Learning from ISIS’s Magazine
Sun Tzu, generally considered a reliable source on Good War Ideas, said something along the lines of, “You’ve got to know your enemy in order to beat him, because some dudes hate being kicked in the junk and others seem to enjoy it.” The difficulty we’ve had defeating ISIS suggests that, maybe, we don’t really understand who and what the fuck they are. Everything we hear is filtered through politicians and pundits, each with their own agenda (“You know what ISIS is afraid of? Me, Donald Goddamned Trump!”). Fortunately, it turns out that finding out what ISIS wants is like finding out what a vegan eats: They’ll tell you. Which is to say that ISIS has a magazine.No, really. It’s an actual glossy, full-color magazine called Dabiq, complete with feature articles and photo spreads. So, in the interest of understanding just what makes these violent lunatics tick, I read through 700-plus pages of this oddly well-put-together propaganda and learned …
Source: 7 Things I Learned Reading Every Issue Of ISIS’s Magazine | Cracked.com
Daniel Pipes does great work
As Americans elect a new president, we will forward an agenda that promotes American interests – helping policy makers, researchers, and activists confront our opponents. Our influence is evident, based on the millions who follow our work online, in the news, and on social media.
For example:
- ISIS – Our Jihad Intel project helps police identify jihadists before they act. Fellow Aymenn Al-Tamimihas become the go-to source for intelligence and translations about jihadis in Syria and Iraq.
- Europe‘s illegal immigrants – In addition to our intellectual output (for example, by fellow Raymond Ibrahim and me), we privately counsel some of the leading anti-immigrant parties in an effort to make them more responsible and moderate.
- On campus – We counter the anti-Israel boycott movement (BDS) by researching both pro– and anti-BDS university faculty, monitoring their activities, and making analyses by our experts available to the anti-BDS alliance.
- Israel – We work to change the U.S. position toward UNRWA’s loose definition of “Palestine refugee,” which both delegitimizes Israel and perpetuates conflict.
- Iran – Our Legal Project funded the legal case that culminated in the U.S. Federal Court of Appealsupholding a $183,000 sanction penalty imposed on Iran’s unofficial American lobby, the National Iranian American Council. Gregg Roman successfully challenged Nitin Chadda, director of the Iran Desk at the National Security Council, on the merits of the nuclear deal.
- Turkey – My anti-Erdoğan writings “have come to dominate the entire spectrum of political commentary on Turkish affairs,” according to a pro-Erdoğan newspaper in Turkey.
Your support allows us to engage in these and many other activities, always with an eye toward American interests.
I look forward to thanking you for your support.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Pipes
President
_ _ _ _ _
Donating is most easily done at the Forum website by clicking here. Payment options, which also are provided directly below, include credit card, PayPal, personal check and stock donation. Should you have questions about contributions to the Middle East Forum, please contact Dianne Herbert, at Herbert@MEForum.org or 215-546-5406 ext. 106.
The IRS has granted the Forum 501(c)3 status, meaning that donations are tax deductible within the United States. The Forum participates in the Combined Federal Campaign, available to Federal workers. Donations through the United Way’s Donor Choice Program should use MEF’s Agency Code: 52445.
We Can Now Edit Our DNA. But Let’s Do it Wisely
Two cents on interest rates
Cent #1) “Anyone familiar with asset markets know that it is expectations that move prices” – George Soros
Cent #2) Every action has a consequence, and each consequence has another consequence (“Second-Order Effect”)
Expectations of long term interest rates post fed hike (if any), are not necessarily the same and not necessarily linear toexpectations of long term interest rates pre fed hike.
Cent #1+ Cent #2 = 4 , 8 or potentially 16 Cents
The actual action of an interest rate hike (if any) can create “expectation feedback loop”, in turn, a desire by market participants for higher yields on their investments dollars, this potential shift in expectations is not priced in anywhere in the markets, not in stocks, high yield bonds or real estate, the market is pricing in a small hike, but not a shift in expectations post hike.
Considering the prices stocks, bonds and real estate are trading at, and considering that underlying earnings, rents, cash flows are far from depressed, a small move from lets say 4% cash flow yield to “new demand” of 5% cash flow yield on some assets, (as result of new expectations) can create a 20% decline that could cascade into something more serious. if buyers decide to only step away, that alone is enough to create a decline of that magnitude in some markets.
This is not a prediction, in complex systems no one can predict, but one can and should look for places of vulnerability in the assets they own, and whether or not there is any margin of safety in them, now is a perfect time to do so.
This exercise of demanding margin of safety is necessary for long term survival, you can be plenty wrong if you have enough margin of safety, and if you don’t, a few errors can and will take you out.
“the long bond wants the Fed to tighten”
ETF.com: Why is what happens to commodity prices—particularly oil—crucial to fixed income?
Gundlach: That’s been the case for decades. Oil is an incredibly important commodity. And oil correlates pretty highly to directions in interest rates. That’s because oil is a centerpiece-type commodity for inflation. Bonds care a lot about inflation. For government bonds, inflation is the most important thing. And oil is a harbinger of inflation. It’s not surprising that collapsing oil prices lead to a downgrade of inflation expectations, which leads to, on the margin, further support for bonds.
What’s been curious in the last month is that oil prices have been on a wild ride, and commodity prices generally have been on a wild ride. And yet for the month of August, the bond market was down in terms of total return, which is strange given the tremendous collapse that occurred in the commodity complex. If you’re going to take 20 percent out of the oil market price, under conventional wisdom, you’d’ve expected interest rates to fall substantially, not just 15 basis points or so, as we saw.
But again, go back to the Rosetta Stone. Why did this happen? Because oil collapsing meant the Fed was less likely to tighten. The more you analyze the markets, the more you realize the message has been crystal clear now, for nearly two years. The long bond wants the Fed to tighten. And I know that a lot of people have a hard time with that notion, but it’s difficult to look at the market data objectively and come to a different conclusion. People are far too committed to the idea that interest rates are about to explode higher. That’s been the wrong idea for years. And we’ve jumped to the wrong conclusion that the Fed tightening is somehow a disaster for long-term bonds. It’s exactly the opposite.
‘Impossible’ rocket drive works
The EM Drive actually works and would dramatically speed up space travel, scientists have confirmed
Interplanetary travel could be a step closer after scientists confirmed that an electromagnetic propulsion drive, which is fast enough to get to the Moon in four hours, actually works.The EM Drive was developed by the British inventor Roger Shawyer nearly 15 years ago but was ridiculed at the time as being scientifically impossible.
It produces thrust by using solar power to generate multiple microwaves that move back and forth in an enclosed chamber. This means that until something fails or wears down, theoretically the engine could keep running forever without the need for rocket fuel.
via ‘Impossible’ rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours – Telegraph.
Are GMOs safe? Yes.
I’ve spent much of the past year digging into the evidence. Here’s what I’ve learned. First, it’s true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.
Second, the central argument of the anti-GMO movement—that prudence and caution are reasons to avoid genetically engineered, or GE, food—is a sham. Activists who tell you to play it safe around GMOs take no such care in evaluating the alternatives. They denounce proteins in GE crops as toxic, even as they defend drugs, pesticides, and non-GMO crops that are loaded with the same proteins. They portray genetic engineering as chaotic and unpredictable, even when studies indicate that other crop improvement methods, including those favored by the same activists, are more disruptive to plant genomes.
Third, there are valid concerns about some aspects of GE agriculture, such as herbicides, monocultures, and patents. But none of these concerns is fundamentally about genetic engineering. Genetic engineering isn’t a thing. It’s a process that can be used in different ways to create different things. To think clearly about GMOs, you have to distinguish among the applications and focus on the substance of each case. If you’re concerned about pesticides and transparency, you need to know about the toxins to which your food has been exposed. A GMO label won’t tell you that. And it can lull you into buying a non-GMO product even when the GE alternative is safer.
If you’re like me, you don’t really want to wade into this issue. It’s too big, technical, and confusing. But come with me, just this once. I want to take you backstage, behind those blanket assurances about the safety of genetic engineering. I want to take you down into the details of four GMO fights, because that’s where you’ll find truth. You’ll come to the last curtain, the one that hides the reality of the anti-GMO movement. And you’ll see what’s behind it.
via Are GMOs safe? Yes. The case against them is full of fraud, lies, and errors..
“Peak Car”
In what year will the number of cars in the world reach its peak and auto sales overall begin to decline? For most, it may be surprising to realize we’re already there in the U.S. Growing data shows many wealthy economies have already hit “peak car,” a point of market saturation characterized by an unprecedented deceleration in the growth of car ownership, total miles driven, and annual sales.
In just a decade or so, owning a car may well be relegated to the hobbyist, luxury market, much like owning airplanes or horses today.
The losers in this emerging world will be insurance and finance companies, and all the dealerships dependent on sales. At the same time, traffic cops and traffic courts will go away along with all the lawyers, judges, parking lots, junk yards, taxi and limo services, and thousands of other tiny businesses supporting our current human-centric driving world.
Canada’s Election
There is a federal election in Canada in 2015. In most countries, investors usually have a clear idea of what they want to see from an election. They want the victory of a competent, “market-friendly” candidate, with a majority government and no significant regional divisions displayed in the country’s voting patterns. This is, in fact, what they got out of the most recent Canadian federal election, in 2011: the right-of-centre Conservative Party won a decent-sized majority government (which was Canada’s first majority government since prior to 2004), winning in Ontario, British Colombia, and the Prairies, while at the same time Quebec abandoned its independence-minded Bloc Quebecois en masse in favour of the NDP, which also became the largest opposition party by a large margin in Ontario, British Colombia, and the country as a whole.
From the perspective of investors, it is unlikely that the 2015 election will be much more favourable than the current situation that exists in Canada. Even if the Conservatives were to win an even larger majority than they have now, which seems unlikely, this would still only be a continuation of the status quo, and would therefore be unlikely to generate any excitement among Canadians or foreign investors. Plus, given that the Conservative leader Stephen Harper has been Prime Minister for just short of ten years now, this status quo may start to become tiring even for investors and Conservatives. It would certainly not induce any sort of “hope and change” optimism that could potentially help stimulate the economy in the short-term.
In contrast, it is not very difficult to imagine that the elections could make Canada less appealing to investors. Here’s one scenario that would be much worse from an investor’s view: the Liberal Party, led by 43-year old Justin Trudeau (the son of a former Canadian Prime Minister) wins a minority government in parliament, while, on a provincial level, the country is regionally divided in its voting patterns, with Ontario going primarily for the Liberals, Quebec voting primarily for the NDP, the Prairie provinces voting primarily for the Conservatives, and British Columbia roughly splitting its vote between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
In such a scenario, Canada would have changed from having a “market-friendly” majority government led by an experienced Prime Minister, and having no regionalist tendencies reflected in its voting patterns, to having a left-wing minority coalition government led by a young inexperienced Prime Minister who was chosen purely because of his family name, and having significant regionalist divisions between eastern Canada and western Canada, as well as between Quebec and the rest of the country, reflected in its voting patterns.
If the NDP defeat the Conservatives instead of the Liberals, meanwhile, which is also possible (the NDP are currently the second largest Canadian party in parliament by far), it would bring to power a party that has never been in power before in its history, which until relatively recently was viewed by many conservatives as being “far left”, and which has a leader who is only in charge because of the tragic death of the former leader of the NDP following the party’s unprecedented success in the Canadian election of 2011. (Though notably, he is far more experienced – and, arguably, far more capable – than the Liberal party leader).
Even worse, a staunchly provincialist party like the Bloc Quebecois, which is currently polling at around 10-20 percent in Quebec, could theoretically end up becoming the kingmaker in a split between the Conservatives and a Liberal-NDP coalition. Investors could turn on Canada to a certain degree if they begin to think that an increasingly fragmented result such as this is likely to occur. Thus, while the defeat of Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party or the loss of its majority position in parliament would not necessarily be bad for Canada over the longer term, it arguably represents a short-term challenge for the Canadian economy – and in particular, for Canadian financial markets – during the election year ahead.
via 5 Challenges for Canada’s Economy in 2015 | Future Economics.
This Too Shall Pass 