamous bench.

In the following part, I hope to join some more dots together, this time asking why he might have had a meeting at the bench.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2LojWbU Tyler Durden

German Chancellor Angela Merkel removed one of the biggest barriers to the creation of a European Army on Tuesday when she told a German newspaper that she supported the idea “in principle,” according to RT.

“I am in favor of President Macron’s proposal for an intervention initiative,” the German chancellor told Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper on Sunday.

The topic has been under discussion since September, when French President Emmanuel Macron laid out his vision for a pan-European “military intervention force” with a shared military budget funded by aggregated tax receipts and supervised by a single finance minister. Macron’s vision – which is central to his integrationist message – was similar to a proposal laid out during a speech last summer by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, who declared at the time that “soft power alone is not powerful enough.”

In his speech, Macron described a European military that could protect the continent by deploying to hotspots around the globe, just like NATO does. But why can’t Europe just rely on NATO? Because, as Merkel has pointed out, NATO is de facto controlled by the US, and the US “can no longer be relied on to protect us.”

Whatever form it eventually takes, the European defense force must “fit into the structure of defense cooperation,” Merkel said.

“However, such an intervention force with a common military-strategic culture must fit into the structure of defense cooperation,” she said.

She added that the Bundeswehr “must, in principle, be part of such an initiative,” but that it “doesn’t mean that we are to be involved in every mission.”

“European defense cooperation is very important. Of the 180 weapon systems that currently co-exist in Europe, we must move to a situation like the United States, which has only about 30 weapons systems,” Merkel said.

Until now, talks about creating a defense force have been complicated by Berlin’s cautious approach to the initiative. EU leaders signed off on a scaled-down version of Macron’s EU Army in December when they signed the harmless-sounding Permanent Structured Cooperation – or PESCO – pact.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2sAfQ9z Tyler Durden

Just a day after Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis rejected Angela Merkel’s “flexible system” plan for migration, letting Frontex become a European border police force that can act independently, exclaiming that protecting frontiers should be up to individual countries.

“The idea that Frontex will guard everything by itself is not realistic in the long term,” Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis told reporters when asked about her comments. “Individual states must guard that.”

As Reuters reports, the Czech Republic and other central and eastern EU members Hungary, Slovakia and Poland – known as the Visegrad group – have strongly opposed a quota system drawn up by the European Commission to redistribute asylum seekers around the bloc.

We are reminded of comments during a presentation earlier this year on the management of migration processes by António Guterres, the Secretary General of The United Nations, who proclaimed that UN member states should prepare for great migratory movements.

And this is not a joke: The UN, led by António Guterres, wants to manage and influence migration. All this, of course, is dressed up in pretty words about the need to provide humanitarian aid, and also justified by the benefits that resettlement of the population is to give to the economies of particular countries. However, in fact, this means only one thing: Europe and the entire Western World must prepare for the flood of Africans.

Currently, nearly 1.3 billion people live in Africa, and by the end of this century there will be 350% more, or 4.4 billion. It is obvious that the continent, whose inhabitants are not able to feed themselves, let alone achieve an adequate level of urbanization and industrialization, cannot cope with such a sharp demographic increase. The UN therefore came up with the idea of resettling Africans to Europe and highly developed countries on other continents.

At the end of 2016, just after his election as UN Secretary General, António Guterres said: 

“We must convince Europeans that migration is inevitable and that multiethnic and multireligious societies create wealth”.

It can be assumed here that the goal set by the former UN commissioner for refugees (A. Gutters served this function from June to December 2015), is to promote migration, give it a legal framework and manage it globally.

The first major step towards formalization of this phenomenon was the creation of the “Making Migration Work for All” report, which says in no uncertain terms that nation-states are to cease to exist. The document says that migration would be beneficial to everyone. And it is beneficial… to migrants alone (who apart from being accommodated in apartments live on undeserved entitlements) rather than to the average European who has to work to make a living for himself and his family, pay for his home and, additionally, provide for millions more newcomers.

The position expressed by Gutters during the presentation of this report makes our hair stand on end.3) The analysis of the speech of the UN secretary implies a simple conclusion: migration will still be bigger, we (UN) will manage it, and you (Western countries and societies) have to adapt:

„The fundamental challenge is to maximize the benefits of this orderly, productive form of migration while stamping out the abuses and prejudice that make life hell for a minority of migrants.”

and:

„States need to strengthen the rule of law underpinning how they manage and protect migrants — for the benefit of their economies, their societies and migrants themselves.”

The propaganda statement that migration brings social and economic benefits has become so deeply rooted in the media and political rhetoric that some people have begun to believe in it. It is a pity that theses statements are not supported by any calculations or analyses.

„Migration is a positive global phenomenon. It powers economic growth, reduces inequalities, connects diverse societies and helps us ride the demographic waves of population growth and decline.”

According to a research conducted by the Hungarian Századvég foundation, mass migration is perceived by the citizens of all 28 European Union countries as a threat to the EU economy, the heritage of the member states and the presence of Third World aliens is believed to undermine security.

The vast majority, as many as 68%, are afraid of the inflow of migrants from North Africa. For 70% of the inhabitants of the Old Continent, the growing number of Muslims is a serious threat, while only 8% say that this issue is not a problem. Citizens of European countries are afraid of increased crime and subsequent terrorist attacks. More than half of the pollees think that immigrants come to Europe mainly for economic reasons, that is, they are attracted by a high level of social benefits. 57% of respondents believe that the influx of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East will change the culture of their country, and 73% state that financial support for migrants will be a serious burden on state budgets. 61% believe that the influx of people from the Third World will weaken the EU economy.

Negative processes accompanying the resettlement of people were, however, completely ignored by the UN and transferred to countries which are not able to cope with this phenomenon:

„Migration (…), which powers economic growth, reduces inequalities, connects diverse societies (…) remains poorly managed.”

and:

„The best way to end the stigma of illegality and abuse around migrants is, in fact, for Governments to put in place more legal pathways for migration.”

The report completely distorts the nature of threats to Western civilization, and also underestimates the importance of homogeneity, rejecting entirely the advantage that national states offer. The United Nations points out that shrinking populations is a danger for Europe, and Antonio Guterres suggests that the demographic collapse can be remedied by resettling the population surplus from Africa. By the end of this century, the number of indigenous Europeans will amount to fewer than a quarter of a billion, whereas there will be almost 4.4 billion Africans. The host society, according to the UN Secretary General, has no right to think that migrations are a negative phenomenon:

„It can be seen, too, in the political impact of public perception that wrongly sees migration as out of control. The consequences include increased mistrust and policies aimed more at stopping than facilitating human movement.”

Also, the International Migration Organization, which participated in the work on this report, states on its Twitter account that „Migration is inevitable, desirable and necessary”. The question arises: who wants migration and who thinks it is necessary? Certainly not the inhabitants of the countries to which the alleged refugees are streaming.

The report states that:

• migration is inevitable, therefore it must be properly organized and the UN provides guidance on how to manage it;

• nation states must adapt to the admission of migrants in accordance with the guidelines;

• the societies of developed countries must become accustomed to having their countries flooded with masses of migrants.

The powers that be are trying to convince us of the alleged benefits of mass migration and the resettlement of Africans into Europe. Reality contradicts wishful thinking. Increasingly, citizens of host countries are afraid to leave their homes not to mention that an increased part of their earnings, is used to provide for the newcomers. We have also come to the point where negation of positive aspects of migration is regarded as racism and xenophobia, and to the fact that if someone wants to live in a one-nation state, he is labelled as a nationalist, with the word being unjustifiably negatively charged.

A mass inflow of the so-called “refugees” on the Old Continent is not perceived by its inhabitants as a phenomenon that  culturally enriches and will also have a positive impact on the economy. However, global organizations do not take this into account and enforce their own plan to create a nationally and religiously heterogeneous society, where tradition and cultural identity are not desirable.

António Guterres and the UN know better what is good for western nations, ignoring the data presented by many organizations, including the Gefira Foundation, which underline a number of negative phenomena caused by the mass flooding of Europe by Third World populations.

However, circling back to Czech PM Babis’ comments, he reminds the good UN SecGen that elections this weekend in Slovenia, won by an anti-immigration opposition party, and in Italy which yielded the EU’s first anti-establishment government, showed how the policy stance of Visegrad had spread.

“So, this opinion on migration will prevail in the whole of Europe, and we have to stop migration outside the European continent and help the people in Africa and Syria”, he said.

But then again – what does democracy matter anyway?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2sBcTFK Tyler Durden

A U.S. defense official Monday told CNN’s Washington bureau that two nuclear-capable U.S. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bombers flew very close to the heavily contested and militarized Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

The aggressive flybys come days after Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned of “consequences” if Beijing continues weaponizing the South China Sea, further accusing China of “intimidation and coercion” in the Indo-Pacific region, which he specifically made clear that Washington has zero plans on leaving the heavily disputed area.

His speech, well, it promoted an angry Chinese response during IISS Shangri-La Dialogue, a civilian and military defense summit in Singapore, where Lieutenant General He Lei told reporters, “Any irresponsible comments from other countries cannot be accepted.”

As we explained on Saturday during the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue,” The United States and China appear to be headed for a military collision in the Southeast Asia region.”

Beijing claims that most of the resource-rich sea, which overlaps claims from Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam, belongs to China. To reinforce such claims, Beijing quickly built artificial islands and erected military bases on Parcels and Spratly islands. Regarding trade, more than USD five trillion in shipping trade flows through the region per annum.

The U.S. defense official, who has classified knowledge of the B-52s original flight plan, said the operation called for two nuclear-capable U.S. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bombers to fly roughly 20-miles from the militarized Spratly islands.

U.S. Air Force Captin Victoria Hight, a spokeswoman for U.S. Pacific Air Forces, told CNN that the bombers did not fly in the vicinity of the islands.

A Pentagon spokesperson said the Guam-based bombers were on “a routine training mission,” departing from Andersen Air Force Base “to the Navy Support Facility” at Diego Garcia Atoll, a British Indian Ocean Territory.

U.S. Lieutenant Colonel Chris Logan said the operation was part of U.S. Pacific Command’s “Continuous Bomber Presence” missions, which he explained are “intended to maintain the readiness of U.S. forces.”

“U.S. Pacific Command’s CBP missions, which have been routinely employed since March 2004, are flown in accordance with international law,” Logan added.

The B-52s operation to buzz China’s militarized islands came shortly after Mattis warned Beijing that “the placement of these weapons systems is tied directly to military use for the purposes of intimidation and coercion,” adding that “China’s militarization of the Spratlys is also in direct contradiction to President Xi Jinping’s 2015 public assurances in the White House Rose Garden that they would not do this.”

#SecDef Mattis discusses US leadership and #IndoPacific security challenges during the #ShangriLaDialogue June 2. The #ShangriLa Dialogue, held by the @IISS_org, is an inter-governmental security forum attended by defense ministers and delegates from more than 50 nations. #SLD18 pic.twitter.com/o1VK4UKiSE

— U.S. Dept of Defense (@DeptofDefense) June 2, 2018

Last week, the Pentagon increased its rhetoric about China’s militarization of islands in the South China Sea, even as the Trump administration asked Beijing for cooperation on North Korea. When questioned by a journalist about the ability of the Pentagon to “blow apart” China’s artificial islands, Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie, director of the Joint Staff, told reporters, “I would just tell you that the United States military has had a lot of experience in the Western Pacific taking down small islands.”

Meanwhile, Beijing reacted to the threat via Pentagon statements. On Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the U.S. accusing China of militarizing the islands was, “like a thief crying, Stop thief!’”

“Why does the U.S. choose to sail every now and then close to Chinese South China Sea islands and reefs? What is the U.S. trying to do?” she said.

Last month, we reported that the U.S. Navy conducted its “freedom of navigation” patrols near the heavily disputed islands to demonstrate the right to sail through those international waters, which sparked outrage via Bejing.

From Mattis to Lt. General He militant jawboning this past weekend at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue, to U.S. Naval warships and B-52s encircling the militarized islands, followed by China’s warning that any tariffs by Trump would kill a trade deal between the U.S. and China, it appears that Sino-American relations continue to plunge. It seems like the heavily disputed waters in the South China Sea could emerge as the next geopolitical and military flashpoint. Which, when one considers that according to the RAND Corp, and the IMF, China will surpass the U.S. as the world’s leading military superpower some time in the next 2 decades… As stated below, the trend is evident, Washington and Bejing are preparing for war.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2sC0ZLS Tyler Durden

Shortly after former Cambridge Analytics CEO Alexander Nix learned British media was reporting on allegations about his firm’s role in the leak of Facebook data, he allegedly withdrew $8 million from the company… and investors are not happy.

In a lengthy and detailed story in The Financial Times, Nix is accused of making off with the funds right before the firm collapsed into liquidation; and the investors who had backed a potential rebranding of the firm are pressing Nix to repay the money.

The investors said Emerdata, a company set up last year to acquire and rebrand Cambridge Analytica and a related company, SCL Group, had raised $19m from powerful international investors in January to expand the company’s services and bid for more commercial work.

The money ran out quickly, the people said, because of outstanding bills to advertisers and other suppliers, and because of the alleged withdrawal by Mr Nix. According to some of the people, Mr Nix has indicated that he intends to repay part of the money. One person added that Mr Nix said the withdrawal was made in exchange for unbooked services.

Bankruptcy filings in New York show that Cambridge Analytica received an $8.8m loan from Emerdata before it entered administration, though it is not clear what the loan was intended for.

Documents show the debt is classified as an unsecured “non-priority” loan that might not have to be returned.

But the story gets even more intriguing when one finds out who the ‘investors’ in the apparent rebranding of Cambridge Analytica’s “data-science-as-a-service” business model…

Company filings in the UK show Emerdata earlier this year issued nearly 2m shares and added several new directors to its board including Rebekah and Jennifer Mercer, the daughters of hedge fund billionaire and prominent Trump supporter Robert Mercer.

As a reminder, the prominent conservative billionaire investor, Trump campaign supporter and patron of Steve Bannon, Robert Mercer, stepped down as co-chief executive and board member of the world’s most profitable and secretive hedge fund, Renaissance Technologies, on January 1, 2018.

Additionally, Johnson Ko, executive director of Reorient Group, was also added as a director of Emerdata in January. Mr Ko is a business partner of Erik Prince, another Trump associate and the founder of private mercenary group Blackwater, at the security firm Frontier Services Group.

And judging by the second half of The Financial Times’ story, Cambridge Analytica was planning a full resurrection as documents seen by the FT confirm that a holding company was established to acquire Cambridge Analytica and SCL Group, which had previously focused on defense (which explains Erik Prince’s influence) and political work (which explains the Mercer’s interest), including Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. These documents and a private placing memorandum set out plans to raise about $30m to pitch for more commercially-related work and develop a “high-volume core business” with off-the-shelf data-targeting products.

“Governments have access to vast quantities of data; on both their own citizens and foreign nationals. These data can be used to help governments identify, segment and target key audiences for campaigns of information or influence.”

Cambridge Analytica also formed a working group of senior ex-military personnel and government executives to identify products and services most relevant to government clients, according to the documents.

We suspect this is very much not the last we hear of Cambridge Analytica’s ‘business model’ though getting on the wrong side of the Mercers and Erik Prince may mean that this is the last we hear from Mr. Nix.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2sJvxe2 Tyler Durden

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

The CEO of Russian Railways, the state-backed leader in this industry, announced his company’s intent in participating in the Trans-Arabian Railway during last week’s Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), thus drawing attention to a project that’s been on the drawing board for a few years already but has failed to get off the ground.

The concept is for the GCC states to tighten their non-energy economic integration with one another through a coastal railway that hugs the southern edge of the Persian Gulf and would run from Kuwait to Oman, but this vision hasn’t yet been prioritized. That might change in the coming future, however, as a result of trilateral cooperation between Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China.

To explain, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s ambitious Vision 2030 agenda of socio-economic reforms dovetails perfectly with China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity in the sense that it aims to position the Wahhabi Kingdom as a tri-continental economic hub for Afro-Eurasia.

Some of the over $130 billion worth of investments that China clinched in Saudi Arabia last year alone will be used to modernize the recipient’s economy and place it on the trajectory for developing a sustainable post-oil future, and it’s here where Russia’s railway expertise comes in.

Russian Railways has been working very hard to establish itself as a global player and the Trans-Arabian Railway project provides the perfect opportunity for showcasing its services. Not only that, but it’s a quid pro quo for Saudi investment in the Russian economy over the past couple of years, and it will help to accelerate the Russian-Saudi rapprochement, too. 

Moscow’s deepening all-around involvement in Arab affairs, especially with the influential GCC, will enable it to gain wider respect and acceptance as a Mideast power as well.

Altogether, Russia’s successful involvement in the Trans-Arabian Railway project and China’s game-changing investments in the Kingdom could help Saudi Arabia diversify its foreign policy and ultimately become more multipolar as a result.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2xI5ae6 Tyler Durden