Cartoon of the Year, by Tim Blair.
Johannes Leak’s cartoon on the Boris Johnson letterbox controversy is funny. Very funny. And that’s the most important thing.
Cartoon of the Year, by Tim Blair.
Johannes Leak’s cartoon on the Boris Johnson letterbox controversy is funny. Very funny. And that’s the most important thing.
How the Left Is Outsourcing Censorship of the Internet, by John Hinderaker.
Liberals control every newspaper in America, as far as I know, except the Manchester Union Leader. They control CBS, ABC, NBC and every cable network except Fox News. They control what is left of the news magazines, and pretty much every other magazine, too. Only talk radio and the pesky internet lie outside their grasp, so that is where they seek to impose censorship.
But they have a problem: the First Amendment. The government can’t suppress conservative speech on the ground that it is “hate speech,” i.e., something that liberals don’t like. That was recently reaffirmed by a 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court.
So liberals have outsourced censorship of the internet to the tech titans of Silicon Valley.
Unfortunately, most political conversation these days occurs not on the “free” internet, where independent sites like Power Line reside, but rather on social media–Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and so on. Other players include Google (in its search capacity), Apple, Pinterest, Spotify, etc. Happily — if you are a leftist — all of these tech companies are run by liberals. And because they are private companies, they are not constrained by the First Amendment. They can restrict or ban conservative communications on the ground that they are “hate speech,” or on no grounds whatsoever, with impunity.
And that is exactly what they are doing….
Any claim by the Left that companies aligned with it are merely cleansing themselves of disreputable content would be absurd. First, PragerU is among the most reputable content on the internet. Second, they have taken no action against left-wing extremists like the fascist Antifa, which disseminates its hate speech freely on every social media platform I am aware of.
The Left’s attempt to outsource censorship to its Silicon Valley allies is one of the most important issues of our time. The proper solution may lie in creating competitive platforms, or in legislative, regulatory or judicial action. Perhaps platforms fitting a particular legal definition should be regulated as public utilities. After all, Federal Express doesn’t refuse to deliver packages to the National Review office on the ground that they may contain conservative communications, and telephone companies haven’t tried to cut off connections when two conservatives are talking. Why should Facebook, Twitter and YouTube be permitted to engage in political discrimination?
China: The Russian Front, by Jim Dunnigan.
Russia is trying to cope with the fact that the newly (for the first time in history) modernized Chinese forces are a long-term threat to Russia. In China, there is lots of new gear and plenty to go around. China has a more effective economy and lots more money. Worst of all for Russia there are many ways to weaponize wealth. Examples abound in far eastern Russia and that is most unwelcome with most Russians.
The threat became very real recently when Russia offered for sale or lease a million hectares (2.5 million acres) of unused (abandoned after the Soviet Union collapse in the 1990s) farmland in the Russian Far East. Foreign nations can participate and China is expected to buy up 500,000 hectares (with South Korea and Japan talking over 200,000 hectares). Local Russians protested and pointed out that this would mean more Chinese allowed in to run the new farms and danger to other farms and water supplies because Chinese farming methods rely on the heavier use of pesticides and fertilizer. The Russian government, eight time zones to the west, paid little attention to the complaints.
Chinese entrepreneurs have quietly taken control of the local economy in those parts of Russia that border China and North Korea. … China has a historical claim on this area, claims which China revived after World War II when the communists took over China. Those revived claims led to border skirmishes during the 1970s that were halted when Russia made it clear it was prepared to risk nuclear war over the issue. That Russian policy still stands, although it is not publicized.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and the Russian economy went free market and open to foreign trade and investment China saw an opportunity to get back its lost lands in the Russian Far East. The plan is for China to slowly absorb the Russian Far East economically and demographically (with more Chinese settling in the Russian Far East, legally or otherwise.) Eventually, Russia finds that Chinese comprise most of the population in their far eastern provinces and control the economy as well. This approach takes longer but is less likely to trigger a nuclear war with Russia. …
Meanwhile, the most potent threat to Russia is internal. The corruption has been much more extensive than in China and, in comparison to China, Russia has been a much more difficult place to start and profitably run any kind of enterprise. That is one reason why Russian shipbuilding (both military and commercial) is considered below par while Chinese efforts are world class and a major part of the much larger Chinese economy. Same with most defense firms in China.
The greater corruption in Russia not only drives more of the local talent out of the country but also a lot of new wealth. China created all of its new wealth with a rapidly developing and expanding local economy and that persuades many talented Chinese expatriates to return. Chinese who made money preferred to invest it in China. In contrast, much more of the new wealth in Russia (largely because of oil exports) was stolen and illegally moved outside Russia.
The Science Behind the Roundup Lawsuit, by Steven Novella.
On August 10th a California jury awarded Dewayne Johnson $289 million dollars in damages against the company Monsanto (now owned by Bayer). The decision was based on the claim that Johnson (a greenskeeper) developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma because of his exposure to Roundup, an herbicide that contains the active ingredient glyphosate that was developed by Monsanto.
The decision will almost certainly be appealed, and is being widely criticized because it is not in line with the science. There is a long history of juries awarded damages based on flimsy science.
Dow Corning famously filed for bankruptcy following class action law suits for alleged damages due to silicone breast implants, while the science was still preliminary. The claim was that the breast implants were causing auto-immune disease, which the manufacturer denied. Juries found the women sympathetic, however, and companies rarely appear sympathetic in such trials. …
It seems we have a similar situation with Roundup and cancer, except the meta-analysis was published before the huge jury award, rather than after. The wrinkle here is that this and other lawsuits were likely sparked in part by the WHO decision in 2015 to classify glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen”. That decision was an outlier, however, and was immediately criticized. Several independent reviews of the WHO decision concluded that the decision was in error, and that the totality of evidence does not support the conclusion that there is any link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkins lymphoma specifically, or any cancer. …
According to reports of the case, Johnson’s attorney had to overcome the actual science showing glyphosate is safe and not associated with cancer. He did this by claiming that Roundup as a whole may cause cancer, even though glyphosate alone does not. While not impossible, this is an implausible claim that is still lacking in evidence. This was an act of simply moving the goalpost to avoid the more definitive scientific evidence. The ploy worked. …
Glyphosate is demonstrably far less toxic than the alternative herbicides. If glyphosate is banned, or rendered unusable because of unfair lawsuits and unscientific jury verdicts, an important agricultural option will be eliminated – not because of science or because it’s the right thing, but out of fear and ignorance.
Reasonable people can argue and disagree about the optimal role of glyphosate and other herbicides in agriculture, and that is not the point of this article. But agricultural decisions should be based on a consensus view of the science, not the emotions of 12 jurors who clearly wanted to punish Monsanto regardless of what the science says.
The whole thing has a sort of lefty vibe to it. It follows the (left’s) truthiness and comes to the PC conclusion, rather than sticking to the data. Much like the carbon dioxide theory of global warming.
Any time we see a politician fail, or an idiotic policy collapse as it passes through parliament — which these days seems like a regular occurrence — we are left with a familiar feeling. That this screw-up is the result of a chancer at work. Someone who has, at the very best, a shallow understanding of the country they’re trying to govern. Someone who knew how to come up with a headline-grabbing idea, and how to make it sound convincing and radical — but didn’t ever have the faintest idea how to implement it. …
The glib rise to the top, while the brightest and most competent are systematically excluded. This is not, to use the left’s favorite word, sustainable.
We have become a nation run by people whose knowledge extends a mile wide but an inch deep; who know how to grasp the generalities of any topic in minutes, and how never to bother themselves with the specifics. Who place their confidence in their ability to talk themselves out of trouble, rather than learning how to run things carefully. And who were trained in this dubious art as teenagers: often together on the same university course. …
The way we educate the people who will enter public life, the way our career structures work, and the institutions themselves that we have built — from parliament to the civil service to the political press gallery — all favour the bluffers. …
As a result, top politicians of both parties end up spinning arguments they often barely understand and certainly don’t mean. The supposed watchdogs — political journalists — are often just as bad. And the crisis of trust in mainstream politics and journalism alike does raise the question of whether the bluffers are being found out. …
Most bluffers are made, not born — and the archetypical bluffer’s degree is, of course, Philosophy, Politics and Economics. It’s taught at a number of universities across the UK, but is most strongly associated with Oxford. Students are marinated in an adversarial university tutorial system which favours the quick thinker over the deep rival. … Those who prosper are not those who possess the deepest knowledge, but who can deliver a clever quip or a leftfield surprise argument. …
Nick Hardwick … once put it well. The civil servants who get on, he said, ‘are those that can write a good minute which gets a minister out of trouble’ rather than ‘those who can run things so they don’t get into trouble in the first place’.
He could have gone further. A first-class bluffer knows how and when to speak in meetings, due to having learnt this skill at private school or Oxbridge. For example: if you don’t know much in a meeting, speak early, while the relatively obvious points are still available to be made. By contrast, if you’ve got a killer detail or argument you think others lack — especially if it could prove decisive — wait until the end, so it sticks with people. This and dozens of other tricks — speaking in the intakes of breath that others leave, knowing when to drop a rhetorical question, knowing just how much research to do — are used to get attention.
The final pillar of the bluffocracy is the media, which is supposed to hold the other two institutions to account. Some of the UK’s most talented journalists work in parliament, but they are — by design — generalists, being asked to report about defence issues one day, and train takeovers the next. This system serves to insulate ministers from questions by subject-matter experts.
I’m pretty certain that’s true throughout the West. The increasing idiocy on display in public affairs is a new phenomenon of the last few decades.
They say people are conservatives in areas they are expert in. Perhaps the simultaneous advent of bluffers, postmodernism and the left’s dominance of public life has something to do with the left’s long march to capture all of the institutions.
hat-tip Stephen Neil
Estimating the Recoverable Reserves of the Recently-Discovered Dorado Oilfield, by David Archibald.
Australia has a security problem concerning liquid fuels. We now import half of the petrol, diesel, aviation turbine fuel, etc. that we consume. Even if we produced as much oil as we consumed, we wouldn’t be able to refine it with only four refineries still operating.
That is why the Dorado oilfield, recently discovered 100 km north of Port Hedland in 80 meters of water, is so promising. …
The total recoverable reserves are estimated to be of the order of 800 million barrels. If anywhere near correct, this field is staggering and truly spectacular. …
Disclosure: David Archibald is a true believer in Carnarvon Petroleum [20% partner in the oilfield]. The purpose of this article is to fill a gap in the public’s understanding of the potential size and implications of the Dorado oil discovery.
Gender, Ethnic Studies Profs. Earn $12K More Annually than Colleagues, by Tom Ciccotta.
A new report suggests that gender and ethnic studies professors [in the US] significantly outearn their colleagues in other departments.
A recently published report from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources suggests that gender and ethnic studies professors considerably outearn their colleagues in other departments. “Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender and Group Studies” earn an average of $105,656 each year. By contrast, the average professor salary across all disciplines is $93,830.
Based on the data, gender and ethnic studies professors earn more than their peers that teach journalism, education, foreign language, English, biology, mathematics, philosophy, theology, and psychology.
Way to go! Money talks! This is the well-funded nest of identity politics and socialism. Indoctrinating students to become activists is obviously more valuable and important work in the eyes of people who run universities than teaching students to build bridges.
Former First Lady Hillary Clinton has praised a young girl who said she was punished by her school after refusing to stand for the US Pledge of Allegiance.
Mariana Taylor, 11, said she was inspired by the NFL kneeling protest to kneel during the daily morning recital.
She claims a teacher violated her legal rights, but the school says it has no record of the alleged incident.
“Keep up the good work Mariana,” Mrs Clinton wrote on Twitter on Wednesday.
“It takes courage to exercise your right to protest injustice, especially when you’re 11!” the former Democratic presidential candidate wrote.
Still at it. Hillary was just the sort of President the US needed while opening its borders to the world and fundamentally transforming itself.
China and the U.S. are set to resume trade talks for the first time since June.
A meeting between the two countries, which would be between lower-level officials than earlier talks, would mark a breach in the standoff that has arisen since talks broke down in the spring. U.S. officials have repeatedly said they were open to new talks but insisted that China had walked away rather than offer serious reform.
hat-tip Scott of the Pacific
Fraser Anning’s ill-articulated concerns are a fight for Australia’s soul, by Sanjeev Sabhlok.
I moved to Australia nearly 18 years ago. … To me Australia represented both a well-governed country and a country that had largely adopted the concepts of liberty and rule of law: concepts that underpin the idea of Western civilization, also known as liberalism. …
But I am also keenly aware of Australia’s rapid drift to the left. The foundations of liberty that attracted me to Australia are being rapidly eroded – not so much by any “blacks” but by “white” leftists.
My concerns are similar in some way to those of Fraser Anning, but the confusions in his speech made the media lose the bigger picture – the defence of Western civilisation that he was talking about. A careful review of Anning’s speech suggests that he was basically defending the foundational ethic of Australia as a Western liberal democracy.
He did not even remotely suggest that anyone be exterminated. All he suggested with regard to immigration was a plebiscite. If the media can’t understand the difference between the two, then something has gone seriously wrong with basic English education in this country. …
I consider myself more “Western” (as a firm promoter of critical thinking and liberty) than most Australians. In fact, not many people are aware that the core ideas of liberty, tolerance and good economic policy first arose 2500 years ago in India and spread, through Greece, to the West. It is a tragedy that India has by now long forgotten its roots – perhaps driven by the kinds of collectivist forces that are now beginning to take roots in Australia. Collectivism always finds a way to crush liberty. And then only the rubble and ruins remain. …
I am concerned about the concept of multiculturalism by which “ethnic” groups are specially funded by taxpayers to maintain their culture. I cannot agree with my taxes going towards funding even Indian cultural societies and groups to which I belong. No one must get any special favours from the government on grounds of their “race” or culture. Let Indians who want to maintain their culture do so with their own money.
The opinion forming class condemned Anning in no uncertain terms, falling over themselves to signal their virtue by damning his suggestion on halting Muslim immigration. The usual vitriol ensued.
Yet 49% of Australians support a ban on Muslim immigration and 40% are opposed to a ban. Clearly Australia’s ruling class deplore and rather dislike at least half of Australians. I wonder if the objects of their scorn have noticed? I wonder how they will vote?
Critics of a ‘racist White Australia policy’ have it all wrong, by Sherry Sufi.
Many critics are suggesting that Anning wants to drag us back to the inglorious days of the so-called White Australia policy. …
We can never return to the White Australia policy because there never really was one. …
There is a difference between what those policies were and what their present-day critics make them out to be. And in an age when emotional over-reaction has become a substitute for logical debate, we must understand that difference.
Outside the transcripts of parliamentary debates, the only primary source for analysis concerning the White Australia policy is Myra Willard, an award-winning student who went on to publish the only contemporaneous account of the policy in 1923, titled A History of White Australia Policy to 1920.
Willard notes: “In the formation of their policy the leaders of the people were not actuated by any idea of the inferiority of the mindset or physique of the excluded peoples. It seemed to them that the dissimilarity of their development and, consequently, of their outlook and training, would cause a body of resident Asiatics to be fatal to progress along the lines that seemed best to Australians.”
In a similar vein, historian Keith Windschuttle points out that almost all contemporary historians have drawn exaggerated comparisons with other xenophobic regimes, such as the South African apartheid government or the German Third Reich.
But there never was a White Australia Bill, let alone a White Australia Act. The invented label colloquially refers to three concurrent pieces of legislation enacted at the time of Federation in 1901. These are the Immigration Restriction Act, the Pacific Island Labourers Act and the Post and Telegraph Act.
The policy involved a “dictation test” for new entrants. Its underlying motivation was to enable the newly federated nation to manage its economy in a way that ensured the preservation of its British character.
Some MPs did support the policy for reasons that would appear xenophobic to the contemporary observer. Labor leader Chris Watson and Protectionist prime minister Edmund Barton are examples. But most MPs who supported the policy did so for economic and cultural reasons rather than due to blatant racial prejudice. Contemporary historians have tended to quote selectively from those few MPs who held racially prejudiced beliefs, which is misleading.
The majority opinion in parliament is summed up in Tasmanian MP Donald Cameron’s little-known words: “It appears that two-thirds of the honourable members of this house really object to the Chinese, not so much on the ground of the possible contamination of the white race, as because they fear that if they are allowed to come into Australia the rate of wages will go down.” It’s true that unskilled labourers earned £6 a fortnight at the time when foreign workers were paid £6 a year working on sugar plantations.
The debate over the Immigration Restriction Bill lasted months and featured contributions from prominent MPs. It stretches across 600 pages of Hansard comprising more than a half-million words. Windschuttle contends that Cameron’s statement is the most accurate estimate of the prevailing parliamentary opinion in those times. He points out that “not one of the historians of race in Australia has ever quoted it before”.
Our Ruling Class is simply desperate to repress awareness of their Election of A New People until it’s too late. …
The CNN-led intifada against Jones … would have been unthinkable a few years ago. … because Alex Jones wasn’t a threat to the egalitarian cabal ruling Main Stream Media journalism, dictating what can and can’t be discussed.
Spend your time talking about whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not on 9/11 or if black helicopters are flying all around us ready to implement the New World Order (NWO) agenda, or what’s actually happening when the Bilderberg Group meet, and you run no risk of attracting the censors of the Powers-That-Be.
Alex Jones sending his audience of disaffected, socially awkward white males down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories, from what happened at Sandy Hook to what really transpires during the rituals at Bohemian Grove, represented endless distractions for otherwise highly intelligent people, occupying their mind while simultaneously reinforcing the notion they are powerless against the omnipotent NWO. …
Alex Jones’ truly explosive growth, leading to his hosting Trump on his show, was tied directly with his taming down the conspiracy theories and embracing the National Question — the consequences of mass non-white immigration into the USA, the migrant/refugee invasion of Europe and the crime it creates, as well discussing the consequences of black-rule in South Africa for the white minority. …
Alex Jones’ banning is clearly the precursor to the push to ban more and more Politically Incorrect patriot sites from social media. …
Social media must be sanitized because professional journalists have already answered the National Question. In their eyes, white people must not be allowed to discuss their displacement in Europe or notice what’s happening via massive immigration into the USA.
What scares them the most — and is the reason behind the CNN crusade against Jones — is this: Alex Jones was once a useful idiot for the elite, utilizing his radio show and website to discuss conspiracies that, in the end, don’t matter and worse, leave his listeners powerless to change their fate. But the election of Donald Trump showed us that when Alex Jones switched gears and focused on the National Question, his army of listeners were powerful enough to change history.
This is why they targeted Alex Jones: because he was motivating millions to get involved and challenge the open conspiracy of the Ruling Class and corporate journalists to — paraphrasing Barack Obama — fundamentally transform America.
The Legacies of Robert Mueller’s Investigations, by Victor Davis Hanson.
Some 450 days ago we were treated to melodramatic announcements from the media about the start-up of Robert Mueller’s “dream” and “all-star” team.
Reporters gushed in the general hysteria of the times that Mueller would no doubt soon indict President Trump, some of his family, and almost anyone else in his campaign — and therefore end the Trump aberration.
Press puff pieces highlighted the résumés of his superstars — of Lisa Page … , Peter Strzok … and a host of other pros, who were all shortly to prove Trump-Russian “collusion.”
Although that Mueller mandate of collusion was never formally defined, much less explained as a criminal offense, the media salivated at the idea that Mueller’s whiz kids nonetheless were going to find it and no doubt thereby usher in impeachment.
Now we have gone from melodrama to bathos.
The supposed high drama of election sabotage has descended into leveraging Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen and then outsourcing him and his baggage to federal prosecutors. The FBI, having seized from his home and office his stealthily recorded and secret tapes of his own alleged lawyer-client conversations with Trump, now hope to find therein something, anything, untoward with which they can accuse and damage the president.
Paul Manafort is to be exposed for what most already knew he was, a high-flying wheeler-dealer and influence-peddler along the lines of his Clintonite doppelganger, Tony Podesta. Mueller’s team at some point presumably will embarrass Trump concerning his Cohen-arranged hush deals about an alleged fling a decade earlier with a playboy bunny.
What was billed as an investigation into high intrigue with the Kremlin, has now devolved into questions surrounding one Stormy Daniels and Paul Manafort’s blue ostrich jacket. Quite a come down. …
Studiously ignoring the real collusion:
Mueller originally was appointed due to the contrived leaks from the Steele dossier — a misnamed document that was more likely cobbled together by Glenn Simpson and his wife of Fusion GPS for purposes of destroying Donald Trump’s candidacy and then presidency. …
Mueller’s lawyers show little concern for whether Christopher Steele himself colluded with Russians to find his dirt, or whether Hillary Clinton’s hiring of Fusion GPS and Steele constituted a sort of Russian collusion in and of itself …
Mueller’s testament thus far will be one of willful blindness: he saw nothing ethically or legally wrong, or dangerous to the republic, in a bought and fictional dossier that fueled both his own reason to be, and in various ways was central to an historic government effort to surveille, to infiltrate, to undermine, and to discredit a political campaign first—and later to derail an elected presidency.
Turkey will almost certainly be the largest EM default of all time, should it resort to capital controls as your analyst expects, but it could also be the largest bankruptcy of all time given the difficulty of its creditors in recovering any assets. …
The loss of hundreds of billions of assets recently considered liquid by global financial institutions, through the de facto debt moratorium of capital controls, will be a huge shock to the global financial system. This is a different type of default and its nature, as well as its magnitude, will blindside financial institutions. …
Be in no doubt that President Erdogan has more than something of the Chavez about him. Surely we have learned, through bitter experience, that relying on discounted cash flow calculations in Excel spreadsheets is a meaningless form of analysis when a Chavez stalks the land. … History is full of those whose ability to pay is well measured, even to more than one decimal place, but who chose not to repay their obligations. To steal once again from Hamlet, ‘one may smile, and smile, and be a villain’, and you can’t capture that in a spreadsheet. … History is littered with numerous examples of those who could pay but have chosen not to pay, and a historian who points out these facts commits apostasy in the eyes of the keepers of the spreadsheets.
One wonders why investors expect President Erdogan, a man who has referred to them as like the loan sharks who enslaved the Ottoman Empire, to choose to repay the foreigner and accept the crushing socio-political cost on the local population of doing so?
Even if Turkish institutions have the ability to pay, something your analyst has long doubted, the President will forbid them from doing so. This is a large default and it will prove to be almost a total default.
It matters and, of course, it may be politically expedient for others to follow the advice of Paul Krugman and the IMF and choose not to repay their debt obligations to foreigners. This is the new normal. In a world where ten years of extreme monetary policy has failed to inflate away debts, it will become increasingly common to repudiate those debts. Those under the most pressure will be those with the highest levels of foreign currency debt where inflation can play no role in reducing increasingly crushing debt burdens – almost exclusively emerging markets.
What we are seeing at the moment is a rising US dollar as countries and investors scramble for US dollars to pay interest and pay back loans, or a flight to safety out of emerging markets. When and if the defaults hit, they might be of sufficient magnitude to threaten the financial viability of the web of Western banks.
The bigger picture emerging:
For the past few years professional investors have fretted about the implications of something widely referred to as ‘populism’. This, it seems, is a developed world phenomenon. While others see populism, all your analyst sees are sovereign peoples trying to bring power back to their elected representatives. This is a movement to strip power from multi-national organisations (the EU, WTO), multi-national corporations, independent central banks and any other body that has stripped sovereignty from elected representatives over the past three decades. That is an exercise in democracy that may well be bad for returns on, and of, capital but it is a constitutional swing within the rule of law.
Investors, focused as they are on the sanctity of the spreadsheet, often forget that the sacred numbers have no meaning if there is a breakdown in the rule of law and thus your right to collect your coupons, dividends and ultimately your principal. So while the fretting about so-called ‘ populism’ in the developed world continues, investors choose to ignore the retreat of the rule of law and the rise of the rule of man across the emerging markets – Turkey, Romania, Hungary, Poland, China, the Philippines, Mexico – to name just a few of the countries where the laws that protect the cash flows in those spreadsheets are likely waning as rule by man waxes.
The move by Turkey to repudiate de facto its debt obligations will reveal the truth about populism: it is red in tooth and claw in emerging markets because it is there that title to assets and their cash flows have limited constitutional protection.
We’re In The Exact Same Spot We Were In August 2008, by Bob Moriarty. The financial doom-mongers are out in force today.
This thing in Turkey is a lot more serious than people realize, the entire world is on the edge of a precipice financially. The world is awash in debt and the piper has just come to the door saying that he needs to be paid. …
We know that every country in the world is bankrupt and we just kicked a hornet’s nest in Turkey. To blame it all on Turkey is just rubbish, and it could have major impacts upon Spanish and French banks that have gotten involved in Turkey in the last decade.
Meanwhile, in China the peer-to-peer banking system is crashing and it’s turning out to be similar to bitcoin because most of it is fraud. Now whether the absolute crash happens in September, October, or November I don’t know and I don’t really care. …
Gold is an insurance policy against stupidity, and we’ve got more stupidity going on in the world today than I have ever seen in my life. Trump has unleashed something in Turkey that he doesn’t even understand, he just kicked a hornet’s nest and in September or October we’re going to learn about the consequences of twenty years of unlimited spending globally. …
The world is awash in debt and all of that debt is worth about as much as used toilet paper. …
There was a coup d’etat in Turkey in July 2016 and Turkey blamed this coup on a pastor named Gulen who lives in Pennsylvania so Turkey arrested a US pastor in Turkey to put pressure on the United States. Now there’s a real good chance that the American pastor is CIA and that’s why Trump is trying so hard to get him. But we are literally destroying Turkey’s economy in order to retrieve an American pastor. Who gives a shit about this guy?
Now when you’ve got one thousand dominoes stacked up you don’t knock over a single domino because you could collapse the whole thing. Now let me ask you another question, when bank’s advertise that they’ve got a billion dollars in assets what exactly are those assets?
On US politics:
There is a coup d’etat underway by the deep state and it’s plain as day. … The deep state can’t be allowed to undermine a sitting President of the United States. The FBI shouldn’t be allowed to determine who the President is.
Now do the numbers:
So if the West provided entry and maybe social security for any would-be immigrants, by 2100 about 2 BILLION Africans would move to the West. Diversity would be shrinking again, because all the white countries would be black. Progress, eh Mr Blair?
The right would never be elected again, ever. The left would be permanently in power. Socialism! Nirvana! Censorship!
The current population of Nigeria is about 195 million. So, 74% is about 145 million who want to migrate.
The UN projects Nigeria’s population in 2100 to be 794 million. So, 74% of 794 million is, like, a lot.
And that’s one country.
Shhh. These facts are racist!