#how 'b a a a ad' can they be? (destroying all the russian economy) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

militant-holy-knight · 4 years

Text

Tom Kratman’s Caliphate Review: Disturbingly Prophetic

Its easy to forget that outright right-winged/conservative literature actually exists though admittedly it’s hard to find those with actual merit nor enjoy the same popularity as other types of works. I’ve came across one example written by retired US Army soldier Tom Kratman whom you may or may have not heard about if you are familiar with the Sad Puppies incident from 2015, where the Hugo Awards were biased against writers with conservative leanings. Kratman is someone who delights in offending left-wing sensibilities by his own admission and it’s reflected in his works that often deal with themes like fighting Muslim terrorists in sci-fi settings. One such of these works is Caliphate, written in 2008 and it struck me how... prescient this book was about the contemporary times and may well still be for the future.

The premise is as follows: Islamic terrorists seize nuclear weapons and use it to nuke three American cities during September 11 (as well as London and Israel). The American outrage against Muslims spirals into the election of a third-party populist candidate who promises vengeance against this attack, which he does by simultaneously nuking all Islamic countries in the world (and North Korea for good measure). This disaster leads to an massive exodus of Muslims into Europe who migrate there and thanks to their massive birthrates, they are able to hijack countries by voting for hardcore Islamist parties (as democracy must abide by the majority). They transform Europe - or at least Western Europe or the countries associated with the EU - into a Islamic empire, the titular Caliphate which functions like a hybrid of the modern day Islamist regime like the Taliban, ISIS and Boko Haram (public executions, lashings, women can’t be seen outside without being covered), and the Ottoman Empire (conscription and brainwashing of dhimmis into military service).

The story follows two parallel narratives: one in the distant future over a century after the terrorist attack where America has transformed into a totalitarian empire know as ISA (Imperial States of America) which is in cold war against the Caliphate in Europe and a second one set in “present days” when things are relatively normal but then we witness the events quickly fall apart. The first one follows John Hamilton, an disillusioned American soldier who is recruited by the CIA to infiltrate the Caliphate and investigate a trio of Canadian scientists who are working in a virus to destroy America. The second one follows Gabrielle, a liberal German woman that sees the collapse of Europe up close and tying them together is that she is the ancestor of one of the main characters. These narratives are told simultaneously and are always accompanied by critical quotes of Islam in their opening.

You’d think a work like this would be simply “AMERICA FUCK YEAH” and “FUCK ISLAM” over and over, but Kratman actually does a surprising amount of nuance. For one, it’s made clear that this America is really a dystopia and not an ideal place to live, reflected by its actions and Hamilton’s thoughts about it - at one point, US soldiers carry out ethnic cleansing against Moros in the Philippines and Hamilton is disturbed even after someone close to him died because of them. And while the book doesn’t hold back in bashing Islam, not all of them are portrayed as intolerant religious fanatics - there are genuinely good characters and even some grey ones with complexity added to them. For that matter, even non-Muslims can be villains too so it isn’t a black and white kind of work.

A surprising amount of world-building was put in place to make this world interesting: it’s established that the USA has occupied Canada and the Philippines, England has turned into an absolute monarchy, China has become some kind of transhuman empire, only a portion of Europe is actually under the Caliphate control with most of Eastern Europe under Russia control (because of course) and it’s heavily implied Israel has carried out a final solution against Palestinians. This can however can be a detriment because all these interesting paths are presented but never truly explored. We never see how the UK is under the absolute monarchy, nor this Russian tsardom and we only hear whispers about how bad China is in the distant future (which is implied to be worse than the Caliphate). The one that truly does get any exposure is the Neo-Boer State which was established in the southern half of the African continent by European refugees fleeing from Muslims in their own country and has a section of the story taking place there.

Besides Hamilton, there are other viewpoints in the story with the ones after his following German brothers Hans and Petra, two Christian siblings that live in the Caliphate and are taken apart by the devishrme-like system. He becomes a janissary soldier, while she becomes a servant in a Muslim household. Their stories are actually far more compelling than Hamilton since their struggles are more personal while Hamilton wouldn’t be out of place in a video game where he starred as it’s generic Space Marine protagonist. Hans remains a Christian despite his outward conversion to Islam and actively rebels against Caliphate culture which leads to him adopting a crusader identity, while Petra’s storyline explores the woes faced by women under a fundamentalist Islamic regime i.e. not unlike what those who endured Taliban or ISIS regime.

And make no mistake: the story never holds back on the graphic content. There is plenty of violence including impalement, crucifixions, sexual attacks and etc, which may be a turn off for many readers, and it doesn’t help they have to drive home how dystopian this setting is. It may come across as over-the-top as it made me wonder how plausible this Caliphate could even function (it’s established that the Caliphate can only function in a slave-based economy or taxing the dhimmis, which they can’t afford to abuse or exile since they’d collapse). The Arab Peninsula was once unified under Muhammad and his four successors who drove out all Christians, Jews and polytheists from their lands, but then fell into tribalism and stayed that way for centuries with only Mecca and Medina (the only relevant sites of Islam) being controlled by outsider Muslims.

I know I make the story sound unrealistic and fantastical, but the main takeway from this book I had was how prophetic the story was in regards to the current and political atmosphere. Keep in mind that what I am about to write was published in April 2008, in a completely different scenario than the one we live:

The insane American president who nukes the Islamic world is very Trumpesque and shares similar slogans (”WE WILL MAKE THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS PAY”). He is basically what leftists believed Trump would actually do if he was elected like put Muslims in internment camps like the Japanese-Americans in WW2.

Great Britain actually breaks out from the European Union, except under much different circumstances: rather than voting themselves out like Brexit, they turn into an absolute monarchy once again and become completely isolationist.

The rise of an brutal, terrorist regime mirrors the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria that rose to prominence during the Arab Spring in 2011.

A large-scale migration of Middle-Easterns into the West triggered by some kind of disaster, only it was an genocidal attack in the book rather than the consequences of a regional movement that led to the collapse of MENA states with the Arab Spring.

The “present day” narrative also presents scenarios no different than the current reality of Europe with no-go zones where migrants of Muslim background are involved in criminal activity and target the native population as seen in France, Germany and Sweden.

Islamists infiltrating democratic institutions in order to impose their values as seen with many neighbors in Belgium and the Netherlands where Muslims are the majority to the native population.

Russia expanding their control over Eastern Europe mirroring their foreign policy to consolidate their regional superpower status.

China being up to no good with technology.

And of course a deadly virus engineered to destroy political rivals, though this time by rogue scientists working for Muslim terrorists rather than China.

It’s possible that some of Kratman wrote was already true of his time which served as basis for the present day narrative. But reality was much different back then: Obama was yet to become President and Bush was still in office (and nobody had an idea how the former would turn out), China was less despotic then than it’s now under Xi Jinping, the Russo-Georgian War was still to take place and migration to the West was relatively low compared to after the 2015′s refugee crisis, the UKIP was considered a fringe party and the UK leaving the European Union was a distant dream. Nobody was talking about no-go zones, but then again the Internet wasn’t as big back then as it’s now. Rather than writing about the modern political atmosphere of his time, Kratman envisioned a possible future which he predicted fairly closely and at the same time, it spoke about issues that are relevant to anyone who isn’t afraid to speak about the problems regarding Islamic ideology or integration of migrants into their host countries.

What depressed me the most about the book is that it’s dystopian reality may be our own future. It’s an common concern for conservatives and right-wingers that Muslims become a majority in the West - a boast that they never cease making - soon which might lead to an eventual clash of civilizations. A quarter of Belgium might be Islamic and this is possible because of enabling from leftist politicians that flirt with radicals for convenience and consider the values they promote like women and LGBT rights to be an acceptable sacrifice to overthrow conservative capitalism. This kind of behavior is actually acknowledged and mocked by Kratman, as Gabrielle is an radical SJW that hates Western conservatives more than Islamists to the point this leads to the breakdown with her relationship with an Egyptian migrant that converts to Christianity and ends up moving to the USA before becoming a authoritarian regime.

The book presents Islam’s conquest of Europe as a complete surrender without a fight - the migrants just breed like rats and vote for Islamist parties to hijack the government through legitimate means and one American ambassador chides Gabrielle and her people for abandoning their own values and allowing this to happen. This probably speaks a lot to the more cynical among us who see our governments bending over to outsiders over their own people and see where it might be headed. Personally I don’t believe a caliphate is where the future is headed, as it provides no real attractive alternative that the West has presented, but it certainly won’t stop some people from trying and there will be certainly a fight.

Are we really going have to look forward for an revived Ottoman Empire in the heartland of Europe where Christian boys are whipped into slave-soldiers, girls are sold to harems like cheap prostitutes and non-Muslims live like second class citizens being forced to pay outrageous, humiliating taxes like the jizya? Hopefully not, but the possibility of terrorists acquiring nukes is an always constant one, and with the Iranian nuclear program will push it’s neighbors to do the same as form of deterrence if they feel threatened. Knowing how fragile Muslims states are and that if those nukes fell into the wrong hands, the events of the book could be precipitated but luckily for us, nuclear armament is expensive and takes a lot of work which not even the wealthiest countries like Saudi Arabia can afford to develop it themselves, let alone the poorest ones like Syria and Iraq so that might not be a reality just now.

Do I recommend this book? The world is very interesting, it’s actually a bit more complex and nuanced as both sides don’t come off as “bright” (albeit the Caliphate is presented as worse). If you want to see a book that talks about issues you find relevant like immigration and terrorism from a conservative perspective, this is a must-read. The main protagonist can be very dull whereas the secondary protagonists are more compelling - it depends on how much you like military heroes written by an American veteran I guess. While the ending to the main story was satisfying on itself (the present day ends on a sad foregone conclusion), it sets up a sequel with many plot threads going unresolved. It’s disappointing to me since this is a standalone book and Kratman hasn’t indicated any plans on writing a follow-up, though if he did it now I am sure he would have done so without a completely different perspective than the one he has in 2008 and he would have certainly got more material to work with.

P.S. This book has a Skanderbeg reference, so it’s an instant win for me.

#reviews

4 notes · View notes

frenchifries · 4 years

Text

inchresting & informative... (copy-pasted under the readmore)

Rosa Lichtenstein’s answer to “Why did socialism fail in Russia?”

[In what follows I am using "socialist" and "communist" (and their cognates) interchangeably and, in most cases, in conformity with Marx's understanding of those terms]

1) As Marx saw things, communism could only be built in countries capable of producing a massive abundance — the result of a very highly developed economy coupled with high levels of productivity, even if they actually failed to do so because of ‘market forces’. That wasn't the case in the fSU — or, indeed, in China, Cuba, much of E Europe, Vietnam, N Korea, Laos, Cambodia, and now in Venezuela. They were all backward economies or were recovering from war. Socialism can’t exist where there is scarcity; it can only be built on abundance.

[Why that is so will be explained on request.]

So Lenin and the Bolsheviks looked to the massive productive capacity of the German economy to come to the aid of their revolution -- on that, see below.

(2) Equally, if not more important: a communist society can only be built by the working class organised by themselves, acting democratically in their own interests, not relying on anyone else to do it for them. The Russian revolution was initially led by the urban working class (in alliance with the peasantry), but that class was cut to ribbons by WW1, and then all but destroyed as an effective social, political and economic force by the Russian Civil War and the famine that followed. Socialism can’t be built if there is no powerful and politically engaged proletariat (i.e., the urban working class under capitalism).

Why that is so has been explained here:

Why-did-Karl-Marx-believe-that-industrial-workers-would-be-the-ones-leading-the-revolution-not-peasants/answer/Rosa-Lichtenstein

So, Lenin and the Bolsheviks argued that their revolution was doomed unless the revolutions spreading across Europe at that time succeeded (in Hungary and Italy -- but more importantly in Germany). Those revolutions failed for various reasons, and with that the prospects for the Bolshevik revolution nose-dived.

The revolutions in China and Cuba many decades later weren't even proletarian revolutions (howsoever popular they might have been at the time), but were made by guerrilla armies comprised largely of peasants, students, and 'intellectuals', etc. Whatever emerged as a result -- and independently of the aims of those taking part, howsoever well-intentioned they might have been -- could in no way be called Marxist. His version of communism can only be created by the proletariat (again, follow the above link for an explanation).

More-or-less the same can be said about Vietnam (which, despite the rhetoric, was a nationalist, not a communist, revolutionary war, first against the French, and then against the USA), as well as Laos and Cambodia. North Korea was set up as a puppet regime which only existed and survived because of the backing of the red army (Russian and Chinese). The 'revolutions' in E Europe in the years following WW2 were the result of invading red army tanks, and so could only be called Marxist by someone with a twisted sense of humour.

Related to the above there are a few additional considerations, which are a little more theoretical, that differentiate Marx and Lenin’s approach to socialism from Stalin’s and Mao’s, the most important of which are the following factors:

(3) There are in fact two forms of socialism:

a) 'Socialism from above',

and

b) 'Socialism from below'.

The first form seeks to bring ‘socialism’ to the mass of the population, whether they want it or not. It is imposed from above (by a centralised, or even a democratically elected, state), as its name suggests.

This approach has been adopted and tried out by various political movements and ideologies, including Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism, Chavezism (as we have seen in Venezuela), Social Democracy [SD]. Democratic Socialism [DS], and conspiratorial Blanquism, which many confuse with Leninism.

Blanquism

Quite often, the population acquiesce to this form of socialism, and they might even welcome it at first — until they discover it doesn't work. That is because it leaves the mass of the population passive and unchanged (except where they are allowed, in some cases, to vote every now and then, or they are required to provide cannon fodder in defence of this new form of the state). Left like that they are always going to be a threat to the new ruling class that has been formed as a result of imposing socialism from above — as we saw in Russia, E Europe, and, indeed, much of the rest of the planet over the last hundred years. On that, follow this link:

Revolution

That is because 'Socialism from above' either:

(i) Leaves the class structure of society unchanged (as is the case with SD and DS), or

(ii) It introduces a new ruling elite (as was the case with all forms of ‘Communism’) -- but, in both cases, the mass of the population remains exploited and/or oppressed for their pains.

[Many confuse the above statist/corporatist forms of socialism with Marxism. They will struggle long and hard and to no avail to find anything in Marx’s writings that supports such a gross distortion of his ideas. It is also worth adding that ‘Communism’ and Marxism parted company in the fSU in the mid-1920s after Lenin died, and the Stalinists seized power.]

Every time this form of socialism has been tried it has failed, or is now failing. That because:

(iii) In the case of SD and DS, the rich and powerful will always fight such lukewarm forms of socialism, try to strangle them to death (as we are now witnessing in relation to Venezuela), or manoeuvre/force them to compromise what few principles they retain so that they are gradually transformed into a pale reflection of those parties that genuinely and openly represent the interests of the ruling elite — that is, so that they begin to resemble to some extent Conservative and other right-wing parties — as we have repeatedly seen in the USA, UK, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, S America, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, etc., etc. So, SD and DS don’t change society in any fundamental way, and leave class division -- and hence the rich and powerful -- in place at the top.

Whoever is in office under this form of ‘socialism’, the top 1% and their political representatives are always in power (they control the army, the police, the courts, the media, etc.), which means that SD/DS politicians, no matter how well intentioned they might be, will either have to accommodate to the 1% and their ideologues in the media, or they will be out of office in no time.

These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies

The barrage of abuse and lies that the former leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, faced from the vast bulk of the UK media is only the most recent example of this:

Anti-Semitism. Orchestrated Offensive against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK

They are now trying to do the same with Bernie Sanders:

Campaign against Sanders on ‘antisemitism’ for his criticism of Israel begins in earnest

The pusillanimous and compromised nature of SD/DS is part of the reason for the rise of ‘populism’ across the globe right now, as the mass of the population reacts to the long-term failure of this form of ‘socialism from above’ coupled with the evident failure of ‘liberal democracy’ world-wide — which political currents have in general looked after the interests of the rich and powerful, not the working majority they claim to represent.

Some have claimed that Scandinavian forms of social democracy have worked, but as with the rest of the capitalist world, it, too, is now beginning to fail -- I have explained more here:

Do-you-hate-capitalism-if-so-then-why-is-that/answer/Rosa-Lichtenstein

(iv) On the other hand, Communist regimes leave the capitalist world largely intact, isolating themselves from the international division of labour, which in the long run renders their economies inefficient and totally incapable of competing with the rest of the world. Hence, they are also doomed to fail; the moment of their birth is the moment they begin to die (to paraphrase Hegel). They either (a) slowly strangle themselves to death (as we saw in E Europe and the fSU), (b) they adopt ‘market reforms’ and emulate ‘free market capitalism’ (as we are now seeing in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Cuba), or (c) they are smothered by the imperialist powers (as happened in Nicaragua, and might be about to happen in Venezuela — in relation to which dozens of countries supposedly committed to democracy seem quite happy to recognise an unelected no-mark, Guido, as President).

What-is-happening-in-Venezuela/answer/Rosa-Lichtenstein

As Engels, Lenin and Trotsky argued, islands of socialism can't be created in a sea of capitalism, and any attempt to do so will always fail. Post-1925 ‘communism’ disagreed, but history has shown that Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were right. That form of ‘communism’ has been refuted by history, many times over.

(v) The second form of socialism, 'Socialism from below', represents Marx, Lenin and Trotsky’s view. It involves the great mass of the population, the working class, creating a socialist society for themselves, not waiting for anyone, or any party, to do it for them.

Marx was quite clear about this in the Communist Manifesto:

========================

Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

========================

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

Indeed, several years later he added:

“The emancipation of the working class will be won by the workers themselves.”

Self-Emancipation of the working class in Marx and Engels

Lenin agreed, insisting “All power to the soviets!” in October 1917 (the soviets were factory and army councils set up by the workers after the popular February 1917 revolution — indeed, Lenin had argued that their insurrection should only take place when the Bolsheviks had won a majority in those soviets, which happened in the autumn of that year):

In Defence of Lenin and the October Revolution

This form of socialism is inherently internationalist (“Workers of the world unite!”) — it has to spread and take over the core economies of capitalism so that it can't be strangled in the above manner, as the proletariat of each country rebel. Follow this link for more details and an explanation of how such a revolution will be international:

Revolution

We aren't talking about invasion here; an invasion by an external or foreign socialist country won't change the working class of the country invaded in the required manner -- they have to change themselves, in their own way, by their own revolution. Each strike, for example, is a mini-rehearsal for this (whether the strikers appreciate this or not), whereby workers have to learn to organise in their own communities, sharing ideas, money, clothing, food, shelter, etc. In effect they have to run a mini-socialist society for a few weeks or months. These are, in effect, mini-dress rehearsals for a working class revolution.

This is a basic fact about Marx’s form of socialism that SD-ers, Stalin, Mao, Castro and all the rest who advocate socialism from above, fail to comprehend, so determined are they to impose ‘socialism’ on other countries, or, indeed, on their own people.

(4) Again, connected with the above, and primarily in the case of the fSU, when Stalin and his henchmen seized power in the mid-1920s, they knew full well that the capitalist states would either strangle them to death or they would invade and destroy them.

This they would do in order to quarantine the Bolshevik revolution, guarantee it failed, or physically crush it in order to prevent the idea spreading that ordinary working people are capable of re-making society for themselves and in their own interests, expropriating the productive capacity of society by taking it out of the hands of the ruling elite.

But, the fSU in the mid-1920s was still economically backward, its industry and working population all but destroyed by WW1 and the Civil War that followed. As Stalin argued, they would have to make up the yawning gap between their economy and the rest of the capitalist world in a generation or they would be crushed.

[That is indeed what was attempted by Nazis in 1941, originally regarded by many in the UK and the USA, for example, as ‘good anti-communists’ — hence, we had appeasement (in the UK) and isolationism (in the US).]

This meant that the Stalinist regime would have to impose an anti-democratic, autocratic and oppressive system on the mass of the working population of the fSU. That is because, in order to catch up, the state would have to subject them to super-exploitation -- whereby, the proportion of wealth going to that section of society would be reduced almost to subsistence levels, and often even below that (hence the massive famines — for example in the Ukraine) -- so that investment in heavy industry could be maximised. This in turn meant that the state had to become totalitarian, executing and terrorising hundreds of thousands, including nearly every one of the leading revolutionaries of 1917, since working people would resist, as they always have done, such extreme economic deprivation and anti-democratic imposition. Only absolute terror would intimidate them enough.

‘Communism’ destroyed itself by such moves — moves forced on it by trying to create ‘socialism in one country’. Attempting to catch up with ‘the west’ forced the Stalinist regime to trample on every socialist principle it had once espoused. In order to compete with capitalism, it had to emulate it. It thus became its own opposite.

Tyrannies ruling in the name of socialism

To a greater or lesser extent, the same considerations applied right across the former ‘Communist Block’.

Who made China’s revolution?

Cuba, Castro and Socialism

Hence, these regimes were never popular; quite the reverse, in fact — and when they fell nearly 30 years ago, as they were always doomed to do, not one single proletarian hand was raised in their defence. Indeed, workers were glad to see the back of them, and many joined in their demolition.

A supporter of the old Stalinist regime in Russia has questioned the above allegation, that the Russian and E European working classes sat on their hands when the system collapsed between 1989 and the end of 1991. I have responded to his criticisms here:

Russian Workers Raised Not One Finger

So, Marxist socialism, socialism from below, hasn't itself failed; it just hasn't been road-tested yet. No one knows if it will work, but there are good reasons to suppose it will.

Can-any-other-economic-system-rival-capitalism/answer/Rosa-Lichtenstein

More details here:

Two souls of socialism - socialism from above vs socialism from below

State Capitalism in Russia

How Marxism Works

Finally, I have responded to several tired old criticisms of Marxism — including the ‘No True Scotsman’ canard, the ‘Socialism has killed 100 million’ slur, and the ‘You can’t change human nature’ ruse — here:

Why-didn’t-Marx-offer-a-better-form-of-government-than-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat-given-the-fallibility-of-human-nature/answer/Rosa-Lichtenstein

#politics

0 notes

ileneca7 · 6 years

Text

Technical Tuesday & If I Were A Russian Agent...

Courtesy of Phil of Phil’s Stock World

Well, we’re making no progress.

On Friday we looked at our bounce levels and we were encouraged that we’d improved enough to be a bit more confident into the weekend but the ongoing Government shutdown by the President is making us more and more concerned every day – especially with the mounting evidence that President Trump may be a Russian Agent who’s actual intent is to weaken this country. Still, the entire GOP is going along with this insanity and they can’t all be in Putin’s pocket – can they?

Even if Trump isn’t destroying America on behalf of Vladimir Putin, he’s still destroying America, so we added some hedges to our Short-Term Portfolio yesterday in our Live Member Chat Room in order to lock in our recent profits as well as to protect ourselves from the next Twitter rampage coming out of the oval office.

Trump is meeting with Congress this morning and, hopefully, it will go better than Friday’s meeting, where he threw a tantrum and walked out because Nancy Pelosi said no to his wall – even after he offered her candy. Meanwhile, you can see the Brits debating Brexit all day and all night in their Parliament because, when something important is affecting your Government – a real Government tends to focus on the problem.

youtube

That’s a live feed – how cool is that?

Don’t even try to compare that to CSpan – it will make you cry. British Parliament is based on debate and consensus so any MP is a skilled orator – it’s basically a job requirement. Most of our Congresspeople can’t put two coherent sentences together without their entire staff working overtime to prep them and God forbid our Congresspeople get interrupted – that’s game over for them but that’s the entire game in the UK – a much better way to discuss the issues.

With about an hour to go before the markets open, the Futures are down a bit and that may not seem bad but the Dow (/YM) Futures were up 200 points around midnight and have since collapsed back to where we were at yesterday’s close. The big boost came from an announcement out of China that they would implement more stimulus such as a cut in VAT rates as well as tax rebates and go-forward tax reductions to “Make China great again!”

We’ll hear more doveish comments from Kashkari (11:30am), Kaplan and George (1pm) as the Brexit vote is expected to fail and the Fed will look to offset our own market turmoil so it will be a wild day. This morning we got very bad news as the Empire State Manufacturing Index dropped 66.6% to 3.9 vs 10.75 expected by leading Economorons. I always find it very disturbing when the “great” economic minds that are consulted by Bloomberg et al are completely missing economic deterioration that is going on right under their noses.

How many other things are they getting wrong and who is relying on these morons to make policy? Also a surprise is a 0.2% DROP in the December Producer Price Index, so now we have DEflation and even the core PPI (ex-food & energy) is down 0.1% – for the Fed, that’s much, much worse than inflation so it is starting to look like their December rate increase may have been a mistake after all.

It is estimated now that we are losing 0.1% of our GDP for each week the Government remains shut down and, as noted yesterday, estimates are now 2.2% vs 3.1% pre-shutdown so we’re looking at dipping below 2% by next week if this thing isn’t resolved and keep in mind we’ll be hearing warnings from many of the corporations that will be reporting over the next few weeks – not a recipe for a bull market by any means!

As with many things, the Republicans think if they can’t see the effect at their local Mercedes dealership, then it isn’t real – no matter how much data you present them with and it makes you wonder how many of those “Leading Economorons” are Republicans but I think most of them, since it’s exactly those kinds of clueless, fact-ignoring idiots that the GOP likes to employ in order to make their completely unrealistic economic policies sound better to the American people.

Unfortunately that means, when you really need good economic forecasting – there’s little to be found and certainly none for those that advise our President most closely (Kudlow, Laffer….. say no more!). Of course, if I were a Russian Agent looking to destroy the US economy, I would want to surround myself with the dumbest economists I could find so – mission accomplished – I guess…

If I were a Russian Agent, I might have collected $109M in cash from Russians – Trump did. In 2010, the private-wealth division of Deutsche Bank also loaned him hundreds of millions of dollars during the same period it was laundering billions in Russian money. ‘Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,’ said Donald Jr. in 2008. ‘We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia,’ boasted Eric Trump in 2014.”

If I were a Russian Agent, Russia might interfere in an election to put me into office – Russia did.

If I were a Russian Agent, I might direct Russian spies to hack the computers of my opponents – Trump did and Russia did.

If I were a Russian Agent, I’d have a lot of contacts with Russian operatives along with my team – Trump and his team have 101 documented contacts with Russia, so far.

If I were a Russian Agent, I’d hire a campaign manager who was also an agent who would feed data to the Russian hackers in order to better coordinate election-rigging – Trump did.

If I were a Russian Agent, I’d fire the head of the FBI who was looking into the “Russia thing” if I could – Trump did. He also bragged about it to the Russian Ambassador and Foreign Minister while sharing top-secret information with them – hardly the worst of his crimes…

If I were a Russian Agent, I’d seek to undermine the credibility of US Intelligence and even my own Justice Department – Trump did.

If I were a Russian Agent, I’d take Vladimir Putin’s word over my own experts on Russia’s role in election hacking – Trump did.

If I were a Russian Agent, I’d try to get the US out of NATO and encourage other Members to quit the alliance – Trump did.

If I were a Russian Agent, I’d support pro-Russian leaders in Europe like Viktor Orban in Hungary and Marine Le Pen in France – Trump did and does.

If I were a Russian Agent, I would praise Putin as “a strong leader” while trashing just about everyone else from grade-B Hollywood celebrities to leaders of Allied Nations. I would even praise Putin for expelling U.S. diplomats and, notwithstanding written instructions from my own aides saying “DO NOT CONGRATULATE”, I would congratulate Putin on winning his own rigged reelection – Trump did.

If I were a Russian Agent, I’d burn the notes about my meeting with Putin – Trump did.

If I were a Russian Agent, I’d defend Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan – along with anything else Putin cares to do – Trump did and does.

If I were a Russian Agent, I’d pull our troops out of Syria, handing control of the country over to Russia – Trump did.

If I were a Russian Agent, I would not respond to Russian attacks on Ukranian ships in International Waters nor would I look into Russia’s poisoning of various strategic agents around the World – Trump did not.

These are just some of the FACTS that just happen to be very consistent with the thesis that Donald Trump is a Russian Agent that was placed in power to undermine the United States of America and irreparably divide our country along with a massive disinformation campaign aimed to destabilize our entire Democracy. You may, of course, form your own opinion from these facts – it’s a free country – for now…

Technical Tuesday & If I Were A Russian Agent… was originally published on MarketShadows

0 notes

foursproutwealth-blog · 6 years

Text

China Accelerates Next-Gen Nuclear Weapons Development To Compete With US, Russia

New Post has been published on http://foursprout.com/wealth/china-accelerates-next-gen-nuclear-weapons-development-to-compete-with-us-russia/

China Accelerates Next-Gen Nuclear Weapons Development To Compete With US, Russia

As we have been documenting over the last year and beyond, China is rapidly modernizing its military; unveiling a new stealth bomber, an array of guided-weapons, and deploying further from home. Their most recent focus has been on next generation nuclear weapons – as Beijing ramps up blast experiments for nukes comprised of smaller, smarter warheads designed to limit damage by targeting specific targets, according to the South China Morning Post.

Between September 2014 and last December, China carried out around 200 laboratory experiments to simulate the extreme physics of a nuclear blast, the China Academy of Engineering Physics reported in a document released by the government earlier this year and reviewed by the South China Morning Post this month.

In comparison, the US carried out only 50 such tests between 2012 and 2017 – or about 10 a year – according to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. –SCMP

China’s development of next gen nukes will put them in direct competition with the United States and Russia, sparking concerns by experts over the prospect of a new cold war arms race that has the potential of boiling over into thermonuclear war.

Of primary concern is the notion that nations possessing smaller, targeted nukes might be more inclined to use them vs. larger and more devastating munitions – which could easily lead down the slippery slope of larger nuclear exchanges.

These new weapons are considered more “usable” for tactical tasks such as destroying an underground bunker while generating little radioactive fallout.

Pentagon officials have said the US wants its enemies to believe it might actually use its new-generation weapons, such as smaller, smarter tactical warheads designed to limit damage by destroying only specific targets.

But with these relatively safer and less destructive weapons in hand, governments may end up losing the inhibition to use them. -SCMP

“The use of small warheads will lead to the use of bigger ones,” Beijing-based naval expert Li Jie told the Post. “If other countries use nuclear weapons on us, we have to retaliate. This is probably why there is research to develop new weapons.”

While an international ban prohibits China from testing actual nuclear weapons (a ban North Korea has laughed at for years), major nuclear powers continue to conduct testing via high-powered gas guns that fire high speed projectiles at weapons-grade laboratory materials.

The tests are conducted using a large, sophisticated facility known as a multi-stage gas gun, which simulates the extreme heat, pressure and shock waves produced in a real nuclear blast.

The experiments with the gas gun provide scientists with the data they need to develop more advanced nuclear weapons.

In the past, researchers used supercomputers to draw on historic data derived from live nuclear tests performed before the international ban was imposed in the 1990s.

But new technology that emerged in recent years, such as hypersonic vehicles and artificial intelligence, opened the door for the development of new nuclear weapons that could be smaller in size and more precise.

The gas gun works by using special explosives to force a piston along a hydrogen-filled metal tube. Once the hydrogen gas reaches a certain temperature and pressure, an “impactor” is released which travels at incredibly high speeds of at least 18,640 MPH towards a target.

Smaller than a saucer, the impactor is comprised of the same materials used in a nuclear warhead such as plutonium, metal, plastic or foam of different densities – resulting in a chemical reaction similar to that of a nuclear detonation.

[insert: gas gun.JPG, f29bb5ca-5f25-11e8-a4de-9f5e0e4dd719_972x_130850.jpg , f2cf81f2-5f25-11e8-a4de-9f5e0e4dd719_972x_130850.jpg ]

US gas gun at Jasper facility in Nevada

The impactors are quite difficult to produce, as even the slightest structural defect at the microscopic level of just a few nanometers can ruin the experiment, according to Luo Guoqiang of China’s Minyang research center.

“The making of the impactor involves the cream of precision manufacturing. Thanks to numerous breakthroughs in recent years we are now beating our counterparts in the US with a series of impactors with superior performance,” he said.

Well made impactors, allow experiments to proceed faster at lower cost, while obtaining higher quality data.

Over the past three years, Chinese scientists have carried out more such gas gun tests than the United States has in 15 years.

In tunnels deep under mountains in Mianyang, southwestern Sichuan province, where China’s main nuclear design facilities are based, loud blasts from these experiments can be heard more than once a week.

In comparison, between 2003 and 2017, the US fired a total of 150 simulated shots at its Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research (Jasper) facility at the Nevada National Security Site. -SCMP

That said, China can’t hold a candle to the United States when it comes to advanced nuclear technology, according to Professor Wang Chuanbin, from the State Key Laboratory of Advanced Technology for Materials Synthesis and Processing at the Wuhan University of Technology.

Wang says that the number of live tests conducted by China pales in comparison with the U.S., which has set off over 1,000 nuclear warheads since 1945 beginning with the Manhattan Project. China, meanwhile, has only carried out 45 live tests.

“It is possible we are in a hurry to catch up,” Wang said.

James Lewis, senior vice-president at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, said a new round of the nuclear arms race had already begun, though public opinion had yet to catch up with the grim reality.

The White House is considering a US$1.2 trillion plan to upgrade its nuclear stockpile. Earlier this year, the Pentagon announced it would develop new low-yield nuclear weapons that could be mounted on conventional cruise missiles and launched by submarines.

The White House’s developments are in response to Russia’s recent actions, according to Lewis, who notes that Russian President Vladimir Putin has revealed a series of new nuclear weapon designs – including smaller, tactical nukes – as well as a “super torpedo” capable of wiping out coastal cities.

“It’s not clear to me how successful the Russian programme will be, but it has stirred everyone up on the subject,” Lewis said. “After some debate, the US decided it needed to think about warheads, without the need for actual tests. It wouldn’t surprise me if China saw all this and decided that it had better get in the game.”

Following a February announcement by US officials of a new nuclear weapons policy, an editorial was published in Chinese state-run tabloid Global Times which said that China would seriously consider going public with its tactical, low-yield nuclear weapons program in response.

“China is a nation capable of massively increasing the size and improving the technology of its nuclear stockpiles,” stated the newspaper, adding “China needs a new policy to deal with a new situation.”

And as we mentioned last week, Bank of America’s Mike Hartnett writes that the “trade war” of 2018 should be recognized for what it really is: the first stage of a new arms race between the US & China to reach national superiority in technology over the longer-term via Quantum Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Hypersonic Warplanes, Electronic Vehicles, Robotics, and Cyber-Security.

At the end of the day, the China First strategy will be met head-on by an America First strategy. Hence the “arms race” in tech spending which in both countries is intimately linked with defense spending. Note military spending by the US and China is forecast by the IMF to rise substantially in coming decades, but the stunner is that by 2050, China is set to overtake the US, spending $4tn on its military while the US is $1 trillion less, or $3tn.

This means that some time around 2038, roughly two decades from now, China will surpass the US in military spending, and become the world’s dominant superpower not only in population and economic growth – China is set to overtake the US economy by no later than 2032 – but in military strength and global influence as well.

And, as Thucydides Trap clearly lays out, that kind of unprecedented superpower transition – one in which the world’s reserve currency moves from state A to state B – always takes place in the context of a war.

Which explains BofA’s long-term strategic recommendation: “We believe investors should thus own global defense, tech & cybersecurity stocks, particularly companies seen as “national security champions” over the next 10-years.“

#Wealth

0 notes

foursprout-blog · 6 years