“I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said in a transparent reference to Gabbard.

“She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset.”

Clinton provided no evidence for her outlandish claims, because she does not have any. Gabbard has repeatedly denied centrist conspiracy theories that she intends to run as a third-party candidate, a claim which establishment pundits have been making more and more often because they know there will never be any consequences when their claims are disproven. There is no evidence of any kind connecting either Jill Stein or Tulsi Gabbard to the Russian government.

Of course, this total lack of evidence hasn’t dissuaded Clintonites from falling all over themselves trying to justify Mommy’s claims anyway.

“Russian ‘assets’ are not formal relationships in the USIC [US Intelligence Community] sense of the word,” CNN analyst and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa explained via Twitter.

“If you are parroting Russian talking points and furthering their interests, you’re a source who is too dumb to know you’re being played to ask for money.”

“It’s important to point out here that a Russian ‘asset’ is not the same thing as a Russian ‘agent’,” tweeted virulent establishment narrative manager Caroline Orr. “An asset can be witting or unwitting; it’s any person or org who can be used to advance Russia’s interests. It’s pretty clear that Tulsi satisfies that criteria.”

“One doesn’t have to be on the Kremlin’s payroll to be a Russian asset. One doesn’t even have to know they are a Russian asset to be a Russian asset. Have you not heard the term ‘useful idiot’ before?” tweeted writer Kara Calavera.

Yep, yeah, that makes perfect sense. One doesn’t have to actually have any formal relationship with the Kremlin to be a Kremlin asset. One doesn’t have to know they’re a Kremlin asset to be a Kremlin asset. The Kremlin doesn’t even need to know one is a Kremlin asset for them to be a Kremlin asset. Nothing has to have happened except the accusation of being a Kremlin asset. It’s just kind of a vague, shapeless nothing thing that doesn’t necessarily have any actual meaning to it at all besides the way it makes people feel inside. It’s more like a religious belief, really.

Isn’t it interesting how that works? Establishment loyalists get a damaging and incendiary tag that they can pin on anyone who disagrees with them, with the sole evidentiary requirement being that disagreement itself.

Author and antiwar activist David Swanson noticed this bizarre intellectual contortion as well, tweeting, “Notice that they carefully define ‘Russian asset’ to mean not necessarily an asset and not necessarily with any connection to Russia.”

Notice that they carefully define "Russian asset" to mean not necessarily an asset and not necessarily with any connection to Russia. https://t.co/Yp6rR1EElh

— David Swanson (@davidcnswanson) October 19, 2019

Establishment narrative managers have been performing this obnoxious trick for years; this is just the most publicly it’s been brought into the spotlight. They claim someone is a Russian asset, then when asked to provide proof that the person is working for Russia, they say they might be an “unwitting” Russian asset, or a “useful idiot”, who does the Kremlin’s bidding without realizing it by sharing ideas and information which the Russian government agrees with. Which is just another way of saying that they hold positions which diverge from the microscopic Overton window of establishment-authorized opinion.

Such positions typically consist of some form of opposition to longstanding US military agendas, such as America’s failed policy of regime change interventionism. Both Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard have inserted skepticism of US military policy into mainstream political discourse, which is tremendously inconvenient for the people whose job it is to manufacture consent for new wars and endless military expansionism.

The “Russian asset” smear has given the establishment narrative managers the ability to make incredibly inflammatory and scandalous accusations about anyone who opposes the US establishment foreign policy consensus, without ever having to back them up with facts. It’s no obstacle for me if I can’t prove that you have any connection to the Russian government, because I can still smear you as a Russian asset by saying your views align with Moscow’s interests, or by noting that Russian news media has done news reporting on you as our friend Neera Tanden does here:

Tulsi is definitely NOT backed by Russia. https://t.co/4mQFLg0PLC

— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) October 19, 2019

Never mind the fact that there are many, many reasons to oppose the US establishment foreign policy consensus which have nothing to do with Russia. Never mind the fact that the US establishment foreign policy consensus has been an unmitigated disaster that has only made the world worse and is pushing the US-centralized power alliance toward a point where a direct military confrontation with Russia, China and their allies becomes inescapable. Never mind the fact that Russia is far from the only country in the world that wishes America would scale back its aggressive military expansionism. It has been firmly established beyond any doubt that it is now literally impossible for an American political figure to vocally oppose US warmongering without being labeled a Russian asset.

In reality, “Russian asset” is nothing more than a completely meaningless noise that war pigs make with their face holes, no more coherent and communicative than the barking of a dog or the chattering of a squirrel. If we were to come up with a definition for that term which reflects the way it is actually being used in modern political discourse, that definition would be something like, “An incantation which magically makes political dissent look like something treasonous and Machiavellian.”

Establishment narrative managers are getting more and more aggressive with the psychological bullying tactics they are using against political dissidents. Applying a ridiculous, meaningless pejorative to anyone who disagrees with mainstream US foreign policy views is just one more ugly tool in their infernal toolbox. It is not normal, healthy or acceptable to accuse someone of being a Russian asset just because they disagree with the authorized commentators of the American political/media class, and when they make such accusations they should be publicly shamed for it.

*  *  *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

One must admit that a single phone call between Trump and President Erdogan of Turkey has turned the situation in Syria upside down in just over a week. The Kurds have requested protection from Assad’s army, Russian troops are now patrolling between the Kurds and invading Turks, and the U.S. is (for once) watching from the sidelines.

The execution has been sloppy, of course—a Trumpian trademark—and the human cost potentially heavy. Nonetheless, the U.S. withdrawal represents a significant instance of the president actually following through on campaign promises to end an endless American war in the Mideast. The situation isn’t simple, of course, and for the Kurds it is yet another fatalistic event in that people’s tragic history.

Still, while the situation in Northeast Syria constitutes a byzantine mess, it’s increasingly unclear that a continued U.S. military role there would be productive or strategic in the long term. After all, if Washington’s endgame wasn’t to establish a lasting, U.S.-guaranteed Kurdish nation-state of Rojava, and it hardly appeared that it ever was, then what exactly could America expect to accomplish through an all-risk, no-reward continued stalemate in Syria?

What’s truly striking, though, and increasingly apparent, is that President Trump possesses - as a foreign policy autocrat, of sorts - the power to derail the Democrats and place 2020 hopefuls in an awkward position of defending U.S. forever wars. It’s already happening, at least among mainstream “liberal” media and political personalities who’ve flooded the networks with anti-Trump vitriol since the Syria withdrawal.

Lest we confuse Donald Trump with a consistent antiwar dove, it’s important to remember that his behavior is erratic and often turns on a dime. Take, for example, his decision to impose sanctions on Turkey right after greenlighting the very invasion he now seeks to punish. He’s also prone to contradictory moves. Also, just as he pulled troops from Syria, he added an even larger number to Saudi Arabia, justifying the move on the grounds that the Saudis will foot the entire bill, making rather official the U.S. military’s gradual transformation into a mercenary force ready to serve the highest bidder. Trump has also surpassed, in his first two years, the number of drone strikes his predecessor Barack Obama launched overseas during the same phase of Obama’s presidency.

Nonetheless, Trump’s Democratic opponents have bet big on using Syria to attack the president without providing any real alternatives to withdrawal. In doing so, they might just hand Trump a winning hand for 2020. In fact, I haven’t seen so much foreign policy coverage of a U.S. war by the establishment media for over a decade, at least since Democrats finally turned against Bush’s failing war in Iraq as a tool for midterm electoral success.

The attention suddenly focused on Syria is rather cynical, of course, with the country’s civil war only receiving notice now because it’s a cudgel used to reflexively attack Trump. It’s not about Kurdish ethnic rights or women’s, rights—and it never was. No, this is all about partisan political advantage. And it might just backfire on the Dems.

Trump isn’t all that scared of criticism on Syria, even from the establishment wing of his own party. Firing back at critics this week, Trump tweeted: “Others may want to come in and fight for one side or the other [in Syria]. Let them!”

See, this president knows what many congressional Republicans do not appear to realize: that the old conservative coalition—which included a powerful hawkish national security wing—is breaking down. The Republican base, well, they’re just about as sick of endless war as is Trump himself. Consider this remarkable turnaround: In recent polls, 56% of Republicans supported Trump’s Syria withdrawal, while 60% of Democrats opposed it.

Which brings us back to the mainstream Democratic machine and the potentially awkward position of even the most progressive of the 2020 presidential hopefuls on the “left.” By flipping the script and demonstrating that Trump and his conservative backers constitute the only serious antiwar coalition, he could expose that establishment Dems—who’ve almost all stood tall with the neocon retreads against Trump’s move—represent little more than Sen. Lindsey Graham lite. He could show that they’re hawks too, opportunistic hawks at that, figures mired in the Washington swamp. Disgust with that bipartisan beltway elite is exactly what got Mr. Trump elected in 2016 (along with a peculiar outdated Electoral College, of course), which is exactly why responding to Trump’s (tentative) war-ending propensity will be sensitive and awkward for Democratic leaders and presidential candidates.

Look, even America’s usually conservative, if (purportedly) apolitical, soldiers and veterans are now against these forever wars that Trump ostensibly seeks to end. A series of polls this summer indicated that nearly two-thirds of post-9/11 vets say they believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the military engagement in Syria “were not worth it.” This should have been an alarm bell for both major parties, but expect the Democrats to once again squander the opportunity presented by these frustrated, alienated troopers.

By ignoring foreign policy—generally having ceded that political territory to the Republicans since midway through the Cold War—the Dems have ensured that most of these antiwar veterans won’t find a home, or land in the Democratic Party.

I personally know dozens of these sorts of exhausted veterans. Almost none have followed my own journey toward the left. In fact, the vast majority tell me they trust Trump, warts and all, over figures like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or any of the other Democratic elites that they find even more corrupt than the reality-TV-star-in-chief. My friends and colleagues may be wrong, may be off-base, but most truly believe it, which ought to worry Democrats. Only it won’t, or at least not in enough time.

So, while I’m cautious about giving sensible advice to Trump (luckily, he doesn’t read Truthdig, or read much at all), I think there’s potential for him to craft a winning strategy for 2020.

Here’s a modest proposal on just how it might go: He could end one of America’s illegal wars, particularly those clearly not covered by the post-9/11 AUMFs [Authorization for Use of Military Force], every three months. Little-to-no warning, ignoring the complaints of senior generals and national security officials; just pick an ill-advised military intervention (there’re plenty to choose from) and announce its end.

Not only would this distract from impeachment, but it would force Trump’s potential 2020 opponents to perform some awkward intellectual gymnastics. They’d be obliged to double-down and promise to end even more wars, even more quickly, than Trump. Or, more likely, they could join the bipartisan swampy establishment and half-heartedly (and disingenuously) defend continuing the very unwinnable wars with which the American people have grown so tired.

I know all of that’s unlikely, but it’s not unthinkable. Trump could even wrap himself in a new brand of patriotism and emphasize his concern for America’s beloved troops. Now, this president isn’t known for his sincerity, but he has previously claimed that signing condolence letters for the families of fallen servicemen “is the hardest thing he does.” So in my fantasy, Trump would address the nation in prime time, and, noting that 18-year-olds have begun to deploy to Afghanistan, assure the people that he intends to end these wars before a kid born after 9/11 dies in one of them.

*  *  *

Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to Truthdig. His work has also appeared in Harper’s, The LA Times, The Nation, Tom Dispatch, The Huffington Post and The Hill. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, “Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge.” He co-hosts the progressive veterans’ podcast “Fortress on a Hill.” Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet.

Remember, 'the 1%' became our modern capitalist boogeyman back in 2011 during the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement, when thousands of college students joined forces with criminals and the chronically unemployed to camp out in Lower Manhattan's Zucotti Park. The park remained the epicenter of the movement for weeks, until Mike Bloomberg finally ordered police to clear the encampment.

Thousands of solidarity rallies were held around the country, and even a few other 'occupations' emerged, as dedicated members of the movement gathered in other public grounds in a show of solidarity with their comrades in Zucotti Park (Remember all that news footage of bedraggled-looking young people in beanies carrying signs and shouting slogans like "We are the 99%"?).

The phrase 'the 1%' remained embedded in our popular culture long after Occupy fizzled out. Bernie Sanders embraced the term in 2015 as he launched his long-shot campaign for president. Eventually, the lingering class resentments that helped inspire 'Occupy' brought about a revival of interest in 'Democratic' Socialism' and hatred for the "1%" who were, according to Sanders, constantly finding strategies to avoid paying their "fair share" in Texas.

A fat lot of good that all did. Because, since the zenith of Occupy in 2011, income inequality has intensified. Now, the threshold to qualify for 'the 1%' - that is, the 1% of earners who report the largest amount of taxable income - has itself increased by a staggering 33%.

What's worse? To join the top 0.1%, you would need have needed to earn $2.4 million in 2017 (the most recent year for which data are available), an increase of 38% since 2011. To join the top 0.01%, the threshold has jumped 46%. Again, this goes by annual earnings,  so men like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the  wealthiest men in the world, could stop qualifying for these labels if they decided to stop pulling salaries and started relying solely on their savings.

Meanwhile, the top 0.001%, an elite group of 1,433 taxpayers, pulled in at least $63.4 million each in 2017, up 51% since the Occupy protests. Of course, members of this group - many of whom are wealthy hedge fund billionaires like Ray Dalio - fluctuate often depending on the market, and whether they're having a good year, or a bad year. Ray Dalio, the Bridgewater Associates founder who earned more than $1 billion last year (that is, in 2018, not 2017) because his firm's funds were up double-digits, might not make the list some years if his firm loses money (his personal earnings are closely tied with the performance of his firm).

By comparison, the median taxpayer, at the 50th percentile, has seen income rise 20% since 2011.

Finally, since BBG is looking at IRS data, the reporters saw fit to remind us that rich people actually do shoulder the largest percentage of the federal government's tax burden (though they often do pay a lower rate than their working-class...employees). The 1% earned 21% of the total income last year (remember, this doesn't factor in existing wealth), but paid out 38.5% of their earnings in taxes. The 1% shouldered a larger tax burden than the bottom 90% combined (though remember, as Mitt Romney once said, the bottom 47% of Americans effectively pay $0 in federal income tax).

Though Romney's made-in-private remark has been widely blamed for him losing to Obama in 2012, as the above data show, he wasn't wrong: The wealthiest Americans foot most of the bill for financing all of the social welfare programs on which the poor rely.

While Trump has yet to disclose whether he found Mulvaney's comments last week - which boosted the case for impeachment as they confirmed the scenario proposed by Democrats - unacceptable, some White House aides have voiced their displeasure with Mulvaney’s performance at Thursday's presser, in which Mulvaney said "I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy." The press conference was to announce that Trump’s Doral golf resort had been chosen to host the 2020 Group of Seven summit of world leaders, a decision the president reversed in a tweet late Saturday night following a torrent of criticism.

If the Doral decision hadn’t been made when it was, “we wouldn’t have had the press conference on Thursday regarding -- regarding everything else,” Mulvaney said on Fox. “But that’s fine.”

Indeed "it was made", and Mulvaney's Thursday comment sparked a firestorm of criticism, and he was forced to not only issue a follow-up statement explaining he did not say mean what he, in fact, said, but the chief of staff had to defend himself repeatedly during the weekend's media circuit.

Yet while Trump has been largely silent on the latest fiasco, Mulvaney may be on his way out on general principle as Trump has "recently been unhappy with Mulvaney for other reasons" including the White House’s slow response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Sept. 24 announcement of an impeachment inquiry into the president, according to Bloomberg.

Or maybe not: the same Bloomberg sources said Mulvaney has various allies in and close to the White House who may rally around him, including Russ Vought, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget; Joe Grogan of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council; and Patrick Pizzella, a former Deputy Secretary of Labor. Some Mulvaney boosters pin blame for a flat-footed impeachment strategy on White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. They said that Cipollone has a bunker mentality and has kept the White House on lock down, preventing allies from going out to fight for the president.

One thing we know for sure is that Mulvaney won't be resigning on his own: on Sunday, he said he hasn’t offered his resignation to Trump over Thursday’s press briefing.

“Did I have the perfect press conference, no,” Mulvaney said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I still think I’m doing a pretty good job as the chief of staff, and I think the president agrees.”

Mulvaney became Trump’s third chief of staff after the departure in January of General John Kelly. The position doesn’t require Congressional approval, yet Trump has never elevated Mulvaney beyond an “acting” role. Trump fired his first chief of staff, Reince Priebus, via Twitter in July 2017.

And here in the United States, the drama surrounding the potential impeachment of Donald Trump is going to greatly escalate the political tensions that are already deeply dividing this country.  No matter how things turn out, a large percentage of the population is likely to be deeply frustrated with the result, and that could very easily lead to tremendous civil unrest.

But before we get to Trump, let’s take a look at what has been going on around the rest of the world first.  In Chile, we are witnessing violent protests unlike anything that we have seen in decades…

Three people died in a fire in a supermarket being ransacked in the Chilean capital early Sunday, as protests sparked by anger over social and economic conditions rocked one of Latin America’s most stable countries.

Santiago’s Mayor Karla Rubilar told reporters two people burned to death in the blaze and another later died in hospital, after the huge store controlled by US retail chain Walmart was looted.

Economic conditions are tough in Chile and rapidly getting tougher, and it is very unusual to hear of “looting” in a country that is normally so stable.

Meanwhile, political corruption appears to be the main motivation for the violent protests in Lebanon…

Thousands of demonstrators poured into downtown Beirut for a third day on Saturday, hours after overnight clashes erupted between security forces and protesters leading to large-scale arrests and several injuries.

Demonstrations have engulfed various parts of Lebanon for three days. Many protesters called for the resignation of the government and demanded the “downfall” of a political class that has ruled the country since the start of its 15-year civil war in 1975.

When people lose hope that things are ever going to get any better, they tend to take to the streets.

Unfortunately, corruption appears to be a way of life over in Lebanon at this point, and there seems to be little hope of major reforms any time soon.

In the UK, the drama surrounding the Brexit saga drew “hundreds of thousands of people” into the streets of London this weekend…

Hundreds of thousands of people have marched in central London to demand a new referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union, as parliament voted to delay a decision on whether to back Prime Minister Boris Johnson‘s revised Brexit withdrawal deal.

The march organised by the People’s Vote campaign is thought to be the largest yet, drawing anti-Brexit supporters from across the country as parliament sat on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands conflict in the 1980s.

Yet another Brexit agreement appears to have failed, and many are wondering if it will ever be possible to get one through Parliament.

Many of those favoring Brexit are hoping for a “no deal” exit from the European Union at this point, and meanwhile many of the “remainers” are holding out hope that there will somehow be a second referendum.

Over in Spain, violent protests have erupted night after night in the aftermath of the arrest of nine key pro-independence leaders in Catalonia…

Barcelona saw its fifth consecutive night of violence on Friday, in the wake of Monday’s Supreme Court ruling that jailed nine pro-independence leaders for their role in the 2017 secessionist drive. The disturbances last night were particularly virulent, in terms of their duration, intensity and use of violence on the part of protestors, who were very aggressive toward the police.

Violent groups surrounded the central headquarters of the National Police in the Catalan capital, throwing objects, putting up barricades and setting fire to trash containers. As the sun set, the protests moved to the center of the city, where the regional police force, the Mossos d’Esquadra, used an armored vehicle with a water cannon. At least three police officers were injured in the rioting.

These protests may fade after a while, but they are not going away.  Those involved in the pro-independence movement in Catalonia are very passionate, and it has widespread public support.

Of course the protests that have made the biggest splash on the global stage have been the relentless pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.  Despite the brutality of the police, the protesters just keep coming back again and again, and “tens of thousands” of protesters were in the streets once again on Sunday…

Tens of thousands of pro-democracy protesters took to Hong Kong’s streets on Sunday, once again defying a police ban on the assembly and undeterred by a brutal attack against a leader of the organization that called for the march.

The huge turnout, which included families, children and the elderly, demonstrated how the movement now in its fifth month continues to have widespread support, despite the increasingly violent tactics used by protesters and escalating use of force by police.

Here in the United States, we don’t have protests like this going on right now.

But we could very soon.

The impeachment process is bringing a focal point to the deep anger that has been building on both sides of the political spectrum for many years.  Now that this process has begun, there is no going back, and both sides believe that there is only one result that will bring justice.

For the left, any result that does remove Donald Trump from office will be a bitter disappointment.  The Democrats in the House of Representatives are going to draft articles of impeachment, and they believe that they already have the votes they need to send those articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate.

If the Republican-controlled Senate does not vote to convict Trump and remove him from office, this will greatly upset the left, and could result in an explosion of anger in our city streets.

On the other hand, if the Republican-controlled Senate does vote to convict Trump and remove him from office, tens of millions of hardcore Trump supporters are going to be absolutely livid.  There would be an explosion of righteous anger on the right, and it would almost certainly spill into our city streets.

Of course it is likely that both sides will start protesting well before there is a final result, but once the final vote in the Senate happens that is when things are likely to get very interesting.

The Democrats should have never gone down this road, because one way or another this process is going to tear us apart.

If our founders could see us today they would be rolling over in their graves, because this is not what they intended.

This happens as The Sunday Times reports that the European Union will delay Brexit, which as a reminder was vote on in the summer of 2016, well into 2020. An extension will be granted until February if Boris Johnson is unable to get his deal past MPs this week.

Diplomatic sources said that the delay would be “fungible” meaning that Britain could leave earlier, on the 1st or 15th of November, December or January, if his deal is ratified before the extension ends.

No decision will be taken until EU governments can assess the chances of the withdrawal treaty getting through parliament, not before Tuesday this week.

Separately, the Times reports that if BoJO runs into serious trouble or MPs force a second referendum then countries led by Germany will push for a longer extension, possibly until June next year. At that point, it will be 4 years after the Brexit vote took place, with extension after extension clearly the name of the game until the British population just gets fed up and votes to undo the outcome of the first Brexit vote.

Needless to say, another extension is merely a continuation of the status quo, and despite the vocal opposition and frenzied activity by Boris Johnson to change said status quo, Goldman Sachs sees the outcome of the weekend's events as favorable for sterling.

As Goldman's FX strategist, Zach Pandl, writes on Sunday afternoon, Goldman's expectation is that "this week (most likely on Monday or Tuesday), the PM’s deal will be voted on and pass through parliament, with sufficient support from the ERG and a small minority of Labour MPs." As a side note, it wouldn't be the first time an overly optimistic Goldman assessment is railroaded by fantastically unpredictable UK lawmakers. But we digress: as Goldman adds, "the EU will likely defer any decision on extension until after votes on the deal and surrounding legislation have been held. In our view, it would be very unlikely for the EU to deny the extension request in extremis, although injecting some ambiguity into the process this week may be a helpful device to funnel MPs towards the PM’s deal."

At the same time, Goldman's economists have turned even more optimistic on a favorable outcome, and in a separate note they write that "just as Parliament’s desire for insurance is best served by deferring a decision on the deal proposed, it may well be that the EU-27’s desire for resolution is best served by deferring a decision on the extension requested. We think the Johnson administration will use that space to prove that it has the numbers for its new Withdrawal Agreement. After all, only by passing the legislation required to implement the deal will the government convince concerned MPs that it has permanently ruled out the prospect of “no deal.”

While developments over the weekend certainly puncture some of the Prime Minister’s political momentum, we think they also reveal that the PM can command a stable cross-party majority in favour of his Brexit deal. In our view, the decisive test of that deal has been postponed by a few days; the deal has not been defeated.

As a result, Goldman now sees the odds of a "no deal" dropping from 10% to just 5%:

As for our baseline path, we maintain the view that the UK will leave the EU on 31 October. On terminal outcomes, we lower our “no deal” probability from 10% to 5%, we leave our “no Brexit” probability unchanged at 25%, and we revise up the probability we attach to a ratified deal from 65% to 70%.

What does this mean for Sterling according to Goldman?

According to the bank whose FX trading desk has been one of the worst on Wall Street in recent years, "GBP has further to rally on a 'deal' outcome, and we maintain our long GBPUSD recommendation. We revise up our initial target of 1.30 to 1.35." While that may be just the kiss of death sterling needed, here is how Goldman justifies its bullish take:

We think ‘no deal’ risks have diminished as a result of the extension request, and at this week’s open, we expect any initial fall in GBP as a result of disappointment that the deal has not passed this weekend to fade as the deal has been deferred, not denied. As a result, any fall in GBPUSD this evening will be limited to 1.27-1.28, which should be bought.

Even so, Goldman concedes that risks remain, even if it now sees these as more palatable for GBP than a ‘no deal’ outcome.

• First, the deal may fail to pass in which case GBPUSD will likely retrace to around 1.26. We do not expect a return to the low 1.20s given the high likelihood of an extension.


• Second, MPs may amend the deal and surrounding legislation to include either a second referendum, membership of a customs union, or fresh elections. Our base case is that neither amendments would succeed, however successful passage of each would impact GBP. A successful second referendum or customs union amendment would see GBP higher, although the precise response of the UK government is unclear and would introduce additional uncertainty.

For those who are not convinced by Goldman's bullish take, this is what the bank sees as the main downside risk for cable: a successful amendment for an election, although as Goldman notes even this risk is diluted with both sides "likely to be offering equivalent or softer forms of Brexit."

Goldman's conclusion: "no deal' risk is unlikely to increase meaningfully, capping the downside for the Pound."

Check back in a few weeks to see if Goldman finally got one right...

The diminishing returns of the Chinese and eurozone stimulus plans have been clear since the end of 2016 and 2017, respectively. In the case of emerging economies, the 2018 weakness was just the result of years of building fiscal and trade imbalances betting on a constantly weakening dollar and low rates.

The main reason why economies are slowing down is fundamentally the result of the debt excess of the past years, not trade wars. With global debt rising above 300 percent of gross domestic product, according to the Institute of International Finance, and very low productivity growth in developed countries, it’s not surprising that additional units of debt fail to deliver the expected growth, while excess capacity hinders investment and trade.

Low interest rates and high liquidity have also generated collateral damages. A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research concludes that aggressive monetary policies lead to “rising market concentration, reduced dynamism, a widening productivity-gap between industry leaders and followers, and slower productivity growth.”

Another negative side effect is the rise of zombie companies, those that cannot cover interest expenses with operating profits for an extended period of time. According to Ryan Banerjee, an economist at the Bank of International Settlements, the percentage of zombie firms has risen to multi-year highs.

We must also understand that the concerns about liquidity created a large impact on global markets, as investors worried about central banks normalizing policy. 2018 was the first year in which the global money supply fell after years of exceptionally high growth. Central banks have changed their communication to a more dovish tone, but this is not necessarily going to prevent a change of economic cycle, rather the opposite. Failure to normalize sends a message of deteriorating economic signals.

These issues are unlikely to end due to a trade deal. Cycles change. China’s slowdown was inevitable and a reduction in U.S. growth estimates is logical after the longest expansion in history.

Remember that the same reason why tariffs had a relatively small impact on the global economy shows why a new trade agreement is unlikely to change the current trend. Those tariffs affected a relatively small proportion of the global economy.

A new trade deal will probably have a marginal effect on the Chinese and U.S. economies.

The insider trading scheme realized $2.6 million in illicit gains were tied to at least two different companies, including a possible takeover deal that sent Syngenta soaring in 2015, and Arby's 2017 takeover of Buffalo Wild Wings. 

"Throughout that period, Cohen, who was employed at a large international bank ("Investment Bank A") carried out the scheme by misappropriating from his employer material nonpublic information concerning impending corporate transactions," court documents read. 

The SEC alleges that Cohen shared the nonpublic information with George Nikas, an NYC restaurateur who owns GRK Fresh with three locations in Manhattan, was also charged by federal prosecutors for making the trades.

In exchange for making the trades, the SEC alleges that Nikas paid out Cohen "a share of the profits and/or other benefits."

News of the insider trading scheme at Goldman broke on Saturday morning. The investment bank also saw two employees in 2018 charged by the SEC for similar schemes.

Last May, Woojae "Steve" Jung, a Goldman TMT Vice President, was charged with securities fraud for using inside information about the investment bank's clients to make $140,000 in illicit profits on 12 deals, while using a co-conspirator in South Korea to execute the trades.

In August last year, a former Goldman analyst leaked nonpublic information about upcoming mergers to NFL star Mychal Kendricks. The SEC has since charged them both.

Cohen's LinkedIn profile shows he worked as an analyst at ABN AMRO and RBS, then transitioned to the investment bank side in the last seven years at Barclays (2013 to 2014) and Goldman Sachs (since 2014). 

There's no indication via LinkedIn that Cohen has been fired from Goldman. Bloomberg notes that he's been placed on leave, which means he'll be fired in the coming weeks.

It is this same "not QE" that has boosted the Fed's balance sheet by $200BN in one month, the fastest rate of increase since the financial crisis.

Yet while the Fed's desire to purchase Bills instead of coupon Treasuries was dictated by its superficial desire to distinguish the current "Not QE" from previous "True QEs", even though both tends to inject the same amount of liquidity into the system, which as a reminder is what the Fed's bailout role in the past 11 years has all been about, and only true Fed sycophants are unable to call a spade a spade, the Fed's choice raises a rather thorny question of where the Fed will source those T-bills, because as JPMorgan calculates, the net supply of Bills in 4Q19 and 1Q20 is around $115-$130bn while JPM's economists estimate that at least $200-$250bn of purchases could be required to return reserves to around $1.5tr where they were in early September this year.

That means the Fed might need to source purchases from money-market funds and foreign central banks - which paradoxically would serve to further drain liquidity out of the system. As such, given the limited alternatives, JPM's Nikolas Panagirtzoglou believes that the Fed may be reluctant to do so and if they do, some may chose to leave cash in the Fed’s ON RRP facility which would represent a drain on reserves and make T-bills a less efficient vehicle for reserve creation.

Another key question: what if just returning to the previous reserve baseline is not sufficient, and the Fed needs to return reserves to a higher level than $1.5tr? Indeed, with close to $200bn of reserves injected via overnight and term repos for much of this week...

... helping to return reserves to around $1.5tr on a temporary basis from less than $1.4tr in mid-September, money markets appear especially vulnerable to volatility.

Indeed, in a week when the Treasury’s General Account with the Fed increased by $60bn, depleting reserves, both Fed Funds and the broader OBFR rates median rates rose again to 10bp above IOER on Tuesday Oct 15th after having settled at around 3bp above IOER and at IOER respectively after the quarter-end hurdle had been cleared. And the SOFR median rate rose to 20bp above IOER after having settled at 2-5bp above IOER after the quarter-end effects had settled.

There is another reason why the Fed's stated intention to only buy Bills will soon have to be adjusted to incorporate short-maturity (at first) Treasury bonds, and it has to do with the total open market purchases planned by the Fed. If the Fed would need to return reserves to a higher level, say to around the $1.7tr level in Dec 2018 when the 75th percentile of the Fed funds market began to persistently print above IOER, this could imply a further $200bn of purchases. JPM finds that "in principle" this could be completed in 2Q20 if the Fed were to sustain T-bill purchases at a pace of $60bn per month, which it set as the initial pace, but it would still imply a longer period of reserves being at a relatively tight level than if $1.5tr would be a sustainable level. But that would assume purchases at a continuous (rather than initial) pace of $60bn/m pace are sustainable, and ignores the prospect that purchases from MMFs and foreign central banks could prompt them leaving cash in the Fed’s ON RRP facility thereby draining some of the intended reserve injection.

Currently, close to $300bn of cash has been deposited with the Fed via the ON RRP facility, primarily by foreign RRP counterparties for whom the nearly $300bn is close to its recent highs. By contrast, other, largely domestic,  counterparties’ use of the ON RRP facility has collapsed to just $2bn, well below a high of nearly $450bn in late 2015, as institutions have a far more pressing needs for cash (liquidity) than collateral securities ("collateral shortage" was the big story in 2014-2017, just ask Zoltan Pozsar).

If T-bill purchases start to put upward pressure on ON RRP facility use, the Fed may eventually need to extend purchases to shorter-maturity Treasury bonds.

How and when the Fed shifts the composition of its purchases, however, is of secondary importance; a far more important question is why precisely did the Fed feel compelled to start monetizing debt, whether one calls it QE or not. The simple answer is that in a world in which all central bank-sourced liquidity is now fungible, JPM has found that without the Fed buying Treasuries across the curve, the ECB’s QE on its own would be unlikely to offset the negative G4 central bank duration absorption impulse from the BoJ’s efforts to re-steepen its domestic yield curve.

And that, in one sentence, is what really matters: not whether the Fed's monetization of debt is called QE or 'not QE' (spoiler alert: it is QE as it injects liquidity, impacts rates, eases financial conditions and supports risk assets), but that without the Fed's intervention, the global central bank balance sheet would shrink again, which if left unchecked would promptly lead to a market crash, the same way the markets crashed in late 2018 when QT was on "autopilot."

JPM's Nikolas Panagirtzoglou reaches that stark conclusion by revisiting his previous analysis that estimated the proportion duration that central banks removed from the market by adjusting both central bank holdings and outstanding government bonds to 10-year equivalent terms; back then, he assumed that instead of Bills, the Fed would purchase short-dated Treasuries. So, now that we know that the Fed will, for at least a few months, be buying Bills (before eventually shifting to shorter maturity bonds), the updated projections for the Fed is shown with the dashed lines (while the original one is the solid line).

In other words, rather than rising gradually to reverse some of the reduction in duration absorption in recent years, the duration absorption would merely stabilize around current levels.

Of course, the Fed's asset holdings impact the global central bank balance shee: the dashed red line shows the impact of the Fed going down the path of T-bill purchases on aggregate G4 central bank duration absorption, which suggests G4 duration absorption is set to continue declining roughly in line with its pace thus far this year. In other words, the ECB’s net QE purchases alone look set to be insufficient to offset the impact of the BoJ’s effort to steepen its domestic curve. It is also the reason why the Fed has initially started monetizing Bills, and why in the very near future, the Fed will be compelled to expanding the universe of eligible assets to regular Treasuries.

What are the conclusions? First, the Fed's choice of Bills to monetize leaves questions over whether the Fed will be able to source sufficient T-bills to facilitate a permanent increase in its reserves, particularly if it has to increase them significantly above current levels, and whether trying to do so would risk offsetting reserve drainage through increased use of its ON RRP facility.

But the top finding is that as a result of the BOJ's quiet tapering of its own QE...

... as Japan struggles to re-steepen its yield curve and which on October 1 caused a marketwide margin call, and sent shockwaves around the globe, the ECB’s QE on its own would be unlikely to offset the negative G4 central bank duration

absorption impulse from the BoJ. As such, the Fed had to step in, if only to keep the G4 central bank balance sheet from shrinking. And that - not whether it's called QE or something else - is what matters, as that's the real reason the Fed had to step in. As a result, as Bank of America's Michael Hartnett recently noted, the fix is in again, and after going nowhere for 2 years, the central banks' balance sheet is back to $16.1 trillion and is expected to hit $18 trillion in roughly two years.

Whatever you do, though, just don't call the coming surge in the global central bank balance sheet to a new all time highs, QE.

After Winter, Spring (2012) was made by an American who moved to a small village in the Dordogne region of France to recover something of her childhood on a small Pennsylvania farm.

The farmers--self-described as paysans, peasants in English, (a translation I don't consider entirely accurate, for reasons too complex to go into here)-- describe the financial difficulties of earning enough to survive without outside jobs.

One young farmer who is taking over the family dairy from his aging parents encapsulates the economic reality of small farms: in the 1960s, they had 3 or 4 cows, now they have 100, but their income is the same.

Corporate mega-farms can produce huge quantities of agricultural products of questionable quality because they have the scale, access to cheap credit and expertise to deal with the voluminous bureaucratic paperwork imposed by the EU and the French government. (One slip-up on a form and you're sunk if you're a one- or two-person operation.)

Artisanal producers can't compete, and will never be able to compete in a global marketplace where there is always a cheaper source. (Up to half a small farmer's income comes from EU subsidies, which the EU is trying to cut.)

Financial survival requires one spouse have an outside job, or the farmers must operate farm tours, an onsite auberge (restaurant) or equivalent higher-margin business, all of which increases the capital they must borrow to fund the expansion and the risk of bankruptcy should the venture fail to cover its costs.

The documentary echoes the themes of an earlier French documentary, Profils Paysans, a three-part series of which only the third film Modern Life (2008) has English Subtitles.

The financial uncertainties and endless hard work are running up against generational realities: relatively few young people have the necessary passion for farming and the appetite for risk and hard work. Across the developed world, from Japan to the U.S. to France, there are few (if any) successors in line to take over the small family farms.

The small family farm--and the knowledge of how to grow food and raise animals--is dying away with the passing of our elderly farmers. The average age of farmers in many nations is well above 60. Many of the paysans (male and female) profiled in these documentaries are in their 80s.

The land is sold for residential development (i.e. exurb sprawl, overwhelming infrastructure such as roads, water systems, etc. designed for much small populations) or abandoned.

These documentaries only partially capture the enormous distance between "modern life" and the human-Nature relationship required to make land sustainably productive.

It's important to preserve wilderness, but we don't eat what grows or roams in wilderness. Wildlife can't survive solely on isolated preserves, either; Corporate Big Ag monoculture fields offer little to no habitat for wildlife.

Corporate Big Ag doesn't maintain the polycultures needed to support insects, birds and other wildlife; small farms provide niches and habitats for all sorts of life that doesn't serve a direct financial interest of the owners.

The widening divide between the modern lifestyle--completely ignorant and dismissive of rural productive polyculture--and those who still hold knowledge of artisanal, small-scale, localized production of high quality food--is already unbridgeable.

One elderly farmer described how his non-French neighbor complained about the cowbells on his few cattle. This resident's dogs could bark freely, but the cowbells were an annoyance beyond tolerance?

This is a manifestation of the complete alienation of "modern life" from the production of food. The modern urban/exurb resident doesn't want to smell hay (hay fever!) or manure (oh my, all animal poop should vanish instantly or I can't bear it) or any other exposure to the realities of raising livestock, killing animals so we can eat them or any other reality of food. All of these processes should be done thousands of miles away, and the food shipped by air in nice plastic containers to our supermarkets.

Neoliberal economists insist nothing has been lost; the plastic food in the plastic containers is "market efficiency" (never mind the dependence on cheap credit and cheap jet fuel). As for all the intangible economic, social and cultural capital that's been lost--it has no value in globalized Neoliberal economies.

One almost hopes that Corporate Big Ag disappears due to mono-crop plagues and people start going hungry to the point that they begin to take an interest in relearning all that's been cavalierly tossed away in favor of plastic food in plastic packaging and endless hours slumped on sofas "consuming" videos and "engaging" social media.

We've lost so much in the conquest of localized, small-scale polycultural farming by Neoliberal globalism and the dominance of cheap-credit-fueled Corporate Big Ag, yet we're only dimly aware of what's been lost because it isn't measured or valued in Neoliberal economies.

We've lost the knowledge of even partial self-sufficiency; we've lost a diversified local economy that can feed itself; we've lost "food security," the resilience provided by food grown locally rather than being flown in from thousands of miles away; we've lost the cultural habits of helping neighbors bring in their harvest, of celebrating the shared work around a communal table; we've lost any Nature-based cultural identity; we've lost the cultural and economic capital of interwoven small farms; we've lost the habitats for wildlife that are unique to polyculture farming, and we've lost any meaningful connection to the land and Nature.

It's not just small farms that are being lost--it's the entire rural economy of villages and towns that are supported by farm income and products.

This is only a partial list of what we've lost to globalism, cheap credit and the Tyranny of Price which generates the Landfill Economy: always buy the cheapest corporate product-- price is all that matters, even if the quality is appalling. Just throw the low-quality items and food in the Landfill and buy new stuff on credit.)

These documentaries link directly to a 1,180 page two-volume work by historian Fernand Braudel, his last work:

The Identity of France: Volume One: History and Environment

The Identity of France: Volume Two: People and Production

I realize relatively few other readers would tackle a 1,200 page series with the same relish I have, or feel the same regret that I've finished the books, for my understanding of France, the history of agriculture, modern capitalism and prosperous rural economies is immeasurably richer.

What we've lost is a localized, resilient, diverse rural economy with a wealth of cultural and practical skills and wisdom. We only have a few years to save this immense wealth from complete and irretrievable loss.

What we've lost, whether we measure it or not is the subject my new book, Will You Be Richer or Poorer? Profit, Power and A.I. in a Traumatized World; (Read the first section for free (PDF). The book explores all the forms of wealth that we've lost or squandered. This applies not just to rural life and the rural, localized economy, but to our urban life, our society, our culture and our economy.

*  *  *

Will You Be Richer or Poorer? Profit, Power and A.I. in a Traumatized World (15% discount in October, Kindle $5.95, print $10.95) Read the first section for free (PDF).  Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 (Kindle), $12 (print), $13.08 ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).  The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF).  Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF). If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Then by Sunday, thousands of black-clothed protesters clashed with police, exchanging tear gas and petrol bombs that sent the city into chaos once more. 

Protests firebombed the Tsim Sha Tsui police station on the Kowloon peninsula. 

#LIVE: Protesters hurl petrol bombs at Tsim Sha Tsui Police Station, with flames briefly burning on the entrance gate https://t.co/C1XgcSQwLk #HongKongProtests


Video: SCMP/Kimmy Chung pic.twitter.com/B8MJSlMFv3

— SCMP News (@SCMPNews) October 20, 2019

#HongKong protesters throw Molotovs at police stationhttps://t.co/skJG3CMJLt pic.twitter.com/0CvQPPMuoV

— RT (@RT_com) October 20, 2019

There were several other reports that protestors used petrol bombs and targeted metro stations in the city. 

Violent #hongkongprotestors continue damage across territory during #hongkongprotests, including fire on #hongkong power supply facilities...hope #hongkongpolice to get them asap! pic.twitter.com/iMzv1uKdXk

— HongKongRiot2019香港暴動實錄 (@HK2019Riot) October 20, 2019

Video: #HongKong rioters set fire to Mong Kok MTR subway station in an illegal assembly on Sunday afternoon. #香港 pic.twitter.com/eoyDPECHxX

— Global Times (@globaltimesnews) October 20, 2019

Protesters attack exits at Mongkok MTR stations, setting multiple fires #hongkongprotests #antielab #hongkong pic.twitter.com/z13ECnPQhs

— May-Ying Lam (@mayyin9) October 20, 2019

Protesters set fire at Nathan Road near Mong Kok Police Station. Police fired multiple shots of tear gas #HongKongProtests #HongKong #antiELAB pic.twitter.com/NSInGAN5qd

— Veta Chan (@veta_chan) October 20, 2019

Protesters rush away from a section of Nathan Road after the water cannon truck fires blue liquid. Some have hit reporters.#hongkong #hongkongprotests pic.twitter.com/R2kGnotpVt via HongKongFP

— Hong Kong Stream (@hkstream) October 20, 2019

Protestors targeted hundreds of shops and even damaged Chinese banks. 

#HongKong protesters set a store on fire at Chong Hong Square just now #HongKongProtests pic.twitter.com/sOhEJiBygi

— Carl Zha (@CarlZha) October 20, 2019

This weekend's violence is due to pro-democracy leader Jimmy Sham, who was attacked earlier in the week, which left him in critical condition in the hospital. 

Here's the moment when Hong Kong activist Jimmy Sham (#岑子杰) was taken to the hospital with bloody head injuries.


The #HongKongProtests organizer was attacked by men wielding hammers on Wednesday night pic.twitter.com/vmRaK4rFcJ

— Bloomberg TicToc (@tictoc) October 18, 2019

As protestors continue to battle police into the overnight, road barriers have been set on fire, and stores are being trashed in several Kowloon districts, said police. 

Reuters spoke with a protestor who said the government is now denying demonstration permits to prevent demonstrations from growing in size.

 "The government pretends we just want to destroy the city. We'll be out for as long as it takes to let the world know it is them who are destroying it," a demonstrator named Ray told Reuters. 

Violent protests began over the summer when Hong Kong proposed a new law that would allow Beijing to extradited criminals to mainland China. 

Hongkongers take pride in their legal system and personal freedoms, which is dramatically different than communist China. 

China has shown in recent years that it seeks greater control over Hong Kong.

The extradition bill was scrapped in early September, but that hasn't stopped violent demonstrations into fall. 

Protesters view Hong Kong's leader Carrie Lam as an agent of Beijing and will likely not stop protesting until she is removed from power.

And to make things more complicated in the days ahead, US lawmakers late last week sent a clear message to Beijing that it will support protestors via a new bill. 

While Hong Kong burns this weekend, so is Santiago, Chile; so is Barcelona, Spain, and there are even climate change protests that are starting to get out of control throughout Europe.

The world is on fire.... protestas y violencia en Hong Kong, Barcelona, Chile, Culiacan, Ecuador, Syria, London, Honduras, Lebanon, and Palestine. Is this shit going viral yet?

— Catman Mao (@MiauTse) October 19, 2019

There's so much chaos in the world right now. Violent protests in Chile, Lebanon, hong kong and azerbaijan, buildings and tree on fire, the Kashmir curfew and probably many more things that we aren't even aware of. I don't even know what to say. It's just really sad.

— ɴᴏᴏr (@nxpapillon) October 20, 2019

Populism is sweeping across the world, and a lot of this anger and frustration with young people is due to flawed monetary policy by central banks that have produced the widest wealth gap in the history of the world. 

It's only a matter of time before US millennials figure this out, they too will be marching in the streets once they know the truth as to why they only have a shitty gig-economy job, no savings, and insurmountable student debt.

“Donald Trump Has Handed Putin the Middle East on a Plate” was the title of a Telegraph column. “Putin Seizes on Trump’s Syria Retreat to Cement Middle East Role,” said the Financial Times.

The U.S. press parroted the British: Putin is now the new master of the Mideast. And woe is us.

Remember that the epicenter of virulent anti-Russian, pro-Israeli sentiment doesn’t begin with the Neocons along K-Street. It begins with the remnants of the British imperial class which still holds tremendous sway over British politics.

Think I’m wrong about that. Just look at Brexit.

As I pointed out the minute Trump defended his initial pullout of 50 U.S. troops to allow Turkey to cross into northern Syria, Putin has the situation mostly under control by laying the groundwork to craft win/win/win/win possibilities for everyone in the region.

Buchanan remains skeptical of this, saying that if Putin is the new king of the Middle East, will the crown lie heavy on his head?

It’s a fair question but I think it betrays Pat’s biases as an old Cold Warrior.

Pat makes a series of comparisons between Russia’s military presence in the region and the size of the economies backing them to make his point. I think, frankly, that’s outdated analysis.

It is based on the premise that Russia has imperial aspirations in the region, similar to that of the U.S. At his core, Buchanan is still a ‘great powers theory’ kind of guy.

From the moment Putin began his intervention into Syria the U.S.’s punditocracy said he would get bogged down in a quagmire. That he couldn’t afford the coming war with entrenched ISIS fighters.

This was based on the fact that the U.S. couldn’t defeat ISIS. But that logic only held if you believed the U.S. was actually fighting ISIS which I never did. Once Russia moved into Syria it exposed the lie of ISIS’s strength.

Within days of Russian air operations beginning the Syrian Arab Army began taking large chunks of territory from U.S. and Turkish-backed rebels and from ISIS.

The turnaround was striking. And the U.S. was stunned into fumbling silence, complaining that Putin was bombing the wrong people. The efficiency of the Russian air crews was off the charts and the results on the ground spoke for themselves.

This isn’t revisionist history or Putin shilling here. These are facts. The Russians were turning their planes over three to four times a day at that point.

It’s clear from the way that Putin has built Russia’s military that it is designed around defense of Russia’s borders not invading or maintaining an Empire.

And that’s why Buchanan’s criticisms of Putin’s victories here ring hollow. Pat rightly points out that if Putin does craft a network of deals that bring regional peace he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

But I suspect Pat doesn’t believe that to be happening.

My read, however, is the opposite. Peace is exactly what is happening.

From the beginning of my return to blogging in 2017 I speculated about the Grand Bargain in the Middle East built around Putin guaranteeing the behavior of his allies — Israel, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraqi Shi’ites — and President Trump guaranteeing the good behavior of his — Israel, the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

That vision of the Grand Bargain never materialized because the influence of those allies within Trump’s government were too strong for him to resist politically.

Putin was smart to remain skeptical of Trump’s ability to deliver on his promises. And Trump, for his part, was sent down a path which would define his first term as a shambolic mess thanks to his inability to grasp the enormity of the problem confronting him.

He pushed U.S. policy too far in the pro-Israel, pro-Saudi direction to sell his version of Middle East peace, lobbied for intensely by Benjamin Netanyahu, Jared Kushner and their backers who helped install arch neocons around Trump like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Fiona Hill and Gina Haspel.

These folks were put in place to keep Trump ignorant of the dangers of his policy while Secretary of State James Mattis was there to stoke the hard-line militarily on Iran. Add to that General Joseph Dunford’s role as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to suppress strategic conclusions about our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now with the passing of the Dunford regime as Joint Chief in September, General Milley steps in, with significant changes to public policy already on display. For example, Milley’s commissioned study of the Iraq war — long awaited and delayed by military pressure to prevent release of a largely negative report — was publicly released by Milley in January of 2019. The report states, “that coalition warfare (in Iraq) was ‘largely unsuccessful’ for several reasons, that failing to account for a lack of understanding of the inner workings of Iraqi politics and group struggles’ in part led to failure there. That’s an account that Dunford was unlikely to approve, and may have caused him to delay. So, with the departure of Dunford and Mattis as we shall see, the way forward for US disengagement from Syria’s northeast was made possible.

I don’t think U.S. disengagement is just possible. I think it’s happening right in front of our eyes.

Any thought that Putin is not up to the task here isn’t reading the tea leaves.

Everyone who has been fronting strength has been bluffing. Hard.

Israel is weak. Saudi Arabia weak. Turkey weak.

The U.S. weaker than anyone wants to admit.

Pat’s right that Russia isn’t strong, but no one here is. Everyone’s been drained by the refusal to give up the dream of atomizing the region in the service of the outdated Brzezinski/Wolfowitz doctrine of sowing discord in Central Asia.

The EU has drained itself in the service of a political union no one except The Davos Crowd wants. The U.K. is drained from decades of the EU vacuuming their wealth from the core economy, hollowing it out to a financial shell centered around City of London.

The Russia/China/Iran axis has simply played the ultimate game of attrition, reading the economic and political tea leaves perfectly while executing a pan-Eurasian strategy of integration through disengagement from U.S. and U.K. financial institutions.

Russia is the only country with the unique mix of resources, geography and financial stability, thanks to its policy of de-dollarization and prudent fiscal management, that can make good on any of the promises it makes to its potential partners on the other side of the negotiating table.

Trump is following Putin’s lead in his dealings with Turkey. By leaving places like Manbij to the Syrians and the Russians it makes it clear to all that this is a bargain that can work for everyone directly involved.

Syria gets its territory back, Turkey gets the Kurdish SDF off its border in an important town and the U.S. alerts the world that the old game is over and a new one is starting.

Both of them made moves to stabilize Saudi Arabia — Trump with troops to keep Iran honest and Putin with major deals to assist the Saudi financial position through investment. Trump has worked with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan to act as his proxy in Saudi/Iranian peace talks.

Putin is limiting Turkey’s Erdogan’s adventurism in Syria by fully supporting Assad and the restoration of Syrian territorial integrity through diplomacy with the YPG Kurds.

Putin and Trump are both waiting to see who takes power in Israel. But at this point it’s clear that whoever does will finally be order-takers and no longer order-makers unless Trump is impeached and convicted.

At this point that’s the biggest wild card. And regardless of that outcome, the rest of Putin’s deft use of diplomacy and his efficient military have created a different reality for Israel, that even with a full neocon restoration post-Trump, won’t be favorable to them.

And yes, you can thank Vladimir Putin for that.

*  *  *

Join My Patreon if you want to support narrative destruction of global elites. Install the Brave Browser if you want to undermine Google’s ability to control information.

Lagarde told 60 Minutes correspondent John Dickerson that central banking is like "navigating a plane" with policymakers keeping a very close eye on the instrument panel, i.e., economic trends.

Dickerson asks Lagarde if it's okay if a leader [refering to President Trump] was actively criticizing a central bank head in public. Dickerson pulled a quote from President Trump's Sept. 11 tweet, where he called Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell a "bonehead" for not cutting "interest rates down to ZERO."

....The USA should always be paying the the lowest rate. No Inflation! It is only the naïveté of Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve that doesn’t allow us to do what other countries are already doing. A once in a lifetime opportunity that we are missing because of “Boneheads.”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 11, 2019

Lagarde responds by saying, "a central bank governor does best his job if he is independent."

According to CBS, the interview took place last month at Lagarde's home in Normandy and the IMF headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Lagarde also criticized President Trump's Twitter practices as a whole and his trade war with China that has sent the global economy into one of its most vulnerable periods since the last financial crisis.

She said world leaders need to find a resolution to trade disputes: "My very, very strong message to all policymakers is please sit down like big men, many men in those rooms and put everything on the table, and try to deal bit by bit, piece by piece, so that we have certainty."

Lagarde will replace outgoing ECB Chief Mario Draghi on Nov. 01. She's entering the position as Europe's manufacturing complex is sliding into a technical recession along with the rest of the world.

Lagarde calling out President Trump in an upcoming 60-Minutes interview indicates that central bankers across the world are panicking to control an economic narrative that they have lost thanks to President Trump's tweeting.

60-Minutes has an average viewership of 8 million Americans, which means central banks, led by the upcoming Lagarde interview, want to convince as many people as possible that President Trump is wrong for criticizing Federal Reserve policy, but also want to persuade millions of people that the next recession should be blamed on the president -- not central banks.

For those who don't know, Lagarde was convicted for a massive bribery scheme as French finance minister, and her latest stunt in suggesting President Trump is interfering and influencing Powell to lower rates to zero is humorous.

Largard's absolutely disastrous tenure at the IMF, most recently the failed $57 billion bailout of Argentina through an IMF loan, has left the country of 45 million, essentially bankrupt, but more importantly, it shows that she will destroy the Eurozone as ECB head.

President Trump might get the last laugh.

“The 120-hour pause on operations will end Tuesday night, we will continue crushing heads of terrorists if they don’t withdraw by then,” Erdogan told a political rally in the central Anatolian city of Kayseri on Saturday, according to Bloomberg. 

This after one of Turkey's soldiers was reported killed during a breach of the ceasefire, according to Turkish official sources.

Kurdish YPG forces charged Turkey with blocking the evacuation of their dead and wounded, while Turkish troops claimed to have come under fire some 20 times in what would be a violation of the agreement. 

Following Thursday's deal, the result of some four hours of meetings between the US vice president and Turkey's leader, the White House cautioned that the reality of a complete pause in fighting could take a little time to implement. 

But perhaps the more important deal-making is set to occur with Moscow, as Erdogan and Putin are set to meet this upcoming week to discuss the rapidly developing events in Syria. Currently Russian troops have filled the power vacuum left in the wake of the rapid Pentagon draw down from border towns in northeast Syria. 

“There are regime forces under Russian protection in parts of our operation area. We will discuss it with Putin. We’ve to find a solution,” Erdogan said Saturday.

Indeed whatever comes out of meeting with Putin is likely to set the final trajectory which could bring the fighting to a close. 

However, when the photographer found out that Cooper still had male reproductive organs, he said he couldn’t work with her because she “has a cock.”

This prompted Cooper to alert Humberside Police to this “transphobic behavior” and authorities are now investigating whether a hate crime was committed.

A spokeswoman for Humberside Police said:

“We received a report of a hate incident yesterday, on Wednesday, October 16. The report has been logged and will be investigated.”

The UK’s violent crime rate has risen by 19% in the last year. Fatal stabbings are becoming commonplace in major cities.

But thank God police resources are being wasted on the urgent issue of transgenders being offended over words.

*  *  *

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

The latest stress in the global diamond industry is emanating from Israel. Ynetnews is saying the country's diamond exports have plunged 22%, a sign that consumer demand from Asia is faltering. 

Trade data showed for the first three quarters of 2019, Israeli exports of diamonds were $2.62 billion, down from $3.32 billion during the same period last year.

In 3Q19, imports and exports of diamonds by Israel plunged 28% YoY. 

The Times of Israel blamed the downturn on the trade war and social unrest in Hong Kong. 

Yoram Dvash, president of the Israel Diamond Exchange, told Ynetnews:

"There is a global crisis. The government needs to help out the industry. Everywhere people are helping because they understand that there are difficulties now. Trump's trade war with China and the Hong Kong protests really influence the industry. Hong Kong accounts for about 30% of our exports. The Hong Kong government said that in recent times, the sector that's been damaged the most there has been the jewelry industry."

Dvash said Hong Kong jewelry shops, which import hundreds of millions of dollars of diamonds from Israel per year, have noticed collapsing demand from mainland China because of the social unrest and economic downturn in the region. 

"Right now, the Chinese government isn't granting visas to Chinese to go to Hong Kong in order to put pressure on business people there and hurt the economy. It's paralyzing the number 2 diamond market in the world," Dvash said.

A source told Ynetnews that a credit crisis in India involving Indian diamond companies has negatively impacted the global industry.

Earlier this month, De Beers', one of the largest diamond exploration, diamond mining, and diamond retailing companies in the world, saw a 39% YoY drop in September sales. 

A diamond analyst last month said markets remained oversupplied, resulting in weak global sales.

"The current malaise in the market is due to oversupply," said Paul Zimnisky, an analyst in New York, who said diamond buyers had too much inventory.

Spot diamond prices on the IDEX Diamond Index shows how oversupplied conditions have weighed down prices in the last 8 months.

Source: Bloomberg

And while diamonds are supposed to "a girl's best friend", recent months have seen gold the preferred shiny thing of choice...

Source: Bloomberg

Shares in Signet, the world's largest retailer of diamond jewelry, have crashed 89% in the last four years.

It appears a diamond crisis is unfolding, and this is what usually happens right before a global recession, a sign that the consumer can no longer power the global economy. Turmoil is ahead.

China typically sources most of its soybeans from the US between October and January, then from South American countries in early 1Q. But this year, according to traders, as the trade war continues to escalate to the point of return, China is abandoning US markets despite positive sentiment from President Trump's tweets.

U.S. vs. Brazil (Market share of China's total soybean imports) pic.twitter.com/8tYdlbWbrT

— Michael McDonough (@M_McDonough) October 9, 2019

Since Monday, traders said China purchased eight bulk carrier cargoes of soybeans from Brazil, or about 480,000 tons, worth $173 million.  

Brazil is China's top soybean supplier, and Reuters made an interesting point, "large purchases from South America are unusual at this time of year with the US harvest coming in." Translation: China isn't buying US soybeans, so President Trump's tweets about agriculture purchases are meaningless at the moment and are only used to calm fears of Midwest/Central US farmers. 

President Trump and his administration spent several weeks pumping headlines through different wirehouses and even on Twitter, about a breakthrough deal and massive agriculture purchases China was performing. 

Three US soybean exporters told Reuters that China logged zero sales with the US last week, along with no transactions at the USDA.  

"I've not had any inquiries at all for US (shipments)," said one of the US soybean exporters. "There were a few November boats bought from Brazil and several new-crop South American boats for March forward but nothing here."

Another US exporter said a drop in Brazilian soybean prices triggered boatloads of new purchases by China last week.

Chinese state-owned firms COFCO and Sinograin, which are exempt from US tariffs, have no intention of purchasing US soybeans unless spot prices drop, said one of the exporters.

After the Trump administration spent several weeks pumping the stock market on headlines describing China repurchasing soybeans, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Thursday finally admitted that for China to buy $50 billion worth of US agriculture good, it would depend on spot prices.

On Tuesday, China said that it would struggle to buy $50 billion of US agriculture products if the Trump administration doesn't remove retaliatory tariffs on some products. Something that President Trump cannot afford to do because it would allow China to continue its ascension as a global superpower. 

Instead, Trump said he would "begin the search for another site, including the possibility of Camp David, immediately."

According to Trump's late Saturday tweetstorm, the president "thought I was doing something very good for our Country by using Trump National Doral, in Miami, for hosting the G-7 Leaders." The tweet then trailed off into an ad for the (struggling) Doral golf resort, laying out all its positive aspects:

It is big, grand, on hundreds of acres, next to MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, has tremendous ballrooms & meeting rooms, and each delegation would have its own 50 to 70 unit building. Would set up better than other alternatives.

Trump, confused why it would appear a conflict of interest to host the most important people in the world at his property, then explained the he "would be willing to do it at NO PROFIT or, if legally permissible, at ZERO COST to the USA." But, he added "as usual, the Hostile Media & their Democrat Partners went CRAZY!"

"Therefore", Trump concluded, "based on both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility, we will no longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host Site for the G-7 in 2020. We will begin the search for another site, including the possibility of Camp David, immediately."

I thought I was doing something very good for our Country by using Trump National Doral, in Miami, for hosting the G-7 Leaders. It is big, grand, on hundreds of acres, next to MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, has tremendous ballrooms & meeting rooms, and each delegation would have...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2019

.....its own 50 to 70 unit building. Would set up better than other alternatives. I announced that I would be willing to do it at NO PROFIT or, if legally permissible, at ZERO COST to the USA. But, as usual, the Hostile Media & their Democrat Partners went CRAZY!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2019

....Therefore, based on both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility, we will no longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host Site for the G-7 in 2020. We will begin the search for another site, including the possibility of Camp David, immediately. Thank you!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2019

That said, if Trump was hoping that with this decision the media's outrage would be diminished - if anything it will only validate that complaints and criticisms of Trump's decision were justified. On the other hand, the media may have moved on: after all, the latest scandal involving Hillary Clinton, Tulsi Gabbard and the rest of the democrats in the primary race, all of whom appear to have picked a side in this bizarre catfight, just may allow the press to forget about Trump for a day or two, as Hillary Clinton decides whether she has enough public and media support to officially enter the race for president. Again.

The newest patent is for a practical fusion reactor that could be stored in aircraft to help achieve unimaginable speeds and maneuverability.

The mystery around these patents continues to grow during a time in which the Navy and State Department have stunningly reversed their decades-old policy of not acknowledging UFO sightings. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division is the home of the high-level Navy researcher, the equally mysterious Salvatore Cezar Pais, who in recent years has filed patents for supposedly operable revolutionary technologies such as  room temperature superconductor (RTSC) and the high-energy electromagnetic field generator (HEEMFG).

Perhaps the most surprising patent concerns the “hybrid aerospace-underwater craft,” which can supposedly navigate with equal precision through space, air, and water with no heat signature and “engineer the fabric of our reality at the most fundamental level.”

In the patents filed, Pais has revealed that Chinese scientists are already way ahead of the United States in such fields. The reason this is a shocking admission is because military personnel, Navy officers, and air pilots have for years reported USOs (unidentified submerged objects) that seem to fly in and out of the sea at incomphrensible speeds.

The newest patent teases the discovery of the “Holy Grail” of energy production, the long sought nuclear fusion reactor, which could revolutionize life on Earth by creating a sustainable long-term fuel source and reduce radioactive waste and greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, scientists do not know how to manage systems that utilize high-pressure plasma in the range of hundreds of millions of degrees Fahrenheit and can only create split second controlled nuclear fusion reactions.

However, the patent for Pais’ “Plasma Compression Fusion Device,” which was only disclosed September 26, 2019 states:

“At present there are few envisioned fusion reactors/devices that come in a small, compact package (ranging from 0.3 to 2 meters in diameter) and typically they use different versions of plasma magnetic confinement. Three such devices are the Lockheed Martin (LM) Skunk Works Compact Fusion Reactor (LM-CFR) , the EMC2 Polywell fusion concept, and the Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration (PFRC) machine. […] These devices feature short plasma confinement times, possible plasma instabilities with the scaling of size, and it is questionable whether they have the ability of achieving the break – even fusion condition, let alone a self-sustained plasma burn leading to ignition.” 

Pais states that this technology would be capable of producing as much as a terawatt (1 trillion watts) of power, which vastly surpasses America’s largest current nuclear power plant. While it’s not known whether such technology is possible at all, much less in a compact structure, we do know that the U.S. military and private firms like Lockheed Martin are competing with the government run-Chinese Academy of Sciences to create the world’s first compact nuclear reactor. 

You will find more infographics at Statista

At the other end of the spectrum, the lowest scoring countries in the index were Georgia and Yemen with 6 percent of people stating that they made a charitable donation in the past month.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Charity is more than likely one of the last things on people's minds in Yemen which has been ravaged by years of war.