GOV/MIL Main "Great Reset" Thread

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Ep. 2911a - The [CB]s Economic Playbook Known,Fool Me Once, Shame On You,Fool Me Twice,Shame On Me 16:51 min (starts at
1:30 min)

Ep. 2911a - The [CB]s Economic Playbook Known,Fool Me Once, Shame On You,Fool Me Twice,Shame On Me​

X22 Report Published October 28, 2022

Inflation is hitting Germany hard. Russian gas supplies to the EU have dropped by 50%. The EU stocked up on gas, will it be enough to get through the winter. Biden lies again. The [CB] is using the same playbook they used in 2008.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Parallels 7:02 min

Parallels​

The New American Published October 28, 2022

In the lead-up to World War One, all war bonds, munitions deals and military spending flowed through one man: J.P. Morgan. This, at the time, was an unprecedented amount of power reposed in one individual. Today, the same thing is happening with the Federal Reserve outsourcing its duties to one man: Larry Fink, of BlackRock. This is just one parallel that's emerging. Another is the international money that flowed into the United States from Versailles war reparations, inflating the stock market--which later led to the collapse of 1929. A similar phenomenon is happening now, as instability in the Third World is seeing capital flight, whereby trillions are flowing into the United States real estate and stock market. As the United States vies with China for supremacy, are we seeing a replay of the early 20th Century, where England was struggling against its economic rival Germany . . . which culminated in war?

(2008 bailouts funded by Blackrock in exchange for ESG)
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Digital IDs Are Coming to America and Nobody's Paying Much Attention 1:12:04 min

Digital IDs Are Coming to America and Nobody's Paying Much Attention​

The JD Rucker Show Published October 28, 2022

When a story broke last week that Congress had taken another big step toward rolling out digital IDs, I expected it to be huge news among conservative and alternative news outlets. Nope. I completely overestimated the impact of the article posted by Just The News, an article that unfortunately downplayed its own reporting.

Generally speaking, I love what John Solomon and his group do for journalism. The vast majority of their stories are straight news which is something we desperately need more of in America. State the facts and let the people make up their own minds — that's what I'd love to see. Instead, we have "news" that's tilted one way or the other and almost always to the left for corporate media. I have no problem with opinion pieces, but disguising opinions as "news" is not journalism.

The story in question was titled, "National Digital ID Clears Congressional Hurdle Amid Fears It Could Be Politically Abused." Here are the important parts:

A national digital ID system for U.S. citizens is fast becoming a reality following a vote by the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to advance the Improving Digital Identity Act.

Digital IDs act as online, data-laden representations of human beings. Many analysts, such as the authors of a 2019 McKinsey Global Institute report, argue they could be the key to unlocking access to financial services, various government benefits and educational opportunities, as well as a number of other critical services. Some of the same analysts, however, also warn that the "risks and potential for misuse of digital ID are real and deserve careful attention."

Although the concerns about digital IDs are real, it's important to separate the facts from the fearmongering fiction. In simple language, a digital identity enables an individual to prove who they are in the virtual world. Proponents claim digital IDs offer greater privacy than traditional forms of identification and can help minimize some of the risks associated with physical documents such as driver's licenses, passports, etc. Others, though, are quick to sound the alarm, warning that the introduction of digital IDs will almost certainly lead to an erosion of civil liberties.

"Digital is often touted as the 'future,' and many people cast such a transition as inevitable," writes Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU, who believes digital IDs could prove to be a privacy nightmare. "But digital is not always better — especially when systems are exclusively digital."

"There’s a reason that most jurisdictions have spurned electronic voting in favor of paper ballots, for example," Stanley writes. With voting software in some states vulnerable to outside interference, paper ballots increasingly appear to be much safer.

Similarly, digital IDs are vulnerable to attack. Horror stories involving people's identities being stolen are not uncommon. Remember, digital IDs are synonymous with data, and if there is one thing hacker's love, it's data — especially the data of U.S. citizens.

As I noted, the article downplays the threats of a digital ID in the United States. The reality is a digital ID is a requirement in order for the powers-that-be to fully implement their machinations, whether you want to call it Build Back Better, the 4th Industrial Revolution, or The Great Reset. An article by Dr. Joseph Mercola highlights the risks further:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/10/28/digital-id-has-arrived.aspx

On today's episode of The JD Rucker Political Report, I explained why this is such a threat and continued on to other stories that demonstrate the perfect economic storm we're in right now.

^^^
See posts for corresponding article #11,070-71
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment
In Focus - Afghan Migrants Say U.N. Told Them How To Get To Southern Border 10:27 min

In Focus - Afghan Migrants Say U.N. Told Them How To Get To Southern Border​

One America News Network Published October 28, 2022

Daily Caller investigative reporter Jennie Taer discusses her recent trip to Guatemala where she sat down for an interview with President Alejandro Giammattei. Taer also spoke with Afghan migrants who claimed that the U.N. instructed them on how to get to America's southern border.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

marsh

On TB every waking moment
ARGENTINA: Rebel News reporters were in Buenos Aires to report on the C40 World Mayors Summit 1:46 min

ARGENTINA: Rebel News reporters were in Buenos Aires to report on the C40 World Mayors Summit​

Rebel News Published October 28, 2022 390 Views

Rebel News reporters Lincoln Jay and Katie Daviscourt travelled to Buenos Aires, Argentina to report on the globalists and their secretive meetings at the C40 World Mayors Summit.


ARGENTINA: Rebel News reporters were in Buenos Aires to report on the C40 World Mayors Summit​

Rebel News reporters Lincoln Jay and Katie Daviscourt travelled to Buenos Aires, Argentina to report on the globalists and their secretive meetings at the C40 World Mayors Summit.
Rebel News reporters Lincoln Jay and Katie Daviscourt travelled to Buenos Aires, Argentina last week to report on the C40 World Mayors Summit to challenge global politicians and their insidious plans to implement identical climate policies in order to transition their cities into net-zero economies.

Acting under the guise of the “climate crisis,” global mayors entered a pact called C40 Cities, whose mission is to "halve the emissions of its member cities within a decade, while improving equity, building resilience, and creating the conditions for everyone, everywhere to thrive."

This group of globalists cannot achieve their goals without an insane undemocratic power grab and according to C40 Cities' most recent report, they want to control the food supply, air travel, private vehicles, and the private energy sector.

Since Rebel News is 100 percent viewer crowdfunded and relies on our generous donors, Rebel has crowdfunded their air travel, lodging, and meals. Both reporters travelled economy, shared an air bnb, and ate cheap.

If you believe that it is crucial to have independent media on the ground at these secretive globalist meetings—to bring our viewers the other side of the story—please donate to help recoup our travel costs.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

"Confidence Shaken:" US Firms In China Look Elsewhere As 'Friendshoring' Gathers Steam

FRIDAY, OCT 28, 2022 - 06:20 PM

The global economy is fracturing as the need to rejigger supply chains is underway. US firms realize China's Covid-zero policy and shutdowns, along with heightened geopolitical risk across the region, are bad for businesses and reduce capital investments in the country.

The American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai's latest survey of hundreds of US firms in the Asian country found a near doubling of respondents over the past year that are cutting investment.

Around a fifth of the 307 companies surveyed said they were slashing investments this year because of Covid-related shutdowns, travel restrictions, and supply chain disruptions. This is nearly double the number of respondents who were asked the same question last year.

"Confidence has been shaken," the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai said.

Eric Zheng, president of the Shanghai chamber, was quoted by Financial Times, indicating Beijing should "pivot to a more sensible approach to managing Covid-19 based on a reasonable balance between public health and the economy," adding the strict measures have "upended business performance expectations."

Even though US firms still expect future growth, business confidence has been shattered as only 55% of respondents are optimistic about China's five-year business outlook -- a record low.

And President Xi Jinping's power grab of a third five-year term could leave US CEOs facing a complex outlook that may spur accelerated rejiggering of critical supply chains out of the country to more friendly shores. The survey has conducted between July 14 and Aug. 18 and didn't include Xi's consolidation of power.

All of this suggests that Western firms are increasingly likely to divert at least some (if not all) of their supply chains out of China in a move called "friendshoring" -- while a play on "offshoring," this isn't about companies moving operations back to the US or Europe, but instead seeking foreign alternatives that retain the benefit of low labor costs but with less international controversy.

Michael Every, the global strategist at Rabobank, recently outlined in a note to clients which countries will benefit from friendshoring...

Every expects a lot of low-tech manufacturing jobs will go to India.



India, Turkey, and Brazil could be the top beneficiaries of medium-tech jobs.



France, Japan, Italy, and Canada could be the top beneficiaries of high-tech jobs.



This decade could be one of the greatest global supply chain resets in a generation.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

China Rebuffing US Requests To Resume Military Dialogue Until "Red Lines" Respected​

FRIDAY, OCT 28, 2022 - 03:20 PM
Authored by Dave DeCamp via The Libertarian Institute,

China on Thursday responded to a US call for the resumption of military communication channels that Beijing suspended in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) visiting Taiwan in August.

Tan Kefei, a spokesman for the Chinese Defense Ministry, said that the US was responsible for the channels being suspended and that Washington must respect China’s concerns for them to be resumed.

"If the US side wants to improve military communication between China and the US, then it should match words with deeds, demonstrate its sincerity, and earnestly respect China’s interests and major concerns, and remove the negative factors that impede the development of ties between the two militaries," Tan said, according to The South China Morning Post.

After Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, China called off three separate dialogues with the US military, but other lines of communication remain open. Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin spoke with his Chinese counterpart, Wei Fenghe, and the two military leaders agreed communication was important.

Austin has said the Pentagon is working to reestablish the channels that were suspended. But at the same time, the US is looking to significantly increase support for Taiwan despite Beijing’s warnings over the issue. Tan said that the US needs to understand China’s "red lines."

The Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman further explained:

"Everything happens for a reason," Tan told a monthly press conference in Beijing, adding that the suspension of the dialogues was China's response in "safeguarding national sovereignty and dignity" against "malicious provocation" by the US.

With an increased US military presence in the South China Sea and Taiwan, less communication between the two militaries increases the risk of an accident. And with US-China relations at their lowest point in decades, an accident could potentially spiral into a conflict.

* * *
Russian President Putin in a major Thursday speech called Taiwan "part of China"...

1667010641448.png
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

'Zero Emissions' From Electric Vehicles? Here's Why That Claim Has Zero Basis

FRIDAY, OCT 28, 2022 - 04:20 PM
Authored by John Murawski via RealClear Wire,

As California, New York, and other states move to phase out the sale of gasoline-powered cars, public officials routinely echo the Biden administration’s claim that electric vehicles are a “zero emissions” solution that can significantly mitigate the effects of climate change.

Car and energy experts, however, say there is no such thing as a zero-emissions vehicle: For now and the foreseeable future, the energy required to manufacture and power electric cars will leave a sizable carbon footprint. In some cases hybrids can be cleaner alternatives in states that depend on coal to generate electricity, and some suggest that it may be too rash to write off all internal combustion vehicles just yet.

“I have a friend who drives a Kia he’s had for about 15 years,” said Ashley Nunes, a research fellow at Harvard Law School.

“He called me and said, ‘Hey, I’m thinking of buying a Tesla. What do you think?’”

“I said, ‘If you care about the environment, keep the Kia,’” Nunes said.

Nunes’ advice points to the subtle complexities and numerous variables that challenge the reassuringly simple yet overstated promise of electric vehicles. Few dispute that the complete transition to EVs powered by cleaner electricity from renewable energy sources will have a less dire environmental impact than today’s gas-powered automotive fleet. But that low-carbon landscape exists on a distant horizon that’s booby-trapped with obstacles and popular misconceptions.

In the meantime, the growing efforts by governments in this country and abroad to ban people from buying a transportation technology that has shaped modern society for the past century is prompting some electric car advocates to warn against using best-case scenarios to promote unrealistic expectations about the practicalities, costs, and payoffs of EVs.

Adding up the environmental costs and benefits of electric cars requires complex computer modeling to calculate an EV’s lifetime carbon footprint, which depends on a host of assumptions and inputs. The cradle-to-grave analysis must factor in industrial processing, refining, manufacturing, recycling, and electricity generation. The upshot: More greenhouse gases are emitted in the manufacture of EVs than by the drilling, refining, smelting, and assembly for gas-powered cars, which means it can take several years of driving an EV before there is any benefit to the climate.

The linchpin of the EV revolution is California’s 100% ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars, SUVs, and light trucks, which is scheduled to go into full effect in 2035 and expected to be adopted by other states. California’s mandate includes a phased-in ban on the sale of new hybrids, which only recently were considered technological marvels. California will restrict the sale of plug-in hybrids to just 20% of total EV sales, a significant cap for low-emissions vehicles that are nearly as popular with environmentally conscious California consumers as all-electric EVs.

Within the past several years, General Motors, Volvo, and other major car makers have vowed to zero out gas-powered cars, amid a growing consensus of European nations, and with China, India, and Canada announcing plans to restrict or ban the sale of cars with gas tanks.

But public demand is lagging, and until that changes, governments will have to incentivize consumers to buy electric cars. Currently EVs appeal to a narrow demographic: affluent, educated, coastal, and liberal, with the highest enthusiasm among 35- to 45-year-olds, according to research by James Archsmith, who researches energy and environmental economics at the University of Maryland, and his co-authors. Their research concludes that under some scenarios, achieving a 50% market share for EVs in 2035 would require paying subsidies in excess of $30,000 per electric car, totaling in the trillions of dollars, and that achieving more modest penetration targets could cost public treasuries in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The electric car’s biggest disadvantage on greenhouse gas emissions is the production of an EV battery, which requires energy-intensive mining and processing, and generates twice as much carbon emissions as the manufacture of an internal combustion engine. This means that the EV starts off with a bigger carbon footprint than a gasoline-powered car when it rolls off the assembly line and takes time to catch up to a gasoline-powered car.

One of the big unknowns is whether EV batteries will have to be replaced. While the EV industry says battery technology is improving so that degradation is limited, if that assurance proves overly optimistic and auto warranties have to replace expensive battery packs, the new battery would create a second carbon footprint that the EV would have to work off over time, partially erasing the promised greenhouse-gas benefits.

With governments now in the business of mandating electric vehicles, the battery challenge assumes a global scale. The majority of lithium-ion batteries are produced in China, where most electricity comes from coal-burning power plants.

The process of mining critical minerals is sometimes described in language that evokes strip mining and fracking, an inconvenient truth that is beginning to attract notice. “Electric cars and renewable energy may not be as green as they appear,” a 2021 New York Times article noted. “Production of raw materials like lithium, cobalt and nickel that are essential to these technologies are often ruinous to land, water, wildlife and people.” The Times has also warned that with global demand for electric vehicles projected to grow sixfold by 2030, “the dirty origins of this otherwise promising green industry have become a looming crisis.”

To address this disquieting dependency on a foreign power, the United States and other nations are seeking to break China’s near-monopoly on battery production. The Inflation Reduction Act states that under a phase-in starting in 2024, EVs with battery components or critical minerals sourced from “a foreign entity of concern,” which includes China, can’t qualify for the maximum allowable tax credit of $7,500. The United States is pumping in more than $100 billion to create an entire industry in this country. Just last week, President Biden announced the American Battery Materials Initiative, awarding more than $2.8 billion for 20 battery manufacturing and processing plants to develop and produce domestic lithium, graphite, nickel, silicon oxide, plus critical components and facilities.

Over time, a typical EV will catch up and outperform gas-powered cars on greenhouse gas reductions, because electric cars are cleaner to drive. But the amount of mileage that must be driven for the EV to break even on CO2 emissions depends on a host of assumptions and variables. Some researchers say that the EV’s emissions benefits are vastly overstated – by 600%, according to one study – because the variables used for comparison make an EV look better on paper than it performs in real-life situations.

All of these CO2 metrics could come into play in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently proposed rule that would require publicly traded companies to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions they produce directly, as well emissions produced indirectly through their supply chains around the world. While the implications aren’t clear yet, the new rule could standardize CO2 disclosures and transparency on EV carbon impacts, but some say that such calculations are nearly impossible for global contractors, and automakers would have to rely on the same kinds of estimates and modeling that are used now. Echoing a common concern, EV battery maker Nikola Corp. told the SEC that “some climate data is not readily available, complete, or definitive.”

As a result of these uncertainties, many consumers don’t understand the complexity of these analyses and may assume that their electric cars are literally zero-emissions, or that what matters most is that EVs are better for the environment and the precise degree is not that important.

Zeb Hallock, president of Tesla Owners Club of NC Triangle in Raleigh, said in an email exchange that he and his wife both drive Teslas, a Model S that replaced a Nissan 350Z in 2014 and a Model 3 that replaced a Toyota Prius in 2018. The Hallocks’ Teslas are charged at home at a cost that he estimates is equivalent to paying 47 cents for a gallon of gasoline. He said by email that the public supercharger network “in some areas of the country can rival the cost of gasoline,” but this is not a concern because the Hallocks do most of their charging at home.

When asked about the greenhouse gas deficit of electric cars, Hallock speculated that most EV owners believe the carbon footprint of an EV is minimal and they don’t think much about it. “A small number of owners don't care at all about environmental benefits and purchased a Tesla for the superior performance and the fact that it's American made and uses cheap domestic fuel,” he said.

EVs: Centerpiece of the Agenda
But in the universe of climate activism, purported environmental benefits make EVs the international centerpiece of meeting the 2015 Paris Climate Accords to limit the rise of global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, compared with preindustrial levels. Transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States, accounting for more than a quarter of all CO2 emissions, and more than half of those emissions come from passenger cars, pickup trucks and SUVs that are now being slated for replacement by electric vehicles.

EV advocates are optimistic that in the coming decades electric cars will become cleaner as power grids are "decarbonized" and the industrialized world reduces its reliance on CO2-spewing fossil fuels, primarily coal and natural gas. Exactly how much cleaner is not easy to pinpoint. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 60% of the nation’s electricity was generated from coal and gas in 2021. In its Annual Energy Outlook, the agency projects those two fossil fuels will generate 44% of U.S. electricity by 2050.

But those percentages can be misleading. Even as the relative fuel proportions change over time, overall electricity demand is going up, so the total amount of fossil fuels actually burned in the mid-21st century goes down by only about 5%, according to EIA estimates. Future greenhouse gas emissions will depend on the number of EVs on the road and how electricity is generated, and those forecasts swing wildly. The EIA forecasts a mere 18.9 million EVs on U.S. roads in 2050, which is very conservative compared with advocacy group EVAdoption’s prediction of more than 25 million EVs on U.S. roads by 2030, only eight years away. BloombergNEF forecasts 125 million EVs on U.S. roads in 2040, up from 1.61 million at the end of last year, which would constitute about half the cars in this country.

“They're making these forecasts that are basically licking your finger and sticking it up in the air,” David Rapson, a professor of energy economics at the University of California, Davis, who analyzes electric vehicle policy, said about California forecasts, which also applies more broadly. “Nobody knows what's going to happen."

Weaning the country to an alternative power source is an experiment that will pose a host of logistical and environmental challenges. One challenge will be installing nearly 1.2 million public and 28 private public charging stations by 2030 to accommodate the explosion of EVs to more than 48 million vehicles projected in eight years, according to McKinsey & Co. That projection would be partly covered by the 500,000 public chargers funded by $7.5 billion in the recently passed federal Inflation Reduction Act. It could also require building power plants and renewable generating projects at a truly colossal scale, not factored into EVs’ carbon footprint. One estimate places the demand at 1,700 terawatt-hours per year, or 41% of the U.S. electrical generating capacity, to meet a surge in use if there’s a complete transition and the United States has 350 million electric cars.


Part 1 of 2
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Part 2 of 2

That power demand will be acutely felt in California, where, just days after the California Air Resources Board decreed the phaseout of internal-combustion cars, the state narrowly averted rolling blackouts during a record heat wave and the California Independent System Operator urged residents to cut back power usage by, among other things, avoiding charging their electric cars during times of peak energy demand. RealClearInvestigations has reported that California's grid is straining under the load, while The New York Times reported that California faces “the threat of rolling blackouts for years to come,” a consequence of the state’s increasing reliance on solar power and wind farms that make for unpredictable electricity production and render California dependent on importing emergency electricity from neighboring states.

“To think that we are going to completely eliminate these by far dominant sources of energy and transportation services in our economy in the next 13 years is a fairy tale," said Rapson, who has authored papers challenging optimistic projections.

“They want to articulate a vision of hope and ambition that is pushing society towards a solution to climate change," Rapson said. "That vision is going to run into massive constraints."

Rapson, who believes the state’s unrealistic goals will still advance EV adoption even if they fall short of their targets, said the California Air Resources Board regulations come with a huge loophole: In their current form they don’t prevent the buying and selling of used cars, and they don’t prevent California residents from buying a new gasoline car in another state. The rules could be modified in future years to make it costly to register new cars bought out of state, but in their current form they create an escape valve for citizens who resist electric cars.

Even in the trendsetting auto market of California, which accounts for 40% of all EV purchases in this country, EVs accounted for only 12.5% of all car sales last year, and represent less than 2% of all the cars in the state, indicating that gasoline automobiles remain more popular. Banning the sale of new gas-powered cars “will likely be a boon to that industry and to used-car dealers in the state,” predicts James Sallee, an energy economist at UC-Berkeley.

He predicts that California’s mandate will only make gasoline vehicles more valuable, as people hold on to them and extend their lifetimes through care and maintenance, the unintended consequence of government policy making something scarce.

California Air Resources Board regulations would fine automakers $20,000 for each combustion engine car sold in violation of the restrictions, but residents could get around the EV mandate by buying used gasoline cars in the state and new gasoline cars out of state, unless California tightens its regulations to disincentivize its residents from buying the cars they prefer to own.

“As currently constructed,” Sallee wrote, “California residents would be free to import ICE [internal combustion engine] vehicles from out of state, even after the mandate is fully phased in.”

Despite the skeptical outlook of some EV researchers, the general tone of EV advocates is marked by enthusiasm and optimism. According to David Reichmuth, a senior engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Transportation Program, the motives of EV critics are often tainted: “Some of the opposition will come from auto companies that want to delay the transition to electric vehicles, but others will be from fossil fuel interests or climate deniers.”

In his blog, Reichmuth noted: “The important thing is that you know that this is familiar and worn-out disinformation, designed to sow doubt and confusion.”

“There’s some questions about how quickly can we get there, and there’s a lot of details that will get worked out,” Reichmuth said in phone interview.

“But if you look at the big picture – if the [auto] industry says that’s where we’re going, if the climate science says that’s where we need to go, and you look at other countries around the world that are going in the same direction, too – it does seem really likely that we can make this work.”

Despite the obstacles, the Union of Concerned Scientists predicts that California’s new EV regulations will result in about half the cars in the state in 2035 being “zero-emission” models, increasing to nearly 90% of cars on California roads by 2045.

The Union’s analysis undercuts its claim of zero emissions. Running the numbers on the mileage it takes for an EV to become cleaner than a new gasoline sedan in terms of burning off its CO2 deficit and pulling ahead in greenhouse gas reductions, the organization determined this summer that an EV’s break-even point is 21,300 miles, or 22 months, based on average annual driving. For pickup trucks, the EV pickup pulls ahead at 17,500 miles, or 17 months, when compared to the average new gasoline pickup truck.

Those calculations are consistent with a Wall Street Journal analysis conducted last year by University of Toronto researchers, who determined that a 2021 Tesla Model 3, with an 82 kWh battery, would have to drive 20,600 miles to break even on greenhouse gas emissions with a 2021 Toyota RAV4 with a 30 mpg rating.

Reuters conducted a similar analysis and got much more favorable results. Reuters last year concluded that a Tesla Model 3 would need to drive just 13,500 miles to exceed the CO2 emissions benefits of a Toyota Corolla. The Reuters analysis crunched the numbers on a Tesla with a 54 kWh battery, considerably smaller than the Tesla power pack in the WSJ analysis, producing less greenhouse gas emissions during mining, processing, and assembly. Still, Reuters noted that in countries like China and Poland, where coal is the primary energy source used to generate electricity, the same Tesla 3 with the smaller battery would have to be driven 78,700 miles to reach carbon parity with the Corolla, showing how much difference a power grid’s fuel mix can make.

Not all studies are that kind to EVs. Some automakers, such as Swedish manufacturers Volvo and Polestar, have run their own numbers based on what they call conservative, precautionary estimates that suggest the payback period even under ideal conditions – 100% renewable wind energy – would be much longer: about 30,000 miles of driving. The payback would be closer to 70,000 miles in parts of the world where the power plant energy mix includes dirty fossil fuels. The expected lifespan of the Swedish cars in these studies is about 125,000 miles, which means that some drivers will reap greenhouse gas benefits for only half their electric vehicle’s expected usage.

One of the least understood factors that determine an EV’s greenhouse gas benefits is the alternative vehicle to which the EV is compared. Some researchers have noted that this “reference vehicle” is often a hypothetical car that gives the EV an illusory advantage.

“To our knowledge, there is not an awareness of the importance of these modeling choices, despite the large implied emission abatement differences,” UC-Davis energy economist Rapson and colleague Erich Muehlegger wrote in a recent paper. They contend that the EV is typically compared to the U.S. “fleet average,” a statistical composite that averages out the fuel efficiency of all cars purchased in a given year, including SUVs and pickup trucks.

But that’s not what happens in real life. Rapson and Muehlegger found that Californians who took advantage of financial incentives to buy Teslas would likely have bought plug-in hybrids or conventional hybrids without the incentive, not an average car or a gas guzzler, and comparing a Tesla to the average car skews the results. They contend that as a result of the sloppy comparison, the CO2 benefits of Teslas are overestimated by 600% in California. That overestimate would be considerably higher in parts of the country where the EVs are charged with less clean electricity derived from a higher mix of fossil fuels.

Cleaner Gasoline Cars
The cleaner the car that the EV is replacing, the longer it takes the EV to catch up on CO2 emissions, and the existing gas car in the garage can be optimal because a new gas car comes with a carbon footprint from metals processing and manufacturing.

That’s why Nunes, the Harvard Law fellow, advised his friend to keep his Kia. Nunes was comparing the greenhouse gas effects of a new Tesla to a 15-year-old Kia that’s driven only about 4,000 miles a year, and concluded that at that rate it would take his friend more than a decade to burn off the Tesla’s carbon footprint.

According to research by Nunes and others, many EV owners use their electric car as a secondary vehicle, logging fewer miles and requiring more time to break even on CO2 emissions. Comparing four different scenarios, he concluded that the requisite break-even mileage for an EV with an 85 kWh battery is either 28,069 miles or 68,160 miles, and it would take the EV owner between 2.73 and 10.49 years to drive that distance, depending on a variety of circumstances. In all of Nunes’ scenarios, the alternative to buying an EV was either buying a new gasoline car or driving the old gas car.

Another major factor is the CO2 level of the electricity used to power EVs. The U.S. Department of Energy concludes that hybrids are actually cleaner than EVs in six states, but the key to that analysis is that it’s based on combining all the energy sources – such as natural gas, hydropower, wind farms – used to make electricity in those states. Another way of assessing the environmental impact of EVs is to look at the extra demand EVs put on a regional power grid, requiring power generation that comes primarily from fossil fuels. From this perspective, assuming more coal-fired and natural gas-burning electricity added to the grid, hybrids would generate less CO2 than EVs in several dozen states, according to a recent study.

“It’s long past the time to retire the phrase ‘zero emissions,’” said Tristan Burton, a computational mathematician who co-authored that study. “If you market something as a zero emissions vehicle, then people out there will think it’s really zero emissions.”
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

A Closer Look At The COVID Mortality Rate​

FRIDAY, OCT 28, 2022 - 06:40 PM
Authored by Ian Miller via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

One of the most consistent efforts made by “experts” during the early stages of the pandemic was to attempt to impress on the public that COVID was an extremely deadly disease.

While it’s clear that for the extremely elderly and severely immunocompromised, COVID does present significant and serious health concerns, the “experts” did their best to convince people of all age groups that they were in danger.

Initially the World Health Organization (WHO), in their infinite incompetence, made a substantial contribution to this perception by claiming that the mortality rate from COVID was shockingly high.

In March 2020, with precious little data, the WHO made the alarming claim that 3.4 percent of people who got COVID had died.

CNBC reported that an early press conference by WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus compared that expected mortality of COVID-19 to the flu:

“‘Globally, about 3.4 percent of reported COVID-19 cases have died,’ WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press briefing at the agency’s headquarters in Geneva. In comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1 percent of those infected, he said.”

This stood in contrast to previous estimates, which were also above 2 percent:

“Early in the outbreak, scientists had concluded the death rate was around 2.3 percent.”

While “experts” could be forgiven for being unsure about the death rate of a brand new illness with very little data available, the fear-mongering and world-altering policy enacted based on these estimates has caused incalculable damage.

It’s now widely known and accepted that these estimates were wildly incorrect, off by orders of magnitude.

But a new paper out from one of the world’s leading experts confirms that they were off even more than we previously realized.

John Ioannidis is one of the nation’s leading public health experts, employed at Stanford University as Professor of Medicine in Stanford Prevention Research, of Epidemiology and Population Health,” as well as “of Statistics and Biomedical Data Science.”

You’d think that those impeccable qualifications and a track record of being one of the most published and cited scientists in the modern world would insulate him from criticism, but unfortunately that’s no longer how The Science™ works.

Ioannidis first drew the ire of The Keepers of The Science™ early in the outbreak, when he cautioned that society might be making tremendous decisions based on limited data that was of poor quality.

He also took part in the infamous seroprevalence study conducted in Santa Clara County, led by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

That examination, which looked at antibody prevalence in the San Jose area, came to the conclusion that COVID was already significantly more widespread by March and April 2020 than most people realized.

This had wide-ranging implications, but the most important revelation was that the estimates of COVID’s mortality rate used by “scientists” and the WHO were almost certainly much too high.

Those estimates were created under the assumption that COVID cases were overwhelmingly detectable; that cases were captured by testing and thus tracking deaths could be achieved with a “case fatality rate,” instead of “infection fatality rate.”

That was the mistake Tedros and the WHO made two and a half years ago.

Of course, for providing substantial evidence and data that COVID was less deadly than initially feared, Ioannidis (and Bhattacharya) was attacked from within the “expert community.”

In what has now become a familiar insult, those behind the study were vilified as COVID minimizers and dangerous conspiracy theorists who would get people killed by not taking the virus seriously enough.

But Ioannidis remained undeterred, and with several authors, he recently released another review of the infection fatality rate of COVID. Importantly, the paper looks at the pre-vaccination time period and covers the non-elderly age groups; those who were most affected by COVID restrictions and endless mandates.

The Numbers
The review begins with a statement of fact that was almost entirely ignored by lockdown “experts” throughout the pandemic, but especially when restrictions, lockdowns and mandates were at their peak early on.

“The infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection is important to estimate accurately, since 94 percent of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86 percent is younger than 60 years.” [Emphasis added.]

94 percent of the global population is younger than 70 years old.

6 percent of is older than 70 years old.

86 percent is younger than 60 years old.

This is relevant because restrictions overwhelmingly impacted the 86–94 percent of people who are younger than 60 or 70 years old.

Ioannidis and his co-writers reviewed 40 national seroprevalence studies that covered 38 countries to come to determine their estimates of infection fatality rate for the overwhelming majority of people.

Importantly, those seroprevalence studies were conducted before the vaccines were released, meaning the IFR’s were calculated before whatever impact vaccines had on younger age groups.

So what did they find?

The median infection fatality rate for those aged 0–59 was 0.035 percent.

This represents 86 percent of the global population and the survival rate for those who were infected with COVID pre-vaccination was 99.965 percent.

For those aged 0–69, which covers 94 percent of the global population, the fatality rate was 0.095 percent, meaning the survival rate for nearly 7.3 billion people was 99.905 percent.

Those survival rates are obviously staggeringly high, which already creates frustration that restrictions were imposed on all age groups, when focused protection for those over 70 or at significantly elevated risk would have been a much more preferable course of action.

But it gets worse.

The researchers broke down the demographics into smaller buckets, showing the increase in risk amongst older populations, and conversely, how infinitesimal the risk was amongst younger age groups.
  • Ages 60–69, fatality rate 0.501 percent, survival rate 99.499 percent
  • Ages 50–59, fatality rate 0.129 percent, survival rate 99.871 percent
  • Ages 40–49, fatality rate 0.035 percent survival rate 99.965 percent
  • Ages 30–39, fatality rate 0.011 percent, survival rate 99.989 percent
  • Ages 20–29, fatality rate 0.003 percent, survival rate 99.997 percent
  • Ages 0–19, fatality rate 0.0003 percent, survival rate 99.9997 percent
They added that “Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025-0.032 percent for 0-59 years and 0.063-0.082 percent for 0-69 years.”

These numbers are astounding and reassuringly low, across the board.

But they’re almost nonexistent for children.

Yet as late as fall 2021, Fauci was still fear-mongering about the risks of COVID to children in order to increase vaccination uptake, saying in an interview that it was not a “benign situation”:

“We certainly want to get as many children vaccinated within this age group as we possibly can because as you heard and reported, that this is not, you know, a benign situation.”

It’s nearly impossible for any illness to be less of a risk, or more “benign” than a 0.0003 percent risk of death.

Even in October 2021, during that same interview with NPR, Fauci said that masks should continue on children as an “extra step” to protect them, even after vaccination:

“And when you have that type of viral dynamic, even when you have kids vaccinated, you certainly—when you are in an indoor setting, you want to make sure you go the extra step to protect them. So I can’t give you an exact number of what that would be in the dynamics of virus in the community, but hopefully we will get there within a reasonable period of time. You know, masks often now—as we say, they’re not forever. And hopefully we’ll get to a point where we can remove the masks in schools and in other places. But I don’t believe that that time is right now.”

Nothing better highlights the incompetence and misinformation from Dr. Fauci than ignoring that pre-vaccination, children were at vanishingly small risks from COVID, that vaccination uptake amongst kids was entirely irrelevant since they do not prevent infection or transmission, and that mask usage is completely ineffective at protecting anyone. Especially for those who didn’t need protection in the first place.

The CDC, “expert” community, World Health Organization, media figures—all endlessly spread terror that the virus was a mass killer while conflating detected case fatality rates with infection fatality rates.

Yet now we have another piece of evidence suggesting that the initial WHO estimates were off by 99 percent for 94 percent of the world’s population.

Just for some perspective, here’s the difference visually portrayed between what the WHO claimed and what Ioannidis found:

1667011183224.png

Even if the lockdowns, mask mandates, capacity limits, and shuttered playgrounds worked, the dangers of the virus were so minuscule that the collateral damage instantly and immediately outweighed any potential benefit.

Economic destruction, increased suicide attempts due to seemingly indefinite isolation, horrifying levels of learning loss, increasing obesity amongst kids, plummeting test scores, increased poverty and hunger, supply chain problems, rampant inflation; all of it is a direct result of policies imposed by terrified, incompetent “experts.”

Their estimates were hopelessly, catastrophically wrong, yet they maintained their unchallenged sense of authority for multiple years, and still receive awards, praise, increased funding and a sense of infallibility amongst politicians and decision-makers.

If sanity and intellectual honesty still existed, these estimates would be front page news for every major media outlet in the world.

Instead, because the media and their allies in the tech, corporate, and political classes promoted and encouraged lockdowns and restrictions while censoring dissent, it’s ignored.

Nothing could be more perfectly COVID than that.

Originally published on the author’s Substack, reposted from the Brownstone Institute
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Leaked FBI Pamphlet Lists 'Misinformation' And 'Disinformation' As 'Election Crimes'​

FRIDAY, OCT 28, 2022 - 07:20 PM

An FBI "2022 Midterm Elections Social Media Analysis Cheat Sheet" leaked to Project Veritas by an agency whistleblower lists misinformation and disinformation as 'election crimes.'

The 'crimes' are are defined as;

"DISINFORMATION" - False or inaccurate information intended to mislead others. Disinformation campaigns on social media are used to deliberately confuse, trick, or upset the public.

"MISINFORMATION" - False or misleading information spread mistakenly or unintentionally.



Does a Hillary Clinton-approved media blitz disinformation campaign to smear her political opponent as a Russian asset count?

What about "MSM censorship campaigns to suppress damaging information about a candidate" such as Hunter Biden's laptop?

More via Project Veritas;
Recently, the Biden administration attempted to create the “Disinformation Governance Board” under the Department of Homeland Security. After severe pushback from the public due to free speech concerns, the federal government pulled the plug on this idea.

In another section of the leaked document labelled “Things to Consider,” the FBI reminded its agents that the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment exist. Both amendments are in the Bill of Rights and protect Americans’ rights to free speech and against “unreasonable” searches or seizures.

The Bureau also flagged the potential for “Voter/Ballot Fraud” in this election, an activity that some have attempted to rule out as a threat to the American electoral system.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Greenwald: Meet The Consortium Imposing The Growing Censorship Regime

FRIDAY, OCT 28, 2022 - 01:20 PM
Authored by Glenn Greenwald via Substack,

The rapid escalation of online censorship, and increasingly offline censorship, cannot be overstated. The silencing tactic that has most commonly provoked attention and debate is the banning of particular posts or individuals by specific social media platforms. But the censorship regime that has been developed, and which is now rapidly escalating, extends far beyond those relatively limited punishments.

1667011639811.png
Clockwise from top left: UAE Minister of Industry and Advanced Technology speaks during the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Forum in Dubai, on March 28, 2022 (Photo by KARIM SAHIB/AFP via Getty Images); U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Photo by Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images); Google headquarters (Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images); The Comcast/NBC Universal building in Los Angeles, CA (Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images);

The Consortium of State and Corporate Power
There has been some reporting — by me and others — on the new and utterly fraudulent “disinformation” industry. This newly minted, self-proclaimed expertise, grounded in little more than crude political ideology, claims the right to officially decree what is “true” and "false” for purposes of, among other things, justifying state and corporate censorship of what its “experts” decree to be "disinformation.” The industry is funded by a consortium of a small handful of neoliberal billionaires (George Soros and Pierre Omidyar) along with U.S., British and EU intelligence agencies. These government-and-billionaire-funded “anti-disinformation” groups often masquerade under benign-sounding names: The Institute for: The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, The Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab, Bellingcat, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. They are designed to cast the appearance of apolitical scholarship, but their only real purpose is to provide a justifying framework to stigmatize, repress and censor any thoughts, views and ideas that dissent from neoliberal establishment orthodoxy. It exists, in order words, to make censorship and other forms of repression appear scientific rather than ideological.

That these groups are funded by the West's security state, Big Tech, and other assorted politically active billionaires is not speculation or some fevered conspiracy theory. For various legal reasons, they are required to disclose their funders, and these facts about who finances them are therefore based on their own public admissions. So often the financing is funneled through well-established front groups for CIA, the State Department and the U.S. National Security State, such as “National Endowment for Democracy.”

1667011776839.png

As has always happened with censor-happy tyrants throughout history, the more centers of power inject themselves with the intoxicating rush of silencing their adversaries, the more intense the next hit has to be. Every movement that has wielded censorship as a political weapon tells itself the same story to justify it. In ordinary times, they will casually recite, free speech is a vital value. But these are no ordinary times in which we are living. Our enemies and their ideas are different. They are uniquely hateful, false, inflammatory, and dangerous. The ideas they espouse will destabilize society, cause direct harm to others, deceive people, and incite violence against institutions of authority and their followers. Thus, they reason, we are actually not censoring at all. We are simply preventing evil people from doing harm to society, the government, and to citizens.

Look to any government or society in which censorship prevailed — either today or throughout history. This narrative about why censorship is not just justified but morally necessary is always present. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a censorship supporter. They need to be supplied with a story about why they are something different, or at least why the censorship they are led to support is uniquely justified.

And it works because, in the most warped sense possible, it appeals to reason. If one really believes, as millions of American liberals do, that the U.S. faces two and only two choices — either (1) elect Democrats and ensure they rule or (2) live under a white nationalist fascist dictatorship — then of course such people will believe that media disinformation campaigns, censorship, and other forms of authoritarianism are necessary to ensure Democrats win and their opponents are vanquished. Once that self-glorifying rationale is embraced — our adversaries do not merely disagree with us but cause harm with the expression of their views — then the more suppression, the better. And that is exactly what is happening now.

Banishment From the Financial System
One of the latest, and perhaps most disturbing, new frontiers of censorship is the escalating means of excluding citizens from the financial system as extra-judicial punishment for expressing views or engaging in political activism disapproved of by establishment power. In one sense, this is not new.

In 2012, I co-founded the group Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) — along with the Oscar-winning CitizenFour director Laura Poitras, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others. The creation of that group was in response to the 2010 demands made by then-Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT),), in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, along with other war hawks in both parties, that financial services companies such as the online payment processor PayPal, credit card companies MasterCard and Visa, and the Bank of America all terminated the accounts of WikiLeaks as punishment for the group's publication of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs: a trove of documents which proved systemic war crimes and lying by the U.S. Security State and its allies. Watching U.S. national security state officials pressure and coerce private companies over which they exert regulatory control to destroy their journalistic critics is exactly what is done in the tyrannies we are all conditioned to despise.

All of those corporations obeyed, thus preventing WikiLeaks from collecting donations from the public even though the group had never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes. Amazon then booted WikiLeaks off of its hosting platform, removing the group from the internet for weeks. This was nothing less than extra-legal banishment of WikiLeaks from the financial system. We created FPF in order to circumvent that ban by collecting donations for WikiLeaks and then passing those funds to the group. When I announced the group's creation in a 2012 Guardian article, and while reporting on these pressure campaigns against WikiLeaks in a separate Guardian article, I explained how dangerous it would be if the U.S. Government could simply prohibit any journalistic groups it dislikes from participating in the financial system without even charging them with a crime:

So this was a case where the US government - through affirmative steps and/or approving acquiescence to criminal, sophisticated cyber-attacks - all but destroyed the ability of an adversarial group, convicted of no crime, to function on the internet. Who would possibly consider that power anything other than extremely disturbing? What possible political value can the internet serve, or journalism generally, if the US government, outside the confines of law, is empowered - as it did here - to cripple the operating abilities of any group which meaningfully challenges its policies and exposes its wrongdoing?. . . In sum, [by forming FPF], will render impotent the government's efforts to use its coercive pressure over corporations to suffocate not only WikiLeaks but any other group it may similarly target in the future.​

Last week — in response to numerous reports this year of PayPal's expanding use of expulsion from the financial system as punishment for what it deems “extremist” political views and activities — the tech investor Stephen Cole recalled this then-unprecedented 2010 silencing campaign against WikiLeaks that was led by PayPal. Cole wrote: “I was an engineer at eBay/PayPal when PayPal censored donations to Wikileaks in 2010. That’s the first time I remember wondering… are we sure we’re the good guys?”

1667012030927.png

Back in 2010, this ominous tactic was depicted as just a one-time exception, an isolated case for a particularly threatening group (WikiLeaks). But in the last year, there is no question that exclusion from the financial system is becoming the tool of choice for Western censors in both the public and private sector, who work together — just as Big Tech and the U.S. Security State do — to identify and punish dissidents too dangerous to be permitted to speak.

The most alarming harbinger of this tactic came in February of this year when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued an emergency decree granting himself the power to freeze the bank accounts of any Canadian citizen who he determined, in his sole discretion, was participating in or otherwise supporting the truckers’ protest against vaccine mandates and passports. As a result of Trudeau's extraordinary seizure of unchecked power, “Canadian banks froze about $7.8 million (US $6.1 million) in just over 200 accounts under emergency powers meant to end protests in Ottawa and at key border crossings.” The BBC called this tactic “unprecedented,” as it empowers the Prime Minister to freeze the personal bank accounts of anyone “linked with the protests …. with no need for court orders.” If it is not considered "despotic” for a political leader to wield the power to unilaterally seize the personal funds of citizens as punishment for peaceful protests against the government's policies, then nothing is.

But this tactic worked to end the peaceful protest which Trudeau opposed — people cannot survive if they cannot access their funds or participate in the financial system — and it is thus now being aggressively expanded. Perhaps the leading weaponizer is PayPal. Last year, PayPal announced a new partnership with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a once-respected group that battled anti-Semitism and defended universal civil liberties, before becoming yet another standard liberal Democratic Party activist group devoted to censoring adversaries of neoliberal orthodoxy (the ADL has, just as one example, repeatedly demanded the firing of America's most-watched host on cable news, Fox News's Tucker Carlson). The stated purpose of this PayPal/ADL partnership was “to investigate how extremist and hate movements in the United States take advantage of financial platforms to fund their criminal activities,” with the ultimate goal of “uncovering and disrupting the financial flows supporting [what the ADL claims are] white supremacist and anti-government organizations.”

But predictably — indeed, by design — this “partnership” was nothing more than an ennobling disguise to enable PayPal to begin terminating all sorts of accounts of people and businesses who expressed political views disliked by its executives. Over the past year, a wide range of individuals have had their PayPal accounts canceled due solely to disapproved political views and activism.

The lesbian activist Jaimee Michell was notified by PayPal last month that the account of her activist group, Gays Against Groomers, was being immediately canceled due to unspecified rules violations. Moments later, the group — created by gay men and lesbians to oppose attempts by trans activists to teach trans dogma and highly controversial gender ideology to young schoolchildren — was notified that their account with PayPal's subsidiary, Venmo, was also canceled immediately, leaving them with few options to continue to collect donations. Around the same time, the British anti-woke and right-wing commentator Toby Young, who had created a group called the Free Speech Union to oppose speech-based cancellations of accounts, was notified by PayPal that the group's account, used to accept donations, was also being cancelled; though PayPal refused to notify Young of the reason for the cancellation, it told The Daily Mail "it was trying to balance ‘protecting the ideals of tolerance, diversity and respect’ with the values of free expression.”

At the time of his PayPal expulsion, Young had become a vocal opponent of the U.K. Government's escalating involvement in the war in Ukraine. Two of the sites on which this long-time right-wing figure relied for his opposition to NATO involvement in Ukraine were MintPress and Consortium News, two populist left-wing sites long devoted to anti-war and anti-imperialism policies. Several months earlier, those two anti-establishment left-wing sites were notified by PayPal that their accounts were being immediately closed, and that the balances in their account would be seized and may never be returned. PayPal refused to tell either news site, or Coinbase, which reported on the account closures, what its reasons were. It was just an arbitrary decree by unseen authorities who not only closed their accounts but threatened to seize their donations without bothering to provide a reason. Now that is real tyrannical power. MintPress writer Alan MacLeod said that “this is a warning shot fired at anyone even remotely antiestablishment,” adding that “alternative media operations run on shoestring budgets and rely on enormous corporations like PayPal to operate correctly. If they can do this to us, they can do it to you.”

Earlier this month, PayPal announced that it would fine account holders $2,500 if, in PayPal's sole discretion, it was determined that those users were guilty of “promoting misinformation.” In other words, PayPal would just steal their own users’ funds from their account as extra-judicial punishment for the expression of views that PayPal — presumably working in conjunction with liberal activists groups such as ADL and billionaire-funded “disinformation experts” — decrees to be false or otherwise unacceptable. When this new policy provoked far more anger than PayPal evidently anticipated, they claimed it was all just a big mistake — as if some PayPal computer on its own accidentally manufactured a policy advising users about this seizure of funds. Regardless of whether PayPal returns to this policy — and there are, as Forbes noted, some unconfirmed reports that it is starting to do so — the intent is clear, because it is so consistent with so many other new frameworks: fortifying a multi-faceted regime of state and corporate power to silence and punish dissent.

Union of Big Tech, U.S. Security State and Corporate Media Giants
In May, the Department of Homeland Security's attempted appointment of a clearly deranged partisan fanatic, Nina Jankowicz, to effectively serve as “disinformation czar” sparked intense backlash. But liberal media corporations — always the first to jump to the defense of the U.S. Security State — in unison maligned the resulting anger over this audacious appointment as “itself disinformation,” without ever identifying anything false that was alleged about Jankowicz or the DHS program.

Though anger over this classically Orwellian program was obviously merited — it was, after all, an attempt to assign to the U.S. National Security State the power to issue official decrees about truth and falsity — that anger sometimes obscured the real purpose of the creation of this government program. This was not some aberrational attempt by the Biden administration to arrogate unto itself a wholly new and unprecedented power. It instead was just the latest puzzle piece in the multi-pronged scheme — created by a union of U.S. Security State agencies, Democratic Party politicians, liberal billionaires, and liberal media corporations — to construct and implement a permanent and enduring system to control the flow of information to Western populations. As importantly, these tools will empower them to forcibly silence and otherwise punish anyone who expresses dissent to their orthodoxies or meaningful opposition to their institutional interests.

That these state and corporate entities collaborate to control the internet is now so well-established that it barely requires proof. One of the first and most consequential revelations from the Snowden reporting was that the leading Big Tech companies — including Google, Apple and Facebook — were turning over massive amounts of data about their users to the National Security Agency (NSA) without so much as a warrant under the state/corporate program called PRISM. A newly obtained document by Revolver News’ Darren Beattie reveals that Jankowicz has worked since 2015 on programs to control “disinformation” on the internet in conjunction with a horde of national security state officials, billionaire-funded NGOs, and the nation's largest media corporations. Ample reporting, including here, has revealed that many of Big Tech's most controversial censorship policies were implemented at the behest of the U.S. Government and the Democratic-controlled Congress that openly threatens regulatory and legal reprisals for failure to comply.

1667012367904.png

Wall Street Journal Editorial, Sept. 9, 2022
Every newly declared crisis — genuine or contrived — is immediately seized upon to justify all new levels and types of online censorship, and increasingly more and more offline punishment. One of the core precepts of the Russiagate hysteria was that Trump won with the help of Russia because there were insufficient controls in place over what kind of information could be heard by the public, leading to new groups devoted to "monitoring” what they deem disinformation and new policies from media outlets to censor reporting of the type that WikiLeaks provided about the DNC and Clinton campaign in 2016. This censorship frenzy culminated in the still-shocking decision by Twitter and Facebook to censor The New York Post's reporting on Joe Biden's activities in China and Ukraine based on documents from Hunter Biden's laptop that most media outlets now acknowledge were entirely authentic — all justified by a CIA lie, ratified by media outlets, that these documents were “Russian disinformation.”

The riot at the Capitol on January 6 was used in similar ways, though this time not merely to un-person dissidents from the internet but also to use Big Tech's monopoly power to destroy the then-most-popular app in the country (Parler) followed by the banning of the sitting elected President himself, an act so ominous that even governments hostile to Trump — in France, Germany, Mexico and beyond — warned of how threatening it was to democracy to allow private monopolies to ban even elected leaders from the internet. Liberal outlets such as The New Yorker began openly advocating for internet censorship under headlines such as “The National-Security Case for Fixing Social Media.”

Part 1 of 2
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Part 2 of 2

The COVID pandemic ushered in still greater amounts of censorship. Anyone who urged people to use masks at the start of the pandemic was accused of spreading dangerous disinformation because Dr. Anthony Fauci and the WHO insisted at the time that masks were useless or worse. When Fauci and WHO decided masks were an imperative, anyone questioning that decree by insisting that cloth masks were ineffective — the exact view of Fauci and WHO just weeks earlier — was banned from Big Tech platforms for spreading disinformation; such bans by Google included sitting U.S. Senators who themselves are medical doctors. From the start of the pandemic, it was prohibited to question whether the COVID virus may have leaked from a lab in Wuhan — until the Biden administration itself asked that question and ordered an investigation to find out, at which point Facebook and other platforms reversed themselves and announced that it was now permissible to ask this question since the U.S. Government itself was doing so.

In sum, government agencies and Big Tech monopolies exploited the two-year COVID pandemic to train Western populations to accept as normal the rule that the only views permitted to be heard were those which fully aligned with the views expressed by institutions of state authority. Conversely, anyone dissenting from or even questioning such institutional decrees stood accused of spreading "disinformation” and was deemed unfit to be heard on the internet. As a result, blatant errors and clear lies stood unchallenged for months because people were conditioned that any challenging of official views would result in punishment.

We are now at the point where every crisis is seized upon to usher in all-new forms of censorship. The war in Ukraine has resulted in escalations of censorship tactics that would have been unimaginable even a year or two ago. The EU enacted legislation legally prohibiting any European company or individual from broadcasting Russian state-owned broadcasters (including RT and Sputnik). While such legal coercion would (for now) almost certainly be banned in the U.S. as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and free press rights, non-EU companies that decided in the name of open debate to allow RT to be heard — such as Rumble — have faced a torrent of threats, pressure campaigns, media attacks and various forms of retribution.

One of the easiest and surest ways to be banned these days from Big Tech platforms is to reject the core pieties of the CIA/NATO/EU view of the war in Ukraine, even if that dissent entails simply affirming the very views which Western media outlets spent a decade itself endorsing, until completely changing course at the start of the war — such as the fact that the Ukrainian military is dominated by neo-Nazi battalions such as Azov, especially in the Eastern part of the country. Regardless of one's views on the Biden administration's involvement in this war, surely it requires little effort to see how dangerous it is to try to impose a full-scale blackout on challenges to U.S. war policy, especially given the warning by Biden himself that this war has brought the world closer to nuclear armageddon than at any time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

It cannot be overstated how closely aligned Big Tech censorship is with the agenda of the U.S. Security State. And it is not hard to understand why. Google and Amazon receive billions in contracts from the CIA, NSA and Pentagon, and, as we reported here in April, the most vocal lobbyists working to preserve Big Tech monopoly power are former Security State operatives. Illustrating this alignment, Facebook — at the start of the war in Ukraine — implemented an exception to its rule banning praise for Nazi groups by exempting the Azov Battalion and other neo-Nazi Ukrainian militias.

This regime of censorship is anything but arbitrary. Its core function is to shield propaganda that emanates from ruling class centers of power from critique, challenge and opposition. It is designed to ensure that Western populations hear only the assertions and proclamations of state and corporate elites, while their adversaries and critics are at best marginalized (with warnings labels and other indicia of discredit) or banned outright.

Pro-Censorship Corporate “Journalists”
No discussion of this growing and limitlessly dangerous censorship regime would be complete without noting that central role played by the West's largest media corporations and their largely-millennial, censorship-obsessed liberal employees who bear the deceitful corporate Human Resources job title of “journalist.” The most beloved journalists of modern-day American liberalism are not those who divulge the secret crimes of CIA, or the chronic lies that emanate from the Pentagon and other arms of the U.S.'s endless war machine, or monopolistic abuses of Big Tech. Indeed, journalists who do that work — challenging and exposing the secrets of actual power centers — are the ones most hated by liberals in light of their adoration for those institutions. That is what explains their support for Julian Assange's ongoing imprisonment and Edward Snowden's ongoing exile as the only way to avoid the same fate as Assange is suffering.

Today's journalistic icons of American liberalism are not those who confront establishment power but rather serve it: by relentlessly attacking ordinary citizens as punishment for expressing views declared off-limits by these journalists' establishment masters. As I have previously reported, there is a horde of corporate employees at media behemoths with the classic mindset of servants of petty tyrants, whose only function — and passion — is to troll the internet searching for upsetting dissent, and then agitate for its removal by centers of corporate powers: NBC News’ disinformation unit employees Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny; The Washington Post's “online culture” columnist Taylor Lorenz; and the New York Times’ tech reporters (Mike Isaac, Ryan Mac and countless others). At the time I first reported on what they are assigned to do, I dubbed this “tattletale journalism": the fixation with demanding the immediate cessation of “unfettered conversations” and the constant attempt to confront and expose ordinary citizens for the crime of expressing prohibited views

1667012424285.png

In September, Matthew Price, CEO of Cloudflare — a major tech company that provides services constituting the backbone of the internet, including security protections — refused to capitulate to the pressure campaign to cancel the site called KiwiFarms. The cancellation demands were based in the claim that the forum was allowing "harassment” and doxing of a Twitch streamer named "Keffals,” whom Lorenz in The Washington Post — under the headline “The trans Twitch star delivering news to a legion of LGBTQ teens” — had months earlier christened the Patron Saint of Trans Victimhood. Price, the CEO, warned that because Cloudflare is a security company and a hosting service, not a social media site, it would be extremely dangerous for them to start closing accounts based on public dislike of the content that appears on those sites. This is how he explains the company's steadfast refusal to capitulate to censorship demands — such cancellations, he explained, would be akin to demanding that AT&T refuse telephone service to right-wing commentators by arguing that they use their telephones to spread harmful views:

Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. Both in the physical world and online, that is a dangerous precedent, and one that is over the long term most likely to disproportionately harm vulnerable and marginalized communities.

Today, more than 20 percent of the web uses Cloudflare's security services. When considering our policies we need to be mindful of the impact we have and precedent we set for the Internet as a whole. Terminating security services for content that our team personally feels is disgusting and immoral would be the popular choice. But, in the long term, such choices make it more difficult to protect content that supports oppressed and marginalized voices against attacks.

But Cloudflare's refusal to capitulate to censorship advocates infuriated NBC News’ Ben Collins — whose primary purpose in life is to agitate for greater and more repressive control over the intent to stifle views that deviate from establishment liberalism — and, along with his NBC colleague and fellow censorship advocate Kat Tenbarge, used the massive corporate platform of NBC News to pressure Cloudflare to obey, claiming Cloudflare's refusal to censor on command endangers trans people. Within less than 24 hours of the publication of Collins’ article — blasted to millions of people across the various platforms owned by NBC and Collins’ corporate owner, the Comcast Corp. — the CEO of this powerful company reversed himself, groveling before the media's censorship advocates and vowing that this would be a one-time exception. “This is an extraordinary decision for us to make and, given Cloudflare's role as an Internet infrastructure provider, a dangerous one that we are not comfortable with,” he wrote, as he announced that he would do it anyway (it will, needless to say, be the opposite of a one-time exception, since any millennial censor at The Huffington Post or Vox can now easily force Cloudflare to keep censoring by exploiting this new precedent with new articles about their censorship target using the “worse-than-Kiwifarms” formulation).

And thus did this corporate "journalist” once again usher in a brand new escalation in the strengthening censorship regime: tinkering with the infrastructure of the internet to expel sites and people anathema to liberal pieties. As usual, not just liberals but also the left cheered this forced capitulation, as they are somehow convinced that the world will be a better place when the power to silence voices and ideas is in the collective hands of the U.S. Security State, their oligarchical partners who own Big Tech, and their servants who masquerade as "journalists” deep within the bowels of the West's largest media corporations. Polls leave no doubt that Democrats are vastly more supportive of internet censorship not only by large corporations but also by the state, and that is the mindset that asserts itself over and over to cheer these censorship schemes by the West's most powerful institutional actors.

1667012544771.png

This is the regime of censorship whose tentacles grow each month and whose power expands inexorably. Like all censors, the consortium that controls and funds this regime recognizes that whoever controls the flow of information will wield unchallenged power, and that few powers are more potent and tyrannical than the ability to relegate one's critics to the most distant fringes or to silence them altogether.

Our New Nightly Live Program on Rumble
Any article that simply reports on these vital developments with free speech and systemic censorship is, by itself, journalistically worthwhile, even necessary. With so many Western corporate journalists supportive of or (at best) indifferent to the grave dangers this system imposes, the truth behind this censorship regime — who is constructing it and for what purposes — is far too rarely revealed. Any news article reporting on the component parts of this escalating regime would be inherently valuable.

But when it comes to this sinister regime of information control, I long ago ceased believing it sufficient merely to report on it. I regard the need to fight against this regime of censorship, to destabilize and subvert it, and ultimately to defeat it as a paramount cause, the journalistic and political cause I prioritize above all others. Little is possible, including meaningful journalism, if we are prevented from being heard, if our discourse is strictly controlled and policed by the very power centers our rights allow and encourage us to challenge. Few other values can be defended, and few other injustices exposed and combated, if ruling class elites continue to acquire the defining tyrannical power of information control and silencing of dissent.

Action, not just words, is required. That is why I have been devoting myself to supporting only those sites and companies genuinely determined to resist pressures and other forms of coercion to censor on behalf of Western establishment institutions, and instead to preserve and fortify spaces for free speech and free inquiry online, with the ability to reach large numbers of people. It does nobody any good — other than one's adversaries — if one willingly ghettoizes oneself into fringe and marginalized precincts. What is required is a cause-driven commitment to free speech along with the strategic ability to attract large audiences — and that, to me, means doing my journalism only on platforms with a demonstrated commitment to these values and an demonstrated ability to reach large numbers of people.

For this reason, the platforms with which I have worked over the past two years are ones that have proven not just a willingness but an eagerness to express defiant contempt for these censorship pressures and an impressive commitment to ensuring free expression: Substack for written journalism, Callin for podcasts, and Rumble for video journalism. Each has been the target of pressure campaigns of the type that caused the Cloudflare CEO so pathetically to reverse his own refusal to obey censorship orders after less than a day. Each of these platforms has refused to accede to these demands in the way that Cloudflare and so many others before it have done. That is precisely what is needed to subvert the growing censorship regime: people and companies that simply refuse to obey.

Rumble in particular has been the target of intense attacks — in part because it agreed to allow RT to broadcast on its platform in order to protest the EU's outlawing of that network and thus incurred the wrath of the Russia-obsessed corporate media, but also because it has experienced massive growth largely as the result of growing anger toward Big Tech censorship. Rumble has begun attracting not only political commentators banished in unison by Big Tech — such as the recent banning Andrew Tate, who promptly moved his large audience to Rumble — but also cultural commentators and Gen Z personalities increasingly angry at the repressive climate imposed by Google on its YouTube platform. This is driving more and more growth to the platform, which in turn is causing establishment media corporations to devote more and more energy to disparaging it.

Read the rest here...
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=844H77cBZqo
8:16 min

China Is Accelerating Their Plans to Seize Taiwan | Crossroads​

Premiered 36 minutes ago

AMLnZu_Ku2kE4vy7ugZJcSFK09-6eY1e_QkRd6w0iTuzMA=s88-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj

Crossroads with JOSHUA PHILIPP

(No summary given. Have not watched.)
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

As US-China Relations Worsen, Expect Supply Chain Chaos

FRIDAY, OCT 28, 2022 - 12:06 PM
By John Paul Hampstead of FreightWaves

The trans-Pacific trade lane connecting the world’s most important countries is a pillar of the global economy. But now it’s becoming an epicenter of supply chain, financial and geopolitical risk.

During the pandemic, ocean container spot rates rocketed upward from approximately $1,000 per 40-foot container to nearly $20,000 last fall before plunging again to $2,720 last week.

1667013066691.png

Meanwhile, U.S. officials staged visits to Taiwan and took action to further separate the Chinese and American semiconductor sectors. This potent combination of economic, political and military issues will make trans-Pacific business complicated for years to come.

China’s zero-COVID policies and recent tensions over Taiwan have accelerated this confrontation, which could lead to further decoupling between the U.S. and China. But the fundamental issues will likely persist beyond present crises.

The American media coverage of President Xi Jinping’s address to the 20th Communist Party Congress in Beijing last week took note of Xi’s pessimistic tone, warning party members to prepare China for confrontation and crisis. Politico’s Phelim Kine called Xi’s view of U.S.-China relations “increasingly bleak.” Bret Stephens played into the rivalry, writing a cynical op-ed in The New York Times sarcastically thanking Xi for running his country so poorly as to make the United States seem good by contrast.

Counter-signaling Xi’s message of a Chinese “national rejuvenation,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was at the same time giving speeches at Stanford University in a tour carefully packaged around a national-strength-through-technology theme. Blinken visited the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory then spoke at a Hoover Institute event with former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who is now the Hoover Institute director. Most strikingly, Blinken said China was “determined to pursue reunification [with Taiwan] on a much faster timeline” — a statement that made headlines.

Blinken’s visit to Stanford seems to be part of a general effort from the Biden administration to nationalize technology policy and shape the technology industry into an asset that could be useful in a China conflict. Blinken announced his creation of the State Department’s Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy in April. In August, President Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act, which will spend $280 billion on U.S. semiconductor infrastructure.

China’s zero-COVID policy fighting losing battle
But before we give too much thought to strategic industrial policy, we should recognize the most immediate impact to supply chains and the trans-Pacific trade that the Chinese president’s third term will have: the continuation of Xi’s signature zero-COVID policy for the foreseeable future.

China’s draconian surveillance and control regime of tests, quarantines and lockdowns — enabled by a collaboration between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and China technology companies — seemed to work well enough for a year. Xi’s policy held down infection rates and kept the economy pointed up and to the right.

But when the Omicron variant’s greater infectiousness overwhelmed mask and vaccine protections, China kept forcefully applying lockdowns, massively disrupting both its own economy and trans-Pacific trade in general.

Although the Chinese state adapted its tactics on a case-by-case basis — the 2022 lockdown of Shanghai, for instance, kept critical infrastructure like the container terminals operating in ways that the 2021 lockdown of Yantian did not, for example — the governance mechanism was the same. Centralized algorithms looked for signals in endless oceans of public health, location and social media data. As a result, recommended policy actions were increasingly ineffectual and mismatched to realities on the ground.

Tokyo-based freelance writer Dylan Levi King explored the deep roots of this data-driven, centralized electronic command and control system in a recent article for Palladium Magazine called “The Genealogy of Chinese Cybernetics.” King reconstructs the career of Qian Xuesan, author of “Engineering Cybernetics” (1954), from Pasadena, California, to Beijing and his role in building the computer systems and algorithmic models that justified China’s “Great Leap Forward” and the one-child policy.

As King wrote, the implementation of these policies fell far short of the dream of optimized, electronic, frictionless command and control: “Political attempts at cybernetic planning — both in China and elsewhere — have never overcome the problem of limited sensors and weak effectors.” Though he doesn’t refer specifically to the pandemic, the unintended consequences of a zero-COVID policy, including food shortages, real estate insolvency and bank runs seem to validate it as a further example of this governance style’s inadequacy.

The consensus of the international financial community, as Bloomberg’s John Authers wrote, is that China’s zero-COVID policy under Omicron has been a disaster casting a pall over the global economy. The Hang Sen Index, which measures the health of the Hong Kong stock market and its largest companies, is down 46% since its Feb. 19, 2021, peak. It is threatening to dip below its 30-year support level. Zero-COVID has created downstream supply chain issues with widespread, long-lasting and unpredictable effects on the earnings of U.S. and European companies, from automakers to big-box retailers.

US-China relations have weakened for more than decade
But whether or not Xi rolls back his zero-COVID policy or not, the future of the trans-Pacific is troubled.

All signs point to escalating confrontation between the United States and China over Taiwan, but the seemingly cheery relationship between the two giants has been shifting — sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly — for years, dating back to the Obama administration.

Recall that one of the reasons given for former President Barack Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan was to enable the “pivot to Asia,” the continent that Obama identified as the future center of gravity of the global economy in terms of population and gross domestic product. These weren’t just words. Obama moved 2,500 Marines into northern Australia and designed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement with smaller regional powers meant to isolate China.

Former President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which eventually escalated into a medium-sized trade war with China and a series of smaller skirmishes with Canada and the European Union, set off panicked behavior by U.S. importers that roiled the trans-Pacific. Companies accelerated the timelines on their purchase orders, “pulling forward” shipments that were originally scheduled to arrive after new tariffs took effect in order to avoid paying the duties. A logjam of volume increased rates, reduced schedule reliability, congested ports and filled warehouses, especially in Southern California.

In summer 2018, when the pull-forward effects were felt, the U.S. truckload market was still on fire, having been catalyzed by Hurricane Harvey the previous year and the ELD mandate’s tightening effect on capacity. The unpredictable volumes coming out of some of the country’s most important freight markets undoubtedly kept truckload rates higher for longer before the market ultimately began rolling over in October.

Expect more military activity
Although Trump sometimes styled his protectionist tariffs as merely the pragmatic bargaining chips of a consummate dealmaker looking out for the American people, his military moves revealed a deeper, strategic understanding of the trans-Pacific. His administration, for example, emphasized the U.S. Navy’s ability to secure vital trade routes. Navy patrols in heavily trafficked areas and freedom of navigation exercises increased, placing additional pressure on those operations to perform.

When the Navy looked sloppy, heads rolled. In summer 2017, the U.S. Seventh Fleet, a forward-deployed and based in Yokosuka, Japan, and centered on the USS Ronald Reagan’s carrier strike group, suffered two accidents. The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald collided with a commercial vessel in July off the coast of Yokosuka. The next month, another Arleigh Burke, the USS John McCain, collided with a commercial vessel near the Strait of Malacca off Singapore. Between the two accidents, 17 American sailors were killed.

Trump’s chief of naval operations, Adm. John Richardson, responded by effectively purging the Seventh Fleet and the larger U.S. Pacific Fleet. The Navy fired or retired the destroyer commanders and executive officers, as well as commander of the Seventh Fleet, Adm. Joseph Aucoin. Then Richardson told Adm. Scott Swift, commander of the Pacific Fleet (of which the Seventh is a part), that he wouldn’t be considered for promotion to the Indo-Pacific Command, so Swift announced his retirement.

The point had been made: U.S. Navy leaders were personally responsible for keeping up with the heavier demands made on security operations in vital trans-Pacific trade lanes.

Beginning in the Obama administration and continuing through the Trump and Biden administrations, the United States has exhibited a growing awareness of the trans-Pacific as not only a trade conduit but also a theater for competition and perhaps conflict. Diplomatic, economic, technological and military steps have been taken that suggest the United States is exploring how it can maintain its interests in the Pacific region without China’s cooperation or consent. The most recent flare-ups are the kind of incidental accelerants that were bound to occur during this more gradual paradigm shift in U.S.-China relations.

Supply chain chaos to ensue
Apart from overt military encounters, I’ll be watching a few key themes going forward: increased volatility in supply chains, in terms of freight volumes; capacity availability and transportation rates; less visibility into China’s economic activity; and a more diverse, less China-centric trans-Pacific trade.

I expect the U.S.-China rivalry to express itself through gamesmanship in a number of spheres, including technology, international law, diplomacy, trade practices and military posture. The uncertainty and chaos of this changing trans-Pacific paradigm — from decades of decreasing friction and lower costs to a new trend of increasing friction and higher costs — will drive unpredictable and disruptive shipper behavior similar to that seen in 2018, 2020 and 2021. Stockouts will be followed by inventory gluts and vice versa, as importers pay too much to move their goods that are stored too long and arrive too late, compressing gross margins.

At the same time, outsider observers will likely see less of China’s real economic activity. Last year, China cut off foreign access to automatic identification system (AIS) data, preventing companies from seeing the real-time location of commercial vessels in Chinese waters. Official reports on economic activity coming out of Shanghai during the last COVID lockdown were anything but transparent, and much Western analysis relied on anecdotes and alternative data sources.

Leland Miller, the CEO of China Beige Book, a firm that tabulates independent Chinese economic data, said last week that the country was undergoing a “paradigm shift” in its governance and economic models that will complicate its further development, including the end of debt-fueled growth. It will be difficult to track this shift accurately, given the unreliability of official data.

Finally, if the U.S. and China decide to pursue a policy of mutual divestment, we should expect a more diverse, less China-centric trans-Pacific trade. There are other exciting economies in the region that the United States is connected to, including Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Indonesia. Eastbound freight flows may have more widely distributed origins as China’s share diminishes. Ports like South Korea’s Busan, Malaysia’s Port Klang, Taiwan’s Kaohsiung and Japan’s Yokohama could become relatively more important.

The change in network structure could threaten the stability of the container-ship alliances that control capacity in the trans-Pacific and make the 20,000-plus twenty-foot equivalent unit mega-ships built to serve the largest ports harder to fill and less competitive. Capacity could structurally loosen on what are now the densest lanes, like Shanghai to Los Angeles, while slots could be harder to find on more obscure but growing lanes. The upshot here is that even a prudent trade strategy seeking to de-risk China by sourcing goods in other Asian countries will be exposed to knock-on effects from the challenges the U.S.-China trade is fated to face.

Importers and their transportation providers will need to build links between operations teams and strategic planners so that emerging trends in markets can be identified. Tariffs, embargoes and many other forms of economic warfare are potentially on the table.

For 20 years, the trans-Pacific was relatively easy, boring and cheap. Now it’s becoming exciting, difficult and expensive — and will probably stay that way for some time to come.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The Sordid Politics Of Inflation

FRIDAY, OCT 28, 2022 - 10:05 AM
Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

“Some airlines, if you want six more inches between you and the seat in front, you pay more money but you don’t know it … these are junk fees, they’re unfair and they hit marginalized Americans the hardest, especially … people of color.”​
– President Joe Biden, October 26, 2022​

Fist Bump Agreements
President Joe Biden just crapped the bed. Again!

The near octogenarian thought he’d struck a secret deal back in July.

You may have seen Biden’s fist bump with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the time. The non-binding agreement called for increased oil production until at least December, after the midterm elections.

With additional Saudi Arabian oil, in combination with draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, now down 32 percent year-to-date, Biden planned to deliver cheap gasoline to American voters.

His calculation was that this gift would prevent a likely midterm catastrophe for the Democrat party. What a slick political move, right?

Alas, Biden recently woke up – like a pig – rolling around in a mess of his making.

On October 5, the OPEC+ cartel announced it would cut oil production by two million barrels per day starting in November. Then, this week, Saudi Arabia’s energy chief Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman provided the following warning:

“It is my profound duty to make clear to the world that losing (releasing) emergency stocks may be painful in the months to come.”​

In this regard, American taxpayers – including you – will have to pay higher oil prices to fill both the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and their own gas tanks in the months ahead. How’s that for presidential strategery?

Biden, no doubt, isn’t the first or the last president that will be overwhelmed by inflation. Jimmy Carter was rolled by it. George H.W. Bush went to his grave blaming Alan Greenspan’s inflation fighting rate hikes for making him a single term president.

Biden, as fortune would have it, now has his ‘turn in the barrel’. What follows is a brief review of how he got there.

Printing Press Financed Lockdowns
During the 2020-21 coronavirus panic-money printing binge only fringe economists and hard money advocates warned there would be hell to pay. The academics, elitists, and central planners pointed to the supposed successes of the money printing that was initiated during the 2008-09 great financial crisis.

‘Ben Bernanke,’ said the government economists, ‘proved that we could have our cake and eat it too.’

Yet they failed to discern an important difference. Bernanke’s quantitative easing (QE) was merely a banking and mortgage market bailout. Fed Chair Powell’s QE, to finance Congresses mega spending bills, included QE for the people. This represented direct injections of printing press money into the consumer economy.

At the same time, shutting down the economy and disrupting supply chains resulted in a massive supply shock. In short, the printing press stimulated demand while lockdowns decreased supply. What did the central planner’s think would happen?

But wait, there’s more…

The feebleminded intellectuals actually expected that, precisely when they commanded it, the economy could be turned back on. With just the flick of a light switch the central planners thought everything would return to normal. What fools!

They failed to recognize several critical factors. Namely, that while the economy was shut down, it didn’t stop entirely. Rather, it continued to evolve and change in ways that were beyond their wildest imagination.

For example, geopolitics didn’t stop during the coronavirus panic. Instead, the vast flaws of globalization were exposed like the Consular Roman Army at the hands of Hannibal in the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC.

Deglobalization
Depending on tenuous trading partners for everything from computer chips to baby formula to prescription drugs to oil was revealed to be a strategic disaster. Of course, everyone could see this all along. But corporate executives were blinded by profits while consumers were blinded by the abundance of cheap gewgaws.

Right now, the 50-year trend in globalization is reversing. One of the consequences of deglobalization will be higher prices for decades to come. Gewgaws will no longer be cheap. Corporate profit margins will diminish.

This is one of many reasons why a handful of rate hikes won’t contain raging consumer price inflation. This is a structural shift that will take several decades to reconcile.

You see, the terrible effect that the radical increase in the supply of money has on the value of money was not recognized by the control freak statists until it was too late. Clever fellows like Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke encouraged it.

Then when the first whiffs of inflation wafted the foul odor of rotting tomatoes across the land Fed Chair Powell and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen claimed it was transitory. “If you just hold your breath for a little longer,’ they said, ‘it will soon pass.’

What a crock!

When the stink remained, President Biden tried to blame greedy capitalists and big oil companies. Yet it was his executive orders that revoked the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and suspended the sale of oil and gas leases on federal lands, which greatly contributed to this mess.

As justification, Biden pulled the “environmental justice” card and said he was “protecting public health and the environment and restoring science to tackle the climate crisis.”

The Sordid Politics of Inflation
Indeed, the consequences of rising consumer prices must be quite extreme before central bankers and big government statists will admit the currency devaluation is a result of their own failed policies. Still, they dismiss any deficiencies on their part.

Then, once recognized, the central bank must mitigate the inflation. From a monetary policy standpoint, the standard strategy is to hike interest rates. But this puts a pinch on government finances and is disparaged by Congress and the president.

Fundamentally, the decline in the value of money is unpleasant and has many disagreeable consequences. Paying more for the same value of goods and services is only the beginning.

Money debasement also brings with it the debasement of all aspects of life. Wage earners, savers, and retirees suffer the loss of purchasing power. Their standard of living also suffers.

Then, as interest rates rise, and asset prices – including stocks, bonds, and real estate fall – their hopes and dreams turn to dust.

In a moral sense, all meaning of right and fairness gradually fades to black…and then to red. People become aware they’ve been cheated by the state. They become irate that they’ve been screwed over by government inflation.

At the same time, business owners and corporate executives are hit with windfall profit taxes, often to alleviate the misery the state has created through money debasement. This jacks up prices even more.

A savvy politician, like Biden, will move from deflecting blame to dividing the population. He’ll go on television and talk about how rising prices ‘hurt people of color.’

Of course, Biden – or any other politician – doesn’t give a rip about you or anyone struggling with rising consumer prices. He just cares about holding onto and enhancing his grasp on power. And government created inflation via the printing press has enhanced the control of big government more than any other mechanism at a politician’s disposal.

These are the sordid politics of inflation that were conspicuously missing from your high school civics class.

Lastly, the big Powell pivot that’s now being telegraphed for the December, Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting has nothing to do with the arrival of a much-anticipated deceleration in the rate of inflation.

Nope, it’s all politics to juice the stock market in the runup to election day.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Jamie Dimon Says "We're Getting Energy Completely Wrong" And He's Right

FRIDAY, OCT 28, 2022 - 10:49 AM
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTlak.com,

Let's tune into a video Tweet featuring Chase CEO Jamie Dimon...

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1585624304632283139
2:07 min

Transition to Where, When?

"We are getting energy completely wrong and it's made the environment worse."

Eventually, we will transition because we have to. But not as fast as expected, and certainly not without pain.

Meanwhile, policy missteps by the US, EU, and California made the transition worse.

California’s 2020 Wildfires Negated Years of Emission Cuts
The Scientific American reports California’s 2020 Wildfires Negated Years of Emission Cuts

Carbon pollution from California’s 2020 wildfires erased 16 years of the state’s greenhouse gas emission cuts, according to a new UCLA study.​
The fires were the state’s most destructive on record, burning 4.2 million acres, killing dozens of people and destroying thousands of homes. The study—published in Environmental Pollution—adds another statistic: the fires released roughly 127 million megatons of greenhouse gas emissions, or about twice California’s total emission cuts from 2003 to 2019.​
“What happened in 2020 was basically like a new sector; a new sector of emissions just came out of nowhere,” said study co-author Amir Jina, a University of Chicago professor. The wildfire emissions were “almost as big as their main emission sector, which is transport.”​
If those trees grow back over several decades, they could absorb the carbon released from the fires, he said. But that’s not guaranteed, he said, and in the meantime, those emissions will contribute to climate change.​

California would have done far more for the environment by spending money to remove dead trees instead of all the gas taxes, environmental mandates, and other economic nonsense it did do.

And that does not even factor in the loss of property and lives.

Finally, it's all irrelevant unless China and the developing nations turn away from coal.

I don't agree with Jamie Dimon about much. But yeah, Dimon is right about this.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

China Goes On Crude Buying Spree After OPEC+ Cuts​

FRIDAY, OCT 28, 2022 - 11:06 AM
China, the world's largest oil importer, has just increased demand for crude for the remainder of the year, supporting near-term prices despite a souring macroeconomic backdrop across the globe, elevated US dollar, and the impact of soaring interest rate rises on fuel use.

Bloomberg reported that Chinese buyers bought at least 10 million barrels last week from countries in the Middle East, West Africa, and South America. This could mean that the world's largest oil importer is back after imports slumped this summer due to waning demand amid an economic slowdown.

Cargoes are expected to arrive at tank farms between December and January.

bbg_16.jpg
Source: Bloomberg

The global oil benchmark Brent traded around the $96 handle a barrel on Friday. While that's 20% lower than the June peak of $122, tightening global supplies could soon send the crude prices above the physiological level of $100.



Xia Wenhong, an analyst with industry consultant OilChem, explained Beijing is encouraging refiners to export as much diesel and gasoline as possible after new trading quotas. This could mean refinery operating rates may rise by 4-5% in the fourth quarter.

Traders said strong seasonal demand for diesel had increased overall profit margins for processors, another reason for rising refining rates.

The buyers have been trading arms of top state-owned oil companies China National Petroleum Corp. (PetroChina), China Petroleum & Chemical Corp.
(Sinopec), and China National Chemical Corp. (ChemChina), traders told Bloomberg.

Independent refiner Shenghong Group is also increasing crude purchases from Abu Dhabi as operational capacity is expanded.

"Independents will be driving the very near-term strength," said Mia Geng, an analyst at industry consultant FGE in Singapore.

Geng estimates the newly purchased crude will arrive in tank farms in 1Q23.
Crude prices aren't just gaining support from China coming back online. There has been increasing support for higher prices as the looming Russian oil ban in Europe begins in a little over a month, as well as the recent two million-barrels-per-day output cut by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies, including Russia, known as OPEC+.

All of this may be valuable insight into what to expect this winter as tightening crude supplies and increasing China demand could outweigh global recession fears and boost brent prices above $100. So does Biden drain the SPR even more to tame prices?
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Digital IDs, Central Bank Digital Currencies, social credit scoring can implement this if you comply 1:56 min

DIGITAL IDS, CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES, SOCIAL CREDIT SCORING CAN IMPLEMENT THIS IF YOU COMPLY​

"Digital IDs, Central Bank Digital Currencies, social credit scoring... they can only implement this stuff if public comply... most important thing we can continue to do is speak out"

Watch full debate with Matt Gubba and others from our event Monday:
View: https://youtu.be/AGRJZeeGr1w
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

The Drug Cartels and the New World Order

by George McClellan | Oct 28, 2022 |

The New World Order crowd of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum, that group of elitists argue that it’s in our best interest that the world should be reorganized without borders by mixing peasants and camel drivers with middle-class producers. Their aim, they claim, is to level the economic playing field for all the world’s citizens. It’s the Democrats’ version of diversity, equity, and inclusion of the world as a whole as a single economic unit with them in charge. It’s “The Great Reset” nonsense that cannot work because the variables are infinite, confusion will reign, and chance will govern all.

Economies are based on supply and demand. How, for example, would they deal with the Mexican drug cartels who, apart from flooding the great unwashed across our southern border, are supplying the demands of America’s drug users to the tune of millions and millions of dollars?

On that issue, I am not at all reticent in predicting that a war with Mexico is not an improbability but a certainty. But not until the Marxists are out of our government. Mexico has a government that has been corrupted by drugs. In fact, Mexico’s politics is run by the drug cartels who, at the moment, wage war between themselves over territory, but will one day come together to become the de facto government of a very corrupt nation on our border, and I don’t mean Canada.

On the broader scale, historically, Mexico’s criminal elements first started as poor people filling a demand of the “NorteAmericanos” for the product they had to offer, cheap marijuana. “Wow, look at all that money flowing through it.” That was followed by cocaine, a product grown exclusively in South America. Heroin imported from Asia and now fentanyl, a drug not grown anywhere except in a Chinese chemical laboratory.

The obscene profits have been shared with Mexico’s susceptible law enforcement, local, federal, and the military, but most certainly, the politicians who run the government. Already, brazen cartel thugs have fired automatic weapons at US troops and Border Patrol officers across the Rio Grande river. It’s not a great step to fire back then; just like the FBI’s SWAT teams invade US conservatives’ homes in the dark of night, Special Forces can swoop in with full deadly force and eliminate the cartels once and for all.

The Mexican government will be convinced to participate or fall victim to regime change. It’s a deal they can’t refuse. We already possess the intelligence needed to make it happen. It’s just a matter of having a leader with the courage to do it. We’re doing it in Ukraine against the Russians, aren’t we? We can do it here.

This Mexican-style criminal organizational setup is readily reflected in America’s Blue cities, where organized gangs of disaffected youths, primarily poor blacks armed to the teeth, fiercely run their own drug operations. Chicago is an excellent example among many, as their death rate by violence easily echoes Mexico’s, where cartel gangs have murdered citizens en mass if they get in the way.

To be fair, Mexican police and military, frequently victims themselves of cartel violence, are all but helpless in stemming the tide because, being poor, they are equally susceptible to bribes, just like Joe Biden and his family.

While we recognize that the government of Mexico has been corrupted, we must realize as well that our own government is corrupt, its leadership having turned from Constitutional requirements and safeguards to embrace what works best for them politically.

Presently, a new style of communists run our government and have quickly brought it into disrepute filled as it is with liars, cheaters and grifters, thieves and haters, perverts, and, dare I say, real racists. Having seen justice replaced by injustice, rampant crime, and corruption funded by illicit and deadly drug operations, Mexico and America are ripe for revolution.

^^^^^
1667017127932.jpeg
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
(See prior post 11,045 for video.)

Digital IDs Are Coming to America and Nobody’s Paying Much Attention​

It's understandable that with so many existential threats facing our nation and nearly all American citizens, this relatively new threat would be missed. It shouldn't be. It's too big to ignore.

by JD Rucker
October 28, 2022

When a story broke last week that Congress had taken another big step toward rolling out digital IDs, I expected it to be huge news among conservative and alternative news outlets. Nope. I completely overestimated the impact of the article posted by Just The News, an article that unfortunately downplayed its own reporting.

Generally speaking, I love what John Solomon and his group do for journalism. The vast majority of their stories are straight news which is something we desperately need more of in America. State the facts and let the people make up their own minds — that’s what I’d love to see. Instead, we have “news” that’s tilted one way or the other and almost always to the left for corporate media. I have no problem with opinion pieces, but disguising opinions as “news” is not journalism.

The story in question was titled, “National Digital ID Clears Congressional Hurdle Amid Fears It Could Be Politically Abused.” Here are the important parts:

A national digital ID system for U.S. citizens is fast becoming a reality following a vote by the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to advance the Improving Digital Identity Act.
Digital IDs act as online, data-laden representations of human beings. Many analysts, such as the authors of a 2019 McKinsey Global Institute report, argue they could be the key to unlocking access to financial services, various government benefits and educational opportunities, as well as a number of other critical services. Some of the same analysts, however, also warn that the “risks and potential for misuse of digital ID are real and deserve careful attention.”

Although the concerns about digital IDs are real, it’s important to separate the facts from the fearmongering fiction. In simple language, a digital identity enables an individual to prove who they are in the virtual world. Proponents claim digital IDs offer greater privacy than traditional forms of identification and can help minimize some of the risks associated with physical documents such as driver’s licenses, passports, etc. Others, though, are quick to sound the alarm, warning that the introduction of digital IDs will almost certainly lead to an erosion of civil liberties.

“Digital is often touted as the ‘future,’ and many people cast such a transition as inevitable,” writes Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU, who believes digital IDs could prove to be a privacy nightmare. “But digital is not always better — especially when systems are exclusively digital.”
“There’s a reason that most jurisdictions have spurned electronic voting in favor of paper ballots, for example,” Stanley writes. With voting software in some states vulnerable to outside interference, paper ballots increasingly appear to be much safer.

Similarly, digital IDs are vulnerable to attack. Horror stories involving people’s identities being stolen are not uncommon. Remember, digital IDs are synonymous with data, and if there is one thing hacker’s love, it’s data — especially the data of U.S. citizens.

As I noted, the article downplays the threats of a digital ID in the United States. The reality is a digital ID is a requirement in order for the powers-that-be to fully implement their machinations, whether you want to call it Build Back Better, the 4th Industrial Revolution, or The Great Reset. An article by Dr. Joseph Mercola highlights the risks further. The article is below the video.

On today’s episode of The JD Rucker Show, I explained why this is such a threat and continued on to other stories that demonstrate the perfect economic storm we’re in right now.

ID2020 — Your Digital ID of the Future Has Arrived​

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
  • The ID2020 Alliance is a public-private partnership founded by Bill Gates’ GAVI: The Vaccine Alliance, The Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft, Accenture and Ideo.org
  • General partners in the alliance include, among others, Facebook, Mastercard, the United Nations International Computing Centre and Okta, an identity platform
  • The ID2020 Alliance is painting itself as the global identification superpower, intent on creating a digital ID that will track you throughout your life, via the help of multibillion-dollar corporations
  • In the end, the global superpowers won’t go so far as to create a worldwide digital ID that can simply be left behind when you feel like it; they’ll want something more permanent, something that can’t be left at home, like an implantable microchip
  • Whatever the “final” digital ID ends up being called, it will include your digital identity, vaccination status and other health data, along with programmable central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), for starters
Since the beginning of the pandemic, efforts have been underway to advance digital identification systems, including mobile driver’s licenses and vaccine passports. In 2020, the World Economic Forum (WEF) rolled out plans for its COVIDPass, which required users to have their blood screened at an approved COVIDPass laboratory.1

They would then be issued a QR “health code” via their cellphone, to be presented at airports, borders and entrances to various events. Of course, only those with a “passing” result would be allowed entry, shedding light on the technology’s nefarious potential.

If you refuse to have your blood tested, or the blood test shows you’re infected, you’ll be unable to go about your daily life as you did prior to 2020.

Freedoms have been blatantly lost and restricted, with many signing up for this prison-like existence voluntarily in the name of health protection.

According to WEF, COVIDPass doesn’t include tracing technology,2 but it easily could at some point. Then, your whereabouts could be tracked and your movement restricted based on what your phone’s QR code reveals about your health, your finances — or anything, really. This is only the beginning.

ID2020 Is Coming to Take Away Your Privacy, Freedom​

If you haven’t yet heard of the ID2020 Alliance, this is definitely something that should be on your radar. It’s a public-private partnership founded by Bill Gates’ GAVI: The Vaccine Alliance, The Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft, Accenture and Ideo.org.3 General partners in the alliance include, among others:4
  • The Learning Economy Foundation, founded by the United Nations in 2018
  • Facebook
  • Mastercard
  • ShareRing
  • Simprints
  • National Cybersecurity Center
  • The United Nations International Computing Centre (UNICC)
  • Okta, an identity platform
ID2020 began as a digital identity program for Bangladesh and has since expanded to include “the implementation of digital technologies which tie with the [Learning Economy] Foundation’s vision of a world in which learners can map their educational progress to achieve their academic, employment, and life goals.”5

In August 2021, when the Learning Economy joined the ID2020 Alliance, Ethan Veneklasen, ID2020 head of advocacy and communication, stated, “Education and workforce development represent an exciting opportunity to apply digital ID technology, especially as we think about the potential of digitally verifiable educational credentials.”6

This gives a glimpse into where this technology is going. Soon, there’s no telling what you’ll be asked to digitally verify, but your “educational credentials” are sure to be fair game, along with everything else.

Part 1 of 2​

 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment
Part 2 of 2

Global Partnership Emerges in Race for Digital ID​

Not content to let a single company, state or government handle the roll out of digital IDs, the ID2020 Alliance is painting itself as the global identification superpower. “No government, company or agency can solve this challenge alone,” ID2020 states on its website. “Setting the future course of digital ID and navigating the associated risks is a challenge that requires sustained collaboration and global partnership.”7

The idea of global synchronization has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it? In October 2022, the World Health Organization announced a global initiative of its own, called One Health Joint Plan of Action. In WHO’s case, the organization is joining forces with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and others to gain further control of human health and the environment.8

The ID2020 Alliance is working to become a similarly powerful entity in the realm of digital IDs. Just as WHO is working on coordinating financing in order to achieve their global agenda, the ID2020 Alliance is similarly combining multiple globalist organizations, synchronizing their plans — and their resources. According to ID2020:9

“Ad-hoc investments in single use-case projects (“business as usual”) will be insufficient to bring about transformative impact. Changing the flow of funds is necessary to re-align incentives. That’s why collaborative funding mechanisms are essential to ensure that digital ID can be a platform to enable the delivery of diverse benefits and services throughout an individual’s life.”

Did you notice “throughout an individual’s life”? So the plan is for the digital ID to track you from cradle to grave. It then goes on to state that it plans to achieve its goals via the help of multibillion-dollar corporations:10

“Private sector engagement is critical for solving at scale. Alliance partners include companies with a collective footprint in the billions and a shared commitment to an ethical approach to digital ID.
Decisions about how Alliance funds are administered, which programs to fund, and which technical standards to support are made jointly by Alliance partners through a transparent governance process, preventing dominance by any single institution or sector.”

Infrastructure for a Social Credit System Laid Out​

Some have speculated that the introduction of digital IDs and vaccine passports in the U.S. is laying the infrastructure for a social credit system similar to the one in China. China’s social credit system, a massive undertaking of government surveillance that aims to combine 600 million surveillance cameras — about one for every two citizens — with facial recognition technology, has an end-goal of being able to identify anyone, anywhere, within three seconds.11

At present, the system is still disjointed and focused on corporate social credit more so than individual social credit, but it’s “evolving rapidly.”12 Here’s an example of how social credit can work, from 2019 — before the pandemic, which has only accelerated data collection and surveillance measures — from Wired:13

“The criteria that go into a social credit ranking depends on where you are, notes [Mareike] Ohlberg, [research associate at the Mercator Institute for China Studies]. ‘It’s according to which place you’re in, because they have their own catalogs,’ she says. It can range from not paying fines when you’re deemed fully able to, misbehaving on a train, standing up a taxi, or driving through a red light.

One city, Rongcheng, gives all residents 1,000 points to start. Authorities make deductions for bad behavior like traffic violations, and add points for good behavior such as donating to charity. One regulation Ohlberg recently read specifically addresses stealing electricity. Of course, you’ll have to get caught first or be reported by someone else.

While facial recognition is infamously used to spot jaywalkers, in some cities it’s not so automated, Ohlberg notes.
Private projects, such as Sesame Credit, hoover up all sorts of data on its 400 million customers, from how much time they spend playing video games (that’s bad) to whether they’re a parent (that’s good). That can be shared with other companies. One infamous example is Sesame Credit linking up with the Baihe dating site, so would be partners can judge each other on their looks as well as their social credit score; that system is opt-in.”

The Leash Is Tightening All Around​

Programmable central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) add another layer of control. As a fiat currency in digital form that is programmable, it would be easy to make it so you can only spend your money on certain things or in specific places, as desired by the issuer.

Then there are the seemingly innocuous smart meters, which raise serious privacy concerns, not to mention health concerns from their related electromagnetic fields. Before smart meters were widely available, your electricity usage was recorded by a meter reader who would visit your property once a month and manually record your energy usage.

Now, this data is tracked at hourly or half-hour intervals, which energy companies are billing as a way to save you, the customer, money.14 But like digital IDs and CBDCs, smart meters aren’t there for your benefit.

Smart meters do more than measure your energy usage. They’re also capable of distinguishing what type of energy you’re using. So they know if you’re doing a load of laundry, watching TV or have left your home for the day. While this might not sound nefarious on the surface, it’s an intensely personal form of surveillance — one that could easily be used against you, including to ration your energy.15

Now consider that many not only have smartphones and smart meters but also have connected alarm clocks, vehicles, refrigerators and doorbells, each of which reveals another layer of details about your most personal moments, which could be used for nefarious purposes.

As The Telegraph reported,16 Britain’s Crossbench Peer Lord Alton warned of the dangers of intertwining mass surveillance systems with daily living. “[W]e simply cannot allow the tools of genocide to continue to be used so readily in our daily lives. Mass surveillance systems have always been the handmaiden of fascism. The government should come forward with a timetable to remove these cameras and technology from the public sector supply chain.”

The End Goal? Implantable Tracking Devices​

In the end, the global superpowers won’t go so far as to create a worldwide digital ID that can simply be left behind when you feel like it. They’ll want something much more permanent, something that can’t be left at home.
Sweden is one of the earliest adopters of implantable microchips. The chip is implanted just beneath the skin on the hand, and operates using either near-field communication (NFC) — the same technology used in smartphones — or radio-frequency identification (RFID), which is used in contactless credit cards.17

Already, Sweden has become more or less a cashless society. Now, this tiny implant will replace the need for debit and credit cards all together, as well as identification and keys. To pay for an item, all you have to do is place your left hand near the contactless card reader, and the payment is registered.

An estimated 5,000 to 10,000 Swedes have been chipped so far, although Swedish authorities claim they don’t know the exact number, as there’s no central registry. In the end, everything will be connected to a single implantable device.

Right now, it’s a tossup as to whether a vaccine passport or a digital identity platform will be the foundation for what’s to come, but what is certain is that whatever it’s called, it will include your digital identity, vaccination status and other health data, along with programmable CBDCs.

Ultimately, your digital identity will include everything else that can be known about you through surveillance via implanted biosensors, your computer, smartphone, GPS, social media, online searches, purchases and spending habits. Imagine having AI listening, watching and scoring every move you make and every heartbeat, and algorithms deciding what you can and cannot do based on your behavior, expression, social contacts and personal views.

Add to that technologies that can modify your behavior and emotional state with or without your knowledge, which is what the WEF’s 2020 briefing document on the Internet of Bodies (IoB) describes,18 and the future looks like a prison-state.

To put it simply, as targetTRUTH tweeted, “ID2020 is an alliance among numerous companies to microchip every single human being on the planet.”19 In the meantime, to ensure that you can be traced and tracked at all times, WEF announced that clothing of the future will also contain built-in digital passports — and they’re slated to reach the market in 2025.20
 
Last edited:

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Including Noncitizens in Census Devalues Votes of Citizens, Unjustly Alters House Representation

Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / October 28, 2022

While population data is used for many different statistical purposes, including the distribution of federal funds under programs that provide money to the states based on their share of the U.S. population, its constitutional purpose is to apportion representation in the House of Representatives.

COMMENTARY BY
Hans von Spakovsky

You may have missed it, but a recent Census Bureau report revealed that the bureau made significant errors in the most recent census, overcounting the population of eight states and undercounting the population of six states.

As a result, the citizens in undercounted states, such as Florida, did not receive all of the congressional representation to which they are entitled, while citizens in states such as Minnesota and Rhode Island that were overcounted are overrepresented in Congress.

As everyone who filled out a census form in 2020 knows, we were meeting the requirement of Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution that mandates an “actual enumeration” of the U.S. population every 10 years. The year 2020 was the 24th census conducted in our history.

While that population data is used for many different statistical purposes, including the distribution of federal funds under programs that provide money to the states based on their share of the U.S. population, its constitutional purpose is to apportion representation in the House of Representatives. That also affects presidential elections, since apportionment determines how many votes a state has in the Electoral College. Under Section 1 of Article II, the number of electors for each state is two U.S. senators plus the number of its representatives.

Generally, if a state, for example, has 10% of the total population, then it is entitled to 10% of the representatives in the House. This is not always the case, though, due to another provision in Section 2 of Article I that provides that “each state shall have at least one representative.”

This, obviously, can affect apportionment for the other states.

As our nation has grown and added more states to the Union, the House has added more members. In 1929, however, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act, which limits the size of the House to 435 members. After the 2020 census numbers were determined, those 435 members were divided among the states based on the total population of the country (a bit more than 331 million people).

That reapportionment gave six states additional seats and reduced the number of seats held by seven states. Texas gained two representatives, while California and New York each lost a congressional seat. As noted earlier, however, the Census Bureau made significant mistakes and deprived citizens in eight states of appropriate representation in Congress.

Another pathology associated with apportionment is that it is based on population totals that include noncitizens, including illegal aliens. In a nation where the population of both legal and illegal aliens now numbers in the millions, the sheer volume distorts congressional representation.

How bad is this distortion? In 2015, the Congressional Research Service issued a report on how apportionment would have changed after the 2010 census if the 2013 estimated citizen population had been used, excluding aliens here both legally and illegally. According to the report, using citizen population only would have shifted seven congressional seats among 11 states. California, for example, would have lost four seats, while states such as Louisiana and Missouri would have each picked up a new seat.

Including the alien population in apportionment unfairly and unjustly alters political representation in the House and devalues the votes of citizens.

Some argue that the language in Section 2 that apportionment is based on the “number of persons in each state” means that aliens must be included in the apportionment calculation. However, the term “persons” has historically been interpreted in this context to mean an individual who not only has a physical presence, but also some element of allegiance to a particular place.

That is why the Census Bureau, for example, does not include noncitizens who visit the U.S. for a vacation or a business trip in the population count, since they have no political or legal allegiance to any state or the federal government.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the question of whether apportionment must include aliens under our Constitution.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Top US Banks Under Investigation Over ESG and Climate Action​

By Alex Newman

October 27, 2022 Updated: October 27, 2022

A coalition of 19 state attorneys general from across the country launched a formal investigation into six major U.S. banks last week citing legal concerns about banks’ “ESG” investing and their involvement with a United Nations alliance fighting CO2 emissions.

The banks “appear to be colluding with the U.N. to destroy American companies” and undermine the nation’s best interests, one of the AGs warned in a statement e-mailed to The Epoch Times.

Another AG argued that these U.N.-inspired banking policies were resulting in jobs being sent to communist China as the regime there continues building coal-fired power plants to ensure low-cost, reliable energy.

The new investigation is the latest salvo by Republican-led states amid growing nationwide concerns about the “woke” policies of financial institutions and other powerful business interests.

Multiple attorneys general who spoke to The Epoch Times about the probe said it was their job to enforce consumer protection laws and protect citizens in their states from potentially illegal activity by companies.

In particular, officials are investigating the banks’ involvement in the controversial United Nations Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). The global network of banks, convened and overseen by the U.N., pledges to eliminate emissions of so-called “greenhouse gases” by 2050 by transforming their lending and investment practices.

Numerous AGs sounded the alarm about the U.N.’s involvement in targeting key American industries as banks cede policymaking influence to the global organization.

The top law-enforcement officers for the group of mostly Republican-controlled states said they have reason to believe the banks being investigated agreed to align their investing and loan portfolio with U.N. emissions goals.

The goals, outlined in the U.N. Paris Agreement on climate change, call for a transformation of the economy away from traditional energy sources.

Government and business leaders in developed nations including the United States and Western Europe agreed to pursue significant reductions in CO2.

The effect of these policies, the AGs warned, would be to starve key industries of credit—especially companies in the energy and agriculture sectors that are critical to the prosperity and even the national security of the United States.

The banks being scrutinized by the top lawmen for their states include Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup.

Each of the companies was served last week with civil investigative demands, essentially acting as a subpoena, demanding that they turn over documents related to their involvement in the U.N. NZBA.

The banks are also expected to provide records of all “Global Climate Initiatives” in which they are participating, and how these U.N.-backed agendas are being incorporated into their businesses, civil investigative demands reviewed by The Epoch Times show.

In addition, the banks are being asked to give details on the involvement of their CEOs in the process and how the decisions were made.

Also under scrutiny are banking actions related to “Environmental, Social, and Governance” (ESG) investing. The controversial metrics take into consideration environmental and social policies in making business decisions, rather than simply the traditional metrics of risk and return.

Critics say ESG investing is being used to impose unpopular and economically harmful ideas on Americans while forcing businesses across the economy to adopt them. The term is increasingly being linked by opponents to a woke mentality, “social justice” ideas, and radical left-wing politics.

AGs Speak Out​

“We got involved in this investigation because this is another attempt by the liberal woke left to shove their ideas down our throats, and since they can’t change the laws using the political process, they want to do it by weaponizing business,” said Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen. “They are doing this out of some misplaced desire to advance their liberal agenda.”

But it may not be legal, Knudsen and many other state AGs say.

“This seems to run afoul of our consumer protection laws that I’m in charge of enforcing,” Knudsen continued in a phone interview with The Epoch Times, saying his office and elected officials at all levels were under growing public pressure to address the issue and potential legal violations.

“It gets cold here in Montana,” the attorney general added. “We need a robust energy sector to keep our homes warm—and we certainly can’t do that using wind and solar.”

Knudsen, who is also working with a coalition of state AGs focusing on investment behemoth BlackRock, said this was essentially a continuation of the same issue: Powerful banking and financial interests seeking to improperly impose their views on the public.

“You have corporate banking and the investment industry trying to flex their muscle and pressure businesses into a political direction and political action,” he said. “But that’s not their function. Their job is to provide credit and earn profit for shareholders.”

“This is a continuation of the woke ESG garbage that we’re having to deal with more and more,” the Montana AG added.

Going forward, Knudsen said “everything is on the table,” depending on the outcome of the investigation. Under consumer protection laws, the state has the authority to levy civil fines.

Knudsen said Montana lawmakers, who are also under growing public pressure, intend to take strong legislative action when the state legislature reconvenes next year.

The effects of these banking policies are hurting numerous legal industries, he continued, pointing to firearms businesses as examples of those “being pinched” by financial services and even insurance companies.

“These companies need to be held accountable, so we are all looking at what authorities are available,” Knudsen said. “All options are definitely on the table.”

In Oklahoma, Attorney General John O’Connor said his office joined the investigation for two primary reasons: “America is not run by the U.N.,” and “these banks are attacking Oklahoma fossil-fuel producers and consumers as well as Oklahoma jobs.”

“The Net-Zero Banking Alliance, overseen by the U.N., will destroy companies that are engaged in fossil fuel-related activities or depend on them for energy or these lenders for capital,” he explained in a statement emailed to The Epoch Times. “It is unacceptable that these banks are pushing an investment strategy designed to impose a leftist social and economic agenda.”

The subpoenas sent to the banks by O’Connor’s office include requests to explain how NZBA objectives are being incorporated into the banks’ operations and what actions they have taken to eliminate hydrocarbon energy from the economy.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita sounded the alarm about what his office described as an “apparent conspiracy” involving the U.N. and the banks being probed.

“These banks appear to be colluding with the U.N. to destroy American companies that specialize in fossil fuels or otherwise depend on them for energy,” Rokita said. “They are pushing an investment strategy designed not to maximize financial returns but to impose a leftist social and economic agenda that cannot otherwise be implemented through the ballot box.”

Blasting ESG investing as a “scheme,” the Indiana AG vowed to protect the people of his state.

“This new woke-ism in the financial sector poses a real threat to everyday Hoosiers,” he continued. “Indiana’s farmers, truck drivers, and fuel-industry workers are hurt when the radical Left attacks whole segments of our economy. And it’s troubling that these banks in the Net-Zero Banking Alliance are taking marching orders from U.N. globalists all-too-eager to undermine America’s best interests.”

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt warned that the Net-Zero Banking Alliance was a major threat to key industries in his state.

“Missouri farmers, oil leasing companies, and other businesses that are vital to Missouri’s and America’s economy will be unable to get a loan because of this alliance,” Schmitt warned in a statement e-mailed to The Epoch Times.

Missouri last week became the latest state to divest from BlackRock over its woke policies, announcing that it would withdraw some $500 million of pension fund investments held with the increasingly controversial financial giant.

Blasting the banks for “ceding authority to the U.N.,” the Missouri AG said these actions would result in the “killing of American companies that don’t subscribe to the woke climate agenda.”

“These banks are accountable to American laws—we don’t let international bodies set the standards for our businesses,” added Schmitt.

The Missouri lawman has become increasingly vocal about the threat he believes these trends pose to the nation, sounding the alarm about how these woke policies benefit communist China and its economy at America’s expense.

This summer, Schmitt’s office also sent civil investigative demands involving ESG investing to Morningstar and Sustainalytics.

Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas vowed to get to the bottom of the relationship between the U.N. and the banks’ potential legal violations.

“The radical climate change movement has been waging an all-out war against American energy for years, and the last thing Americans need right now are corporate activists helping the left bankrupt our fossil fuel industry,” the Texas AG said.

“If the largest banks in the world think they can get away with lying to consumers or taking any other illegal action designed to target a vital American industry like energy, they’re dead wrong,” he continued. “This investigation is just getting started, and we won’t stop until we get to the truth.”

Other states that are investigating include Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Virginia. At least five other states have joined but cannot be named due to state confidentiality policies.

In August, a similar coalition of state AGs warned BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, a board member of the World Economic Forum and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations, that his company’s policies may be illegal.

“Our states will not idly stand for our pensioners’ retirements to be sacrificed for BlackRock’s climate agenda,” they warned, pointing to several potential legal violations involving the politically connected firm’s ESG investing.

Effects and Implications​

Bloomberg, a media outlet that has vocally supported the U.N. climate agenda and was founded by Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) co-chair Michael Bloomberg, complained this month that Fink and other key financial leaders would not be at the upcoming U.N. COP27 climate conference in Egypt.

“With more than $135 trillion in assets, GFANZ was supposed to be the planet’s ticket to a more climate-friendly form of finance. But a year later, it’s unclear how members will live up to their promises,” Bloomberg writer Alastair Marsh reported, pointing to GOP states’ efforts as part of the reason.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is among the Republican political leaders aiming to stop woke policies at banks. He is asking lawmakers to pass legislation in the 2023 session to rein in ESG policies.

Multiple states have pulled or are working to pull public money out of woke financial institutions.

West Virginia even created a “Restricted Financial Institution List” of banks that is banned from banking contracts with the state. Several of the banks now being investigated are on that list.

“Our own money is being weaponized against us,” West Virginia Treasurer Riley Moore told The Epoch Times in August.

The U.N. Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP-FI), which oversees the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, boasts on its website of helping to catalyze “action across the financial system to deliver more sustainable global economies.”

The UNEP-FI says about itself online, “We’ve established the world’s foremost sustainability frameworks that help the finance industry address global environmental, social and governance (ESG) challenges.”

In a response to a request sent by The Epoch Times, the U.N. Net-Zero Banking Alliance provided a statement “attributable to no particular person” that did not address the questions.

“Membership in the Alliance is a voluntary commitment, under which member banks commit to align their lending and investing activities to net-zero emissions pathways by 2050,” the NZBA said. “This commitment is underpinned by credible, widely accepted climate science that demonstrates the need for urgent reductions in human-caused emissions in order to curtail the worst effects of climate change.”

Even as states push back, the Biden administration is working to support and entrench ESG policies in American business. European regulators are, too.

State AGs who spoke with The Epoch Times said that, to their knowledge, the banks had not responded by the end of last week.

A spokesman for Citi said the bank would decline to comment at this time. None of the other banks responded to emails and phone calls requesting comment by The Epoch Times by press time.

The state AGs said more information would be released to the public as the investigations continue.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

‘Save Our Democracy’ Is the New ‘Russia Collusion’​

COMMENTARY BY
David Harsanyi / October 28, 2022

At this point, it would save everyone time if Democrats could simply point to a policy agenda item that isn’t going to save democracy—if such a thing exists.

If Republicans vote, they are killing democracy. If they don’t vote, they are killing democracy. The only way to “save democracy,” writes The Washington Post’s Max Boot, is to empower one-party rule—a position that probably sounds counterintuitive to anyone with a middle-school education.

“Now you need to vote to literally save democracy once again,” contends President Joe Biden, or we will lose our “fundamental rights and freedoms like the right to choose, the right to privacy, the right to vote—our very democracy.”

Chilling stuff. But it doesn’t end there. You will remember that by failing to “reform” the filibuster, which would entail authorizing the thinnest of fleeting majorities to shove through massive generational “reforms” without any national consensus or debate, we are also killing democracy.

This has been the position not only of left-wing pundits and The New York Times editorial board but also senators tasked with defending their institution. I wonder if they will support this democracy-saving fix next session as well?

Then again, if we don’t nationalize the economy to avert a climate crisis, we are also killing democracy. “We’ve got to save democracy in order to save our species,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., explains.

And if we don’t empty the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to temporarily keep gas prices low to help Democrats win in 2022, we are killing democracy. “We find ourselves in a situation where keeping gas prices low is key to preserving and strengthening the future of our democracy,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes says.

We must allow the president to unilaterally create trillion-dollar spending bills and break existing private sector contracts by fiat. For democracy. We must pack the court to “save democracy.” We must create a Ministry of Truth to help with “strengthening democratic institutions.” We must vote for a Pennsylvania candidate who can’t cobble two consecutive coherent sentences together because the “fate of our democracy” is at stake, says our former President Barack Obama.

If the Supreme Court empowers the public to vote on an issue like abortion, unmentioned anywhere in the Constitution, it is “degrading” our “democracy.”

If the court protects rights that are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution from the vagaries of the political process, it is also undermining democracy—which is convenient.

The only way to save democracy is to allow one party (guess which one?) to federalize elections so they can compel states to count mail-in votes that arrive 10 days late, legalize ballot harvesting, force the overturning of dozens of existing voter ID laws, allow felons to vote, create onerous burdens to chill speech, and empower bureaucrats to redraw congressional districts. Otherwise … well, you know.

You’ll remember last year, when left-wingers were arguing that former Vice President Mike Pence’s support for basic voting ID—backed by around 80% of the American public and implemented in virtually every free nation—heralded a “permanent authoritarian rule.” The president called Georgia’s moderate voter law “odious,” “pernicious,” “vicious,” “unconscionable,” a “subversion” and “suppression,” the “21st-century Jim Crow,” and the sure sign of an emerging “autocracy.” In 2022, early voting in Georgia is “shattering records.”

Then, of course, there are the nefarious “election deniers.” You know, “The Big Lie”? If Democrats believed “election denial” was an existential threat to American “democracy,” they probably wouldn’t be perennially engaging in it.

The American Left hasn’t accepted the legitimacy of a Republican presidential election win since 1988. Democrats “save democracy” by pumping millions into the primary campaigns of “election-denying” Republicans to try and set up a more favorable general election.

Just this week, Hillary Clinton, one of numerous prominent Democrats who wouldn’t accept the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election, claimed that “right-wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential election.”

This is the kind of preemptive election denialism Democrats have been engaged in for nearly two decades. Democrats don’t lose elections; they are victims of gerrymandering or voter suppression or “structural” problems or too much free speech or Fox News or Russian gremlins.

Beginning in 2016, the Democratic Party descended into the politics of hystericism. It began with a mind-bending tale of a second-rate power stealing our democracy with a few Facebook ads and a Manchurian candidate.

The collective psychotic break that followed was bolstered by an unethical political media and a corrupt investigation into the president that was predicated on an opposition-research document filled with fictions, distortions, and Russian disinformation. Democrats wanted to cripple the president. They succeeded.

Since then, a large swath of the Left has become so reliant on infantile fearmongering that they seem incapable of debating any issues or dealing with the reality of an opposition party. When they’re not slandering political opponents as (semi-) fascists or racists or misogynists or homophobes or transphobes or death cultists, they’re engaging in cloistered pseudointellectual debate-club discussions on “saving democracy.”

Democrats, who have spent years delegitimizing the Supreme Court and rule of law, undermining legislative norms, cheering on unprecedented and blatant executive abuses, and using the Department of Justice to target their political enemies, among other “democracy”-destroying behaviors, do not occupy any high moral ground. And while “democracy” was once just a transparently silly euphemism for “stuff we want,” it has since evolved into a rhetorical device that denotes a decisively illiberal mindset.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Look at the Extreme Social Decay That Is Spreading Like Wildfire in Many of the Largest Cities in America

Michael Snyder
October 28, 2022

If you want to get a feel for what is really going on in this country, just walk the streets of our major cities. In fact, you don’t even need to go to the “bad areas” to see the extreme social decay that is eating away at our communities like cancer. As you will see below, there are tent cities, open drug use and rampant crime within two blocks of the White House. Even the best parts of Washington D.C. are being “fundamentally transformed”, and there is no way to put a positive spin on this. From coast to coast, the number of addicts just continues to grow, the number of people sleeping on the streets just continues to grow, and crime rates are rising to frightening levels. If things are already this bad while the economy is still relatively stable, what will our major cities look like when economic conditions really start deteriorating in 2023 and beyond?

It may be difficult to believe now, but at one time Philadelphia was one of the finest cities on the entire planet.

But these days the city of Benjamin Franklin is filled with prime examples of our national social decay…

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1585100217732698113
1:17 min

It is so good to see people from all different backgrounds passed out together on the streets, isn’t it?

Of course seeing addicts in a catatonic state on the streets of Philadelphia is not exactly a new thing.

But what about a block from the White House?

Benny Johnson recently returned to his old stomping grounds, and what he witnessed absolutely shocked him to the core…

View: https://youtu.be/N4kln9ME2v4
7:39 min

Personally, I was quite alarmed by that video.

Once upon a time, I actually worked in the heart of Washington D.C., and sometimes I would walk right past the White House during my lunch break.

In all those years, I never saw a single tent in the streets. Not one. But now there are dozens of encampments all over the city. And we are supposed to believe that things are getting better? I don’t think so.

In New York City, the homelessness crisis has gotten so bad that the National Guard has actually been called in to deal with the problem…

New York City has called in the National Guard to deal with the rising migrant crisis that is overwhelming homeless shelters and facilities as staff are unable to cope with the surge.​
National Guard reservists are being deployed to help with day-to-day operations at many shelters, including managing the capacity, distributing food and helping out with staff shortages.​
There are over 62,000 people currently living in New York City’s homeless shelters – close to 13,000 of which are migrants, according to the Department of Homeless Services.​

Prior to this year, had you ever heard of any city bringing in the National Guard just because homelessness had begun to spiral out of control?

Unfortunately, the exploding homeless population is doing whatever it feels like doing right out in the middle of the streets.

At this point, even some of the nicest neighborhoods in the Big Apple are being overrun by the drug and sex trades…

View: https://youtu.be/1kpzoG0R0qs
6:35 min

I don’t want to leave the west coast out, and so let’s talk about what is happening to Portland.

In recent years, terrified residents have watched as homeless encampments have taken over street after street.

At this point there are literally hundreds of “tent communities” all over the city, and many citizens literally feel like prisoners in their own homes…

View: https://youtu.be/Eq8-aZdQWu8
4:09 min

When you hear a mother crying out for help because she is scared to death of letting her children go outside where all the addicts are, it should break your heart.

Right now, we are facing the worst drug crisis in the history of our country.

Overdose deaths are at the highest level ever recorded, and that is primarily because of all the fentanyl that is flooding into this nation from Mexico and China.

Earlier this month, police in Eugene, Oregon arrested a man that had enough fentanyl to literally kill four million people…

Oregon police seized a record-breaking 18 pounds of fentanyl pills — enough to kill 4 million people — inside a car when they found a driver passed out on the side of the road. Andre Lavell Johnson of Portland was found “slumped over the steering wheel” at the intersection of E. 11th Avenue and High Street just before 11 p.m. Oct. 19, Eugene Police said.​
Officers pinned the car before rousing awake the 42-year-old Johnson. The suspect, who had previous warrants out for his arrest, tried to start the car and escape, but officers removed him from the car for an inspection, police said.​
Inside, police found fentanyl pills “matching the description of currently circulating counterfeit oxycodone pills containing fentanyl,” police said. A firearm, which was later found to be stolen, was also discovered on the floor of the driver’s seat.​

Fentanyl is a national plague unlike anything we have ever experienced before, and at this point the drug dealers are even finding ways to introduce it to our children.

There is so much evil in our society today, and it is getting worse with each passing month.

Thanks to years of extreme social decay, the streets of our major cities are now literally teeming with predators.

So if you live in one of our major cities, you will want to be very careful before you step outside your home.

Because you never know who may be there to greet you…

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1585644569235857408
.14 min

If you love America, you should be completely disgusted by what is happening to our country.

What do you think our founders would say if they could see what our cities have become?

Needless to say, they would be deeply ashamed of us.

And we should be deeply ashamed of ourselves, because we should have never allowed ourselves to sink so low.

^^^^
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMQVu26-nIg
6:37 min

'City of a Thousand': Ep. 1 Downtown Phoenix's tent city explodes at alarming rate​

May 11, 2022


FOX 10 Phoenix

^^^^^
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tF5DzLWwcw
47:09 min

How Progressives Ruined San Francisco: Michael Shellenberger​

ReasonTV

^^^^^
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4khdRXXuRs
10:21 min

Los Angeles, Homeless 2022, Skid Row​



MR. OWEN CALIFORNIA
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Massive Caravans Are Heading for the US, Includes MS-13
By M Dowling -October 28, 20226

Guatemalan Interior Minister Napoleon Barrientos warned that massive migrant caravans are heading for the US border. He said the surge of migrants is due, in part, to fears that Republicans may take back control of Congress and push for tougher measures aimed at curbing illegal migration.

Speaking with the Daily Caller, Barrientos said that Guatemalan authorities “have information that caravans will be coming in the next few weeks, particularly before the date of November 8,” adding that they are conducting operations within the country to “stop the flow migration.”

He added that illegal aliens in the caravans are basing their decisions on “information … that after [November 8], policies will be hardened.” In other words, they know Joe has open borders but the GOP does not.

Barrientos explained that while Guatemalan law enforcement has partnered with Mexico to target their shared border, there hasn’t been much success stemming the flow from Honduras to the south, where migrants are heading north in droves.

As Charlie Kirk said, this is the “Californication of America.” If these people aren’t sent back, they will soon vote for Democrats because they’re dependents, communists, terrorists, or criminals. That’s the Democrat base now.

MS-13 Has Infiltrated Massive Caravan Coming to US Right Now 5:01 min
MS-13 Has Infiltrated Massive Caravan Coming to US Right Now
Bannons War Room Published October 30, 2021

People are dying, and Democrats don’t care.

1667020981955.png

Drugs are pouring in, and Democrats don’t care.

1667021037401.png

Democrats are making us into the Third World.

The Californication of America 4:45 min

]Welcome to Joe Biden's America; a land of unity. And by that they really mean "conformity." With the thinnest voting margin in Congress in 100 years, the Democrats have embarked on their plan for iron-fisted rule. From unprecedented welfare expansion disguised as a COVID relief bill to opening the border to 120,000 illegal aliens in Biden's first 100 days, to a voting rights bill that destroys our voting system, Mark reveals where the country is headed: a tyrannical state where Democrats rule forever.]
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Killing Americans with impunity: China’s ‘unrestricted warfare’ deploys covid, fentanyl​

by WorldTribune Staff, October 26, 2020

The communist regime in China is killing Americans with fentanyl, an analyst noted.

Gordon Chang related in an Oct. 21 analysis for Gatestone Institute just how destructive the drug is in the U.S.

“At the end of 2017, a friend in Maryland’s Anne Arundel County stood outside a church in Severna Park. There, he watched teenage girls and boys, all dressed in black, walk down the front steps of the local funeral home, the girls all in tears, hanging onto each other, and the boys, staring blankly away. Then came the parents, still in shock,” Chang wrote.

Chang’s friend said: “You know and I know what it was. Somebody was burying their child and somebody else — somebody in China — was counting money.”

Americans “are under attack,” Chang wrote. “The attackers are from China, their sword is fentanyl, and deaths are the result of maliciousness in the Chinese capital.”

Chang said his friend recently left this message: “There are a few old heroin addicts, but I don’t know of any old fentanyl addicts.”

Tucker Carlson noted on his Oct. 16 Fox News broadcast: “I’m not alleging any kind of conspiracy, I suppose, but just the plain facts of it: fentanyl and covid both came from China, China’s our main rival, they’re benefiting from the deaths of many thousands of Americans.”

The communist regime in China “is indeed killing Americans with fentanyl,” Chang noted. “It is doing so deliberately. Carlson was right to suggest intentionality.”

There were a record 70,980 overdose deaths in the U.S. last year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Of those deaths, 36,500, were from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. Cocaine and methamphetamine fatalities were also up, largely because these substances were mixed with fentanyl.

There is no doubt where fentanyl comes from.

“Since 2013, China has been the principal source of the fentanyl flooding the U.S. illicit drug market — or of the precursor agents from which fentanyl is produced, often in Mexico,” reports Vanda Felbab-Brown of the Brookings Institution.

In April 2019, at the behest of the Trump administration, China announced a ban on the production, sale, and export of fentanyl-class substances without authorization.

But analysts have pointed out that the new rules are hard to administer.

“The enforcement challenge,” the Brookings report said, “is formidable since China’s pharmaceutical and chemical industries involve tens of thousands of firms and hundreds of thousands of facilities, and China lacks adequate inspection and monitoring capacity.”

The implication that criminal gangs can operate in the shadows in China “is highly debatable,” Chang noted. “For one thing, the Communist Party, through its cells, controls every business of any consequence.”

“Moreover,” Chang added, “the Chinese central government operates what is undoubtedly the world’s most sophisticated set of social controls. Using big data and artificial intelligence, tens of thousands of government watchers surveil 1.4 billion people with approximately 626 million surveillance cameras and tens of millions of neighborhood monitors and Communist Party cadres.

Beijing tightly controls the banking system and knows of money transfers instantaneously.”

Fentanyl cannot leave China undetected, Chang noted, “as virtually all shipped items are examined before departing Chinese soil.”

Jonathan Bass, CEO of importer PTM Images, told Gatestone that authorities inspect and seal every container leaving China. Fentanyl is often sent to the U.S. by mail, which means the Chinese state, through the National Postal Service of China, is the distributor.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, based on data from its Operation Mega Flex “blitz” inspections, learned that 13 percent of packages from China contain some form of contraband, including fentanyl and other deadly substances.

“China’s postal service has to know that it has become, among other things, the world’s busiest drug mule,” Chang wrote.

The communist regime “will stop at nothing to increase the relative power of their regime,” Chang noted, adding that supreme leader Xi Jinping’s regime “is using criminality as an instrument of state policy.”

Xi’s regime, Chang noted, “has adopted the doctrine of ‘Unrestricted Warfare’, explained in a 1999 book of the same name by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui.

The thesis of the authors, both Chinese Air Force colonels, is that China should not be bound by any rules or agreements in its attempt to take down the United States.”

“The combination of China’s relentless desire to increase its relative strength and the belief that no tactic is out of bounds means Beijing sees fentanyl as a weapon,” Chang wrote.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Gone too soon: Fentanyl flowing from China​

Fentanyl is either shipped to the US directly via international mail or shipped via Mexico.

By Liz Friden , Jennifer Griffin | Fox News

Video on website 2:48 min

Daniel Puerta-Johnson was an introverted and kind teenager.

His friends would often go to him for relationship advice, Daniel’s father, Jaime Puerta, told Fox News. Daniel was 16 years old during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when he reached out to a drug dealer on Snapchat.

It was March 2020, and Daniel was battling depression. He was seeking an oxycodone pill to self-medicate.

Jaime thought it was suspicious when Daniel asked to walk the dog one day.

In hindsight, Puerta said, Daniel was getting what the teen thought was oxycodone.

But, at dinner a few hours later, all seemed normal to Jaime. The two had a lovely evening together, Jaime recalled. Daniel hugged his father and gave him a kiss on the cheek before saying goodnight just as he had always done.

The next morning, Jaime found Daniel dead is his bedroom. His only son had died of a fentanyl overdose. Jamie was one of 70,000 Americans killed between December 2020 and December 2021, many of them children under 18 like Daniel who tried a pill laced with fentanyl for the first time.

"He was just an innocent kid. He made one dumb decision, and he died. Daniel didn't deserve to die. We're not supposed to bury our children," Puerta told Fox, heartbroken over his son's sudden death.

Puerta, a former U.S. Marine, is president of an organization that advocates for victims like Daniel. He spreads awareness so other parents are spared the experience of losing a child as he did. His organization is called Victims Of Illicit Drugs, known as VOID.

Some experts contend the fentanyl problem has become a national security issue involving state-sponsored attacks.

Puerta agrees that it is.

"Is this a way of China attacking our democracy? I would think so. There's so much fentanyl right now in this country that it's enough to kill every single man, woman and child in the United States," Puerta said.

China remains the primary source of fentanyl, a drug that kills more than 100 people in the U.S. every day. The Drug Enforcement Administration says China remains the primary global source of fentanyl for the world.

Two techniques are used to deliver the drug to the U.S. It is either shipped to the U.S. directly via international mail or shipped via Mexico. In some cases, Chinese sellers label these deadly drug shipments with Spanish-language advertisements to help clear customs. U.S. lawmakers say the crime syndicates in China operate with the knowledge of the Communist Party.

Through March 15, 2022, the Montana Highway Patrol had seized 12,079 fentanyl pills, more than three times the total for 2021. (Fox News)
Once in Mexico, traffickers take the fentanyl to clandestine labs and try to dilute it, often times with imprecise measurements and equipment. It’s then smuggled across the border into the U.S., where they are already partnered with distribution networks. At the end of the supply chain are money laundering networks, set up to get these deadly drugs into the hands of America's unsuspecting youth.

"The Chinese Communist Party is involved in just about everything economically, business-wise, coming out of China, and you have Chinese scientists that have partnered up with the cartels," Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn, told Fox.

Blackburn has teamed up with Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., to sponsor the bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act of 2022. Advocates say the U.S. government needs to view this in terms of national security.

"Fentanyl isn't being sold in any other country in the world other than the United States and Canada," Gretchen Peters, executive director of the Alliance to Counter Crime Online, told Fox. "It's flooding into these countries and, at first, I thought it was an exaggeration that this was in some way state sponsored. Now, I'm not so sure."

In August 2021, the State Department offered a $5 million reward for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of People’s Republic of China national Zhang Jian, the leader of the alleged Zhang Drug Trafficking Organization in China.

Between 2013 and 2016, with Zhang acting as principal leader and organizer, the criminal organization imported and distributed fentanyl into the U.S., leading to overdose deaths of four Americans in North Dakota, Oregon, North Carolina and New Jersey, according to the Justice Department. It also led to serious health issues for five other Americans.

China officially banned the production of fentanyl in 2019 under pressure from the Trump administration, pushing the Chinese drug manufacturers into Mexico, which is now a key part of the supply chain.

According to Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, the selling price for an M30 fentanyl pill in Montana is nearly six times the selling price of the same pill in other cities across the country.

According to Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, the selling price for an M30 fentanyl pill in Montana is nearly six times the selling price of the same pill in other cities across the country. (Fox News )

The Chinese Embassy pushed back in a statement from its spokesperson.

"These assertions are highly irresponsible and utterly false," the spokesperson said. "Up to now, China has not found any scheduled precursor chemicals trafficked to Mexico or received any notification from the Mexican side about seizing scheduled chemicals originating from China.

"Such made-up allegations show zero sense of responsibility towards American fentanyl abuse victims and their families and seriously mislead the Chinese and American people."

Jaime Puerta suggests parents pay more attention to what their kids do on social media and to talk to them about it often.

"All we need to do is make one bad decision and you're dead. And that's unfathomable. It's unconscionable. And I believe that our government has to do something about this immediately," Puerta said.

He wants Daniel to be remembered as a beautiful old soul.

"All he wanted to do was good in this world," Puerta said. "That's all he wanted to do. He just wanted to graduate on stage with his friends. He wanted to go and pursue a college education in systems engineering. He wanted to spend a lot of time with his girlfriend. He wanted to build himself a nice life. And that's all gone. It was all gone in the second. And now we have to deal with the consequences."
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Oops: The federal government (illegally) gave China this $15 million technology… for free

Opinion
Real Clear Politics
October 28, 2022

The U.S. Department of Energy illegally gave China $15 million in taxpayer-funded, groundbreaking technology for a powerful rechargeable battery used for grid energy storage.

It took six years and more than $15 million from taxpayers to develop a vanadium redox flow battery that scientists thought could power a house and could be charged and recharged for up to 30 years, according to an investigation by NPR and the Northwest News Network.

But the DOE gave the technology to the Chinese in 2017 as part of a sublicence, and in 2021 as part of a license transfer.

UniEnergy Technologies’ engineers were building off work that a team of scientists had done in a government lab in Washington State in 2006, costing $15 million.

But the company was forced to shutter, and the batteries are now manufactured by a company in Dalian, China.

Another company, Forever Energy, had been trying unsuccessfully to get a license to manufacture the batteries, being put off by the DOE for more than a year, NPR reported.

“The federal agency allowed the technology and jobs to move overseas, violating its own licensing rules while failing to intervene on behalf of U.S. workers in multiple instances,” NPR reported.

The DOE didn’t explain why it allowed this to happen and is doing an internal review of vanadium battery technology licensing and whether that license has violated American manufacturing requirements.

Now, U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) have demanded answers from DOE Inspector General Teri Donaldson, who has agreed to conduct a full investigation into the matter.

While the DOE says it ended the contract after NPR asked questions about the Chinese license, the lawmakers want assurance that it never happens again.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment

Civil Society Collapses With No Diesel Fuel

OCTOBER 28, 2022 1 COMMENT
By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

The Biden Green agenda will soon destroy the nation, there is no dispute. Having a war on fossil fuel is one thing but being so derelict when it comes to diesel is destructive beyond description. It is also evil and deadly to citizens, businesses, and national security.

In 2021, the Biden White House published a trucking fact sheet endorsing the trucking industry. But it omits the real issues facing the industry and that includes regulations and the ridiculously high cost of diesel.

There was to be some kind of a listening session. In part: DOL and DOT will kick off listening sessions with drivers, industry and labor leaders, and advocates to hear their perspectives, profile promising practices, and source scalable solutions to retention and job quality issues for truckers. The first events in this series are happening today in South Carolina with Secretary Buttigieg, Deputy Administrator Joshi, and representatives from DOL and at the White House co-chaired by Secretary Buttigieg, Secretary Walsh, and National Economic Council Director Deese.

Now, facing November with the midterm elections and the coming holidays… the White House is flat-footed on the diesel crisis.

View: https://youtu.be/KWPLOY3Egks
1:20 min

The Biden administration says it is keeping a close watch on diesel inventories and working to boost supplies following news that reserves have been depleted and could run out in less than a month if not replenished, sparking fears of shortages and rising prices.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported this week that, as of Oct. 14, the U.S. had only 25 days of reserve diesel supply, a low not seen since 2008. National Economic Council Director Brian Deese acknowledged to Bloomberg that the level is “unacceptably low,” and “all options are on the table” to address the situation.

The EIA also said that distillate fuel includes heating oil inventories and is about 20% below the five-year average for this time of year. But areas in the Northeast are already rationing heating oil as temperatures drop, driving concerns that energy costs will surge further. source

Diesel fuel is used for many tasks

Diesel engines in trucks, trains, boats, and barges help transport nearly all products people consume. Diesel fuel is commonly used in public buses and school buses.

Diesel fuel powers most of the farm and construction equipment in the United States. The construction industry also depends on the power diesel fuel provides. Diesel engines can do demanding construction work, such as lifting steel beams, digging foundations and trenches, drilling wells, paving roads, and moving soil safely and efficiently.

The U.S. military uses diesel fuel in tanks and trucks because diesel fuel is less flammable and less explosive than other fuels. Diesel engines are also less likely to stall than gasoline-fueled engines.

Diesel fuel is also used in diesel engine generators to generate electricity. Many industrial facilities, large buildings, institutional facilities, hospitals, and electric utilities have diesel generators for backup and emergency power supply. Most remote villages in Alaska use diesel generators as the primary source of electricity. source

The US economy cannot run and sustain itself without the essential work of truck drivers. Their deliveries affect every industry we depend on like food, construction, medicine, fuel, and retail. Apart from day-to-day needs, truck drivers ensure first responders and healthcare workers have the tools they need to save lives. more here

(Note: The Biden Admin. is all about the US increasing supplies to Europe while not answering the question of shortages of diesel and home heating oil at home. I guess it is that "Rules based order" thing - not that nasty "America First" policy.)
 
Top