After a humiliating year for elite universities, culminating in the Presidents of UPenn, MIT and Harvard embarrassing themselves in front of congress before Harvard’s Claudine Gay was slapped with plagiarism allegations, it looks like a small sliver of common sense could be making its way back to the Ivy League.

That’s because it was reported last week that Yale is once again instituting standardized tests for admission after years of keeping them optional for “DEI” reasons. 

The university’s undergraduate admissions dean announced a change in their student selection process amidst ongoing debate over the efficacy of traditional tests. Critics argue these exams don’t fully capture a student’s potential, suggesting high school GPAs as a more accurate measure. The move, seen as a step towards fairness for disadvantaged students, aligns Yale with institutions like Harvard, MIT, and Dartmouth, which have already adjusted their admissions policies, according to The Daily Mail.

Undergrad Admissions Dean Jeremiah Quinlan stated: “Standardized tests are imperfect and incomplete alone, but I also believe scores can help establish a student’s academic preparedness for college-level work.”

“When used together with other elements in an application, especially a high school transcript, test scores help establish the academic foundation for any case we consider,” he continued. 

Quinlan added: “Test scores convey a relatively small amount of information compared with the rich collection of insights and evidence we find in a complete application.”

“Simply put, students with higher scores have been more likely to have higher Yale GPAs, and test scores are the single greatest predictor of a student’s performance in Yale courses in every model we have constructed,” he said. 

“We have further found a statistically significant difference in average GPA between those who applied with and without test scores,” Quinlan said. 

The Daily Mail wrote that the move away from mandatory standardized test scores resulted in a 166% surge in applications, from 35,000 to over 57,000, without significantly increasing the number of academically strong applicants. Similarly, MIT’s Dean of Admissions, Stuart Schmill, noted that reinstating standardized tests in 2022 led to a more diverse and academically prepared incoming class, underscoring that high grades alone do not predict student success. Dartmouth College has also followed suit, revisiting its admissions criteria.

Along the same vein, last week we published that elite colleges were once again reconsidering SAT score requirements. 

According to Axios, multiple colleges used the pandemic as an excuse to weaken the importance of SAT and ACT test scores in most student applications. But in recent weeks, several schools have reversed course; Yale is considering repealing its prior policy of making SAT/ACT requirements optional, with Dartmouth already reinstating the requirements earlier this month. MIT reversed a similar policy back in 2022.

Other schools that have eliminated SAT/ACT requirements include Harvard and Columbia. Harvard, along with Cornell and Princeton, have extended their policy of making the scores optional, while Columbia’s policy remains permanent.

One of the motivating factors behind the reversal is ongoing research showing a clear correlation between students’ standardized test scores, and their subsequent academic performance and graduation rates in college. Some schools had previously opposed the test requirements for reasons of “diversity,” baselessly accusing the tests of being “racist” and against minority students.

Could we be entering an era of school’s starting to rid themselves of their woke ideologies? We’ll see – needless to say, we’re not optimistic…

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The main central banks have been deliberating on the concept of introducing a digital currency. However, many citizens fail to grasp the rationale behind it when the majority of transactions in major global currencies are carried out electronically. Nevertheless, a central bank digital currency is much more than electronic money. I will explain why.

Central banks are raising interest rates and enacting restrictive monetary policies as quickly as governmental regulations allow because they are aware that monetary factors are the primary cause of inflation. Central banks have recently lost credibility by initially disregarding the inflation danger, then attributing it to transitory factors, and finally responding belatedly and gradually.

In a world where there is an excess in money supply growth, there are mechanisms in place to prevent a significant rise in consumer prices caused by the destruction of the purchasing power of the issued currency. Quantitative easing is subject to some constraints that partially prevent inflationary forces. As the banking channel serves as the transmission mechanism of monetary policy, credit demand acts as a constraint on inflationary pressures.

Now, consider if the transmission mechanism was direct and utilizing only one channel, the central bank. It is not the same to have a police officer walking down your street than to have a police officer in your kitchen watching your every move.

A central bank digital currency would be directly issued to your account held at the central bank. At best, it is surveillance masquerading as currency. The central bank would have precise information of your currency usage, savings, borrowing, spending, and transactions. It can enhance the fungibility of money to prevent the common but unfounded problem of “excess savings.” Moreover, as central banks become more politically involved, they might impose penalties on individuals who spend in a manner they consider unsuitable, while rewarding those who follow their recommendations. The entire privacy system and monetary limit mechanism would be removed. Moreover, if the central bank makes a mistake and creates an excess of money supply, as shown in 2020, it would immediately make consumer prices rocket. If the money supply increases dramatically in a year, we would experience massive inflation levels as the existing constraints of the transmission mechanism are eliminated.

Consider a scenario where you have a single account, a central bank, and the government. Guess what would happen? Full monetary financing of government spending leading to elevated inflation within a few years and the destruction of the private sector. Central bank digital currencies are likely to be a computerized rendition of the French Assignats. High inflation, complete government control, and financial repression.

Central bank digital currencies are unnecessary and dangerous. You cannot initiate an experiment pf such magnitude when the autonomy of central banks has been questioned for years and there is abundant evidence of mistakes made with policy measures that do not acknowledge the danger of increased inflation and economic stagnation. Central banks have never successfully prevented bubbles, high levels of risk-taking, excessive debt, or identified inflationary pressures. Given such history, no one should support a proposal that would grant them complete authority and control over the financial and monetary system. What do central banks mean when they discuss a novel digital currency? It is a further advancement in the ongoing process of eroding the purchasing power of the currency, disguised under the objective of enhancing oversight of payments and facilitating the tracking of specific payment methods.

The primary arguments for considering a central bank digital currency are efficiency and enhancing the transmission mechanism of monetary policy. However, none of them make sense. Central banks often claim the need to enhance the transmission mechanism of monetary policy, but many of their statements are founded on an inaccurate belief that there is an excess of savings that requires a change in behaviour. By manipulating the cost and quantity of the currency issued, central banks aim to correct what they perceive as imbalances. However, monetary policy rarely addresses the largest imbalances, which are the ones created by government deficits and debt accumulation. Disguising risk in sovereign debt leads to more imprudent fiscal policies and adds to the risk of bubbles in financial markets as perceptions of risk are clouded by low rates and high liquidity. A digital currency does not enhance the transmission mechanism of monetary policy unless the word “enhance” is used to hide a desire to boost the size of government in the economy through the erosion of the purchasing power of the currency and the constant monetary financing of public deficits. Another aspect to consider is efficiency. Central banks appear to prioritize the regulation of monetary transactions and encourage spending regardless of the risks involved. Creating a central bank digital money system is not more efficient. It is another form of financial control. If negative interest rates are ineffective in stimulating economic agents, some believe that implementing negative rates and devaluing the currency faster using a digital currency may be more successful. They are wrong. The economy does not strengthen by making the currency a disappearing reserve of value. Introducing a central bank digital currency is unlikely to reduce economic risks or stimulate productive investment but will encourage short-term malinvestment. Central banks are unable to compel economic agents to spend and invest, especially when their strategies continually focus on encouraging debt and prolonging government imbalances. The process of any asset becoming a widely used currency is highly democratic. It is beyond the jurisdiction of governments and cannot be enforced. When governments and central banks implement financial repression and devalue their currency, citizens may turn to other forms of payment that are considered genuine money. Cryptocurrencies have emerged due to a lack of trust in fiat currencies and the ongoing efforts of central banks and governments to devalue currencies in order to conceal underlying fiscal imbalances. A central bank digital currency is a contradiction in terms—an oxymoron. Citizens demand cryptocurrencies because they are not controlled by central banks that seek to grow the money supply and induce currency depreciation through inflation. Central banks should prioritize safeguarding the purchasing power of savings and salaries rather than seeking to destroy them. Using new means of financial repression may lead to a loss of confidence in the local currency. Once central banks acknowledge that they have exceeded the appropriate limits of their policy, it will already be too late.

Central bank digital currencies are unnecessary and dangerous.

The benefits of technology, digitalization and ease of transactions are already there. There is no need to create a currency issued directly to an account at the central bank. They are unnecessary as well because there is absolutely no need to compete with a digital yuan or bitcoin. China is moving closer to sound monetary policy and its central bank is purchasing more gold, not the opposite.

If central banks want to compete with other currencies or cryptocurrencies there is only one way: Make it absolutely clear that you will defend the reserve of value status of your currency. There is no need for the euro or the US dollar to compete with bitcoin or a digital yuan if the Fed and the ECB truly defend their reserve of value and purchasing power.

However, it looks like central banks want to behave like a monopoly that sells bad quality products but demands to remain the main supplier by eliminating the competition. The Fed and the ECB do not need to compete against cryptocurrencies if they show the world that they will defend the purchasing power of the US dollar and the euro.

The world’s financial challenges are not solved by imposing total control implemented by a monetary monopoly whose independence is seriously questioned, but by increasing competition and independence.

The US government’s involvement in all forms of media is well known, and goes back to the 1940s.

And from the ‘Twitter Files’ – Elon Musk’s release of thousands of internal documents which exposed the Censorship Industrial Complex, and the ongoing dot-connecting being done by independent journalists, we know that both the CIA and FBI have been meddling in content moderation.

But just how deep does this rabbit hole of narrative shaping and censorship go? Deep…

In a Saturday X thread, user ‘Name Redacted‘ has compiled a stunning look at how career US intelligence personnel have infiltrated big tech:

1. 🧵Google & Meta function as extensions of the US Intelligence Community. With Jacqueline Lopour, Google’s Head of Trust & Safety, and Aaron Berman, Meta’s Head of Elections Content/Misinformation Policy, both being career CIA officers, it underscores the CIA’s substantial… https://t.co/LdxZLGfekv pic.twitter.com/SpDlz5AGBj

— Name Redacted (@NameRedacted247) February 25, 2024

Unpacking the thread (as it cuts off above), ‘Redacted’ writes (emphasis ours):

Google & Meta function as extensions of the US Intelligence Community. With Jacqueline Lopour, Google’s Head of Trust & Safety, and Aaron Berman, Meta’s Head of Elections Content/Misinformation Policy, both being career CIA officers, it underscores the CIA’s substantial control over online censorship.

Why is this CIA-Big Tech revolving door, where career CIA officers wield power to censor & decide what misinformation is, purposefully suppressed in the broader conversation about censorship?

Why are career CIA officers like Jacqueline Lopour & Nick Rossmann, who both have a history of spreading misinformation & promoting the RussiaGate conspiracy theory, now in senior roles in Trust & Safety at Google, deciding what is misinformation & overseeing content moderation?

The cumulative number of former Intelligence Community personnel hired by Meta & Google since 2018 is staggering. Before 2018, there were only a handful. Here are the combined hires by both companies:
CIA-36
FBI-68
NSA-44
DHS/CISA-68
State Dept-86
DOD-121

Continued:

Why would Google specifically choose these six senior executives to attend an @ISF_OSAC
 event in DC?

Everyone in this picture, alongside former CIA Director Robert Gates, is a current senior executive at Google & a former career CIA officer, except for the attorney from Perkins Coie (2nd from the left):

3. Jacqueline Lopour spent 10 years at the CIA before joining Google in 2017. She is currently Head of Trust & Safety, where she not only determines what constitutes misinformation but also wields considerable power in content moderation on Search & YouTube.

In this interview,… pic.twitter.com/JbWTfQi5ad

— Name Redacted (@NameRedacted247) February 25, 2024

Jacqueline Lopour, a career CIA officer, played a significant role in developing various intelligence programs at Google & YouTube:

*Manages intel operations for violent extremism, misinformation, hate speech, etc.
*Led development of intelligence programs for global election analysis.
*Developed the “YouTube Intelligence Desk.”
*Developed Google’s first machine-learning threat detection & analysis program.
*Provided daily COVID-19 briefings to senior leadership at Google & YouTube CEO

In 2015, Lopour authored a rather bizarre article titled: “The best reason for Iran deal? The West will learn where to drop bombs.”

Nick Rossmann spent over 5 years at the CIA before joining Google in 2022 as Senior Manager of Trust & Safety. His activity on Twitter/X is troubling, especially considering his current position in content moderation.

Why does Nick Rossmann have a problem with white people?

Here are some examples of Rossmann’s unhinged behavior on Twitter/X (all archived):

Negative tweets about white people:

https://archive.vn/ZdKeT

https://archive.vn/PYgWh

https://archive.vn/rOOpB

Hoping Trump voters cough on their grandparents (giving them COVID) & “get to rot”– https://archive.is/rppqw

Asking Trump if he is an agent of a foreign power – https://archive.vn/xi7t8

Calling Trump “a lunatic & a racist”, tagging Keith Olbermann & using the hashtag “Resist” – https://archive.vn/Pk5Kh

Calling anti-vaxxers Nazis & Confederates – https://archive.vn/YWMDD

Christopher Porter spent most of his professional career in the Intelligence Community. After 9 years at the CIA, he joined ODNI where he was Head of the IC Cyber Analysis Council leading a team of CIA, FBI, NSA & DOD regarding US elections.

While at the ODNI, he regularly briefed President Biden so it’s only natural that as of June 2022, he joined Google as Head of Threat Intelligence. Porter is also a member of the Atlantic Council

His LinkedIn bio states that he likes to talk about Russia & election security. LinkedIn-  archive.is/pFOI2

Deborah Wituski joined Google in 2018 as Senior Director Global Intelligence. Her only prior work experience was 19 years at the CIA, where she was Chief of Staff to the Director. Wituski is a member of Council on Foreign Relations.

9. Now why would Deborah’s intelligence desk at Google be so concerned about Putin’s personal life or the innerworkings of the Kremlin?

Full video for reference- https://t.co/iZJ1EyYTOv pic.twitter.com/CvDx7Ce0cC

— Name Redacted (@NameRedacted247) February 25, 2024

Katherine Tobin joined Google in 2021. Her career path is like the others listed in this thread: after 6 years at Booz Allen Hamilton, she spent 4 years at the ODNI, followed by 4 years at the CIA, & then returned to the ODNI for another 3 years.

With over 10 years of experience in the Intelligence Community, Google was the obvious choice for her. On her LinkedIn bio, she states that her favorite problems to solve are promoting DEI

11. Katherine wrote a blog post on LinkedIn, sharing her transition from the CIA to the private sector titled “My New Mission: From Spying to Startups.”

For anyone interested, here is her personal blog- https://t.co/FClvI77Qf7 pic.twitter.com/Dqqqa5nL0n

— Name Redacted (@NameRedacted247) February 25, 2024

The thread continues with several more examples, while ‘Name Redacted’ says there are “over 100 more examples of individuals whose sole work history is within the Intelligence Community or career State Department diplomats.

Many of these individuals hold positions as content moderators and policy managers. Most of them joined Google/YouTube after 2018.

Is it merely a coincidence that censorship has increased aggressively since then?

Read the rest of the thread here (and consider giving Name Redacted a follow).

Authored by Pete Rizzo via BItcoin Magazine.com,

Satoshi Nakamoto’s earliest collaborator Martii ‘Sirius’ Malmi has released his entire email correspondence with Bitcoin’s creator.

Spurred by an ongoing lawsuit in the U.K., the new emails are the most significant addition to the canon of what we know about Bitcoin’s still anonymous creator. 

Here are the most important new findings.

EMAIL #1: SATOSHI’S BITCOIN SCALING ASSUMPTIONS

When asked how Bitcoin might scale in the future, Satoshi theorized the network might have a maximum of 100,000 nodes. 

Here he goes into the calculations assessing the economics of bandwidth costs to nodes (read: miners) in propagating transactions across the network, the economic costs that would incur, and how that could be cost effectively passed on to users. 

He also discusses the implementation of users paying fees, and hints at the potential for the fee necessary for confirmation of your transaction being market driven due to the processing capacity of the network.

All in all, it’s interesting napkin math, though nothing out of the ordinary for those who have read Satoshi’s full Bitcoin forum posts. 

There Satoshi talked frequently about his vision for how the network might grow larger, and it’s notable much of his ideas were not proven to be viable based on subsequent development work.

EMAIL #2: BITCOIN DOESN’T WASTE ENERGY

Though he wouldn’t stick around to see the tremendous uptick in Bitcoin mining using stranded resources, it turns out, Satoshi knew the network was greent.

One of the first criticisms to be lobbied at his new creation, Satoshi spent time addressing the idea that Bitcoin mining was wasteful on the forums, most notably saying that not having a currency like Bitcoin would be the bigger waste. 

Here, however, he expands on the idea in more detail, and in a more vivid and descriptive way than we’ve seen before. 

EMAIL #3: SATOSHI ON TIME-STAMPING 

A headed debated today remains whether Bitcoin is money, or whether it can or does have other ancillary uses. 

In this email exchange, Satoshi seems to offer some insight on the debate, noting his belief the blockchain can be used as a distributed time-stamping server. This is akin to what has happened in Guatemala, where the blockchain has been used to certify contentious elections in recent years. 

EMAIL #4: SATOSHI TALKS DIGICASH

Satoshi describing the differences between #Bitcoin and DigiCash, David Chaum’s failed e-money.

This is notable as Chaum’s work had a profound impact on the cypherpunks, including Hal Finney. He specifically discusses the differences in privacy properties of the two models, and notes that unlike Chaum’s scheme did not support an offline model, requiring all participants to be online to make use of the system. 

He also explains the finite supply cap of bitcoin. 

EMAIL #5: SATOSHI WAS CONCERNED ABOUT PROMOTING BITCOIN

Satoshi was concerned about his legal risk in launching #Bitcoin, noting he was “uncomfortable” with explicitly labeling it an investment. 

Note: Here also we see he didn’t come up with the term “cryptocurrency” himself.

EMAIL #6: SATOSHI GOT BURNED OUT ON BITCOIN

By July 2009, Satoshi was tired, saying he “needed a break” from Bitcoin. Here, he also explains Hal’s absence from the work. He also mentions spending a period of 18 months at that point developing Bitcoin. 

A curious note as well, he asks Malmi if he had any ideas for applications people can actually use Bitcoin for. 

EMAIL #7: BITCOIN, A WAY TO GET FREE MONEY

Satoshi discussing how #Bitcoin might gain adoption. Of note is his emphasis that Bitcoin was easy to obtain given that you could mine it on a computer. He also goes to postulate how the nature of a market trading for Bitcoin would evolve, discussing how skeptical people might be of its value, stating he was confident the increasing mining difficulty would prove its scarcity to people. 

Very different from how we think about BTC today in terms of acquiring it, but demonstrating a prescience of how people would mentally value it in the future. 

EMAIL #8: A MYSTERIOUS BITCOIN DONOR EMERGES

In June 2010, someone offered to donate $2,000 to Satoshi for his #Bitcoin work. Notably, he had the donor send it to Martti’s address. He also communicated care that the donor’s privacy was respected.

EMAIL #9: SATOSHI WAS A FAN OF FREE TRANSACTIONS 

Already known, but Satoshi was pretty adamant that early users consider #Bitcoin “free.” Here he is discussing removing transaction fees from the UX of an early software. 

It’s interesting that his reasoning was to obscure this feature from users, but simultaneously acknowledged its necessity in the far future. 

EMAIL #10: SATOSHI WAS DEDICATED TO HIS BITCOIN WORK

Satoshi worked on #Bitcoin on Christmas day. There are some interesting implications here to consider regarding his personal life. 

EMAIL #11: BITCOIN, A WEB CURRENCY FOR CURRENCY TRADING?

Satoshi saw #Bitcoin taking hold as a way to trade other internet currencies like Liberty Reserve. He also goes on to discuss the potential for markets selling gift cards for bitcoin, which wound up becoming and is to this day a significant market for bitcoin. 

Note: Liberty Reserve was later shut down by the US.

EMAIL #12: SATOSHI’S FIRST DISAPPEARANCE 

Satoshi had a mysterious leave of absence from #Bitcoin in 2010. Here he is talking about it with Martti, though it’s notably also short on details.

EMAIL #13: SATOSHI REALIZED BITCOIN WASN’T ANONYMOUS

It was Satoshi who removed the language that Bitcoin was “anonymous” from http://Bitcoin.org. He worried it made Bitcoin sound “shady.” This echoes his later sentiments around Wikileaks announcing their acceptance of bitcoin for donations. 

EMAIL #14: SATOSHI GIVES PRAISE TO HIS PROTEGE

Worth noting given the historical revisionism around this, Satoshi thought very highly of Gavin Andresen. Here he is praising Gavin and referring to someone else as a “goofball.”

EMAIL #15: SATOSHI SAYS SAYONARA 

We finally have a copy of the email Satoshi sent other developers before taking his name off the project website. As they’ve said, Satoshi doesn’t mention his intention to step back from the project at all.

Overall no substantial new information is brought to light, but the emails do give a new angle to Satoshi’s interactions with others involved in the project before his departure. 

The media tentacles of the Trump resistance have been fully activated – the most recent example being former NBC sportscaster Bob Costas, who appeared on CNN‘s “Smerconish” to slam the former president.

Trump “is by far the most disgraceful figure in modern presidential history” who “has a bubbling cauldron of loathsome traits.”

“You have to be in the throes of some sort of toxic delusion in a toxic cult to believe that Donald Trump has ever been in any sense, emotionally, psychologically, intellectually or ethically fit to be president of the United States. But his supporters are locked in on that,” Costas continued.

Meanwhile, Costas doesn’t think that President Biden should run, and that Biden’s “legacy is likely to be that of a man whose hubris prevented him from seizing the moment in an appropriate way.”

“At best,” Biden “can squeak by Trump,” Costas continued. “If he squeaks by, it’s very likely that he cannot complete his second term, he’d be 86 at the end of it.”

According to Costas, Biden “cannot make a clear cogent vigorous case for himself nor can he prosecute the obvious case against Trump in the court of public opinion.”

Watch:

h/t Just the News

Authored by Ted Snider via The Libertarian Institute,

There were probably many reasons why Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky fired Ukraine’s popular commander in chief of the armed forces, Valerii Zaluzhny, on February 8, but one of the biggest seems to have been a disagreement over how to go forward in a war that seemed to have overwhelmingly turned against them. Zelensky spoke of a need for “the same vision of the war,” and Zaluzhny said “a decision was made about the need to change approaches and strategy.”

When the war began, Zelensky said that Ukraine “will definitely win” but stressed life over land. “Our land is important, yes, but ultimately it’s just territory.” He said that “Victory is being able to save as many lives as possible. Yes, to save as many lives as possible, because without this nothing would make sense.”

But actions speak louder than words. Zelensky began to define victory as the reclamation, not only of land lost during the war, but of Crimea and all of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory. Zelensky insisted that Ukraine stay on the offensive. He insisted on moving forward, “Whether it’s by a kilometer or 500 meters, but forward every day.”

Zaluzhny saw Zelensky’s strategy of fighting for Bakhmut and Avdiivka at any cost as a strategic disaster that was costing Ukraine too much in weapons and in lives. Zaluzhny argued for preserving lives over forfeitable territory, lest Ukraine lose its land and its army.

In General Oleksandr Syrsky, Zelensky found the commander who would execute his vision and carry out his orders. Syrsky fought the Battle of Bakhmut. His performance there, and in other battles, gave him the reputation of a commander who is willing to give orders that lead to little real gain and lots of real loss of life. “Some soldiers say his orders are unreasonable, at times sending men to their obvious deaths,” The Washington Post reports.

According to The Economist, he “has a reputation for being willing to engage the enemy, even if the cost in men and machines is high.” His reported willingness to put “his men in danger to reach his military goals” has earned him the nicknames “Butcher” and General 200, 200 being the code for a soldier’s corpse. Syrsky is also seen as being a commander who is close to Zelensky and who will not question his orders.

The replacement of Zaluzhny by Syrsky signals Zelensky’s intent to push ahead with the suicidal war of attrition and fight for every inch of land despite the cost in lives. Aware of the optics of the choice in the public and, perhaps especially in the armed forces, Kiev assuaged the perception of Syrsky as “being indifferent to military casualties.” In his first statement as commander in chief, Syrsky said, “The lives and well-being of our servicemen have always been and remain the main asset of the Ukrainian army.”

But, again, actions speak louder than words. General Syrsky’s first words were about protecting the lives of his men, but his first actions were about fighting for every inch of territory.

On February 11, just three days after the change in command, Syrsky ordered the reinforcement and defence of Avdiivka, a strategic town that faced imminent loss to the Russian army and enormous loss of Ukrainian lives. Zaluzhny would have withdrawn his troops, preserved lives and moved the front to more defensible positions.

Syrsky deployed the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade, one of the best armed and trained and most successful brigades in the Ukrainian Armed Forces. It did not go well. It went exactly as Zaluzhny said it would, and Syrsky was forced to respond exactly as Zaluzhny had said they should. But now the response was carried out in disarray instead of in an orderly, planned fashion. Perhaps Zelensky should have stuck with Zaluzhny.

In sending in reinforcements instead of retreating, Syrsky said the “goal of our operation is to exhaust the enemy, inflict maximum losses on him.” The opposite happened.

Less than a week later, on February 17, Syrsky announced the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Avdiivka. “Based on the operational situation around Avdiyivka, in order to avoid encirclement and preserve the lives and health of servicemen,” he said, “I decided to withdraw our units from the city and move to defense on more favorable lines…The life of military personnel is the highest value.” That’s exactly what Zaluzhny advised Zelensky to do.

But the situation was worse than at first reported. Zaluzhny would have preplanned the retreat and executed it according to a plan. Zelensky and Skysky’s stubbornness turned the already costly loss into a disaster.

CNN at first reported that “Ukrainian forces are currently conducting a relatively controlled withdrawal from Avdiivka.” There were “indications,” though, “that not all Ukrainian units were able to escape an ever-tightening noose.” Though “the withdrawal was carried out in accordance with the plan that had been developed…a number of Ukrainian servicemen were taken prisoner at the final stage of the operation, under pressure from the enemy’s superior forces.”

Three days later, the situation was becoming clearer. Senior Western officials, The New York Times reported, now say that “Hundreds of Ukrainian troops may have been captured by advancing Russian units or disappeared during” what they now call, “Ukraine’s chaotic retreat from the eastern city of Avdiivka.” The Times was now calling it “a devastating loss.”

And hundreds may have been an understatement. Further down in the article, the Times reports that “soldiers with knowledge of Ukraine’s retreat estimated that 850 to 1,000 soldiers appear to have been captured or are unaccounted for.” There are unconfirmed reports of even higher numbers of dead and wounded.

That may not have happened under Zaluzhny, who long ago conceded that Avdiivka would fall and would have preplanned the retreat. Some Ukrainian soldiers and Western officials say “the Ukrainian withdrawal was ill-planned and began too late,” according to the Times. They say that “a failure to execute an orderly withdrawal, and the chaos that unfolded Friday and Saturday as the defenses collapsed, was directly responsible for what appears to be a significant number of soldiers captured.”

Suddenly, the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade was not assaulting but desperately trying “to cover the retreat.” The retreat was chaotic: “…some units pulled back before others were aware of the retreat. That put the units left behind at risk of encirclement by the Russians.”

But the true story may be even worse. Military analyst Stephen Bryen reports that the disaster may have begun before the reinforcements even arrived at Avdiivka. Some of the brigades Syrsky brought in gathered and organized in the nearby town of Selydove. Bryen says the Russian military discovered they were there and struck with missiles. Between 1,000 and 1,500 Ukrainian soldiers were reportedly killed.

Bryen says that when the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade arrived in Avdiivka, they found a desperate situation. They reportedly discarded Syrsky’s orders and retreated. Some reportedly surrendered. Syrsky then announced the troop withdrawal and the fall of Avdiivka.

Zelensky’s choice of Syrsky over Zaluzhny was, in part, the choice to maintain the course of a war of attrition to hold and retake all Ukrainian territory. Syrsky’s first orders fulfilled that choice in Avdiivka. It went exactly as Zaluzhny said it would but worse because Zelensky and Syrsky tried to defy the battlefield reality that Zaluzhny recognized. Perhaps Zelensky should have stuck with Zaluzhny.

The Red Sea shipping crisis has been an explosive mess for the international shipping community and the global economy. With oil tankers increasingly steering clear of the southern Red Sea and the Bab el Mandeb Strait, shipping capacity has rapidly tightened, pressuring daily rates higher. 

Bloomberg reports only two new supertankers will join the global fleet in 2024, the fewest additions in forty years and about 90% below the yearly average over the last two decades. 

“The impact of the diversions can be seen every day in shipping in general, and I would say crude oil and product tanker shipping,” specifically, Alexander Saverys, CEO of Euronav NV, one of the largest tanker owners in the world, told investors during an earnings call earlier this month. 

Saverys said low deliveries and an aging global fleet are a perfect recipe for a positive outlook on tankers. 

We have stated that Houthi attacks on commercial shipping are the “next supply-driven inflation shock.” As a result, a key Clean Tanker rate tracked by the Baltic Exchange has moved north of $100,000 per day due to the disruptions, caused longer sails, which tightens capacity on the seas. 

The US and UK airstrikes on Houthi militants in Yemen were one of the major drivers that sent tanker rates soaring in the second half of January. Many of these tankers, hauling fuels like gasoline and diesel, have been forced to navigate around Africa. 

Charts from the latest Goldman Oil Tracker (full report available to pro subscribers in the usual place) show flows through the Bab-El-Mandeb continue to deteriorate and remain down 1.8mb/d (or 27% on a 14DMA Basis) since disruptions started on December 18. 

Goldman also shows tanker rates have surged.

“The situation is tight in the tanker market, in particular for crude oil tankers,” said Enrico Paglia, research manager at Banchero Costa, a shipping services firm. He warned, “It will be even tighter in the future.”

Bloomberg noted, “The tanker shortage comes as the efficiency of the global fleet is faltering. In addition to many vessels sailing around southern Africa instead of through the Red Sea and Suez Canal, a burgeoning dark fleet means that many ships are only available to certain customers.” 

Meanwhile, data from Banchero Costa shows the tanker order book will be extremely low in the next couple of years: Only five new tankers are expected to join the global fleet in 2025. That compares with 42 ships delivered in 2022. 

How long until the next tanker glut?

Authored by Edward Curtin via Off-Guardian.org,

There is propaganda by commission and propaganda by omission, the former often serve to conceal the latter. Timing is crucial.

That the U.S. President Joseph Biden, his British, NATO, Israeli allies, and their corporate media mouthpieces are in need of a major propaganda victory is obvious. They are losing the war in Ukraine, have been condemned throughout the world for the genocide in Gaza, and are ruling over a disintegrating empire. Biden and Netanyahu’s political lives are at serious risk. And so they have just rolled out a full-court propaganda press effort aimed at covering their losses. It should be crystal clear to anyone who can use logic to see the timing involved.

The great French scholar of propaganda and technology, Jacques Ellul, wrote years ago that propaganda “is not the touch of a magic wand. It is based on slow constant impregnation. It creates convictions and compliance through imperceptible influences that are effective only by continuous repetition.”

However, once this groundwork has been laid over time – as it has been with the continuous anti-Russia Putin hysteria and support for Israel’s Zionist policies – it can be intensely ratcheted up in exigent circumstances when the long-serving narrative is in jeopardy, such as it is now.

Once the death in a Russian prison of the Western backed Russian dissident Alexei Navalny was announced on Friday, February 16, 2024, it was immediately followed by a cascade of anti-Russia pronouncements whose aim was to not only continue the demonization of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin but to serve other purposes as well.

With one fell stroke, the calm history lesson about Ukraine, Russia, and U.S./NATO that Putin had just delivered to the world via Tucker Carlson disappeared down the memory hole, as Biden, without any evidence, declared that “Putin and his thugs” and Putin’s “brutality” are responsible for Navalny’s death.

This, of course, is a replay of the false charges sans evidence waged against Russia for an earlier poisoning of Navalny, the Skripals (since disappeared by the British government), Alexander Litvinenko, et al.

Shortly after, Zelensky, performing his puppet routine while coincidently appearing at the Munich Security Conference – on Saturday, February 17, a day after Navalny’s death was announced – with Navalny’s then widow, said it was “obvious” that Putin had killed Navalny, while Biden pushed for more money for Ukraine’s doomed war against Russia, a U.S./NATO war created by the U.S. from the start with its aggressive military push to Russia’s borders and its 2015 Ukrainian coup d’état that ousted the pro-Russian leader, setting the stage for Russia’s incursion into Ukraine in February 2022. That Putin told Carlson these obvious facts, while slyly mentioning to Carlson that he understood that Carlson once tried to join the CIA, is now for most people in the West history lost behind the headlines, if it ever were anything more.

All this happened while Russia pushed through Ukraine’s defenses and took the city of Avdeevka, which had long been contested. With each day that passes, it is obvious that Biden’s Ukraine war strategy is that of a desperate politician on the ropes and that Putin has completely outfoxed the American desperados and their NATO European stooges. The MSM prefer to suggest otherwise, that hope is just around the corner if we send billions more dollars and weapons, and if with the help of our British friends, we take the war further into Russian territory and risk a nuclear confrontation. But we are in a propaganda war for the minds of the Western public.

Much of the rest of the world has seen through the risible MSM headlines used to delude the public that Russia is the great threat to world peace and stability. Like the previous Russia-gate lies, this ongoing one, coinciding with Navalny’s death, is timed to divert the public’s attention from key ongoing matters.

Tomorrow and Wednesday, Julian Assange will have his final appeal in a British court to prevent his extradition to the United States. Biden wants this journalist prosecuted for doing the job that the MSM have failed to do: Exposing the facts about the ruthless U.S. killing machine. But the bruhaha about Navalny has rendered the absolute hypocrisy over the torture and imprisonment of the innocent and brave Assange secondary and “inconsequential.” As intended, this has now become an afterthought as the mainstream media’s Russia-obsessed headlines flow uninterruptedly. The New York Times, the key propaganda organ for the Biden administration and the deep-state, reports just today that “The gravity of President Putin’s threats is now dawning on Europe” and “Navalny’s Widow Promises to Carry on Opposition Leader’s Work.”  These are typical Times’ rants.  As is its Magazine article headline from yesterday “Marilyn Robinson [the writer and friend of Barack Obama] Considers Biden a Gift of God.”

I don’t think the Palestinians would agree, but then too, their slaughter by Israel with U.S. assistance – more than 29,000 Palestinians in Gaza alone have been killed so far – and the coming IDF invasion of Rafah, have also been pushed to the back pages or to nowhere by the propaganda about Navalny and Russia.

I won’t mention the Russian election in mid-March that might possibly factor into all this since we all will be dutifully and timely told that the evil killer Putin is a dictator, ignorant, ruthless – add your own adjectives – and is no doubt trying to rig the fair-and-square U.S. November presidential election – for someone, just as he did in 2016.

Nor mention The NY Times article of February 17 by David Sanger and Julian Barnes that the “U.S Fears Russia Might Put a Nuclear Weapon in Space.”

Everyone knows that the Russians are coming to get us, as they always have. They probably killed JFK, right?

It’s easy to follow along as this propaganda eruption circles the Internet like painted ponies on a carousel. There will be no time to stop and think, to pause; to ask what the hell is going on? The ponies will dip and bob and make you dizzy.

For more corroboration of these matters, read the political analyst Gilbert Doctorow’s astute piece on how the Turkish broadcaster TRT World refused to post the interview that they did with him. Doctorow claims British intelligence killed Navalny. For some reason this should not be broached, according to TRT.

Whether Doctorow is right or not, only a very dimwitted person would think that Putin would have Navalny killed. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so. Yet the MSM and their government overlords consider most people very stupid and so are trying to blitz them with obvious propaganda through commission and omission.

We have heard this story before.

*  *  *

Edward Curtin is an independent writer whose work has appeared widely over many years. His website is edwardcurtin.com and his new book is Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies.

Authored by Frank Fang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A massive cache of leaked documents from a Chinese hacking contractor further underscores the global cybersecurity threats posed by China’s communist regime, experts say.

The documents, which were posted on GitHub by unknown individuals on Feb. 16, include product manuals, marketing materials, employee lists, chat records, financial information, and details about foreign infiltration.

The Associated Press confirmed in a Feb. 21 report that the documents originated from China-based cybersecurity vendor I-Soon, known as Anxun in Mandarin, after speaking to two of the company’s employees.

Based on the documents, I-Soon boasts a product line that includes offensive cyber tools and spyware systems. Also included in the documents is a list of contracts that the company signed from July 2016 to June 2022, showing that most of its clients are China’s regional security bureaus. The revelation adds to what is known from the company’s website, which touts the CCP’s Ministry of Public Security as one of its partners.

“The I-Soon incident should once again remind everyone that network security is national security. There is a war without gunpowder, and it is happening in cyberspace,” tech expert Chiang Ya-chi told The Epoch Times on Feb. 21.

Ms. Chiang is the president of the Taiwan Law and Technology Association and a professor who specializes in internet technology and intellectual property law at National Taiwan Ocean University.

The leaked documents show that I-Soon is funded by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Ms. Chiang said, noting that Bejing uses tools developed by firms such as I-Soon to infiltrate foreign governments and entities.

A victim list is included in the leaked documents, showing that I-Soon has targeted telecommunications companies, hospitals, universities, organizations, and government entities from many countries. These nations include France, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

One document reveals that I-Soon charged more money for hacking into Vietnam’s Ministry of Economy than for hacking into two other Vietnamese government ministries.

Spyware

Since the online dump last week, many researchers and experts have published their analysis of the documents written in simplified Chinese.

Malwarebytes, a California company that provides real-time cyber protection, published an analysis of the leaked data on Feb. 21, saying the documents “provide an inside look in the operations that go on in a leading spyware vendor and APT-for-hire.” APT refers to advanced persistent threat.

The analysis highlights some of the I-Soon products revealed by the documents, including what it calls a “Twitter stealer.”

“Features [of the Twitter stealer] include obtaining the user’s Twitter email and phone number, real-time monitoring, reading personal messages, and publishing tweets on the user’s behalf,” the analysis reads.

In one document page, I-Soon boasts that it had studied Twitter’s safety mechanism for years; thus, its product can allegedly bypass security features to target a Twitter user’s account.

The leaked documents also reveal the cost of the “Twitter stealer” product. A one-year usage of the product costs 700,000 yuan (about $97,000), and a three-year usage costs 1.5 million yuan (about $208,000).

The Malwarebytes analysis shows the following product description: “Custom Remote Access Trojans (RATs) for Windows x64/x86: Features include process/service/registry management, remote shell, keylogging, file access logging, obtaining system information, disconnecting remotely, and uninstallation.”

There are iOS and Android versions of the RATs. The iOS model claims to support all iOS device versions without jailbreaking, with features ranging from hardware information to GPS data, contacts, media files, and real-time audio records as an extension, according to the analysis.

I-Soon also has portable devices for “attacking networks from the inside,” it states.

According to the leaked documents, the portable devices come in two different sizes—a standard version that can be disguised as a cellphone battery, power strip, or power adapter and a mini version that can be disguised as a printed circuit board.

The user lookup databases, which include users’ phone numbers, names, and email addresses, can be correlated with social media accounts, according to the Malwarebytes analysis.

The CCP can potentially use the user lookup databases to track and locate dissidents in China. According to the leaked documents, databases have been built for different Chinese platforms, including Weibo, Baidu, and WeChat.

Threats

Su Tzu-yun, director at the Taiwan-based Institute for National Defense and Security Research, told The Epoch Times on Feb. 21 that the I-Soon documents are the latest evidence supporting claims by the United States and NATO that the Chinese regime is a threat to their cybersecurity.

In its strategic concept agreed upon in 2022, NATO stated that the regime’s “malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target Allies and harm Alliance security.”

Earlier this month, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued a warning that the CCP is pre-positioning malware in the U.S. systems in preparation for a conflict. The warning came just days after FBI Director Christopher Wray told lawmakers that a multiagency operation had dismantled “Volt Typhoon,” a major state-sponsored hacking group based in China, which began targeting a wide range of networks across U.S. critical infrastructure in 2021.

Last year, Mr. Wray warned that Chinese hackers outnumber U.S. cyber specialists by at least 50 to one.

Some researchers have suggested that I-Soon could have ties to APT41, a Chinese state-sponsored hacking group, based on their analysis of the leaked documents.

In 2020, five Chinese nationals from APT41 were indicted on charges relating to hacking campaigns to steal trade secrets and sensitive information from more than 100 companies and entities worldwide. The five individuals are currently on the FBI’s wanted list.

Cybersecurity firm Mandiant stated in a 2022 report that APT41 had exploited vulnerabilities in the online systems of at least six U.S. state governments to gain access to those networks.

“The leak provides some of the most concrete details seen publicly to date, revealing the maturing nature of China’s cyber espionage ecosystem,” California-based cybersecurity company SentinelLabs said in its analysis of I-Soon’s leaked data published on Feb. 21.

“It shows explicitly how government targeting requirements drive a competitive marketplace of independent contractor hackers-for-hire.”

Chung Yuan contributed to this report. 

Authored by Gerrick Wilkins via RealClear Wire,

Upwards of 80% of Americans favor term limits, yet entrenched politicians in Congress – and the lobbyists who need them to advance their special interests – have found ways of quashing them time after time. As the years roll by, cynics might say that the Republic has survived. Sure, the United States of America continues on, but honest observers must concede that with the absence of a true citizen legislature, the standing of its citizens – that’s you – is eroding.

The American people have become like puppeteers whose increasingly lifeless puppet has been detached, little by little, from the strings connecting it to our control.

America’s great middle class – once the envy of the world – has steadily shrunk over the past 50 years. The special interests who fund incumbents are looking out for everybody but us. And so we get higher taxes, lower incomes, and bigger government. The same dynamic has also played out in the political sphere, with a larger and more bureaucratic government weakening personal liberty.

The terrorist threat and crime wave that have breached our collapsed Southern border are more indications of the erosion of the American way of life. So, in addition to the well-reported opioid crisis in America, something that rightly concerns all of us, there is another plague in the land – politicians addicted to being in office – the subject of my new book on the need for term limits, “Unshackling Democracy.”

Whether the onus of high taxes or the decline in decent jobs is your top priority, or your right and duty to pass on your traditional values to your children, you should be very concerned that the cords by which “we the people” control our government continue to get more and more threadbare. Congressional reform is, therefore, the fundamental correction that will make all our other priorities achievable.

It is fitting that Alabama be the place from which this reform is launched – not because we are the first state alphabetically but because this is the place where trust in the people has recently been breached. Congressman Gary Palmer publicly pledged to limit his term in office to ten years, a period of time which is due to expire in a few months. Although a decade in office already exceeds the six-year timeframe that term-limit proponents have long embraced, seeking to make life in Washington a career and violating a public pledge are two powerful reasons for sixth-district voters to fire the shot that will be heard all around the halls of Congress that Alabama is a state that respects constitutional principle and will lead the push to reform the Congress of the United States.

If elected to serve the people of this district – and my pledge to serve the people rather than serve my career interests is defined in part by my commitment to serve a maximum of three terms – I pledge to work to end careerism in Congress in the following ways.

First, foremost, and most difficult, we must introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. Only by limiting U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms can we tip the balance of power back to “we the people” and away from the economy-killing and government-expanding laws that entrenched politicians support at the behest of special interests.

Second, we must disallow shenanigans that enable politicians to profit at the public expense. Just as insider trading is illegal on Wall Street, it should certainly be forbidden in Washington. During the 2020 elections, 302 members of Congress accepted campaign donations from pharmaceutical companies totaling $14 million. Pfizer, which developed one of the COVID-19 vaccines and therefore had a vested interest in the outcome of congressional legislation, donated to 228 members through its PAC. Scandalously, 48 members of Congress invested in Pfizer.

By enacting tough rules requiring members of Congress to place their personal investment capital in a blind trust, we can stop them from benefiting from legislation they support or oppose. The current system creates too many opportunities for politicians to personally gain from their votes, blinding them to the best interests of the constituents who voted them into office to serve the public.

Third, we must stop Congress from exempting itself from the laws it imposes on the public at large. Members of Congress need to eat their own cooking. If Obamacare is such a terrific healthcare system, then members of Congress should not be gifted with premium contributions that are illegal on the Obamacare exchanges.

Among the numerous other rule changes on my agenda: requiring members of Congress to join the same pension system as all other federal employees; barring ex-members from becoming lobbyists for 10 years after serving in Congress; and blocking family members of current officeholders from lobbying or serving on foreign corporate boards.

The key to all of this is to reattach those strings to the marionettes of Congress to rods firmly held by the people. When Americans vote for tough, common-sense policies and get mutual backscratching and broken promises from those to whom they gave their trust, our democracy is in danger of dying. Congressional reform is the only way to imbue it with life once more. It’s a fact of human nature that the standing of private citizens will only rise when politicians once again fear the electorate. The time to accomplish this is now. Our democracy is hanging by a thread.

Gerrick Wilkins is a Republican candidate for Alabama’s 6th Congressional District and author of the just-released “Unshackling Democracy” (RealClear Publishing).