Scientists Warn: PREPARE NOW For A Mini ICE AGE As The Sun Cools

Scientists are all seemingly on the same page for once and declaring that the sun’s decreased output could fling Earth into a mini ice age.  The scientists determined, based on 20 years of observations and collected data, that the sun will be nearly seven percent cooler and dimmer by 2050 causing a mini ice age.

According to Money Control, a research team based at the University of California in San Diego believe that they have figured out a way to track the sun’s 11-year-cycle. Our sun goes through an 11-year-cycle where it experiences active and rather quiet periods, known as the solar maximum and solar minimum. Now, the researchers believe they have worked out when the next solar minimum could occur.

During a solar minimum, the sun’s magnetism decreases, fewer sunspots form, and less ultraviolet radiation actually makes it to the surface of planet Earth. These conditions mean the sun’s surface appears clearer and becomes dimmer.

According to the study, conditions in the next cold period labeled as a “grand minimum”, could be similar to those experienced in Europe in the middle of the 17th century. Back then, the River Thames froze as a result of the extremely low temperatures. Low temperatures also caused the Baltic Sea to freeze in 1968. Scientists claim that the period, known as the ‘Maunder Minimum’ was similar to a mini ice age. The head of the research team, Dan Lubin, believes we may experience even worse conditions in 2050.

“This whole global warming fiasco had nothing to do with global warming,” said Joe Joseph during The Daily Sheeple’s News Shot.  “It was to prepare the elite for the coming ice age.”

“Which is exactly what we’ve been seeing if you observe what’s going on in the background. ” Joseph continues. “Folks, the [sic] are so many things that are going on in plain sight that we don’t see because we’re flooded with all of this information, and all of this input our lives have been so overly complicated by the array of crap that we’ve just surrounded ourselves with…it’s no surprise that we don’t see what’s actually going on right in front of our faces,” he said.

Scientists estimates claim that the grand minimum would most likely cool the earth by about 0.25 percent between 2020 and 2070. As a result, the surface of the earth would cool by up to several tenths of a degree Celsius. The study said that when the sun’s energy is reduced, the first thing that occurs is the thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer. “That thinning, in turn, changes the temperature structure of the stratosphere, which then changes the dynamics of the lower atmosphere, especially wind and weather patterns,” scientists noted.

But Joseph breaks it down simply. “The sun is cooling down,” he said. “The sun is going quiet, and because the sun is going quiet, it is having effects on our planet and the other planets around us.” This begs the question: are we prepared for another ice age?

You could be. Prepare now, the worst is yet to come.

Eye-opening Study Predicts Solar Cycle Will Cause a ‘Mini Ice Age’ as Early as 2020

A team of astrophysicists has conducted a years-long study showing that in only a few years, Earth may experience a mini ice age that would drastically change how we live.

Doug Casey On The End Of The Nation-State

Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,

There have been a fair number of references to the subject of “phyles” in Casey Research publications over the years. This essay will discuss the topic in detail. Especially how phyles are likely to replace the nation-state, one of mankind’s worst inventions.

Now might be a good time to discuss the subject. We’ll have an almost unremitting stream of bad news, on multiple fronts, for years to come. So it might be good to keep a hopeful prospect in mind.

Let’s start by looking at where we’ve been. I trust you’ll excuse my skating over all of human political history in a few paragraphs, but my object is to provide a framework for where we’re going, rather than an anthropological monograph.

Mankind has, so far, gone through three main stages of political organization since Day One, say 200,000 years ago, when anatomically modern men started appearing. We can call them Tribes, Kingdoms, and Nation-States.

Karl Marx had a lot of things wrong, especially his moral philosophy. But one of the acute observations he made was that the means of production are perhaps the most important determinant of how a society is structured. Based on that, so far in history, only two really important things have happened: the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. Everything else is just a footnote.

Let’s see how these things relate.

The Agricultural Revolution and the End of Tribes

In prehistoric times, the largest political/economic group was the tribe. In that man is a social creature, it was natural enough to be loyal to the tribe. It made sense. Almost everyone in the tribe was genetically related, and the group was essential for mutual survival in the wilderness. That made them the totality of people that counted in a person’s life—except for “others” from alien tribes, who were in competition for scarce resources and might want to kill you for good measure.

Tribes tend to be natural meritocracies, with the smartest and the strongest assuming leadership. But they’re also natural democracies, small enough that everyone can have a say on important issues. Tribes are small enough that everybody knows everyone else, and knows what their weak and strong points are. Everyone falls into a niche of marginal advantage, doing what they do best, simply because that’s necessary to survive. Bad actors are ostracized or fail to wake up, in a pool of their own blood, some morning. Tribes are socially constraining but, considering the many faults of human nature, a natural and useful form of organization in a society with primitive technology.

As people built their pool of capital and technology over many generations, however, populations grew. At the end of the last Ice Age, around 12,000 years ago, all over the world, there was a population explosion. People started living in towns and relying on agriculture as opposed to hunting and gathering. Large groups of people living together formed hierarchies, with a king of some description on top of the heap.

Those who adapted to the new agricultural technology and the new political structure accumulated the excess resources necessary for waging extended warfare against tribes still living at a subsistence level. The more evolved societies had the numbers and the weapons to completely triumph over the laggards. If you wanted to stay tribal, you’d better live in the middle of nowhere, someplace devoid of the resources others might want. Otherwise it was a sure thing that a nearby kingdom would enslave you and steal your property.

The Industrial Revolution and the End of Kingdoms

From around 12,000 B.C. to roughly the mid-1600s, the world’s cultures were organized under strong men, ranging from petty lords to kings, pharaohs, or emperors.

It’s odd, to me at least, how much the human animal seems to like the idea of monarchy. It’s mythologized, especially in a medieval context, as a system with noble kings, fair princesses, and brave knights riding out of castles on a hill to right injustices. As my friend Rick Maybury likes to point out, quite accurately, the reality differs quite a bit from the myth. The king is rarely more than a successful thug, a Tony Soprano at best, or perhaps a little Stalin. The princess was an unbathed hag in a chastity belt, the knight a hired killer, and the shining castle on the hill the headquarters of a concentration camp, with plenty of dungeons for the politically incorrect.

With kingdoms, loyalties weren’t so much to the “country”—a nebulous and arbitrary concept—but to the ruler. You were the subject of a king, first and foremost. Your linguistic, ethnic, religious, and other affiliations were secondary. It’s strange how, when people think of the kingdom period of history, they think only in terms of what the ruling classes did and had. Even though, if you were born then, the chances were 98% you’d be a simple peasant who owned nothing, knew nothing beyond what his betters told him, and sent most of his surplus production to his rulers. But, again, the gradual accumulation of capital and knowledge made the next step possible: the Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution and the End of the Nation-State

As the means of production changed, with the substitution of machines for muscle, the amount of wealth took a huge leap forward. The average man still might not have had much, but the possibility to do something other than beat the earth with a stick for his whole life opened up, largely as a result of the Renaissance.

Then the game changed totally with the American and French Revolutions. People no longer felt they were owned by some ruler; instead they now gave their loyalty to a new institution, the nation-state. Some innate atavism, probably dating back to before humans branched from the chimpanzees about 3 million years ago, seems to dictate the Naked Ape to give his loyalty to something bigger than himself. Which has delivered us to today’s prevailing norm, the nation-state, a group of people who tend to share language, religion, and ethnicity. The idea of the nation-state is especially effective when it’s organized as a “democracy,” where the average person is given the illusion he has some measure of control over where the leviathan is headed.

On the plus side, by the end of the 18th century, the Industrial Revolution had provided the common man with the personal freedom, as well as the capital and technology, to improve things at a rapidly accelerating pace.

What caused the sea change?

I’ll speculate it was largely due to an intellectual factor, the invention of the printing press; and a physical factor, the widespread use of gunpowder. The printing press destroyed the monopoly the elites had on knowledge; the average man could now see that they were no smarter or “better” than he was. If he was going to fight them (conflict is, after all, what politics is all about), it didn’t have to be just because he was told to, but because he was motivated by an idea. And now, with gunpowder, he was on an equal footing with the ruler’s knights and professional soldiers.

Right now I believe we’re at the cusp of another change, at least as important as the ones that took place around 12,000 years ago and several hundred years ago. Even though things are starting to look truly grim for the individual, with collapsing economic structures and increasingly virulent governments, I suspect help is on the way from historical evolution. Just as the agricultural revolution put an end to tribalism and the industrial revolution killed the kingdom, I think we’re heading for another multipronged revolution that’s going to make the nation-state an anachronism. It won’t happen next month, or next year. But I’ll bet the pattern will start becoming clear within the lifetime of many now reading this.

What pattern am I talking about? Once again, a reference to the evil genius Karl Marx, with his concept of the “withering away of the State.” By the end of this century, I suspect the US and most other nation-states will have, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist.

The Problem with the State—And Your Nation-State

Of course, while I suspect that many of you are sympathetic to that sentiment, you also think the concept is too far out, and that I’m guilty of wishful thinking. People believe the state is necessary and—generally—good. They never even question whether the institution is permanent.

My view is that the institution of the state itself is a bad thing. It’s not a question of getting the right people into the government; the institution itself is hopelessly flawed and necessarily corrupts the people that compose it, as well as the people it rules. This statement invariably shocks people, who believe that government is both a necessary and permanent part of the cosmic firmament.

The problem is that government is based on coercion, and it is, at a minimum, suboptimal to base a social structure on institutionalized coercion. Let me urge you to read the Tannehills’ superb The Market for Liberty, which is available for free, download here.

One of the huge changes brought by the printing press and advanced exponentially by the Internet is that people are able to readily pursue different interests and points of view. As a result, they have less and less in common: living within the same political borders is no longer enough to make them countrymen. That’s a big change from pre-agricultural times when members of the same tribe had quite a bit—almost everything—in common. But this has been increasingly diluted in the times of the kingdom and the nation-state. If you’re honest, you may find you have very little in common with most of your countrymen besides superficialities and trivialities.

Ponder that point for a minute. What do you have in common with your fellow countrymen? A mode of living, (perhaps) a common language, possibly some shared experiences and myths, and a common ruler. But very little of any real meaning or importance. To start with, they’re more likely to be an active danger to you than the citizens of a presumed “enemy” country, say, like Iran. If you earn a good living, certainly if you own a business and have assets, your fellow Americans are the ones who actually present the clear and present danger. The average American (about 50% of them now) pays no income tax. Even if he’s not actually a direct or indirect employee of the government, he’s a net recipient of its largesse, which is to say your wealth, through Social Security and other welfare programs.

Over the years, I’ve found I have much more in common with people of my own social or economic station or occupation in France, Argentina, or Hong Kong, than with an American union worker in Detroit or a resident of the LA barrios. I suspect many of you would agree with that observation. What’s actually important in relationships is shared values, principles, interests, and philosophy. Geographical proximity, and a common nationality, is meaningless—no more than an accident of birth. I have much more loyalty to a friend in the Congo—although we’re different colors, have different cultures, different native languages, and different life experiences—than I do to the Americans who live down the highway in the trailer park. I see the world the same way my Congolese friend does; he’s an asset to my life. I’m necessarily at odds with many of “my fellow Americans”; they’re an active and growing liability.

Some might read this and find a disturbing lack of loyalty to the state. It sounds seditious. Professional jingoists like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, or almost anyone around the Washington Beltway go white with rage when they hear talk like this. The fact is that loyalty to a state, just because you happen to have been born in its bailiwick, is simply stupid.

As far as I can tell, there are only two federal crimes specified in the US Constitution: counterfeiting and treason. That’s a far cry from today’s world, where almost every real and imagined crime has been federalized, underscoring that the whole document is a meaningless dead letter, little more than a historical artifact. Even so, that also confirms that the Constitution was quite imperfect, even in its original form. Counterfeiting is simple fraud. Why should it be singled out especially as a crime? (Okay, that opens up a whole new can of worms… but not one I’ll go into here.) Treason is usually defined as an attempt to overthrow a government or withdraw loyalty from a sovereign. A rather odd proviso to have when the framers of the Constitution had done just that only a few years before, one would think.

The way I see it, Thomas Paine had it right when he said: “My country is wherever liberty lives.”

But where does liberty live today? Actually, it no longer has a home. It’s become a true refugee since America, which was an excellent idea that grew roots in a country of that name, degenerated into the United States. Which is just another unfortunate nation-state. And it’s on the slippery slope.

"Investors Should Be Petrified" Of The Coming Ice Age: Here Are Albert Edwards' Scariest Charts

Congratulations to Albert Edwards who this morning announced that he has once again placed first in the 2017 Extel Survey of analysts in the Global Strategy category, for the record 14th year in a row. As he adds "it is particularly gratifying that clients still seem to highly value our thoughts, especially during these cyclical intermissions in the Ice Age, when equities outperform government bonds." This year"s victory appears to have been especially hard won because as he adds "you have to have a thick skin in this business, especially when our press office forwards our online press cuttings. Some of the reader abuse can get very, very personal. How do  they know this stuff about me? The comments surely can"t all be from my former partner!"

Of course, this being Albert, not even his record victory can brighten up the mood much, and the SocGen strategist then adds that "the current QE-inflated, cyclical equity bull market may have gone on way longer than we expected, but equities have only just managed to catch back up with global 10y+ government bonds (see chart below). The secular equity bear market will inevitably reassert itself and that performance chasm will open up again."

So, inspired by the record victory, Edwards is briefly reprising some of his favourite "Ice Age" charts, traditionally a source of rationality in an otherwise insane market, and lately, world.

* * *

The macro underpinning for our Ice Age thesis is the West"s slow replication of Japan"s 1990s descent into outright deflation. Each cyclical recovery sees lower highs in both inflation and nominal GDP growth rates and the inevitable recession, when it comes, wreaks increasing levels of havoc in financial markets.

But when we put together our Ice Age thesis over 20 years ago, what distinguished it from other more recent similar ideas, such as Lawrence Summers" Secular Stagnation thesis, was the massive change in financial market valuations we thought would accompany the new increasingly deflationary backdrop.

The big Ice Age call was that the tight positive correlation between equity yields and bond yields that market participants had enjoyed since 1982, driven by ever-lower inflation, would break down. The "long bull market" (see chart below) had been a mirror image of the 1965- 1982 period when yields on both assets had risen together. The Ice Age thesis, drawing on our observations of Japan, predicted that while interest rates and bond yields would continue to fall, equity yields would decouple and begin to rise on a secular basis. For those with a historical perspective the Ice Age would be a mirror image of the 1950-65 period, which had been dubbed in the 1950s "the culting of the equity market" - a term popularised by George Ross-Goobey - link. In the Ice Age, government bonds would rerate relative to equities, with the latter declining in absolute as well as relative terms.

One important implication of the Ice Age thesis was that widely used metrics from the 1980s and 90s, such as the bond/equity earnings yield ratio, would break down. Hence you should no longer buy equities when this ratio fell to 0.8 as they would be undergoing a secular de-rating.

These ideas seemed mad back in 1996, but having witnessed events in Japan through the 1990s we understood that the same forces would prevail in the West. Indeed on some metrics, what happened to the US bond/equity yield relationship closely mirrors that of Japan.

So why is it then that the US equity market has raced to all-time highs? Has the Ice Age thesis broken down? To be sure we saw strong cyclical rallies in the Japanese Nikkei within Japan?s own equity Ice Age secular bear market, but nothing as explosive as this.

The counter-argument to the Ice Age thesis is not just the unusual longevity of the current equity bull market- link. The key is that equity yields have re-coupled with declining bond yields (see chart below). If this is, as we strongly believe, an aberration and the equity yield reconnects with the red dotted arrow, then investors should be petrified of the next equity bear market.

German Press: "That Was No Presidential Speech; That Was A Declaration Of War"

Following yesterday"s openly confrontational, deliberately protectionist presidential address by president Trump, which in various circles has been dubbed the "American carnage" speech for obvious reasons, some of Obama"s closest foreign friends are scrambling to find a role in a world that has drastically changed in less than 24 hours. One of them is the foreign leader whom Obama spoke to last before vacating the White House, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who vowed on Saturday to seek compromises on issues like trade and military spending with Trump, adding she would work on preserving the important relationship between Europe and the United States.

"He made his convictions clear in his inauguration speech," Merkel said in remarks broadcast live, a day after Trump vowed to put "America first".

Speaking at a news conference in the south-western town of Schoental, Merkel - and finding herself in a world where many of her "established" friends have been swept away by the tide of "populist anger" - suddenly struck a more conciliatory tone toward Trump than Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, who on Friday said Germany should prepare for a rough ride under the new U.S. president.

"I say two things with regards to this (speech): first, I believe firmly that it is best for all of us if we work together based on rules, common values and joint action in the international economic system, in the international trade system, and make our contributions to the military alliances," Merkel said. Judging by Trump"s fiery sermon, he disagrees.

"And second, the trans-Atlantic relationship will not be less important in the coming years than it was in past years. And I will work on that. Even when there are different opinions, compromises and solutions can be best found when we exchange ideas with respect," added Merkel.

The conservative German leader, who is seeking a fourth term and enjoyed a close relationship with former president Barack Obama, is seen by liberals across the Atlantic as a voice of reason that counterbalances rising populist parties in Europe. That voice, however, has rising problems at home, where her approval rating has tumbled over the past year due to her immigration policies, where "radical" views such as those espoused by Trump are gaining traction.

As Reuters notes, relations with the United States, Germany"s biggest trading partner, are likely to be a hot topic in electioneering in coming months leading to a general election in September. And in the aftermath of the Trump speech, which defined Trump"s "negotiating baseline", Merkel will have no choice but admit weakness in accepting compromises with a man who has criticized her decision in 2015 to throw open Germany"s borders to asylum seekers fleeing wars and conflicts, and has said he believes other countries will leave the EU after Britain and that the NATO military alliance was obsolete.

* * *

Yet while Merkel may be hoping for a fresh start with the new US president, her domestic institutions and media will be far less forgiving to any indication of weakness from the chancellor.

The best example of this, so far, is an article penned this morning by Gabor Steingart, chief in chief of Handelsblatt, Germany"s leading economic newspaper, who burned all compromise bridges when he said that "that was no presidential speech; that was a veritable declaration of war."

The savage criticism continued:"Threatening in tone. Cold and calculating in logic. Change minus the hope. Donald Trump used the traditional Inauguration Day address to settle a score with the U.S. political establishment going back decades. With four ex-presidents sitting a few feet behind him, the 45th president delivered a populist manifesto."

He notes than any attempts at compromise will fail because "the new president loves a good fight, not consensus. He doesn’t want to hug, but to smother, to overwhelm" and add that "in domestic policy, the Trump agenda sounds like a blueprint for civil war; in foreign policy, it sounds like the dawn of a new ice age."

Hardly an amicable setting for Merkel to be demand compromises.

For the German press what hope there is that the Trump phenomenon will be promptly overthrown lies in the face of three opponents: "Opponent No. 1: The other America. Across the country, an anti-Trump movement is growing"... "Opponent No. 2: The Media. Among publishers, producers, filmmakers and journalists, Trump has hardly any friends. CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and Hollywood couldn’t warm to the volcanic personality of the new president."... "Opponent No. 3: The Political Party System. Washington is having an allergic reaction to Trump. Democrats and even Republicans are cooperating on Capitol Hill to investigate the Trump team’s contacts to Russia in a special committee."

It is clear on whose side the German economic press is; the bigger question for Merkel is whether in the aftermath of this "war" by Trump, the German people will side with her, and distance themselves from the "American populist", or whether the backlash against the establishment will reverberate further, leading to even more pain for Merkel in the upcoming polls.

Finally, should Merkel"s "compromise" approach fail, will Germany respond to Trump"s "declaration of war" in kind, and will it be simply trade, or conventional?

Full Handelsblatt letter below:

The Demons Have Been Unchained

That was no presidential speech; that was a veritable declaration of war. Threatening in tone. Cold and calculating in logic. Change minus the hope. Donald Trump used the traditional Inauguration Day address to settle a score with the U.S. political establishment going back decades. With four ex-presidents sitting a few feet behind him, the 45th president delivered a populist manifesto.   

Until his victory, the nation’s political elite used days like these, he told America, to celebrate amongst themselves. Their triumph was not your triumph. Their well-being was not your well-being. But this time, power would transfer not just from one party to the other, but from Washington back to the people. In the people’s name, he will put America “first.” In their name, he will “take back” America’s factories. In their name, he will “exterminate” Islamic terrorism, end inner-city drug gang “bloodbaths” and get NATO partners like Germany to pay more for Europe’s security. In domestic policy, the Trump agenda sounds like a blueprint for civil war; in foreign policy, it sounds like the dawn of a new ice age. Not that he’s cold-bloodedly planning either one, but he knows where his fiery rhetoric will lead him. The new president loves a good fight, not consensus. He doesn’t want to hug, but to smother, to overwhelm. 

Yesterday was his day, but the days that follow may belong to his opponents. There are three main opponents that could bring him down politically.

Opponent No. 1: The other America. Across the country, an anti-Trump movement is growing. While only 10,000 people came to an open-air concert in Washington celebrating his victory on the night before the inauguration, 20,000 people took to the streets in New York to protest his elevation. Their signs shouted: Not My President. The security and surveillance costs around Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, at the corner of 56th Street, is costing taxpayers about a half million dollars – each day. 

Opponent No. 2: The Media. Among publishers, producers, filmmakers and journalists, Trump has hardly any friends. CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and Hollywood couldn’t warm to the volcanic personality of the new president. Even an unbroken Twitter assault has no chance against such a monolithic wall of media rejection. He hates them, and they hate him right back. He pushes forward his agenda, and they push back unabashedly with theirs. Trump enters The White House with the lowest approval rating ever of an elected president.

Opponent No. 3: The Political Party System. Washington is having an allergic reaction to Trump. Democrats and even Republicans are cooperating on Capitol Hill to investigate the Trump team’s contacts to Russia in a special committee. House Speaker Paul Ryan doesn’t see himself as a Trump follower but as a Trump successor. He is the wolf in sheep’s clothing, biding his time, waiting for an opening. Put another way: Not only Democrats are hoping for an impeachment proceeding.

America is now on the brink of a new period of polarization. The demons in this fraternal battle have been unchained. The greatness that Trump seeks will not be borne under these conditions. An icy wind is blowing across the land.

Yours sincerely,

Gabor Steingart

The Epidemic Of Bad Ideas

Submitted by David Galland via GarretGalland.com,

Our education begins within a few minutes of arriving on planet Earth. That’s when we begin to learn that crying and carrying on is rewarded with coddling and nourishment.

That particular lesson stays with us throughout our lives, more so with some people than others. I especially love watching red-faced yuppies trying to argue canceled airline flights back into service.

We also are educated by the physical world. Running barefoot and stepping on a tack/bee/piece of glass/thorn/etc. teaches us the importance of protective garments. As does our first time staying out too long shirtless in the sun.

Of course, our family members and friends also play an important role, teaching us the difference between wrong and right. Of course, as often as not, those concepts are subjective. Is it really “wrong” to question your elders? Or “right” to fall to your knees in prayer to an invisible superhuman at bedtime?

Maybe, maybe not. But not being privy to the hard data proving either point in our formative years, we are expected to take these various ideas on board without questioning. And, for the most part, we do.

It is also clear that having a poor role model can have long-term deleterious results. A single mother on welfare who is addicted to crack is unlikely to instill in Junior a strong moral compass or the work ethic needed to get ahead in a competitive world.

Regardless, while still in the proverbial short pants, we are one day bundled up and sent off to begin our formal education. This is where things get interesting.

Moving along, it seems appropriate to drop the virtual needle on Pink Floyd’s classic, Another Brick in the Wall.

Bricks in the Wall

Once our parents hand the keys to our brains to professional teachers, any number of factors come to play in our education.

For starters, every graduating class of future teachers contains those who sit in the front and those who hide at the back. If you’re lucky, your formative years won’t be shaped by a guy with “Dopey” as a college nickname.

And that’s not the worst roll of the dice. In my early schooling, I had a perennially pissed-off teacher by the name of Mr. Hirata. That I still remember his name is the direct result of his pulling a handful of my hair out by the roots in front of the class. My crime? Tossing a small glob of rice at another student during lunch break.

Likewise, in the education of my own children, there was an intensely passive-aggressive female teacher (at least I think she was female) who clearly disliked boys. Not the best setting for my son, and another brick in the wall that ultimately led my wife and me to homeschool the kids.

But stupidity, an excess of emotions, or gender bias are not the worst traits an educator might possess. While those may affect a subset of the student body, leaving them with a poor opinion of their educational experience, the real threat comes from bad ideas accepted by academics as good ideas.

I subscribe to the theory that ideas are like living viruses: a strong idea, once released into the ether, will take hold and gain currency. The stronger the idea, the more likely it is to spread.

Unfortunately, even terrible ideas can spread virulently. The classic of the genre being Karl Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

That particular idea has literally cost millions of lives. Incredibly, despite having been proven false time and again since its first utterance, it continues to spread.

Violence as Policy and Other Insanities

Throughout history, bad ideas such as those espoused by Marx have taken hold in the public arena and become institutionalized. This despite the inherent violence required by a system where individuals are forced to be subservient to the state.

The iconic socialist revolutionary, Che Guevara, made the case that in a true socialist revolution, large swaths of the population had to die.

“Is it possible or not, given the present conditions in [the Americas] to achieve socialist power by peaceful means? We emphatically answer that, in the great majority of cases, this is not possible. The most that could be achieved would be the formal takeover of the bourgeois superstructure of power and the transition to socialism of that government that, under the established bourgeois legal system, having achieved formal power will still have to wage a very violent struggle against all who attempt, in one way or another, to check its progress toward new social structures.”  

—Che Guevara, Tactics and Strategy of the Latin American Revolution, 1962

You may recognize that doctrine being applied eight years after it was written in Pol Pot’s regime. More than 20% of the population died horribly in the reeducation camps where they were sent to learn how to think correctly. Or die. Actually, mainly die.

If mass murder as policy isn’t about as bad an idea as ever stalked the land, I don’t know what is. Yet, there is still a large demand among the clamoring masses for T-shirts and posters emblazoned with Che’s beret-bedecked cabeza. You know, because he’s sooo cool.

But I drift.

The point I am laboring toward is that once bad ideas infest the educational system, they invariably jump the intellectual barriers and end up in the political system.

It is thus that the low-information processors have so tightly embraced the Chicken Little idea that the sky is falling due to the degradation of the environment, and that the governments of the world have responded by spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a fiction.

This despite all the flashing fluorescent signs that the idea holds no water. If it did, why the pivot from “global warming” to the catch-all broader notion of “climate change”? And why is there a steadfast refusal by leading climate alarmists to publicly debate scientists who dispute the theory?

But that is just one small example of a long list of bad ideas that have crossed the blood-brain barrier.

Here’s another. Not all that long ago, some bright light decided that voluntarism should be injected into the schools. For example, making it a class project to read to old folks or play with stray dogs down at the local animal shelter. Harmless enough activities designed to “teach” the young to be more civic-minded. Well, that idea has morphed from a one-off activity to being mandatory for graduation.

And rather than providing the simple lesson that people can do a bit of good in their local community by volunteering, it has become indoctrination to advance Marx’s mantra.

We know a nice enough family back in the States that can never just go on vacation. Rather, they feel compelled to head off to some backwater to do good works, paying for their “holidays” with donations dunned from friends and family members.

The Epidemic of Bad Ideas

Slapping together an abbreviated list of the bad ideas now sweeping aside intelligent thought across the land—both in the US and in most countries where people have too much time on their hands, we come up with:

• Mother Earth Is Dying. What a dismal and stupid perspective. And doubly stupid because the same morose idea has infested the human imagination time and time again over the millennia. In the past, Gaia’s purported assassins have taken the form of overpopulation, a new ice age, air pollution, swine flu, holes in ozone layers, dying bees, or whatever the hell.
  

  Speaking as someone who has visited all points of the compass on planet Earth, if there’s a problem humanity faces, it is underpopulation. Case in point, my partner Olivier Garret’s sainted mother lives in the countryside about 20 minutes from Paris. Despite the area being populated since men and apes were dating, there are rolling green hills and forests as far as the eye can see.

  
  

  Dear readers in England might get a kick out of this illustrative quote from Paul Ehrlich, the dimwitted father of modern doomsday predictions:

  
  

  “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
  —Speech at British Institute for Biology, September 1971

  
  

  Proving how hard it is to kill off bad ideas, to this day Ehrlich remains the president of Stanford University’s Center for Conservation Biology.

  
  

• Capitalism Is Bad. Wake up and smell the Starbucks! Or some other brand determined to unseat Starbucks by offering better coffee at a better price. Though far from perfect—and, sorry to break it to you, but like Santa Claus, there is no such thing as a perfect economic system—minimizing government interference in the free exchange of goods and services works best at elevating the quality of life for the greatest number of people.
  

  Conversely, despite Marx’s quip, the systems that work worst are invariably based on some group of elites using the cover of “public good” to pull the levers on a command economy.

  
  

• Political Correctness. Talk about a slippery slope. Today, virtually any action or word can be seen to “micro-aggress” against some sensitive soul. In response, universities and governments feel compelled to take active measures to protect those same souls.
  

  The end result has to be a Gordian knot of soul-draining policies, regulations, and other complexities. Oh wait, why should it be a Gordian knot? Why not Gordiana or some other gender-neutral name? Sexist bastards!

  
  

• White People Are Bad and a Dying Breed. And that goes double for white men, eeeww! Sorry toots, but in the US 75% of the population is Caucasian, and just under half of that number are men. And it’s not just in the US that whites make up the demographic majority, by a wide margin. That is also the case in Canada, Australia, the UK, Europe, Russia, and many other countries. It may surprise you to learn that here in Argentina, the number is closer to 90%, and it’s even higher than that in Costa Rica, among many others.
  

  The idea that white people will effectively fade away anytime soon crashes and burns in the face of demographic facts. Regardless, focusing on the color of a person’s skin in making policy is, per my comments above, looking for ways to separate us humans, and so I am 100% against it. As far as the notion that white people are somehow bad, that’s just naked racism.

  
  

I could go on. However, as the sun is high in the sky, it is time to move on to other tasks.

As I slide toward the exit, I will sum up by expressing my concern that parts of the world, in particular the United States, are now cartwheeling down the slippery slope toward disaster. A disaster caused by the epidemic of bad ideas that have germinated in the educational system and subsequently taken root in the halls of political power.

Of course, not everyone has been equally infected. Individuals with common sense and an inclination toward facts and the scientific method are largely immune and can only view with alarm the zombie-like madness caused by bad ideas.

With the body politic so deeply divided, I really don’t see how a serious sociopolitical crisis can be avoided.

Trump’s inauguration, happening today, very well may serve as a starter pistol in unleashing the physical manifestation of the extraordinary conflict in the ideas held by approximately equal contingents of the population.

I will watch this particular parade closely and with deep concern, but very definitely from afar, here in the warm and pacific climes of the Argentine outback.

Don’t forget to duck.

(For those of you who want to read a scholarly dissertation about the takeover of the US educational system by socialists and progressives—two sides of the same coin—the National Association of Scholars recently released a comprehensive study entitled, “Making Citizens—How American Universities Teach Civics.” It’s long, but worth a scan.)

Here Come the Clowns

Mother, May I? Our clowny entry this week provides additional support for the contention that an epidemic of bad ideas has spread across the land.

In the United Kingdom where the bureaucrats have, at least until recently, seemed keen to pattern their regulatory regime to achieve a society that rhymes with Orwell’s 1984, a woman was called to the bench and made to pay a fine of £80 (US$98) for the offense of pouring a cup of coffee down the drain.

One can only hope that, with Brexit, the dogma-blinded cretins in the bureaucracy there will be chased back into the shadows.

Against The Tyranny Of The So-Called Experts

Submitted by Kurt Schlichter via Townhall.com,

America’s elite – that collection of puffed up mediocrities who until recently held the undisputed command of the heights of our politics and culture – is in crisis. Its unbroken track record of failure has finally stirred the rest of America from its coma. The normals are now hella woke, and the elitists are being hella rejected. Unused to accountability, the elite is in a tizzy over the way people are not only blaming it for its myriad failures but are taking concrete steps to restrict its power. It’s not just electing Donald Trump. It’s ignoring the media, ignoring Hollywood stars, and ignoring the cabal of “experts” who presume to tell us how to live.

And it’s about time.

The best thing about being a member of the elite is that you really don’t have to do anything to become one. You can be born one – no matter how dumb or drug-addled you are, if you’re a Kennedy you’re elite regardless of how many times you blow the bar exam. Or you can become one by getting into the right school – remember, a Harvard degree does not mean you did well at Harvard. Everyone at Harvard does well – an “A” is a participation trophy. It’s getting in that matters, and getting in depends, in significant part, on who you are. Elite mom and dad, welcome to the Ivy League.

The elites, having been called out for their failure, are now trying to rebrand themselves as “experts.” It’s important to distinguish “elites” from “experts.” Elites want to be seen as experts because an expert is assumed to actually know something and to have some sort of technical skill. To be elite, you just have to be accepted as elite. That’s why elitists fudge the terms; they want the credibility of being experts without actually having to do what a real expert does.

Take, for example, the notorious New Yorker cartoon of the passenger on the plane electing himself pilot. The point, which the elitists think is brilliant, is that the running of government should be left to the experts without the participation of you people. Of course, pilots are trained in detailed technical skills and, critically, are accountable for their performance. If they fail, they get fired – or worse. [Insert Kennedy pilot joke here] If an elitist fails at an important job, she gets nominated for president. See the difference?

The point they want to make is that we should submit to their “expert” (really, elite) guidance, since we are unfit to determine our own destiny. Yet, when piloting this country over the last couple decades, these elites have flown the plane straight into the ground. Real experts are held accountable, but elites never are. Their landing is always soft – it’s never the elites who suffer while the normal prosper, only the other way around. The elitists always win – that’s why they are called “elite.”

Remember, whenever anyone tells you to blindly give up your input and rely on an “expert,” you stand a good chance of being scammed. Take a doctor. Doctors have a hard skill. They go through a lot of training. And medical malpractice kills about 98,000 people per year. Doctors are experts, but they are not perfect. No expert is. Nor are they perfectly disinterested technicians. A lot of doctors are terrible people – the worst divorces lawyers deal with are doctor divorces. Don’t confuse expertise with morality.

Like all humans, experts are self-interested. That’s why some doctors complain when their patients read up on their symptoms in Google. “Gosh, these peons are presuming to gain access to my secret knowledge – how dare they!” Yes – thanks to technology, much of what doctors do (which is maintain and use knowledge – many never touch a scalpel) can be done by normals on line. You have a symptom and you go to Web MD and often it answers your question – “Eww, that weird lump is a sebaceous cyst, not melanoma.”

The same with lawyers – go to LegalZoom to create your routine limited liability company and you’ll do it for a third of the price of the lawyer who merely changes the names on the last routine limited liability company formation documents he prepared. Trying a case is different – you probably want a technical expert who has done it before. But a lot of legal knowledge is not only accessible but employable by regular citizens; the laws restricting the practice of law to those with a license may protect some people from harm, but it also ensures we lawyers can restrict supply and thus justify our outrageous fees. Remember, a lot of “expertise” is not skill derived from experience but merely access to information. And when everyone has that access, well, the guilds get really protective of their turf.

The expert technocracy model of governance also depends on the underlying assumption of a disinterested, objective technician class that will protect others’ interests before its own. But the notion that a particular expert is disinterested and somehow only concerned with objective facts is simply silly. As a trial lawyer, I absolutely know the other side is always going to hire some “expert” to say exactly what needs to be said to help its case. We litigators regularly refer to experts as “whores” – it’s just assumed. Now, smart lawyers try to get honest experts – I’d much prefer to hear early that my client’s case has problems. But there are surprisingly few smart lawyers – again, simply because you are in an expert caste does not mean you are not a half-wit.

The simple fact is that when people push for government by expert, the experts they want running things will always – every single time – happen to have exactly the same policy preferences as the people pushing them. “Leave climate science to the experts!” Yeah, and in a shocking turn of events, the experts we are supposed to defer to feel the solution to climate change is to give more money and power to the people demanding “Leave climate science to the experts!”

And then there’s the problem of incompetent experts. This is especially true in the media, where the internet has made the journalistic gatekeeper model obsolete. These hacks are panicking, and trying to claw back their authority by labeling dissent “fake news” – that is, when they aren’t themselves publishing outright lies and propaganda they imagine we’ll buy into. Talk about, as Peggy Noonan aptly put it, being patronized by our inferiors.

You would think that if you presumed to tell the rest of us what to think that you might first ensure that you actually know stuff. But then, being elite means never having to actually accomplish anything, like knowing stuff. For example, Judd Legum, a senior apparatchik at ThinkProgress.org – the popular leftist political site best known for stuffing two questionable assertions into one web address – went on with Hugh Hewitt, who asked him a series of pretty basic questions about government and foreign policy. Well, it was pretty ugly. What he didn’t know was … extensive. I’d liken the segment to the Bataan Death March but Judd would probably not get the reference. He’ll have to check Wikipedia, just like everyone else. But then, if everyone else can do what Judd does, why do we need him and his ilk?

Experts aren’t what they used to be – that is, experts. “Experts” tell us that by an act of sheer desire, Dave can transform into Diane. That’s crazy. We try to outsource our moral judgment to “ethics experts” and end up with nutballs telling us infanticide is cool. The experts told us how there was an ice age coming. Then acid rain. Then ozone depletion. Then global warming. Then, when it didn’t actually get warmer, global climate change. Yet, somehow we are expected not to notice this litany of wrong and to just submit to the guidance of people who are literally never right.

Sure, if I had a brain tumor, I’d want a skilled neurosurgeon to take it out – though note how Dr. Ben Carson’s demonstrated track record of competence at that hard skill has earned him zero respect from the left, demonstrating that their alleged regard for expertise is simply another scam. But while I would rely on my doc for the technical work of cutting and slicing, his expertise does not apply to the other key issues involved – like whether I want to accept the consequences of the surgery on my quality of life. Questions that relate to our preferences and morals are not the province of experts. Nor should decisions regarding the principles and policies of our government be delegated to the technical experts charged with carrying them out.

We are American citizens. We can decide for ourselves what kind of nation we want to live in. That’s our decision. Experts? Well, you can provide advice, and then you can carry out our instructions. But don’t presume to do any more than that. You work for us, not vice versa.

Protectionism Returns: Germany Seeks To End "Unwanted Foreign Takeovers" Of Local Companies

Many have said that if Trump wins the presidency, a new ice age of global trade protectionism may be upon us. Well, some may be taking steps to preempt that and are already launching various protectionist measures in response to rising populist anger.

Just a few months after the US Treasury unveiled new anti-tax inversion rules, which were meant to kill the Pfizer-Allergan deal, but according to many may have launched a new wave of global deal  protectionism, overnight Germany appears to have retaliated in kind when according to Welt am Sonntag, Angela Merkel"s government was exploring options to limit any purchase of more than a 25% stake in German companies.

As Reuters adds, the German Economy Ministry wants to protect high tech companies in Germany from unwanted takeovers, especially from state-owned and partly state-owned companies in non-European countries. Welt am Sonntag (WamS) said Deputy Economy Minister Matthias Machnig had in the past week sent to members of the German government a paper containing six key points for reviewing investment at the European Union level. The paper foresees wide-reaching rights for the EU and national governments to prohibit company acquisitions by investors in non-EU countries, the newspaper said.

In other words, global M&A as a means of laundering hot money, either of central banking of Chinese origin, is about to slam shut, leading not to a plunge in global ibanking M&A fees, but also forcing the cash to stay "local" and leading to even greater asset bubbles, especially in China.

The issue of foreign takeovers has come to the fore in Germany with Chinese home appliance maker Midea buying German robot maker Kuka and Chinese chipmaker Sanan Optoelectronics saying on Monday it had been in contact with German lighting group Osram about a potential acquisition or cooperation deal.

Asked about the newspaper report, a spokesman for the Economy Ministry said he would not comment on internal government working papers.

"Minister (Sigmar) Gabriel has, however, repeatedly made clear that he would like to sound out options - also at the European level - to make fair competition possible, especially in international competition with state-subsidized foreign companies, and at the same time to remain open for investment," the spokesman said.

At this rate Trump won"t even need to win the presidency for the world to undo on its own some 70 years of post World War II "globalization."