Authored by Andrew Thornebrooke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Pentagon is stonewalling inquiries as to whether one of the unidentified objects it shot down off the coast of Alaska earlier this month was a $12 dollar hobby balloon.

Speculation that the unidentified aerial object the administration shot down earlier this month was actually a cheap hobbyist pico balloon began to build this week after a group dedicated to the hobby reported one of its balloons “missing in action” over Alaska.

A blog post from the Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade (NIBBB) recounted that it had lost contact with its hobby balloon on Feb. 11, and that it was last recorded at an altitude of about 39,000 feet off the coast of Alaska.

please tell me the white house did not spend the month of february scrambling jets to fire $400,000 missiles at the local hobby club’s TWELVE DOLLAR BALLOON

lord have mercyhttps://t.co/4D7DaTncvT

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) February 16, 2023

Pico balloons are small mylar balloons equipped with trackers that are used by hobbyists to measure weather patterns and can cost as little as $12.

The U.S. military shot down an unidentified object in the same general vicinity at an altitude of 40,000 feet on the same day using a $400,000 AIM-9X Sidewinder missile.

When asked whether that included a pico balloon or if the department had in any way followed up with the NIBBB, the Pentagon deflected.

“We have nothing to provide on this,” a Department of Defense (DOD) spokesperson said in an email.

For its part, the NIBBB has said it is not unusual for such a balloon to go without transmission for some days at a time, and until remains from the balloon were collected, the assertion that the U.S. military shot it down was not verifiable.

“As has been widely reported, no part of the object shot down by the U.S. Air Force jet over the Yukon Territory has been recovered,” the NIBBB said in a blog post.

Read more here…

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

It appears that Hunter Biden’s art dealer believes that his art should be left entirely to the eye of the beholder — and not Congress. Georges Bergès reportedly refused last week to provide the House Oversight Committee with the identities of the buyers of Biden high-priced art work. While counsel William Pittard insists that the list of purchasers must remain secret, it is hard to see the viable legal basis to refuse the demand of the House Oversight Committee, if made subject to a congressional subpoena.

The Biden sales have long been a subject of intense debate over whether it is another form of influence peddling or money laundering. Even President Barack Obama’s ethics head has raised objections.

Former Obama-era ethics official Walter Shaub called the art sale a “terrible idea” and noted that “it just is implausible that this art from an unknown artist would be selling at this price if it didn’t have the Biden name attached to it.”

A new artist, Biden is fetching prices that exceed the prices of some Picassos. The quality of the work will be left to others to debate, but the Oversight committee has a legitimate interest in looking into whether the art is being used to funnel money to the family of President Joe Biden.

In January, House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-KY) requested that Bergès testify before Congress. Comer has long alleged that Chinese buyers are behind the sales, though there is no public proof to support that allegation. He has stated that “arrangement with Hunter Biden raises serious ethical concerns and calls into question whether the Biden family is again selling access and influence.”

Pittard wrote that “[i]n light of these considerations, providing the documents and information requested in your letter seemingly would defeat the efforts of Mr. Biden and the White House to avoid the ‘serious ethical concerns’ that you raise.” He added that “Mr. Berges hopes that you and Mr. Biden can resolve that tension.”

The question is what happens if they cannot “resolve that tension.” The Oversight Committee is investigating a host of avenues through which foreign interests were allegedly able to funnel millions into the Biden family coffers. It is hard to see how a court would find that these business records could not be subpoenaed by a congressional committee if they decide to move forward.

Berges could refuse to testify without a subpoena, but he must appear if so served. He could then invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to testify.

What is interesting is that this is only the latest lawyer to defy Congress on a Hunter Biden inquiry. We previously discussed how Hunter Biden’s personal counsel Abbe Lowell refused a demand for evidence sought by the House.

These moves appear to be channeling the same strategy of Steve Bannon who was ultimately charged with contempt and convicted. At the time, I said that Bannon was asking for a contempt charge and Biden appears to be replicating this same ill-considered strategy.

These may be just the opening salvos to seek to negotiate with Congress, but they can backfire as they did with Bannon. The categorical refusals could expedite matters in pushing these conflicts before a court where Congress would have the advantage.

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

The kids are not okay, and it is time for us to face the truth. 

As long as I have been writing, surveys have shown that the mental health of our young people has been steadily getting worse.  But now we are learning that things really took an enormous turn for the worse during the pandemic.  As you will see below, one expert is warning that the number of kids that are dealing with mental health issues “has increased exponentially since the pandemic”. 

The facts that I am about to share with you are likely to make you very angry. 

Our system does not work, and millions upon millions of young people are having their lives ruined as a result.  The following are 13 numbers that show how dramatically we have failed America’s children…

#1 One recent survey found that 40 percent of U.S. parents “worry their children struggle with anxiety or depression”.

#2 During the pandemic, suicide became the second leading cause of death for U.S. children between the ages of 10 and 14.

#3 Suicide is also the second leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 15 and 24.

#4 According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 46 percent of U.S. kids between the ages of 13 and 17 have experienced cyberbullying.

#5 40 percent of U.S. high school students “felt so sad or hopeless” in 2021 that “they were unable to do their regular activities”.

#6 According to the CDC, “more than 95% of children and adolescents in the U.S. spend much of their daily lives in school”.

#7 At 23 schools in Baltimore, not one single student is proficient in math.

#8 At 30 schools in Illinois, not one single student can read at grade level.

#9 At 53 schools in Illinois, not one single student can do math at grade level.

#10 According to the CDC, nearly 20 percent of all adolescent female students experienced sexual violence in 2021.

#11 According to the CDC, nearly 60 percent of all adolescent female students “experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness” in 2021.

#12 According to the CDC, nearly 25 percent of all adolescent female students “made a suicide plan” in 2021.

#13 The proportion of adolescent female students that actually attempted suicide in 2021 was 60 percent higher than a decade ago.

There is nothing “normal” about these numbers.

The mental health of our young people has been declining for years, and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics is telling us that the number of kids and adolescents dealing with mental health issues “has increased exponentially since the pandemic”…

“I would say over the last 10 years, since I’ve been practicing as a general pediatrician, I have seen a shift both in the amount of patients and of all ages dealing with anxiety and depression. And their parents being concerned about this is a key issue,” said Dr. Katherine Williamson, a pediatrician and spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Even before the pandemic, we were seeing skyrocketing numbers of kids and adolescents dealing with mental health issues, and that has increased exponentially since the pandemic.”

We told our leaders that the incredibly sick and twisted mandates and restrictions that they were forcing upon our young people were going to have very serious mental health consequences.

And that is precisely what has happened.

But of course we must also acknowledge that the mental health of our young people was steadily deteriorating long before the pandemic ever came along.

It has become clear that no matter how much money we pour into our schools, it isn’t going to make things any better.

In fact, to me it is quite apparent that our absolutely pathetic system of public education is a big part of the problem.

If you want your teens to hate life, just put them into a public high school.

Having said that, I want to stress that having strong nuclear families is even more important to the mental health of our young people.

Unfortunately, the traditional family unit is under attack like never before, and in many cases it is being replaced by “new arrangements”…

Alysia and Tyler Rogers were already parents to two children, now ages 7 and 8, when they embarked on a romantic relationship with married friends Sean and Taya Hartless.

The two couples, originally from the US, moved in together as a polyamorous foursome in 2020 and the following year, Alysia and Taya delivered babies seven months apart.

Neither woman knows who biologically fathered the kids, with Alysia maintaining they will help the children discover that down the road if they ever want to.

I don’t even know what to say about all of that.

Unfortunately, a smaller percentage of U.S. children are being raised in a traditional home with a traditional father and a traditional mother than ever before.

And that has very serious implications for our future.

As we all get older, we are going to need the next generation to take care of us.  According to the Washington Post, it is being projected that the number of elderly people in the United States will grow very rapidly in the years ahead…

That represents 55.7 million people, an increase of 15.2 million (38 percent) of people 65 and above since 2010, compared with just 2 percent growth in the under-65 population. It also reflects a consistent increase in the nation’s older population since 1900, when there were 3.1 million Americans 65 and older (4 percent of the population).

The report projects a climb to roughly 80.8 million residents 65 and older by 2040, more than double the number in 2000. It also predicts a doubling of the number of even older residents by 2040, with the count of those 85 and older expected to grow from 6.7 million in 2020 to 14.4 million by 2040. In 2020, there were nearly 105,000 residents 100 or older.

When we are all old and gray, we will be depending on the next generation to be the leaders of tomorrow.

But thanks to our failures, the next generation is going to be incredibly messed up.

Our society is being “fundamentally transformed” right in front of our eyes, and that is really bad news for all of us.

*  *  *

It is finally here! Michael’s new book entitled “End Times” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

China is the largest market for electric vehicles in the world. Germany was the second until the US just displaced Europe’s largest economy as EV sales accelerated. 

BloombergNEF data shows the US is now the world’s second-largest EV market, shifting Germany down to the third spot. Last year, nearly one million EVs were sold in the US, compared with 650,000 in 2021.

Not surprising is Tesla’s dominance in overall sales. Elon Musk’s automaker sold a whopping 510,610 vehicles last year. Ford Motor Company was number two with 74,000. 

“The US is poised for a breakout year in 2023 with new EV manufacturing capacity and a fairly generous federal tax credit expected to drive sales to around 1.6 million,” BloombergNEF noted. 

Last month, Tesla slashed the prices of its vehicles so buyers could take advantage of the $7,500 US government tax credit. Now the Model Y sold out until April. Electrek’s Fred Lambert said the price cuts sparked “unprecedented demand” in the US. 

Meanwhile, Ford shares stumbled this past week after it paused production and shipments of its electric F-150 Lightning pickup due to a potential battery issue. 

The Biden administration is the biggest proponent of electrifying America’s future, pushing for decarbonization across the entire transportation system. On the local level, California, New York, and other states are moving to phase out the sale of gasoline-powered cars by the end of the decade to mitigate the ‘effects of climate change.’

And while a decarbonized future sounds great, readers know there is no such thing as zero-emissions vehicles… 

Authored by David Gordon via The Mises Institute,

Thorsten Polleit’s outstanding new book is packed with insights about both the philosophy of economics and economic policy, and as he shows, his philosophical standpoint enables him to grasp the essence of the financial world, of which he is a master.

Polleit is a follower of Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and like them, he argues that economics offers us a priori truths about the world. “What is meant by the term a priori theory? The term a priori means that something is evident, that can be regarded as true and universal, independent of experience.” By “independent of experience,” Polleit of course doesn’t mean that a priori truths have no bearing on experience—the point of a priori truths is that they’re known to be true of experience just by thinking about them—but rather that their truth doesn’t depend on empirical testing. In economics, unlike the physical sciences, we don’t have adequate empirical grounds to establish laws: “there are “too many” variables and no quantitative constants.

In this connection, Polleit makes a brilliant observation. Because many socialists do not understand the relevant a priori laws, they fail to recognize that socialism is inherently tyrannical.

Even the worst experiences with socialism—think of Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot—are not enough to discredit it once and for all. This is mainly due to the following reason: in the field of human action, of human history, experience can never provide the convincing and conclusive proof that something had to proceed as it did. . . . It is precisely this insight that the socialists make active use of. They explain that socialism, where and when it was put into practice, did not produce the hoped-for results, with the following: socialism has not been implemented consistently enough.

To refute this defense requires resort to the a priori in two ways, one of which will be well known to most readers of the Mises Wire. I refer of course to Mises’s calculation argument, which shows that in the absence of money prices, a socialist system cannot engage in economic calculation and is doomed to collapse.

But this argument by itself does not suffice to answer so-called democratic socialists, who do not call for full-scale central planning but want a “mixed” system that does not entirely dispense with the market. To close the gap, Mises makes effective use of a “slippery slope” argument against such people—interventionism can quickly lead to socialism. Polleit reinforces Mises’s logic by raising another point as well. It is an a priori truth that the state is an oppressive institution that by its nature violates rights; furthermore, over the course of its existence, it will become more oppressive:

From the point of view of the logic of action, the state—if it is a territorial compulsory monopolist to which the individual is subjected to, for better or worse—is contradictory and thus literally wrong. It de facto degrades the individual to a slave, and this is incompatible with the logic of human action—because property, self-ownership, is an indispensable category of human action. . . . The modern democratic state especially is continuing to expand. Attempts to tame and enclose it prove to be an illusion. Even a minimal state becomes a maximal state sooner or later. (emphasis original)

Here Polleit draws on the great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer (who, Polleit tells us, was the doctoral supervisor of Ludwig Erhard, the man responsible for the German “economic miracle” after World War II) and Hans Hoppe. I’d advise readers to pay particular attention to the sentence Polleit has italicized, as the book’s central argument depends on taking the proposition it expresses to be an a priori truth.

What does the contemporary state have in store for us? In answering this question, Polleit relies on another of the most important of the a priori laws of human action: because human beings differ, they benefit from specialization and trade. Given this undeniable truth, we must next endeavor to determine the requirements of extensive trade, and here we soon come to money, the commonly accepted medium of exchange.

Because the advantages of trade increase the wider the market is, a free market world would ideally use the same money:

[The thoughts presented in this book] are based on a central insight: if there were a global system of free markets in which everyone could freely buy what they wanted to buy, and in which producers could freely produce what consumers wanted, there would be a free market for money, and—through a voluntary agreement of all parties—a single world currency would emerge. This is because that would be economically optimal. If everyone in the world uses the same money, the productive effect of money is exploited to the full: the economic calculation carried out with money—calculating with money prices—is thus optimized for everyone. (emphasis original)

Polleit now combines this insight with his earlier argument that the ever-expanding state seeks to bring more and more resources under its control. In order to accomplish this, the state must seize total control of the monetary system, not allowing any commodity currency to compete with its own fiat money. And—another crucial point—because national currencies can be traded against each other, it becomes imperative to establish a unique world fiat currency that allows no evasion or escape.

In other words, our current world monetary order parallels the free market tendency toward a single world currency:

If states monopolize money production, there is no free market for money on which a single world currency could develop through voluntary decisions by people. In that case, national fiat currencies exist for the time being. But this is not a stable equilibrium. Rather, here too, there is a tendency to create a single world currency, because, as I said, it is optimal if everyone trades and calculates with the same currency.

A fiat money of the sort imagined here would subject the world to a dictatorship of socialistically inclined global bankers. As Polleit explains, only free market money in a “private law society” offers lasting refuge from the “dystopian nightmare” the globalists have in mind for us. Polleit’s book will encourage resistance to their plans.

*  *  *

The Global Currency Plot: How the Deep State Will Betray Your Freedom, and How to Prevent It

by Thorsten Polleit, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2023; 190 pp.

Nervous public companies no longer have to look around and wonder who is going to be the first to start the layoff deluge – as we have noted here on Zero Hedge, the trend is clearly in full effect, led by tech companies, despite supposedly robust macro jobs data.

We have seen layoffs everywhere from auto companies like Ford, to investment banks like Goldman, to technology companies – especially those who once had “disruptive” in their name. Tech giant Meta looks to be setting up to continue this trend.

That’s because it was reported hours ago that, despite the company already laying off 11,000 employees, it has ranked thousands of new employees “subpar” on their most recent performance reviews. This obviously sets these employees up for another wave of layoffs. 

CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg has already said that 2023 would be a “year of efficiency” for the company – signaling to Wall Street that such cuts would likely be forthcoming. The company’s stock has responded by rising more than 100% from its 52 week lows near $88 per share. Investors appear to love the message, so why wouldn’t the company follow through?

According to Fortune, managers at the company have given about 10% of its workers poor reviews, returning to a standard the company used to use prior to the pandemic, before Zuckerberg allowed leniency in performance reviews. 

The news comes only days after the company said it would be delaying finalizing its budgets, with Zuckerberg writing in a Facebook post this month: “We’re working on flattening our org structure and removing some layers of middle management to make decisions faster, as well as deploying AI tools to help our engineers be more productive. As part of this, we’re going to be more proactive about cutting projects that aren’t performing or may no longer be as crucial.”

Fortune reports that the company’s “Metaverse” division is likely safe from future cuts. Other segments, however, likely won’t be as lucky. 

“We closed last year with some difficult layoffs and restructuring some teams. When we did this, I said clearly that this was the beginning of our focus on efficiency and not the end,” Zuckerberg concluded. 

Authored by Rachel Hannah via The Epoch Times,

Nicola Sturgeon’s shock departure from office and from Scottish politics has left supporters and opponents alike reeling – and also wondering where this leaves the campaigns for and against independence.

Pro-independence supporter, the journalist, Lesley Riddoch, suggested Unionist opponents were heaping praise on the outgoing Sturgeon to try and signal the campaign for independence was finished without her:

“Let’s not be fooled … the unionists come to praise Nicola Sturgeon and bury independence. No one is stupid enough to be dancing on her grave. They’re dancing on the grave of independence.”

It was “a bit of a backhanded compliment” in the acknowledgement of the big role she had played but was being used as “a weight to sink the cause of independence,” Riddoch suggests.

An exhausted Riddoch – who had already done 24 other interviews – told The Epoch Times the departing First Minister was “a woman who looked a bit like superwoman … like a political shock absorber … who just seemed to be able to take every massive obstacle thrown her way.”

Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross accused Sturgeon of presiding over ten years of constitutional paralysis in pushing for independence despite losing the 2014 referendum.

Looming ‘De Facto’ Referendum

But Riddoch, who believes the terms of reference of the 2014 referendum have been changed by Brexit, suggests the “changing of the guard” presented an opportunity to reinvigorate the campaign with fresh—and potentially younger—blood.

There is now likely to be a pause in which key figures decide what direction that will take at the political level.

Senior figures in the governing Scottish National Party (SNP) must now determine whether to hold the special conference scheduled for next month.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon speaks at a press conference to launch a second independence paper at Bute House in Edinburgh, Scotland, on July 14, 2022. (Andrew Milligan – Pool/Getty Images)

Following the Supreme Court’s decision not to allow a fresh referendum without UK government approval, Sturgeon announced the “Special Democracy Conference.”

Currently slated for March 19, the event was to allow party members to debate the pivotal question on whether the UK general election next year should be framed as a “de facto” referendum.

This was Sturgeon’s proposition but there was resistance within her party including from its new leader in Westminster Stephen Flynn.

Sturgeon pointed to differences of opinion over a “de facto” referendum as one factor in her decision to step aside to make way for a new leader to set out their own path.

Ruling out running himself to replace Sturgeon, Flynn told the BBC the SNP should give her successor the chance to set out their own agenda, suggesting to Sky News the special conference could be postponed.

The timetable for the leadership election has not yet been announced, but the process could deliver a new leader for the party— and for Scotland before or during the conference.

In her resignation speech from Bute House in Edinburgh, Sturgeon also alluded to recent controversies around gender rights legislation and expressed concern that she was herself becoming a distraction not a facilitator to the independence cause.

She told reporters: “I feel more each day just now that the fixed opinions people increasingly have about me—as I say, some fair, others little more than caricature—are becoming a barrier to reasoned debate.”

Hailed in valedictory homage as “formidable” by opponents, the 52-year-old Sturgeon was a “giant” whose departure would be “a huge loss to democracy and decency in politics,” Scottish media expert Robert Beveridge told The Epoch Times.

“Humane, hard-working, and competent,” Sturgeon would be” hard to replace,” Beveridge said paying tribute, adding “we only know what is gone and what we have lost when it is gone.”

Pamela Nash from the campaign organisation Scotland in Union, based in Glasgow, which opposes independence, said Sturgeon would be remembered as a “formidable political operator.”

But Nash said Sturgeon was leaving at a time when “we are all suffering from the consequences of her choice to concentrate on dividing our country, at the expense of the day job.”

Nash said research showed that voters wanted the Scottish government to concentrate on issues like the NHS, education, the economy, and addressing the cost-of-living crisis, not independence.

…

Michael Brooke, a member of the Better Together campaign that opposed independence in the 2014 referendum, told The Epoch Times there was “relief” among unionists that Sturgeon had gone “as long as her departure doesn’t create a political vacuum opening the way to someone more dangerous to the unity of this island nation.”

He expressed the hope the next SNP leader would not be more “divisive,” adding: “If you got a rampant separatist I think it will do more damage.

“But if you’ve got someone who is, perhaps, a little more sensible, who can look at what other people are thinking and not just being introspective, it could do the cause some good I would have thought if it was Scottish ‘nationalism’ within a UK framework.

“But if it is someone more radical even than Nicola Sturgeon then I worry about the future of the Union.”

…

Read more here…

Authored by Emma Suttie via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The edible insect industry is booming. And although the thought of eating bugs may be unappealing, insect protein is already being used for aquaculture, livestock feed, pet foods, and many products intended for human consumption. Insects are also being hailed as a possible solution to world hunger as increasing populations, and limited resources become a growing concern, and food industries are compelled to find viable alternatives.

The French biotech firm Ÿnsect has just announced plans to construct a global network of insect farms, significantly ramping up production. Ÿnsect will soon boast the world’s largest vertical insect farm in Amiens, France. The company says the vertical farm model allows the production of more protein using less space and fewer resources. The automated facility is the second in France and claims it will manufacture 20,000 tons of insect-based foods annually.

In December 2022, the company announced it was expanding into the U.S. and Mexico to build insect ingredient production facilities, pushing into two substantial new markets. Ÿnsect also signed a deal with the U.S. flour milling company Ardent Mills to build a factory next to one of its U.S.-Midwest sites, expanding its reach into new territory.

Insects for Human Consumption

For the past decade, Ÿnsect has produced insects used as nutritional additives in pet foods and to feed fish and livestock. That all changed, however, when in early 2021, the European Food Safety Agency declared that mealworms—used whole or as a powder— were deemed safe for human consumption. Ever since, Ÿnsect has been selling powders for baked goods, sports nutrition products, pasta, meat, and meat alternatives—and business is thriving.

Type of Insects

The most popular insects in the edible market intended for humans are black soldier flies, grasshoppers, mealworms, silkworms, and crickets.

Ÿnsect uses two types of mealworms which are the beetle larvae of the Molitor mealworm (also known as Tenebrio molitor) and the Buffalo mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus).

The FDA

Back in the U.S., we are already eating bugs, mostly unintentionally. According to FDA guidelines, a certain amount of insect parts are, although not desirable, allowed in the foods we eat. The Food and Drug Administration’s Defect Levels Handbook states that certain “natural and unavoidable defects” are allowed in our food and, supposedly, don’t pose threats to humans.

For example, any macaroni and cheese product may contain as many as 225 insect fragments or more per 225 grams of food. Peanut butter allows 30 or more insect fragments up to 100 grams, and wheat flour allows 75 or more insect fragments per 50 grams. Interestingly, the FDA categorizes the presence of insect parts in foods as ‘insect filth,’ and other things it allows in our foods are mold, Drosophila fly eggs, and ‘rodent filth’, which includes hairs and feces. The list is comprehensive and a sobering reminder that we are already consuming insects and many more things we might not have imagined. Simply put, it is all but impossible to keep these contaminants out of our food entirely.

The FDA has long classified insects as ‘filth’, but as we usher in a new era of edible insects, they might want to revise their classification from insects being something it tolerates in the food supply to something people might someday wish to consume.

This disconnect was observed in an article by Marie Boyd, a law professor at the University of South Carolina Law School. In her article entitled “Cricket Soup: A Critical Examination of the Regulation of Insects as Food,” she explains that although the FDA has devoted significant attention to insects as undesirable defects in human food, it has given little attention to insects as human food. She says that, culturally, insects are not commonly considered food in the United States partially because the FDA has categorized insects as ‘filth’ under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). She concludes that by recognizing insects as food, the FDA may help to facilitate greater acceptance of insects as a food source by the general public.

Read more here…

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Cradle,

Raisi’s visit to Beijing, the first for an Iranian president in 20 years, represents Tehran’s wholesale ‘Pivot to the East’ and China’s recognition of Iran’s centrality to its BRI plans…

The visit of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi to Beijing and his face-to- face meeting with counterpart Xi Jinping is a groundbreaking affair in more ways than one.

Raisi, the first Iranian president to officially visit China in 20 years, led an ultra high-level political and economic delegation, which included the new Central Bank governor and the Ministers of Economy, Oil, Foreign Affairs, and Trade.

The fact that Raisi and Xi jointly supervised the signing of 20 bilateral cooperation agreements ranging from agriculture, trade, tourism and environmental protection to health, disaster relief, culture and sports, is not even the major take away.

This week’s ceremonial sealing of the Iran-China comprehensive strategic partnership marks a key evolution in the multipolarity sphere: two Sovereigns – both also linked by strategic partnerships with Russia – imprinting to their domestic audiences and also to the Global South their vision of a more equitable, fair and sustainable 21st century which completely bypasses western dictates.

Beijing and Tehran first established their comprehensive strategic partnership when Xi visited Iran in 2016 – only one year after the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or Iranian nuclear deal.

In 2021, Beijing and Tehran signed a 25-year cooperation deal which translated the comprehensive partnership into practical economic and cultural developments in several fields, especially energy, trade and infrastructure. By then, not only Iran (for decades) but also China were being targeted by unilateral US sanctions.

Here is a relatively independent analysis of the challenges and prospects of the 25-year deal. And here is an enlightening perspective from neighboring Pakistan, also a strategic partner of China.

Iran: gotta modernize everything

Beijing and Tehran are already actively cooperating in the construction of selected lines of Tehran’s subway, the Tehran-Isfahan high-speed railway, and of course joint energy projects. Chinese tech giant Huawei is set to help Tehran to build a framework for a 5G telecom network.

Raisi and Xi, predictably, stressed increased joint coordination at the UN and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), of which Iran is the newest member, as well as a new drive along the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

While there was no explicit mention of it, underlying all these initiatives is the de-dollarization of trade – in the framework of the SCO but also the multipolar BRICS group of states. Iran is set to become one of the new members of BRICS+, a giant step to be decided in their upcoming summit in South Africa next August.

There are estimates in Tehran that Iran-China annual trade may reach over $70 billion in the mid-term, which will amount to triple the current figures.

When it comes to infrastructure building, Iran is a key BRI partner. The geostrategy of course is hard to match: a 2,250 km coastline encompassing the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Sea of Oman and the Caspian Sea – and huge land borders with Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Every think tank in China sees how Iran is irreplaceable, not only in terms of BRI land corridors, but also the Maritime Silk Road.

Chabahar Port may be a prime Iran-India affair, as part of the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) – thus directly linked to the Indian vision of a Silk Road, extending to Central Asia.

But Chinese port developers do have other ideas, focused on alternative ports along the Persian Gulf and in the Caspian Sea. That will boost shipping connections to Central Asia (Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan), Russia and the Caucasus (Azerbaijan).

And that makes perfect sense when one combines port terminal development with the modernization of Iran’s railways – all the way to high-speed rail.

An even more revolutionary development would be China coordinating the BRI connection of an Iranian corridor with the already in progress 3,200 km-long China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), from Kashgar in Xinjiang to Gwadar port in the Indian Ocean.

That seemed perfectly plausible when Pakistani Prime Minister  Imran Khan was still in power, before being ousted by a lawfare coup. The key of the whole enterprise is to build badly needed infrastructure in Balochistan, on both sides of the border. On the Pakistani side, that would go a long way to smash CIA-fed “insurgents” of the Balochistan Liberation Army kind, get rid of unemployment, and put trade in charge of economic development.

Afghanistan of course enters the equation – in the form of a China-Afghan-Iran corridor linked to CPEC. Since September 2021, Beijing has explained to the Taliban, in detail, how they may profit from an infrastructure corridor – complete with railway, highway and pipeline – from Xinjiang, across the Wakhan corridor in eastern Afghanistan, through the Hindu Kush, all the way to Iran.

The core of multipolarity

Iran is perfectly positioned for a Chinese-propelled boom in high-speed cargo rail, connecting Iran to most of Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan).

That means, in practice, cool connectivity with a major logistics cluster: the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) of Khorgos, only 330 km from Almaty on the Kazakh-China border, and only four hours from Urumqi, Xinjiang’s capital.

If China pulls that off, it would be a sort of BRI Holy Grail, interconnecting China and Iran via Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Nothing less than several corridors in one.

All that is about to happen as the Islamic Revolution in Iran celebrates its 44th year.

What is already happening now, geopolitically, and fully recognized by China, might be defined as the full rejection of an absurdity: the collective west treating Iran as a pariah or at best a subjugated neo-colony.

With the diverse strands of the Resistance embedded in the Islamic Revolution finally consolidated, it looks like history is finally propelling Iran as one of the key poles of the most complex process at work in the 21st century: Eurasia integration.

So 44 years after the Islamic Revolution, Iran enjoys strategic partnerships with the three top BRICS: China, Russia and India.

Likely to become one of the first new members of BRICS+, Iran is the first West Asian state to become a full member of the SCO, and is clinching a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

Iran is a major strategic partner of both BRI, led by China, and the INSTC, alongside Russia and India.

With the JCPOA all but dead, and all western “promises” lying in the dust, Tehran is consolidating its pivot back to the East at breakneck speed.

What Raisi and Xi sealed in Beijing heralds Chinese pre-eminence all across West Asia – keenly perceived in Beijing as a natural consequence of recognizing and honoring Iran’s regional centrality.

Iran’s “Look East” strategy could not be more compatible with BRI – as an array of BRI projects will accelerate Iran’s economic development and consolidate its inescapable role when it comes to trade corridors and as an energy provider.

During the 1980s Tehran was ruled by a “Neither East nor West” strategy – faithful to the tenets of the Islamic Revolution. That has now evolved, pragmatically, into “Look East.” Tehran did try to “Look West” in good faith, but what the US government did with the JCPOA – from its murder to “maximum pressure” to its aborted resuscitation – was quite a historical lesson.

What Raisi and Xi have just demonstrated in Beijing is the Sovereign way forward. The three leaders of Eurasia integration – China, Russia and Iran – are fast on their way to consolidate the core of multipolarity.    

Millions of metric tons of plastic are produced worldwide every year. While half of this plastic waste is recycled, incinerated, or discarded into landfills, a significant portion of what remains eventually ends up in our oceans.

In fact, many pieces of ocean plastic waste have come together to create a vortex of plastic waste thrice the size of France in the Pacific Ocean between California and Hawaii.

Where does all of this plastic come from? In this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Freny Fernandes and Louis Lugas Wicaksono used data from a research paper by Lourens J.J. Meijer and team to highlight the top 10 countries emitting plastic pollutants in the waters surrounding them.

Plastic’s Ocean Voyage

First, let’s talk about how this plastic waste reaches the oceans in the first place.

Most of the plastic waste found in the deep blue waters comes from the litter in parks, beaches, or along the storm drains lining our streets. These bits of plastic waste are carried into our drains, streams, and rivers by wind and rainwater runoff.

The rivers then turn into plastic superhighways, transporting the plastic to the oceans.

A large additional chunk of ocean plastic comes from damaged fishing nets or ghost nets that are directly discarded into the high seas.

Countries Feeding the Plastic Problem

Some might think that the countries producing or consuming the most plastic are the ones that pollute the oceans the most. But that’s not true.

According to the study, countries with a smaller geographical area, longer coastlines, high rainfall, and poor waste management systems are more likely to wash plastics into the sea.

For example, China generates 10 times the plastic waste that Malaysia does. However, 9% of Malaysia’s total plastic waste is estimated to reach the ocean, in comparison to China’s 0.6%.

The Philippines—an archipelago of over 7,000 islands, with a 36,289 kilometer coastline and 4,820 plastic emitting rivers—is estimated to emit 35% of the ocean’s plastic.

In addition to the Philippines, over 75% of the accumulated plastic in the ocean is reported to come from the mismanaged waste in Asian countries including India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Thailand.

The only non-Asian country to make it to this top 10 list, with 1,240 rivers including the Amazon, is Brazil.

The Path to a Plastic-free Ocean

The first, and most obvious, way to reduce plastic accumulation is to reduce the use of plastic. Lesser production equals lesser waste.

The second step is managing the plastic waste generated, and this is where the challenge lies.

Many high-income countries generate high amounts of plastic waste, but are either better at processing it or exporting it to other countries. Meanwhile, many of the middle-income and low-income countries that both demand plastics and receive bulk exports have yet to develop the infrastructure needed to process it.