US Tells Nations Not To Work With Assad On Quake As Death Toll In Turkey, Syria Surpasses 50,000

US Tells Nations Not To Work With Assad On Quake As Death Toll In Turkey, Syria Surpasses 50,000

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The State Department at the started of this week reaffirmed its opposition to countries upgrading their ties with the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even if it is an effort to aid Syria’s earthquake relief.

“Our position on the Assad regime has not changed. Now is not the time for normalization. Now is not the time to upgrade relations with the Assad regime,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said in response to the news of Egypt’s foreign minister visiting Syria and Turkey.

AFP/Getty Images

“We believe we can fulfill and that countries around the world can fulfill both of these imperatives, addressing the humanitarian needs of the Turkish people, addressing the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people, without changing or upgrading their relationship with the Assad regime,” Price added.

The death toll from the earthquake stands at over 5,900 people in Syria and over 44,000 in Turkey, but the numbers are expected to rise. When the earthquake first hit, Price said the US would not work with Assad’s government on the relief effort, saying it would be “counterproductive.”

As it’s become clear that the US-backed regime change effort against Assad has failed, more countries in the region have been engaging with his government. Engagement with Assad has stepped up since the earthquake as Syria’s neighbors are looking to help out.

The US has issued a 180-day exemption for its sanctions on Syria that applies to transactions related to earthquake relief.

But UN experts say the exemption isn’t enough and are calling for the US to fully lift the sanctions, which are specifically designed to prevent Syria’s reconstruction.

US sanctions on Syria have had a devastating impact on the Syrian people, as recently detailed by Alena Douhan, a UN special rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures, who visited the country in the fall.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 03/02/2023 – 03:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Yudxj0Z Tyler Durden

Ukraine Will Eventually Join NATO, Stoltenberg Reaffirms

Ukraine Will Eventually Join NATO, Stoltenberg Reaffirms

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg gave some less than surprising public comments Tuesday regarding Ukraine’s eventual entry into the western military alliance. Brussels has previously approached the controversial subject with some level of ambiguity, given it remains a central issue for Moscow in terms of motive for the Ukraine invasion. 

Stoltenberg in the remarks alongside Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marine reaffirmed NATO wants to eventually admit Ukraine, hearkening back to promises first made in 2008. “NATO allies have agreed that Ukraine will become a member of our alliance, but at the same time that that is a long-term perspective,” the NATO chief said from Helsinki. 

Image: Flickr/Finnish Government

“What is the issue now is to ensure that Ukraine prevails as a sovereign, independent nation, and therefore we need to support Ukraine,” Stoltenberg added.

Ukraine’s Zelensky has been pressing for a ‘fast-tracked’ process, despite the reality of being engaged in a hot war with Russia, and having long had a conflict in its eastern regions which goes back to at least 2014. NATO has never admitted a country which had an active conflict on its border, given this would automatically trigger Article 5 immediately after the country entered.

But even Sweden and Finland have been held up in their applications. Stoltenberg in the Tuesday press conference addressed the holdout countries of Turkey and Hungary: “My message has been for a long time … that time has come to finalize the ratification process. The time is now to ratify in both Budapest and in Ankara,” he said.

Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin, however, attempted to give Ukraine a boost in saying, “I see that the future of Ukraine is to be part of the European Union and also a member of NATO.”

However, as CIA Director William Burns warned in a 2008 cable, Ukraine’s entry into NATO remains the “brightest of all red lines”:

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” Burns wrote in a cable that was later made public by WikiLeaks. “I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

The process even for Ukraine joining the EU is likely to be years or decades, some have predicted. Meanwhile…

Officials in Kiev have been saying that Ukraine is already a de facto member given all the arms and training it has received thus far from NATO countries. The Kremlin has tended to agree, hence Putin’s rationale of wanting to ‘demilitarize’ the country as among his key invasion objectives.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 03/02/2023 – 02:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Tub0XIU Tyler Durden

UK PM Backs Official COVID-19 Inquiry After 100,000 WhatsApp Messages Released To Newspaper

UK PM Backs Official COVID-19 Inquiry After 100,000 WhatsApp Messages Released To Newspaper

Authored by Owen Evans and Alexander Zhang via The Epoch Times,

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has defended an official COVID-19 inquiry as the “right way” to scrutinise the handling of the pandemic after former Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s WhatsApp messages were published in a British newspaper.

British Health Secretary Matt Hancock in May 2021. (Yui Mok/PA)

Based on a trove of more than 100,000 WhatsApp messages, The Daily Telegraph newspaper claimed on March 1 that England’s Chief Medical Officer Sir Chris Whitty advised Hancock in April 2020 that everyone going into care homes should be tested for COVID-19.

The relevant exchanges, from April 14, 2020, suggested that Hancock rejected the guidance, telling an aide the move just “muddies the waters” and introduced mandatory testing only for those coming from hospitals rather than the community.

Following the report, Hancock, who resigned in June 2021, disputed the claims made by the Telegraph, calling them “flat wrong,” and claiming the messages had been “spun to fit an anti-lockdown agenda.”

The Epoch Times hasn’t seen the texts and hasn’t been able to independently verify the claims.

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak departs Downing Street ahead of the weekly Prime Ministers Questions in the House of Commons, in London, on March 1, 2023. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

‘Colossal Whitewash’

Hancock had willingly given his WhatsApp messages to journalist Isabel Oakeshott to co-write a book called “Pandemic Diaries.”

In a piece in The Telegraph, titled “I had to release Matt Hancock’s COVID WhatsApp messages to avoid a whitewash,” Oakeshott wrote that following his resignation in June 2021, he downloaded the records from his phone and shared them with various people, including her.

“Suffice to say there was plenty of important material left over,” she said, calling the texts “a vital historical record at a time when we need urgent answers.”

Oakeshott, who has described COVID-19 lockdowns as an “unmitigated disaster,” said she was releasing the messages because it would take “many years” before the end of the official inquiry into the pandemic response, which she claimed could be a “colossal whitewash.”

“That’s why I’ve decided to release this sensational cache of private communications—because we absolutely cannot wait any longer for answers,” she said.

Official Inquiry

At Prime Minister’s Questions on March 1, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer called on Sunak to ensure the official inquiry had all the support it needed “to report by the end of this year.”

Mentioning the Telegraph report, he said, “Now we don’t know the truth of what happened yet—there are too many messages and too many unknowns.”

“Families across the country will look at this, and the sight of politicians writing books portraying them as heroes or selectively leaking messages will be an insulting and ghoulish spectacle for them.”

Starmer said that the UK COVID-19 Inquiry—which has been set up to examine the UK’s response to and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic—has cost the taxpayer £85 million but “hasn’t heard from a single minster yet.”

Sunak insisted the official inquiry is the “right way” to investigate the government’s handling of the pandemic after Hancock’s messages made the headlines.

“There is a proper process to these things, it is an independent inquiry, it has the resources it needs, it has the powers it needs. And what we should do in this House is to let them get on and do their job,” he said.

‘Anti-Lockdown Agenda’

A spokesman for Hancock strongly disputed the claims made in the Telegraph report.

“These stolen messages have been doctored to create a false story that Matt rejected clinical advice on care home testing. This is flat wrong,” the spokesman said.

“On April 14, Matt received a response to his request for advice from the chief medical officer that testing was needed for people going into care homes, which he enthusiastically accepted.

“Later that day he convened an operational meeting on delivering testing for care homes, where he was advised it was not currently possible to test everyone entering care homes, which he also accepted.

“Matt concluded that the testing of people leaving hospital for care homes should be prioritised because of the higher risks of transmission, as it wasn’t possible to mandate everyone going into care homes got tested.”

The spokesman said that the Telegraph report left out a key part of a WhatsApp message, which demonstrated “there was a meeting at which advice on deliverability was given.”

“By omitting this, the messages imply Matt simply overruled clinical advice. That is categorically untrue. He went as far as was possible, as fast as possible, to expand testing and save lives.”

The spokesman added that it’s outrageous that “this distorted account of the pandemic is being pushed with partial leaks, spun to fit an anti-lockdown agenda.”

But the Telegraph’s Associate Editor Camilla Tominey denied the paper had doctored the WhatsApp messages, calling the allegation “simply not true.”

Talking to the BBC, she also defended Oakeshott after the journalist was accused of breaching a nondisclosure agreement signed when working on Hancock’s memoir.

“I support Isabel’s decision-making wholeheartedly. In the interest of openness, transparency, and accountability, she felt that she was sitting on a huge amount of information that the public had a right to know.”

Tyler Durden
Thu, 03/02/2023 – 02:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/t3fe92M Tyler Durden

The Government Is Subsidizing Microchip Firms—While Making It More Expensive To Produce Microchips


A microchip is seen on a motherboard

Let’s call it the “Biden way”: When our president can’t get his policies through Congress, he tries to impose them in other ways. Just look at his student loan forgiveness plan, which faced a stiff Supreme Court challenge this week, and his imposition of stricter “Buy American” provisions to the infrastructure-spending bill. Now, he wants to reshape corporate America by attaching the big string of “high-quality” child care to, of all things, semiconductor subsidies.

This strategy, while popular with other presidents, has only one redeeming aspect: It beautifully illustrates how politics diverts industrial policy and similar attempts to direct the economy away from their stated goals. See, politicians say they want to subsidize this and that to improve manufacturing or bolster national security, but invariably sabotage themselves by weighing the policies down with rules and requirements that have nothing to do with the plans.

It is certainly true with last year’s “bipartisan” CHIPS Act, which provides $52 billion to revive American microchip manufacturing. Now, President Joe Biden’s Commerce Department has announced that companies getting the subsidies will have to do (and not do) a bunch of other things if they want the money.

Specifically, subsidized firms must provide “high-quality childcare for plant workers.” They can even divert some of the subsidies to build child care centers and hire providers—activities that do little to increase the supply of microchips. Companies will also be required to do all sorts of financial disclosures and share part of any unanticipated profits with the government. Preference for funding will be given to companies that promise not to buy back stock. The New York Times cleverly named this approach the “Chips and Strings.”

These strings will significantly undermine chip manufacturing by increasing production costs. For instance, when the administration says high-quality child care, it really means more expensive child care because of requirements that caregivers be college-educated and such. Building those child care and chip factories will be subjected to Buy American and environmental requirements, Davis-Bacon pay requirements, and minority and women material sourcing requirements, along with pressure to be more open to the demands of labor unions.

I don’t want you to think that these industrial policies would succeed if there weren’t strings attached—I don’t believe that. The best way to outcompete China is not to emulate China’s heavy economic interventions. For one thing, America’s already-profitable chip industry doesn’t need such funding. Second, even if Biden’s scheme were to work and all the hoped for factories were built, we would still be far from making most chips at home. That’s a good thing, as I explain below, making this a rotten strategy to begin with.

Indeed, even without these requirements, it would take years to build new chip factories. These would also be unlikely to offer the industry’s most advanced manufacturing technology. By then, freer, nimbler firms could be building completely different chips. That’s what happened in the 1980s when the United States was having this same semiconductor fight but with Japan. The U.S. government resorted to subsidies only to produce a product that was immediately displaced by more lucrative segments of the industry. Added requirements will only multiply the cost of each project and the time required for companies to deliver.

More importantly, the best way to compete is to renew our wildly successful commitment to free markets and entrepreneurial innovation. This requires ending subsidies and letting the market direct capital to its highest and best uses.

In addition, competing with China demands that we keep our supply chains diverse rather than be more self-sufficient. Diversification avoids single points of failure. Better supply chains require, among other things, removing the regulatory barriers that “currently block or deter the construction of chip fabrication plants and the broader ecosystem of facilities and companies a domestic semiconductor industry requires for long-term success,” says Adam White in The Wall Street Journal.

Finally, liberalizing immigration would make more workers available for chip manufacturing and child care. In fact, this would do more to reduce the price of child care than all the president’s attempts to reshape corporate America combined.

There is so much to be done to make this country more competitive when it comes to doing business, building, and innovating. But industrial policy—especially when it’s loaded with politically fashionable requirements—moves us in the opposite direction.

COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.

The post The Government Is Subsidizing Microchip Firms—While Making It More Expensive To Produce Microchips appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/ItSv8BN
via IFTTT

Letter To A Mainstream Straddler: Live Not By Half-Lies

Letter To A Mainstream Straddler: Live Not By Half-Lies

Authored by Margaret Anna Alice via Off-Guardian.org,

I get it. You don’t want to be called a “conspiracy theorist.”

You don’t want to be tarred an “anti-vaxxer.” A “science-denier.” A “far right-wing extremist.”

You’ve got your reputation to protect. Your credibility. Your grant funding.

So you water down the truth. You tiptoe around it. You don’t go there.

And the philanthropaths, the tyrants, the Big Liars, the demociders, and their enablers continue to profit. Continue to conspire. Continue to torture. Continue to slaughter.

They tell you right to your face what they’re doing.

But if you turn around and quote them, you’re the crazy one.

If you ask why a childteenathlete, or other healthy adult suddenly had a heart attack, got turbo cancer, or died, you’re the “truly disgusting” one.

If you provide scientific evidence that a warp-sped experimental injection being peddled by a trillion-dollar industry in collusion with governmentsfederal agenciesthe media, and Big Tech is dangerous, you—not the corporations raking in billions—are the grifter.

If you ask what’s causing the sudden deaths and injuries that began surging in 2021 in hopes of preventing future such tragedies, you’re “morally reprehensible(and yet “mocking anti-vaxxers’ COVID deaths … may be necessary”).

If you point out that we should maybe think twice about pushing a product estimated to have killed thirteen million human beings and counting, you are the “major killing force globally” and guilty of “undermin[ing] public confidence” in said product.

If you call genocide genocide, you are the enemy, the misinformation spreader, the antisemite.

If you dare point out Never Again is already happening, you get inquisitioned—even though Holocaust survivors and their relatives agree.

If you call out governments for practicing totalitarianism and enacting policies that cause lethal collateral damage, you’re the granny-killer.

If you challenge people to face the livid, electrifying grief of those who have lost loved ones to financially incentivized hospicide, you are making them uncomfortable.

You know you’re living in a world of lies when the mob is more enraged at the whistleblowers revealing the deceptions, corruption, and murder than they are at the lying liars, corrupt corrupters, and murdering murderers themselves—indeed, they trip over themselves racing to defend their narcissistic abusers.

As Edward Snowden says:

When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals!”

But guess what?

Once they start calling you all those hideous names, you realize they’re nothing more than magician’s smoke.

You gradually start to give fewer and fewer f*cks.

You know you’ve hit zero when you feel the exhilarating liberation that comes from shouting the unfettered truth.

That’s the words-can-never-hurt-you stage.

You become untouchable.

You start collecting libels like Purple Hearts.

The more scars you can count, the more evidence of your efficacy, your threat to the hegemony.

That’s when you can truly LIVE. And by truth, not by lies.

If enough of us stand up and do that, we can hold the perpetrators accountable. We can present the unadulterated evidence of their crimes. And we can find justice … or die trying—like the members of the White Rose, whose piercing words still ring out nearly a century later:

“We will not keep silent. We are your guilty conscience.”

I’m going to tell you a secret.

Stick it out long enough, and that tarnished reputation turns into burnished gold.

Because when you are slandered by the propagandists, that means you are the good guy, even though the menticided public believes the opposite.

In Upside-Down Worldpersisting in seeing things right-side up—despite the incessant, relentless, never-ending gaslighting—means you have valiantly guarded your most precious possessions: your integrity and your sanity.

As e.e. cummings writes:

To be nobody but
yourself in a world
which is doing its best day and night to make you like
everybody else means to fight the hardest battle
which any human being can fight and never stop fighting.”

Most gratifying of all, you will find fellow members of your karass, and together you will set about fulfilling your wampeter.

Once you are living in alignment with your values, you will feel the deepest joy fathomable.

And when the COVID criminals have been found guilty, when the spells dissolve, the people will gradually awaken from their coma and recognize you for the hero you are.

Or not. Most will be too ashamed to admit they’ve been conned. To realize they shielded fascist tyrants and attacked those trying to rescue them.

Few find that courageous humility within themselves to acknowledge their complicity in totalitarianism.

And so they will swathe themselves in soothing denial and lash out at anyone who tries to puncture it.

But you will keep trying, anyway. Because that’s what truth-tellers do. That’s what people who care about saving lives do. That’s what people of integrity do, whether or not anyone ever recognizes it.

You know in your heart what is true, and you speak it. And no one one can ever shut you up again.

Even if they kill you.

Your bravery will outlive you.

Your words will remain like candles, lighting the path for future truth-droppers. And you will be at peace, in life and beyond.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/01/2023 – 23:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/dTkJ2qw Tyler Durden

SpaceX Doubles Number Of Rocket Launches

SpaceX Doubles Number Of Rocket Launches

Launching rockets into orbit is an expensive business.

So costly that, thus far, only government space agencies or government-related companies have transported astronauts or satellites into space.

Still, as Statista’s Florian Zandt details below, the private space industry has been booming in the last couple of years, with companies like Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and Elon Musk’s SpaceX providing varying degrees of suborbital and orbital space travel and transportation.

In 2022, according to Bryce Tech, eleven private providers launched 94 rockets – of which SpaceX alone sent 61 rockets into orbit.

Infographic: SpaceX Doubles Number of Rocket Launches | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

This compares with 71 launches by space agencies or government-related companies.

The leader in this category is the prime contractor for the Chinese space program, the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (35 launches). It is followed by Roscosmos (21 launches), the space agency of the Russian Federation.

However, the private and public sectors are often intertwined rather than strictly separated. For example, SpaceX has been awarded NASA contracts worth $2 billion in the agency’s fiscal year 2022 alone.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/01/2023 – 23:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Dtd6kT Tyler Durden

The World Economic Forum’s ‘AI Enslavement’ Is Coming For You!

The World Economic Forum’s ‘AI Enslavement’ Is Coming For You!

Authored by J.B.Shurk via The Gatestone Institute,

The mission objective of the World Economic Forum (WEF) is remarkably simple: the smartest, best people in the world should rule everyone else. In WEF parlance, their schemes of total supervision and behavioral modification will create a “sustainable” future for humanity. Humans become nothing more than “things” to be counted, shuffled, categorized, tagged, monitored, manipulated, and controlled. They become nothing more than cogs in the WEF’s great trans-humanist, technocratic machine.

Pictured: WEF founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab in Davos on May 23, 2022. (Photo by Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)

When Sir Thomas More wrote his socio-political satire about a fictional island society in the New World, he gave it the fabricated name, Utopia, derived from simple Greek and meaning, “no-place.” Although More was humorously telling his audience that his idealized community existed nowhere, centuries of central planners chasing the fantasy of utopian societies have failed to get the joke. Worse, for every peaceful religious community seeking separation from modern civilization, there is a power-hungry tyrant seeking to impose his will upon everyone else.

It seems as if not a generation goes by when some megalomaniac does not rise to proclaim, “If only the world does exactly as I demand, I will deliver you paradise here on Earth.” Usually, these same narcissists go down in history remembered as either vainglorious buffoons or bloodthirsty tyrants — often both.

Today, Klaus Schwab rises as leader of the World Economic Forum (WEF) to promise a “Great Reset” for the human race. He envisions a future Utopia achieved through technological precision, centralized management of Earth’s resources, careful observation of citizens, the merger of human and artificial intelligence, and the monopolization of government power by a small professional class with recognized expertise. Although the WEF has spent the last 50 years organizing conferences, publishing policy proposals, and connecting global leaders in industry, banking, information technology, intelligence gathering, military strategy, and politics, its mission objective is remarkably simple: the smartest, best people in the world should rule everyone else.

Separated from all its pretensions about “saving the world” from unchecked population growth and climate apocalypse, the WEF is nothing new. Its foundations have been around at least since the time of Plato, when two and a half millennia ago the Greek philosopher proposed that the ideal city-state would be ruled by “philosopher kings.” Just as Plato surveyed the world and predictably concluded that people from his own vocation should logically govern everyone else, the World Economic Forum’s global “elites” have come to a strikingly similar determination. Far from advancing anything forward-looking or modern, Schwab and his acolytes walk in the footsteps of an ancient Greek. For a half-century, the WEF’s members have been on a quest to devise the perfect global government without any say from Western nations’ voting populations, and to no-one’s surprise, those same “philosopher kings” have nominated themselves to do the ruling. How convenient.

As is true of almost all visions of Utopia, the WEF’s new world order will be remarkably centralized. “Experts” on climate change will determine what kinds of energy may be used by businesses and consumers. “Experts” on sustainability will determine what foods humans (at least the non-“elite” variety) may eat. “Experts” on disinformation will determine what kinds of news and which side of a debate may be known and promoted. “Experts” on healthcare will determine how many times each citizen must be injected with ever-newer “vaccines,” whether citizens must be kept in lockdown “for their own good,” and whether face masks must be worn to prove continuing compliance. “Experts” on extremism will determine what kinds of speech are “harmful.” “Experts” on racism will determine which groups in society have unfair “privilege.” “Experts” in inequality will determine whose property must be taken and which groups the State should reward. “Experts” in whatever the State requires will determine that the State is acting reasonably every step of the way. However, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, individual rights, and other personal liberties will mean little in a WEF-constructed future running on philosopher-king-approved expertise. At no time can an individual’s needs, wants or concerns be allowed to obstruct the “greater good.” This is Schwab’s drab vision of Utopia.

Should he and the WEF clan pull it off, they will do so by using technology to enfeeble, rather than empower, the human race. Already, people have become familiar with the new terms of their future enslavement. Central bank digital currencies will allow governments not only to track every citizen’s income and purchase history in real time but also to limit what a person may spend depending upon government-determined social credit scores, perceived infractions of the “common good,” or perhaps unfair possession of “systemic privilege.” Digital vaccine passports will not only provide universal tracking of every person’s movements but also ensure stick-and-carrot compliance with future mandatory orders during declared “health emergencies.” Personal carbon footprints measuring each individual’s “culpability” for so-called man-made climate change will have the effect of recording everything a person eats and everywhere a person goes, while constantly “nudging” each citizen with digital rewards or penalties to modify behavior toward the government’s preferred standards. It should go without saying that when any government possesses such omnipotent powers, invasions of privacy will only expand, declared “health emergencies” will become only more numerous, and government “nudging” will become only more intrusive.

If this sounds more dystopian than utopian and every bit like an unwanted prison overseen by unaccountable government agents, that is precisely what it is. WEF zealots do not even hide their intentions anymore, already going so far as to push the construction of “Smart Cities” or “Fifteen Minute Cities” in which tens of millions of people can be relocated, live side-by-side in small apartment complexes, and move through a constant maze of entrances and exits accessed solely through digital ID verification and approval. In essence, the goal is to create a digital panopticon implementing all of the surveillance programs above, to provide future rulers with absolute control, while leaving everyone else in a permanent state of docile incarceration. In WEF parlance, such schemes of total supervision and behavioral modification will create a “sustainable” future for humanity. No doubt prison wardens feel much the same way when convicts are kept behind bars in rows of secured cages. The difference is that in the WEF’s Utopia, no crime must be committed to reap Schwab’s unjust “rewards.”

Now, if Westerners appreciated just what is coming their way, they might go apoplectic and resist the WEF’s new world order. For this very reason, the most important war being waged today is one that is never discussed openly in the press: the covert war over information. When people are allowed to openly debate ideas in the public square (including the digital square of social media and web pages free from search engine shadowbans), that “free market of ideas” will go where the people debating those ideas take them. For government “narratives” not only to survive but also to dominate all dissenting opinion, government-allied platforms must tilt the scales of free speech in their favor by ridiculing, censoring or outright criminalizing the thoughts and words of dissident minds. In any other market, such intentional interference would be considered anticompetitive collusion in violation of antitrust laws, but because the World Economic Forum’s acolytes treat competing free speech as dangerous “misinformation,” the “free market of ideas” has been transformed into a controlled “safe space” for the government’s friends.

What happens when government ambivalence toward free speech is combined with the amoral technocratic force behind the WEF’s plans for global Utopia? Well, as Herr Schwab recently proclaimed at the World Government Summit in Dubai when discussing artificial intelligence (AI), chatbots, and digital identities: “Who masters those technologies — in some way — will be the master of the world.” (After that, is one-world-government still considered a “conspiracy theory”?) If the WEF controls the digital world, then it will essentially control the people. Once the stuff of science fiction, WEF technocrats even have a plan to “hack” into employees’ minds by monitoring and decoding their brainwaves.

Google is onboard with such thought control: it has declared its intent to expand a “pre-bunking” program meant to “immunize” people against what Google sees as “propaganda” or “misinformation” by indoctrinating unsuspecting Internet users with Google’s own home-brewed yet approved propaganda. By manipulating Google’s users without their knowledge, the search engine behemoth can ward off competing ideas — brilliant!

Microsoft founder Bill Gates feels the same way. In an interview with German newspaper Handelsblatt, the self-styled vaccine expert argues that AI technologies should be used as powerful tools to combat “digital misinformation” and “political polarization.” This comes on the heels of a recent discovery that Microsoft has already been using a British think tank, Global Disinformation Index (GDI), to secretly blacklist conservative media companies in the United States and prevent them from generating advertising revenue. The kicker? The U.S. State Department has been funding GDI’s “disinformation” work through taxpayer funds to the National Endowment for Democracy and its own Global Engagement Center, which are then transferred to GDI before GDI launders the tawdry viewpoint discrimination back to Microsoft and other companies behind a thin veil of “objectivity.”

Following the WEF model of creating an all-powerful partnership between private industry and government authority, Microsoft and the State Department have figured out how to undermine dissent by having third-party organization, GDI, label all such speech as “harmful disinformation” on its “Dynamic Exclusion List.”

Likewise, publicly funded news outlets throughout the West — including Germany, Canada, Switzerland and Belgium — are working together to “develop online-based solutions” to target “hate comments and increasing disinformation.” What could possibly go wrong when State-controlled institutions collude to control the dissemination of information? As former Twitter “Trust and Safety” executive Yoel Roth testified before Congress, “Unrestricted free speech paradoxically results in less speech, not more.” From this Orwellian doublespeak standard, the clear line separating protections for free speech from outright censorship is whether the speaker articulates points of view in agreement with the WEF’s ruling coalition of Big Tech titans and government authorities or not. In Schwab’s Utopia, there is no room for truly free speech.

What happens when the job of censoring the public is placed entirely in the digital hands of artificial intelligence? Even though some political leaders have cautioned that AI could be an “existential threat” to humanity, and even as technology pioneers such as former Google chief Eric Schmidt admit that AI-powered computer systems should be seen as every bit as powerful as nuclear weapons, the rush toward AI-constructed Utopia is full speed ahead. That should give anyone of sound mind troubling pause. After all, the cognitive biases of Big Tech “elites” such as Gates, Schmidt, and others will almost certainly translate into digital biases for any artificial intelligence.

ChatGPT, an AI software program launched late last year, is already scaring the bejesus out of people with its overt political bias. In one instance, the AI concluded that using a racial slur was worse than allowing a city to be annihilated by a nuclear bomb. In another, the AI justified the suppression of Trump voters as necessary to “defend democracy” and prevent the spread of “dangerous speech,” while simultaneously arguing that “AI should not be used to suppress the free speech” of Biden supporters. Meanwhile, no sooner had some experimenters gained access to Microsoft’s new AI-powered chatbot than the synthetic brain started threatening people.

These troubling early signs give credence to Schmidt’s warning that AI should be regarded as equally and inherently dangerous as nuclear bombs. Where he and other WEF-allied global “elites” differ from the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, however, is in their seemingly urgent desire to turn these awesome AI weapons directly against Western peoples.

Clearly, if Schwab’s World Economic Forum intends to usher in an AI-powered Utopia where he can be the “master of the world,” then he has little use for human beings. In a very real sense, humans become nothing more than “things” to be counted, shuffled, categorized, tagged, monitored, manipulated, and controlled. They become nothing more than cogs in the WEF’s great trans-humanist, technocratic machine — useful for a time, perhaps, but ultimately a burden to feed and house and logically expendable. If artificial intelligence can do the thinking that Schwab needs and support the ideas that Schwab adores, then humans are just in the way. Should the World Economic Forum get its centralized Utopia, the “thingification” of the human race will be a giant step toward its eventual disposal.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/01/2023 – 23:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/jrhNLkf Tyler Durden

Nomura Is First Bank To Call For 50bps Rate Hike In March

Nomura Is First Bank To Call For 50bps Rate Hike In March

In the past year, Japanese bank Nomura has had a penchant for making several headline-grabbing outlier predictions about the Fed: in June, Nomura was the first bank to call for a 75bps rate hike (a view that quickly became consensus after the infamous Hilsenrath weekend report that blew up the Fed’s forward guidance), followed one month later by an even more show-stopping forecast for a 100bps rate hike in July. Verdict: it got one out of two right (the former, not the latter), yet still not a bad track record when the bank takes the bold step to break away from the echo chamber herd.

This week, the bank has done it again, because with the Fed seemingly torn between keeping its 25bps rate hike cadence or expanding it to 50bps to give the tightening campaign a little extra “oomph” after the latest FOMC minutes found that a higher than expected “few” favoed a 0.5% rate hike, Nomura’s strategist Aichi Amemiya writes that he now expects a 50bp hike in March followed by 25bp hikes in May and June “as persistent inflation drives the Fed to a more hawkish stance.”

Here’s his reasoning, excerpted from the note (available to pro subs in the usual place):

Resurging inflation leads to our revised forecast of a 50bp rate hike in March and a higher terminal rate

Incoming inflation data suggest the underlying inflation trend may have stopped moderating in recent months. Although the Fed downshifted to a slower pace of rate hikes in 25bp increments in February, the recent persistence of inflation, in addition to strong labor markets and easy financial conditions suggests: 1) the Fed is unlikely to rely on goods-led disinflation, as it could be short-lived; 2) the underlying trend inflation may be re-accelerating, thus raising the risk of under-tightening and 3) aggressive policy action might be needed to tighten financial conditions. Against this backdrop, we revise our near-term Fed call as follows (Fig. 1):

  • A 50bp rate hike in March.
  • Two 25bp rate hikes in May and June to a terminal rate of 5.50-5.75%. Previously, we had expected one more 25bp rate hike in March to a terminal rate of 4.75-5.00%.
  • Our expectation for the first cut is unchanged at March 2024.
  • We maintain our view that balance sheet reduction will continue until March 2024.

The 50bp rate hike in March may sound aggressive. That said, we think the Fed is further from a pause on rate hikes than we had originally believed and it is possible more front-loaded rate hikes will be needed to tighten financial conditions and control inflation.

Furthermore, in light of the continued recent easing in financial conditions (chart below, right), Nomura suggests that the Fed may also be motivated to hit a higher terminal rate.

Amemiya followed up on his forecast today, after Minneapolis Fed President Kashkari spoke at a moderated discussion, and Atlanta Fed President Bostic released an essay on “Striking a Delicate Balance” between reducing inflation and inflicting too much economic pain: Kashkari responded to the question about the size of rate hikes, indicating he is open-minded to either 25bp or 50bp, which lends support to Nomura’s call for a 50bp rate hike in March. However, he stressed that he is focused on the “dots,” referring to the FOMC participants’ projections for the federal funds rate. He said the March dots are much more important than how much the Fed will raise at the March meeting. He also said January data are concerning, and that he is leaning towards pushing up his policy path. That suggests he may revise up his 2023 dot to 5.625% from 5.375% in December.

According to Nomura, “while we expect a 50bp rate hike at the March meeting, alternatively, the Fed could raise the median 2023 dot to 5.625% which may have a similar market impact. However, our key point is that we will likely see renewed hawkishness at the March meeting, either in the form of a 50bp rate increase or higher-than-expected dots.”

Meanwhile, Bostic’s essay came across hawkish, in our view, however his terminal rate expectation remained at 5.00-5.25%. It’s also interesting that he mentioned “a narrative has gained momentum among some commentators that the Fed should consider reversing its course of raising the federal funds rate.” This comment is somewhat out of line with our perspective that recent market developments have tended towards expecting and pricing in a higher terminal rate.

And while other banks are becoming increasingly hawkish, not one is willing to stake its credibility on predicting that the Fed will once again backtrack on its hiking strategy, and boost rates by 50bps this month after raising 25bps in February as that would be a tacit admission of yet another serious error, the third in a row (after “transitory inflation” and the 50bps to 75bps June rate hike switcheroo).

For what it’s worth, after pricing in just one 25bps rate hike in March for much of February, the odds of a 50bps are now at 25bps and rising.

More in the full note available here for pro subs.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/01/2023 – 22:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/mDZtYL6 Tyler Durden

A Contagion Of Cowardice

A Contagion Of Cowardice

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

Jordan Peterson’s interview with Jay Bhattacharya is one of the more insightful conversations to come out of the post-pandemic period. It’s fascinating to see Peterson coming to terms with the sheer scale of the lockdown during which time he was rather sick. We could have used his voice then and I have no doubt that he would have been fantastic. 

Fortunately for the whole world, we did have Jay. It’s not just his credentials or his position at Stanford University. It’s his erudition that gave him the reach to make sense of our times. In this interview, Jay explains the unfolding of events in ways I personally found compelling. 

Summing up his message, the response upended a century of public-health practice based on computer modeling that was not informed by any medical knowledge or public-health experience. That modeling came to be fused with a military-style response that waged a war on a pathogen with no exit strategy. Powerful industrial interests saw their chance to realize every hidden agenda.

That was further complicated by severe political division. Even though the lockdowns began under the Trump administration, opposing them mysteriously came to be seen as “right-wing” even though the pandemic policies violated every civil liberty, massively harmed the poor, divided the classes, and trampled essential freedoms, which one might suppose were concerns of the left, once upon a time.

Jay knew from the beginning that these policies were a disaster but his method of dissent was to stick with the genuine science. He worked with colleagues very early in the pandemic on a study from California that proved that this war on the “invisible enemy” was futile. Covid was everywhere and only a mortal threat to a narrow group in the population needed to have its guard up while the rest of society moved on. That study was released in April 2020 and the implications were undeniably devastating to the war planners and the lockdown pushers. 

The conclusion of the study seems rather commonplace now: “The estimated population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection may be much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases.” But at the time, when dissent was rare if non-existent in scientific literature, and when the planning elite had declared its number one goal was to track, trace, and isolate, and thereby minimize infections through compulsion while we wait for a vaccine, this conclusion was anathema. 

That’s when the attacks began. It was like he had to be shut down. The popular press began to go after him savagely, smearing both the study and his motivations (this later became outright censorship). At this point, he began to realize the intensity of the campaign against dissent and the push for full unity in favor of the policy response. It was not like normal times when scientists could disagree. This was something different, something fully militarized, when a “whole-of-government” and “whole-of-society” consensus was being demanded by every institution. That meant no heresies against orthodoxy were allowed. 

At this point, the interview breaks and Peterson begins to ask probing questions of the sort he likes concerning the spiritual struggle all of us face in life, a subject that clearly consumes him. Peterson believes that all seeming political struggles are ultimately personal ones. Do we back off and acquiesce to conventional wisdom or do we continue to walk toward the light as shown by our conscience? 

He asks Jay if he faced this moment, and Jay admits that he did indeed face this. He realized that continuing in this direction – researching to discover facts and telling the truth as he saw it – would massively disrupt his career, his life, and everything he had worked for. Everything would be different, away from comfort and into an uncertain and isolated frontier. 

He faced that choice and made the decision to go ahead, undeterred. But the decision cost him dearly. He could not sleep. He lost tremendous amounts of weight. He faced social and professional ostracism. He was dragged through the mud daily in the press and scapegoated for every policy failure. He was accused of conspiring with the purveyors of dark money and every other form of professional corruption. He found himself vexed beyond which he had ever been in his entire career. But still he forged ahead, eventually gathering with other scientists to make what is now a famous statement of public health that has stood the test of time. 

It’s fascinating to consider how few in academia and professional life made this choice. And the reasons why are also intriguing. Many in these high-end professions, particularly in academia, have far less job flexibility than we think. We might suppose that a tenured professor in the Ivy League could and would say anything he wants. 

The opposite is true. They are not like the barber or auto mechanic who can leave one job and easily start another a few blocks away or in a different town. They are, in many ways, trapped in their own circle of influence. They know this and dare not depart from industry norms. And too often those norms are formed by funding. Yale University, for example, gets more overall revenue from government than from tuition. That’s typical among such institutions. And now we know that media and tech are also on the payroll. 

These conflicts of interest combined with careerism played themselves out in brutal ways over the last few years. The high-end professionals who left their jobs to work in the Trump administration, for example, found that they had no jobs waiting for them at all when that presidency came to an end. They were not welcomed back, certainly not by academia. They were discarded. I personally know of many cases where people on advanced career tracks lost all merely by agreeing to what they believed would be public service. 

The lockdowns era made this much worse. All over the country, scientists, media figures, writers, think-tank officials, professors, editors, and influencers of all sorts were pressured to go along. Not just that: they were threatened to go along. And it wasn’t just the opinions that mattered. There were all sorts of compliance tests along the way. There was the “social distancing” test. If you didn’t practice in it, that somehow marked you as an enemy. The masking was another: you can tell who was who and what was what based on the willingness to cover one’s face. 

The vaccine mandate, appallingly, became another wedge issue that enabled all kinds of professions to purge people. Once the New York Times claimed (summer 2021) to have evidence that the unvaccinated were more likely to be Trump supporters, that did it. The Biden administration and many university administrators felt that they had the ultimate weapon to achieve the purge about which they had longed dreamed. 

Comply or get tossed out. That was the new rule. And truly this largely worked. Diversity of opinion in many sectors of society – media, academia, corporate life, the military – is dramatically reduced after this epoch. It doesn’t matter that courts later came along to say it was all bad law. The damage had been done. 

Still, we have to be curious about those who did not go along. What drove them to depart from their fellows? This is why Gabrielle’s Bauer’s book Blindsight Is 2020 is so valuable. It doesn’t cover them all but it does highlight the voices of many who dared to think for themselves. And yet here is the truth: among this dissident set, very few aren’t doing something completely different today from what they were doing in 2019. They have changed jobs, changed professions, changed towns and states, and even seen families and friendship networks shattered. 

They all paid a huge price. I’m not sure I know any exceptions to the rule. Going against the grain and daring to stand up for truth in a time of totalitarianism is exceedingly dangerous. Our times have proven that. (Brownstone’s Fellows program is designed to give many of these purged people a bridge to a new life.) 

I titled this article a contagion of cowardice. It might be too severe to call it that. Many people went along for entirely rational reasons. Another point to consider is that moral teaching in the great religions has not typically required absolute heroism. What it does require is not doing evil. And those really are different things. Staying quiet might not be evil; it’s only the absence of being heroic. St. Thomas even writes this in his treatise on moral theology: the faith celebrates but never requires martyrdom. 

And yet it is also true that heroism in our times is absolutely necessary for the preservation of civilization when it is so brutally under attack. If everyone chooses the safe path, and crafts one’s decisions around the principle of risk aversion, the bad guys truly do win. And where does this land and how far can we slide into the abyss under those conditions? The history of despotism and death by government reveal where this ends up. 

The best case for heroism over careerism and cowardice is to look back over these three years and observe just how much difference a few can make when they are willing to stand up for truth even when there is a big price to be paid for doing so. Such people can change everything. This is because ideas are more powerful than armies and all the propaganda that a machinery of power can muster. One statement, one study, one sentence, one small effort to puncture the wall of lies can bring down the whole system. 

And then the contagion of cowardice comes to be replaced by a contagion of truth. Those who stood up for that form of contagion deserve our respect and gratitude. They also deserve to survive and thrive in the new renaissance that so many today are working to build. 

More than people right now are willing to admit, civil society as we knew it collapsed over these three years. A massive purge has taken place within all the commanding heights. This will affect career choices, political alliances, philosophical commitments, and the structure of society for decades to come. 

The rebuilding and reconstruction that must take place is going to rely – perhaps as it always has – on a small minority who see both the problem and the solution. Brownstone is doing its best and the most possible given our resources and the time in which we’ve had to operate. But much more needs to be done. The rebuilding requires a spiritual-level commitment to intelligence, wisdom, bravery, and truth. 

Watch the full interview below:

Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/01/2023 – 22:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/IJoi8pP Tyler Durden

USPS Purchases Ford EV Vans To Electrify Nation’s Largest Federal Fleet

USPS Purchases Ford EV Vans To Electrify Nation’s Largest Federal Fleet

The United States Postal Service (USPS) announced plans to purchase thousands of electric delivery vehicles from Ford Motor Company. The move is part of the USPS’s efforts to ‘greenify’ 75% of its fleet over the next five years. 

USPS awarded a contract to purchase 9,250 Ford E-Transit Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs). The first delivery of the EV mail trucks will begin in December of this year. 

“These domestically sourced vehicles will be 100 percent electric and are part of the 21,000 COTS vehicles included in the Postal Service’s vehicle acquisition plan announced in December 2022. The Ford E-Transit BEVs are manufactured in Kansas City, Missouri,” USPS wrote in a statement. 

In addition to the 9,250 EV mail trucks, USPS awarded contracts to three suppliers for the purchase of 14,000 charging stations to be installed at mail facilities. 

“We are moving forward with our plans to simultaneously improve our service, reduce our cost, grow our revenue, and improve the working environment for our employees. Electrification of our vehicle fleet is now an important component of these initiatives,” Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said in the statement. 

The contract is a significant pivot for USPS, which had announced early last year that it would replace its 30-plus-year-old fleet of mail trucks with gasoline-fueled models made by Oshkosh Corp. That would’ve disappointed the Biden administration, which has been attempting to electrify the federal government’s fleet of vehicles. USPS has the nation’s largest federal fleet. 

After facing criticism from some members of Congress and receiving a $3 billion funding boost from the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, the postal service changed its approach in December. The organization then announced a new plan to acquire 66,230 electric delivery vans by 2028, costing $10 billion.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/01/2023 – 22:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/U4fAr5q Tyler Durden