Month: July 2024

There’s definitely more to this story than meets the eye.

Let’s begin with new details from the Financial Times, which reveal that Microsoft has relinquished its board observer seat at OpenAI, while Apple is not expected to take an observer role on the board.

The big mystery is why Microsoft and Apple are suddenly trying to distance themselves from OpenAI. Could it be due to mounting antitrust investigations from Europe to the US? 

Here’s more from FT: 

Microsoft, which has invested $13bn in the maker of the generative AI chatbot ChatGPT, said in a letter to OpenAI that its withdrawal from its board role would be “effective immediately”.

Apple had also been expected to take an observer role on OpenAI’s board as part of a deal to integrate ChatGPT into the iPhone maker’s devices, but would not do so, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

Instead of the board observer seats, an OpenAI spokesperson said the startup plans to host regular meetings with partners, including Microsoft and Apple, and investors Thrive Capital and Khosla Ventures.

The spokesperson said this is “a new approach to informing and engaging key strategic partners” under Sarah Friar, the former Nextdoor boss who was recently hired as its first CFO. 

The move comes as antitrust officials across the West, primarily in Europe and the US, scrutinize Microsoft and OpenAI’s partnership amid major concerns about competition in the AI space. 

Last year, Microsoft accepted the observer board seat following the chaotic mess after chief executive Sam Altman was fired and then re-hired days later. 

“This position provided insights into the board’s activities without compromising its independence,” Microsoft’s deputy general counsel Keith Dolliver wrote in a letter to OpenAI late on Tuesday.

Dolliver continued by saying since then, “We have witnessed significant progress from the newly formed board and are confident in the company’s direction,” and therefore, Microsoft’s role on the board was no longer “necessary.” 

An OpenAI spokesperson said: “We’re grateful to Microsoft for voicing confidence in the board and the direction of the company, and we look forward to continuing our successful partnership.”

In June, the European Commission said it was exploring the possibility of an antitrust investigation between Microsoft and OpenAI. The US Federal Trade Commission has also been examining investments made by mega tech companies in generative AI startups.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed brought interest rates to roughly 0% and held them there for years.

Then, in late 2015, they started a rate-hiking cycle that lasted until the repo market turmoil in late 2019.

After the outbreak of the Covid hysteria in early 2020, the Fed brought interest rates back down to around 0%.

Inflation subsequently hit 40-year highs in 2022, forcing the Fed into another rate-hiking cycle, one of the steepest in history.

In just 18 months, the Fed hiked rates from around 0% to over 5%, where they remain today.

The chart below illustrates these last 18 years of monetary policy.

With the soaring interest expense on the federal debt set to become the largest item in the budget, I do not expect the Fed to raise interest rates much more.

For context, the last time inflation was raging, Paul Volcker needed to raise interest rates above 17%. However, that was in the early 1980s, when the US debt-to-GDP ratio was around 30%. Today, it’s north of 120% and rising rapidly.

Today’s higher debt load and accompanying interest expense are why the Volcker option is not on the table; the growing interest expense could lead to the US government’s bankruptcy.

So, I do not expect the Fed to raise interest rates much more, if at all.

In fact, the Fed paused the rate hikes about a year ago (July 2023) and has recently signaled a pivot to easing again.

That means the Fed has effectively given up on bringing price inflation down even though the year-over-year change in the CPI remains around 3.3%, significantly higher than the Fed’s target of 2%.

In other words, even with their own crooked statistics and rigged game, the Fed has failed even to come close to their inflation target. It’s a massive failure.

Bloomberg is already hailing it “The Great Monetary Pivot of 2024.”

Gold Calls The Fed’s Bluff

During the current rate hike cycle, something strange happened with the gold price.

Historically, gold has been negatively correlated with real interest rates.

When real interest rates rise, the gold price tends to fall, and vice versa. This is because investors may prefer to hold US Treasuries over gold when real interest rates are high.

That historical relationship broke in 2022.

Real interest rates increased substantially as the Fed started its steep rate hike cycle, yet the gold price went UP.

Not only did the price of gold go up, it skyrocketed to a new all-time high… something few analysts would have expected in an environment of steeply rising real rates.

The fact that gold broke its historical inverse relationship with real rates and shot to record highs signals something strange is afoot.

It’s like the market is waving a big red flag.

The last time something like this happened was in the 1970s, as inflation spiraled out of control.

At the time, investors rushed to gold because they did not believe the Fed could control inflation, even as real interest rates rose.

There’s an excellent chance the market is telling us something similar today.

I think this is a strong market signal that the Fed is trapped. The US government’s spiraling debt will force the Fed to abandon its fight against inflation and engage in more currency debasement.

In other words, the Fed is trying to claim that it CAN taper a Ponzi scheme, and the gold market is calling the Fed’s bluff.

It’s crucial to understand that by surrendering to inflation, the Fed is returning to the same policies that caused prices to rise in the first place.

Quantitative Easing (QE) is a euphemism for rampant currency debasement used by central bankers. It’s sure to return soon and be larger than previous programs.

(Although the Fed may concoct some other confusing name and call it something other than QE, I’m sure the effect will be the same—currency debasement.)

During the Covid hysteria, the Fed was creating $120 billion out of thin air each month, which was significantly larger than the $40 billion/month during QE3, which was significantly larger than the monthly amount during QE1 and QE2.

That’s why I expect the coming QE—or whatever they call it—will be significantly larger than the $120 billion/month of fake money they injected into the economy during the Covid scam, which caused this ongoing bout of inflation.

If the gold price is already hitting record highs amid rising real rates, imagine what could happen when the Fed flips back to easing with even more currency debasement than the previous rounds of stimulus.

Let’s put the pieces together to see the big picture.

1. One of the steepest rate hike cycles in history couldn’t stop inflation.

2. The Fed can’t raise rates much further without bankrupting the US government because of the soaring interest expense on the skyrocketing federal debt.

3. QE is likely to return and be bigger than ever.

If the above three points are valid—and I believe they are—they raise an important question: How will the Fed EVER escape the trap of increasing currency debasement (QE Infinity)?

I don’t think it will be possible.

The implications of that are enormous.

Here’s the bottom line.

This could be the last rate hike cycle before QE Infinity, which would presage the dollar’s collapse, or as Ludwig von Mises—the godfather of free-market Austrian economics—put it, the “final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”

Unfortunately, most people have no idea how bad things can get when a currency collapses, let alone how to prepare.

We will likely see incredible volatility in the financial markets that could decimate many ordinary people’s life savings and retirement assets.

But I’m not just talking about a run-of-the-mill stock market crash or a currency crisis…

It’s something much bigger… with the potential to alter the fabric of society forever.

It’s created an economic situation unlike we’ve ever seen before, and it’s all building up to a severe crisis on multiple fronts.

It could all go down soon… and it won’t be pretty.

That’s exactly why I just released an urgent new report with all the details, including what you must do to prepare. It’s called The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. Click here to download the PDF now.

Authored by Alastair Crooke,

The Editor at Large for the Wall Street Journal, Gerry Baker, says: ‘We’ve been “gaslit’ and deceived” – for years – “all in the name of ‘democracy’”. That deceit “collapsed” with the Presidential debate, Thursday’.

“Until the world saw the truth … [against] the ‘misinformation’ … the fiction of Mr. Biden’s competence … suggests they [the Democrats] evidently thought they could get away with promoting it. [Yet] by perpetuating that fiction they were also revealing their contempt for the voters and for democracy itself”.

Baker continues:

“Biden succeeded because he made toeing the party line his life’s work. Like all politicians whose egos dwarf their talents, he ascended the greasy pole by slavishly following his party wherever it led … Finally—in the ultimate act of partisan servility, he became Barack Obama’s vice president, the summit of achievement for those incapable, yet loyal: the apex position for the consummate ‘yes man’”.

“But then, just as he was ready to drift into a comfortable and well-deserved obscurity, his party needed a front man … They sought a loyal and reliable figurehead, a flag of convenience, under which they could sail the progressive vessel into the deepest reaches of American life — on a mission to advance statism, climate extremism and self-lacerating wokery. There was no more loyal and convenient vehicle than Joe”.

If so, then who actually has been ‘pulling America’s strings’ these past years?

“You [the Democratic machine] don’t get to deceive, dissemble and gaslight us for years about how this man was both brilliantly competent at the job and a healing force for national unity – and now tell us, when your deception is uncovered, that it’s ‘bedtime for Bonzo’ – thanks for your service, and let’s move on”, Baker warns.

“[Now] it is going horribly wrong. Much of his party has no use for him anymore … in a remarkably cynical act of bait-and-switch, [they are trying to] swap him out for someone more useful to their cause. Part of me thinks they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. I find myself in the odd position of wanting to root for poor mumbling Joe … It’s tempting to say to the Democratic machine frantically mobilizing against him: You don’t get to do this. You don’t get to deceive, dissemble and gaslight us for years”.

Something significant has snapped within ‘the system’. It is always tempting to situate such events in ‘immediate time’, but even Baker seems to allude to a longer cycle of gaslighting and deception – one that only now has suddenly burst into open view.

Such events – though seemingly ephemeral and of the moment – can be portents to deeper structural contradictions moving.

When Baker writes of Biden being the latest ‘flag of convenience’ under which the ruling strata could sail the progressive vessel into the deepest reaches of American life – “on a mission to advance statism, climate extremism and self-lacerating wokery” – it seems probable that he is referring to the 1970s era of the Trilateral Commission and the Club of Rome.

The 1970s and 1980s were the point at which the long arc of traditional liberalism gave place to an avowedly illiberal, mechanical ‘control system’ (managerial technocracy) that today fraudulently poses as liberal democracy.

Emmanuel Todd, the French anthropological historian, examines the longer dynamics to events unfolding in the present: The prime agent of change leading to the Decline of the West (La Défaite de l’Occident), he argues, was the implosion of ‘Anglo’ Protestantism in the U.S. (and England), with its entailed habits of work, individualism and industry – a creed whose qualities were held then to reflect God’s grace through material success, and, above all, to confirm membership of the divine ‘Elect’.

Whereas traditional liberalism had its mores, the decline of traditional values triggered the slide towards managerial technocracy, and to nihilism. Religion lingers on in the West, though in a ‘zombie’ state, Todd avers. Such societies, he argues, flounder – absent some guiding metaphysical sphere that provides people with non-material sustenance.

However, the incoming doctrine that only a wealthy financial élite, tech experts, leaders of multinational corporations and banks possess the required foresight and technological understanding to manipulate a complex and increasingly controlled system changed politics completely.

Mores were gone – and so was empathy. Many experienced the disconnect and the disregard of cold technocracy.

So when a senior WSJ editor tells us that the ‘deception and ‘gaslighting’ collapsed with the CNN Biden-Trump debate, we should surely pay attention; He is saying the scales finally fell from peoples’ eyes.

What was being gaslighted was the fiction of democracy and also that of America declaring itself – in its own scripture – to be the trailblazer and pathfinder of humanity: America as the exceptional nation: the singular, the pure-of-heart, the baptizer, and redeemer of all peoples despised and downtrodden; the “last, best hope of earth”.

The reality was very different. Of course, states can ‘live a lie’ for a long period. The underlying problem – the point Todd makes so compellingly – is that you can be successful in deceiving and manipulating public perceptions, but only up to a point.

The reality was, it simply was not working.

The same is true of ‘Europe’.

The EU’s aspiration to become a global geo-political actor too, was contingent on gaslighting the public that France, Italy and Germany et al could continue to be real national entities – even as the EU scooped up all national decision-making prerogatives, by deceit. The mutiny at the recent European elections reflected this discontent.

Of course, Biden’s condition has been long known. So who then has been running affairs; making critical daily decisions about war, peace, the composition of the judiciary and the boundaries of state authority? The WSJ piece gives one answer: “Unelected advisers, party hacks, scheming family members and random hangers-on make the critical daily decisions” on these issues.

Maybe we have to reconcile to the fact that Biden is an angry, senile man who yells at his staff: “During meetings with aides who are putting together formal briefings, some senior officials have at times gone to great lengths to curate the information in an effort to avoid provoking a negative reaction”.

“It’s like, ‘You can’t include that, that will set him off’ or ‘Put that in, he likes that,’” said one senior administration official. “It’s very difficult and people are scared sh*tless of him.” The official added, “He doesn’t take advice from anyone other than those few top aides, and it becomes a perfect storm because he just gets more and more isolated from their efforts to control it”.

Seymour Hersh, the well-known investigative journalist reports:

“Biden’s drift into blankness has been ongoing for months, as he and his foreign policy aides have been urging a ceasefire that will not happen in Gaza whilst continuing to supply the weapons that make a ceasefire less likely. There’s a similar paradox in Ukraine, where Biden has been financing a war that cannot be won – yet refusing to participate in negotiations that could end the slaughter”.

“The reality behind all of this, as I’ve been told for months, is that Biden is simply ‘no longer there’ – in terms of understanding the contradictions of the policies he and his foreign policy advisers have been carrying out”.

On the one hand, Politico tells us: “Biden’s insular senior team are well acquainted with the longtime aides who continue to have the president’s ear: Mike Donilon, Steve Ricchetti and Bruce Reed, as well as Ted Kaufman and Klain on the outside”.

“It’s the same people — he has not changed those people for 40 years … The number of people who have access to the president has gotten smaller and smaller and smaller. They’ve been digging deeper into the bunker for months now.” And, the strategist said, “the more you get into the bunker, the less you listen to anyone”.

In Todd’s words then, decisions are made by a small ‘Washington village’.

Of course, Jake Sullivan and Blinken sit at the centre of what is called the ‘inter-agency’ view. This where policy mostly is discussed. It is not coherent – with its locus in the National Security Committee – but rather is spread through a matrix of interlocking ‘clusters’ that includes the Military Industrial Complex, Congressional leaders, Big Donors, Wall Street, the Treasury, the CIA, the FBI, a few cosmopolitan oligarchs and the princelings of the security-intelligence world.

All these ‘princes’ pretend to have a foreign policy view, and fight like cats to protect their fiefdom’s autonomy. Sometimes they channel their ‘take’ via the NSC, but if they can, they will ‘stovepipe’ it directly to one or other ‘key actor’ with the ear of one, or other, Washington ‘village’.

Nonetheless, at bottom, the 1992 Wolfowitz doctrine which underscored American supremacy at all costs, in a post-Soviet world – together with “stamping out rivals, wherever they may emerge” – still today remains the ‘current doctrine’ framing the ‘inter-agency’ baseline.

Dysfunction at the heart of a seemingly functioning organization may persist for years without any real public awareness or appreciation of the descent into dysfunctionality. But then suddenly – when a crisis hits, or Presidential debate misfires – ‘poof’ and we see clearly the collapse of the manipulation that has confined discourse to within the various Washington villages.

In this light, some of the structural contradictions that Todd noted as contributory factors to western decline become unexpectedly ‘illuminated’ by events: Baker highlighted one: The key Faustian bargain: the pretence of a liberal democracy operating in tandem with a ‘classic’ liberal economy versus the reality of an illiberal oligarchic leadership sitting atop a hyper-financialised corporate economy that has both sucked the life from the classic organic economy, and created toxic inequalities too.

The second agent of western decline is Todd’s observation that the implosion of the Soviet Union rendered the U.S. so cock-a-hoop that the latter triggered a paradoxical unleashing of global ‘Rules-Based Order’ expansion of empire versus the reality that the West was already being consumed from its roots upwards.

The third agent to decline lay, Todd argues, with America declaring itself to be the greatest military nation on earth – versus the reality of an America that has long rid itself of much of its manufacturing capacity (particularly the military capacity), yet elects to clash with a stabilized Russia, a great power returned, and with China which has instantiated itself as the world’s manufacturing Behemoth (including militarily).

These unresolved paradoxes became the agents of western decline, Todd maintained. He has a point.

By John Grady of USNI News

NATO’s leaders are set to approve a separate command at Wiesbaden, Germany, to coordinate training and equipment donations to Kyiv’s forces, a senior administration official told reporters last week.

The command will have about 700 personnel from NATO countries and partner nations assigned to the center, an alliance news release said. The administration officials, speaking to the press Friday, said the center would increase the interoperability among Ukrainian forces and NATO.

As an example of the drive to make Kyiv’s military more interoperable with NATO’s, the administration official said, “the U.S. for more than a year [have] been training Ukrainians on F-16 platforms,” as have other alliance members.

NATO will also facilitate equipment logistics and provide support through the center to the long-term development of Ukraine’s armed forces, the release added.

Last month, the alliance’s defense ministers approved the motion for consideration at the summit in Washington.

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said recently that creating the center does “not make NATO a party to the conflict, but they will enhance our support to Ukraine to uphold its right to self-defense.”

The administration official said, “the alliance stood up to President [Vladimir] Putin.” He added that 23 of the 32 nations in NATO are spending more than 2 percent of their gross domestic product on their own security, and some members are calling for a 3 percent threshold. Overall, the alliance has boosted its defense spending by more than $180 billion each year since 2020, he added.

At the defense ministers’ meeting last month, Stoltenberg said, “Over the next five years, NATO Allies across Europe and Canada plan to acquire thousands of air defense and artillery systems, 850 modern aircraft – mostly 5th generation F-35s – and also a lot of other high-end capabilities.”

The center’s creation also could be seen as a means of “institutionalizing” the long-term commitment of Western and Indo-Pacific nations, such as Japan, Korea and Australia, to Ukraine. The support would continue despite changes in administrations as would occur in the United States if Donald Trump is elected and, and changes in governments, as happened in the United Kingdom with Keir Starmer becoming prime minister.

“The long-term effort is to provide a bridge to membership” for Ukraine, the administration official said. He added, “there is a political overlay” to decisions like creating an alliance and multinational center “to help to build Ukrainian future forces.”

The administration official insisted the alliance was stronger than ever with the admission of Sweden to be formally marked in Washington this week. He also cited the North Atlantic Council’s selection of Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte as the next secretary general. He takes office in October.

The official dismissed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s meeting with Putin in Moscow as showing alliance weakness. “We’re convinced [the meeting] will not promote the course of peace.” Hungary now leads the Council of the European Union under its six-month presidential rotation policy. It is also a NATO member.

Orban has often broken with the E.U. and NATO on how the war should end. Orban also has repeatedly called for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to consider conceding territory to the Kremlin as the best way to stop the fighting. In addition, he has barred the shipment of donated weapons through Hungary to neighboring Ukraine. He joined with Turkey in delaying Sweden’s admission to the alliance for almost two years.

Also high on the summit’s agenda will be what steps NATO should take regarding China’s underpinning of Russia’s military-industrial base as the war continues. The official noted Beijing is supplying 90 percent of the microelectronics Moscow’s defense industry needs. It also is supplying other dual use high technologies and precision tools for advanced manufacturing.

“This is creating a strong challenge to our European allies,” the official said. He added that the E.U., Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand will be attending the summit as observers. The E.U. and the four Indo-Pacific U.S. allies will participate in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council to discuss mutual security threats from Russia and China that include building resilience in its armed forces and industrial base, cyber, disinformation campaign and technology transfer.

The official said those nations’ attendance, along with the E.U., show the “variable geography” of U.S. global alliances.

The official said a major announcement of defense industry revitalization and expansion would be forthcoming at the meeting, but did not provide details. Nor did he provide details on new arms, beyond saying air defense systems,” would be sent to Ukraine in the coming months.

In a globalized world, setting corporate tax rates has often been described as a race to the bottom. By having a lower rate than other nations, a country can hope to attract more businesses (or at the very least, their headquarters). This allows them a windfall of tax revenue that other jurisdictions then miss out on.

For some, the race to the bottom has in fact found the ground: at zero.

In the following graphic, Visual Capialist’s Pallavi Rao maps the very short list of places with zero corporate taxes.

Data for this map and article is primarily sourced from Trading Economics and PwC Tax Summaries, accessed June, 2024.

Life, Death, and No Corporate Taxes

Small island nations in the Caribbean, Pacific, and the British Isles make up the majority of countries and territories with no corporate tax requirement.

Many of them also don’t have income tax or capital gains taxes either.

*Except companies in banking & finance, cannabis, and firms in retail with taxable profits above £500,000. **Changes coming 2025. ***Except firms in oil & gas.

As a result, these places are the listed headquarters of hundreds of companies from around the world, and often dubbed as “tax havens.”

Aside from tax havens, some countries also have little need for corporate taxes due to revenue from key industries—like oil. However they also come with a fine print worth reading.

For example, Bahrain has no corporate taxes, unless a firm is involved in the oil and gas sector, in which case it attracts a rather steep 46% rate.

In the Crown Dependencies, banking and finance companies have to pay a 10% rate. Property income, retail businesses whose taxable profits are above £500,000 and firms in the cannabis industry also get taxed.

Meanwhile, Bermuda will introduce a 15% corporate tax in 2025. This will only apply to firms that are part of multinational groups with an annual revenue of $800 million or more.

This minimum 15% rate is part of a deal proposed by the OECD in an attempt to prevent multi-billion dollar tax havens. The Financial Times explains: if a country has a corporate tax rate below the minimum threshold, other jurisdictions can apply a “top up” tax to make up the difference. This reduces the incentive for tax havens to have a lower rate as other countries can increase tax revenues at their expense.

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via The Libertarian Institute,

A top Russian diplomat stressed that the Kremlin is unwilling to engage with the White House on arms control issues due to the Biden administration’s Russophobic stance. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov argued that President Donald Trump left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) to provoke China. 

In an interview with The International Affairs published on Monday, Ryabkov explained Moscow’s position on arms control talks with Washington. “We do not have the foundation right now and we are not even close to shaping one in order to launch a tentative dialogue, not talks even, in this field. This is a result of Washington’s destructive policy course,” he stated. 

“Until [the US] clearly show some change for the better in their policy, at the very least, demonstrate that this boundless and unabashed Russophobia has been set aside and is replaced with a slightly more sane approach,” he said, adding, “until this happens, there simply can be no dialogue on strategic stability.”

Since the end of the Cold War, Washington has abandoned a series of agreements that limited the US and Russia’s conventional as well as nuclear arsenals. Additionally, the Kremlin left the New Start Treaty in response to the White House’s support for Kiev. 

The deterioration of the global arms control agreement has coincided with a rise in spending on nuclear weapons and arms overall. Both Beijing and Moscow view the launchers as highly provocative. Ryabkov argued Trump left the INF Treaty to build intermediate-range missiles to intimidate China. 

“Americans needed to withdraw from the treaty in order to create such systems to intimidate the People’s Republic of China,” Ryabkov said. “And it is no coincidence that we have recently had a sharply intensified discussion about when and where the Americans might begin to deploy their medium-range weapons in the Asia-Pacific region.”

Recently, Washington and Moscow have taken steps to use arms limited by the INF Treaty. The agreement barred land-based missiles, and launchers, with a range of 300-3,400 miles. The US has deployed a covert launcher for intermediate-range missiles to Denmark and the Philippines for war games. 

On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow would begin producing weapons that the INF Treaty outlawed. “We need to start production of these strike systems and then, based on the actual situation, make decisions about where — if necessary to ensure our safety — to place them,” he stated. 

The 2024 Paris Olympics promise to be a spectacular event set against the backdrop of the city’s iconic landmarks. Whether it’s the Equestrian events held at the gardens of Château de Versailles, the beach volleyball stadium set up at the feet of the Eiffel Tower or the freshly-added urban sports (3×3 basketball, BMX, breaking and skateboarding) hosted at a temporary venue on Place de la Concorde – live spectators will get to enjoy the beauty of Paris on full display. That is if they were lucky enough to get tickets and/or afford them.

While the organizers of the Paris Olympics have set out to make them the “People’s Games”, the availability of affordable tickets has been a topic of discussion in the run-up to the games. While cheap €24 tickets have been available for every sport, those were limited to the early stages of competition in many cases and fans had to spend many times that to come anywhere near a medal ceremony at most events.

As Statista’s Felix Richter shows in the chart below, there is a huge gulf in ticket prices for the Olympics, with the most expensive tickets for the finals in Athletics, Swimming and Basketball priced at €980, which is more than 40 times the price of the cheapest tickets available for each sport.

You will find more infographics at Statista

At the other end of the scale, some events top out at €24, which mostly applies to outdoor events that can also be watched for free along public roads, along the Seine, or – if you happen to be in Tahiti – at the famous Teahupo’o wave.

While the eyewatering prices of some events have drawn criticism, it’s important to note that these expensive tickets make the very low starting price of tickets possible. 

According to the organizing committee, one million tickets were priced at €24, while almost half of the 10 million available tickets were priced at €50 or less.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

It’s no secret that the US is preparing to “Pivot (back) to Asia” in order to more muscularly contain China, but few have paid attention to the form in which this is expected to take in the coming future. Instead of the US doing so on its own or through the previously assembled Quad of itself, Australia, India, and Japan, it’s increasingly relying on the Squad. This framework swaps India out for the Philippines, and its latest relevant development was the clinching of a Japanese-Philippine military logistics pact.

That agreement follows April’s first-ever trilateral US-Japanese-Philippine summit, which tightened the US’ containment noose around China, and came approximately nine months after those three’s National Security Advisors met for the first time ever in June 2023. In practice, Japan will likely ramp up its military exercises with the Philippines and explore more arms deals, with those two possibly also roping Taiwan into their activities to an uncertain extent in the future given that it’s roughly equidistant between them.

This will increase the chances of a conflict by miscalculation since China has already recently shown that it has the political will to respond to violations of the maritime territory that it claims as its own as proven by its latest low-intensify clashes with the Philippines. Even though the US has mutual defense obligations to the Philippines and has recently reminded China of them, it’s been reluctant to meaningfully act on its commitments for de-escalation reasons, but that could easily change.

After all, the US would be pressured to respond if China clashes with both its Japanese and Philippine allies in the event that they jointly violate the maritime territory that Beijing claims as its own, though they might of course abstain from such a provocation for the time being for whatever reason. In any case, it can’t be ruled out that something of the sort might eventually transpire, which could prompt a dangerous brinksmanship crisis that risks spiraling out of control if cooler heads on all sides don’t prevail.

Southeast Asia isn’t the only battleground in the Sino-US dimension of the New Cold War since Northeast Asia is rapidly shaping up to be a complementary one as well. North Korea recently accused the US, South Korea, and Japan of conspiring to create an “Asian NATO” after their latest trilateral drills. South Korea is a prime candidate for joining the Squad, which can also be described as AUKUS+, with Japan playing the senior partner role in that scenario exactly as it now plays with the Philippines.

That likely won’t happen anytime soon though since the South Koreans remain resentful of Japan’s World War II-era occupation that Tokyo hasn’t ever taken full responsibility for in their view. Trilateral drills under America’s aegis are one thing, but entering into a military-logistics pact with their former colonizer is an altogether different matter, especially if it leads to the latter gaining the upper hand. Nevertheless, South Korea is expected to scale up its role in AUKUS+, with Japan as its top Asian partner.

The grand strategic trend is that the US is forming two Asian trilaterals with itself and Japan that are centered on the Philippines in Southeast Asia and South Korea in Northeast Asia.

Australia’s role is largely symbolic for the time being, and these two trilaterals haven’t yet merged into a multilateral defense network along the lines of NATO, but the writing is on the wall.

It’s unclear how China will respond to these moves, but there’s no doubt that they make the New Cold War much more dangerous.

Authored by Donald Jeffries via ‘I Protest” Substack,

As I’ve noted before, I was fascinated by history as a very young boy. And no part of history caught my attention like the founding of this nation. The American Revolution, the War for Independence- call it what you will. The Boston Tea Party. The Minutemen. Paul Revere’s midnight ride. The shot heard around the world.

I know that our Founders weren’t perfect. Thomas Paine, the brilliant writer who produced Common Sense, the pamphlet that helped ignite patriotic fervor in the colonies, wound up hating George Washington, who did indeed seem to have forgotten his invaluable contributions to the movement for independence. Shockingly and inexplicably, the location of most of Paine’s remains are unknown, as I detailed in Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963. Washington’s actions regarding the Whiskey Rebellion besmirch his reputation. He also was unfortunately swayed by the dastardly future Black Broadway star Alexander Hamilton, instead of Hamilton’s ideological foe Thomas Jefferson. This would have a huge negative impact on the future of the young republic.

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who was a member of the blasphemous Hellfire Club. In the 1990s, some human bones were found in his one-time London home. The court historians were quick to declare that there was nothing sinister about this, and blamed it on a young medical student renting a room from Franklin, who went on to die very young, interestingly enough. But Franklin was an undeniably brilliant man, who discovered electricity among other things. And you have to love someone who said “There is no such thing as a good war or a bad peace.” Not to mention his very clever pickup line, which he used on the fair damsels of eighteenth century Paris, “Would you care to join me in the pursuit of happiness?” That’s way better than “you got any fries to go with that shake?”

Our Founding Fathers were the wealthiest men of their time. The One Percent if you will. Can we picture any One Percenter today like John Hancock, who is said to have written his name so large on the Declaration of Independence in order for King George to read it without his glasses? Think of Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet, and other billionaires meeting surreptitiously in small taverns, passing out radical pamphlets, all for the cause of human liberty. There wasn’t a eugenicist in the bunch. Well, maybe Alexander Hamilton. If he were actually around today, and not just a fake Black Broadway star, he’d be invited to Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove. But the rest of them would be relegated to appearing on humble little podcasts like mine.

Those who signed the Declaration of Independence did truly pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Quoting from my Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963: “Seventeen of those who signed the Declaration lost everything they owned. Nine of these men lost their lives in the conflict. Rhode Island’s William Ellery’s estate was burned to the ground during the war. William Floyd of New York suffered the same fate. Fellow New Yorker Frances Lewis saw his estates destroyed by fire as well, and he was imprisoned and died during his incarceration. One of the richest of all those who signed, William Livingston, died impoverished a few years after the war. John Hart of New Jersey risked not only his fortune, but his family ties. His wife was dying as he signed the Declaration, and he was forced to flee from the British when he headed home to say goodbye. He never saw his thirteen children again, and died in 1779. New Jersey Judge Richard Stockton was another British prisoner, and he too died a pauper. Wealthy banker Robert Morris gave away his fortune in an effort to finance the revolution. He also died penniless….Virginia’s Thomas Nelson, in a perhaps implausible anecdote, allegedly turned a cannon on his own home, which had become General Cornwallis’s headquarters, and destroyed it. He, like so many of the others, died in poverty. South Carolina’s Thomas Lynch, along with his wife, simply disappeared at sea.”

The very wealthy George Washington led his troops in battle. Picture one of our countless chicken hawk political warriors, like Lindsey Graham, subjecting themselves to anything more dangerous than a game of Risk. The American Revolution was a revolt of the One Percent. They weren’t rebelling against any homegrown aristocracy, but the yoke of British rule. They didn’t want to be under the thumb of royalty. Their guiding principles of consent of the governed and no taxation without representation were watershed concepts in human history. The whole consent of the governed thing was shattered by Abraham Lincoln, whose despotism contradicted the intentions of the Founders. As for taxation without representation; does your congressional representative represent you? And are you taxed?

Could there be any bolder words than these? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson’s unique intellect shines through here, and his thoughts remain relevant, almost 250 years later.

“Endowed by their creator?” That won’t play well in Hollywood, or any big city in America 2.0. This was the basis of the Bill of Rights, which made the Constitution tolerable. How many Americans understand that we are born free; that our rights come from God, not from any government? Pay particular attention to the very clear statement that the People have a right to alter or abolish “any Form of Government” when it no longer suits their needs. Jefferson would be arrested and prosecuted as an “insurrectionist” for such Thought Crimes in America 2.0. He’d be given a small cell, alongside all those January 6 defendants, who’ve been denied all due process. To understand his present reputation, look at his demeaning character in the Broadway play Hamilton. To millions of Americans, he’s the “racist” who “raped” Sally Hemings.

As inhabitants of the most corrupt society in the history of the world, this passage should resonate with all of us: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” Do those “long train of abuses and usurpations” sound familiar?

Just imagine the list we could compile.

The situation in America 2.0 is unlike any other in history. We have an entrenched cadre of monstrously corrupt rulers, who are repulsed by the Founders that fought to establish the government they still swear allegiance to. I’ve written about just how much Lincoln hated Jefferson. Think about that. Was Honest Abe taking all those unconstitutional actions, and assuming all that unconstitutional authority, in defense of the vision outlined by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence? Remember, he hated him. Lincoln would fit right in at today’s Bohemian Grove confab. He seems to have been gay, after all, so he’d probably enjoy peeing against the giant redwoods and traipsing with the all-male attendees. I can see Lincoln supporting the transgender lunacy. No body can stand against itself, or something like that.

After the Declaration of Independence was approved and signed, copies were printed and sent to various civilian and military leaders, to be trumpeted far and wide. Today, the Declaration is a subversive document, a Thought Crime in quill and ink. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito- perhaps the best to serve on the Court in a very long time- was castigated for flying a Pine Tree flag outside his home. George Washington flew a Pine Tree flag during the War for Independence. Washington used to be the Father of our Country. Anyone flying the same flag he flew would have been looked upon with favor. Now, he’s just another dead White male “racist.” Our disastrous “bipartisan” interventionist foreign policy directly contradicts what Washington said in his Farewell Address. Washington would be demonized today as an “isolationist.”

In Crimes and Cover-Ups, I included a litany of crystal clear quotes from all the leading Founders, who each reiterated that the Second Amendment was to protect the individual right to bear arms. And yet today, constitutional “scholars” continue to argue that the Founders didn’t write the Second Amendment for individual gun owners. Well, who am I, a lowly community college dropout, to argue with any constitutional “scholar?” The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, is violated by police officers in traffic stops and other public encounters many times every day. And as for the First Amendment they oppose more than all the others, these same “scholars” will insist that it doesn’t protect “hate speech.” You can’t yell fire in a crowded transgender story hour.

The rights enumerated in our Founding documents, all self-evidently coming from God, are a blueprint for free societies. Freedom of speech, and religion, and assembly. Any rights not specifically enumerated in the other Amendments are reserved for the states, and the People. Since the central government was given very limited powers originally, this would involve a great many rights. Instead, it is our rights now which are strictly limited, not the federal government. You need a license to drive a car. Or to hunt. Or to fish. Or to sell things on the street. Little girls confronted by our brave law enforcement officers over their lemonade stands. Compare these to the shallow, transient issues of today. “Pride” month? Fat acceptance? You might as well talk about the Equal Rights Amendment, bra burning, or school busing.

I cover more hidden history from the revolutionary era in my book American Memory Hole: How the Court Historians Promote Disinformation, now available for pre-sale, officially released on August 27. We’ll dive into Judicial Review, an odious usurpation of the separation of powers by the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall. Jefferson strongly opposed it, and to my knowledge no one else has really crusaded against Judicial Review since him. Until me, in my own small way, in my humble little book. A single federal judge, or a Supreme Court, shouldn’t be able to thwart the will of the People, under our constitutional republic. Or even in a supposed “democracy.” And yet both the Left and Right swear by Judicial Review. That’s just one of many topics we’ll discuss in the book.

I don’t expect our beloved President Biden to quote from Patrick Henry on Independence Day. He’s probably more familiar with Cardi B, or the gender fluid nonbinaries from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, recent visitors to the White House. Our cackling Vice President Kamala Harris even answered the door and let them in. What a country!, as the forgotten comedian Yakoff Smirnoff used to say. Where we once had John Adams, and James Madison, and George Mason, now we have the guy with the shaved head and the red dress, who steals women’s luggage from airports. Lori Lightfoot and Liz Cheney. If Lincoln hated Jefferson, imagine how Michelle Obama and Gavin Newsom feel about him.

America 2.0 is the United States in name only. Recall that before Lincoln’s war of aggression on the South, the United States was a plural; as in the United States are loosely confederated into a common union. After nearly a million senseless deaths of young American boys, the United States became the singular monstrosity we’ve come to know and love. As in the United States is the greatest country in the world! Most Americans don’t understand the important distinction. We still may salute the flag, but nothing for which it used to stand. Now it stands for occupation of smaller, sovereign nations. The outsourcing of industry and the death of the middle class. Respect for “pronouns” but not free speech. Open borders. The Great Replacement. Those who fight under this flag aren’t fighting for anything the Founders did.

As Alex Jones so memorably put it, the answer to 1984 is 1776. 1776 is also the answer to America 2.0. In my little corner of the world, I’ll be drinking a toast to Patrick Henry, whose impassioned plea to stand up for the rights of those you disagree with stirred me as a youth, and helped influence me to become a civil libertarian. Or George Mason, who pushed for the Bill of Rights, and lost his friendship with neighbor George Washington over his initial opposition to the Constitution. Curiously, his wife also vanished under unknown circumstances. But all that will be in American Memory Hole. While I bemoan the state of this collapsing country in almost everything I write, I understand the beauty of the Founders’ framework. You can’t have half ass human liberty, as we do now. And that’s what I’ll be thinking of, while grilling the hamburgers and hot dogs, and watching the fireworks.

Although their salaries are far from those of CEOs of big companies, presidents, prime ministers, and other world leaders can be paid high salaries in some countries.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, ranks the top 10 highest-paid world leaders in 2024, according to various sources. Hong Kong data is as of 2022. All figures are in USD and are approximate. They can vary year to year with changes in policies, additional perks, and other compensations.

Singapore Leads the Ranking of Highest-Paid World Leaders

Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is the highest-paid government leader, earning over $1.6 million per year. His annual salary package includes a 13th-month bonus and other benefits.

Second on our list is Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu, with a salary of $695,000. His position was created in 1997 during the handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People’s Republic of China, replacing the office of the governor of Hong Kong, who was the representative of the British monarch during British rule.

The third place is occupied by Switzerland President Viola Amherd.

U.S. President Joe Biden is the fourth on our list, with $400,000 per year.

Interestingly, in seventh place with a salary of $364,000 is German politician Ursula von der Leyen, who is not the leader of an individual country. Instead, she is the 13th president of the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, appointed in December 2019.