Harold Wilson is the 50 year old current Prime Minister, and Leader of the Labour Party, a post he has held since 14th February 1963
Edward Heath is the 49 year old current Leader of the Conservative Party, a post he has held since 28th July 1965
Jo Grimond is the 52 year old current Leader of the Liberal Party, a post he has held since 5th November 1956
Background
1964 – The election of 1964 saw the end of an era of Conservative dominance with Harold Wilson’s Labour Party winning the election. However, Wilson only won a majority of 4 MPs due to a late Tory uptick which placed him in a precarious position. Wilson wanted another general election to secure a larger majority. In early 1966 the Labour MP for Hull North unexpectedly died. This was a seat Labour had only flipped in 1964 and had a majority of only around 2.5%. This could have been a routine pick up for the opposition, but the end result was a swing of +8.9% to Labour, signifying Labour could perform well electorally. The Liberals also saw a bit of a revival in 1964 gaining 3 seats and increasing their share of the vote by 5.3%, the Liberals also picked up seats in London, whereas from 45-64 they had been seen as a party which clung on in the fringes of the country: Cornwall, Wales and Scotland’s Highlands and islands.
The Economy Stupid – One of the largest issues facing Labour as soon as then entered office was the large deficit and poor balance of trade left by the Conservatives. Labour moved quickly – establishing a new ministry of technology, unveiling a national plan for the economy, and cutting back on the military, raising protective tariffs on imports, and raising taxes. The deficit has been cut from £750m to £350m and the balance of trade has also improved. This early “test” reflected positively on Wilson and Labour’s ability to run the economy. Labour have also repealed the controversial charges on prescriptions and increased the amount of houses being built.
The 1965 Conservative Leadership contest – After the defeat of 1964 Douglas-Home may have been able to stay as leader of the Conservatives after the improvement in Conservative polling, however the party had been in power for 13 years and reacted very negatively to its return to opposition and Home did not believe he was suited to being leader of the opposition. Home changed the Conservative Party’s leadership election process which had led to so many issues for Home. Now a simple election between Conservative MPs with each having one vote decides the next leader. The winner of this contest is Edward Heath. Heath was somewhat of a surprise with the more widely known former Chancellor of the Exchequer Reginald Maulding expected to win. Heath however had served as Chief Whip – with his job being to wrangle Conservative MPs into voting one way or another and Heath had a more intimate knowledge of how to win over his party members while fighting a clear and focused campaign.
Heath vs Wilson – Heath and Wilson will (spoiler!) fight over 4 general elections so let’s compare them. In many ways both are remarkably similar. Both were born in 1916 and both had middle class upbringings, both excelled at school and won scholarships to Oxford. Because of this both are seen as more modern “technocrats” as opposed to the nobility who traditionally became Prime Minister. Both were involved in Oxford student politics although Wilson only somewhat. Heath on the other hand became President of the Oxford Union debating society and of Oxford University’s Conservative society. Heath travelled extensively throughout Europe before World War 2, even attending a Nuremburg Rally in 1937 and attending an SS cocktail party with Goering, Goebbles and Himmler (whom he described as the most evil man he’d ever met). Heath therefore stood as a pro-interventionist candidate in student politics, heavily backing the Spanish Republic and defeating a pro-Franco candidate for leader of the Conservative society. Heath fought in World War 2 and rose to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel whereas Wilson signed up but was regarded as too important to fight in the war and stayed in Britain organising coal stocks. Both served in multiple ministerial positions and both as President of the Board of Trade. Here Heath instituted an extremely controversial policy during Home’s last year as Prime Minister – lifting the restrictions on the amount of foods Supermarkets could buy. This law was put in place to help small grocers and Heath was warned if he repealed it he’d split the party before an election by antagonising one of the Conservative’s key supporters in small business owners (Heath went on anyway and the split never happened). Heath’s experiences as chief whip during the Suez Crisis, negotiating entry into the EU, and in repealing this law imbued a great deal of self-confidence within him as he’d soldiered through incredibly difficult circumstances but always come out the other side undamaged. On the other hand Wilson’s time as “Nye Bevan’s dog” during the battles between Bevan and Gaitskell reinforced the importance of maintaining party unity and managing big personalities within government.
The quiet man – Heath however has one key disadvantage when compared to Wilson in his charisma or lack thereof. Wilson is incredibly witty and charismatic, but Heath seems to shun the concept of even giving interviews, sometimes going years between television appearances and appearing very stiff and wooden when he does talk. This hasn’t helped the fact that Heath has had less than a year as Leader of the Conservatives before the election. As a result very few voters have even heard of him, and Wilson is incredibly effective at making fun of Heath. Heath believes that the electorate will tire of Wilson and see him as a fake like Heath does (for his public persona and Wilson’s exaggerations about his childhood and upbringing with Wilson trying to paint himself as rising from the working class despite being comfortably middle class) and because of this… Basically does very little to make arguments as to why the voters should back him, instead just sitting back and waiting. This has alarmed his supporters who elected him as a direct answer to Wilson.
Liberal dilemmas – For the Liberals 1964 was a great success. While still nowhere as near as popular as Labour or the Conservatives the Liberals did manage to make themselves seem like a true 3rd party instead of some regional relic of the 1800s. Grimond however is facing new issues – Grimond presented himself as a young, radical alternative to the old Tories but that role has become adopted by Wilson and the Tories elected a technocrat. Grimond is the oldest of the 3 leaders and a firm member of the upper class of society. Grimond also struggled with supporting Labour. Since Labour had such a thin majority there was always the question of if the Liberals would agree to support Labour on certain issues which many Liberals disliked the thought of. Wilson and Grimond seemed to come to an agreement on institution proportional representation – a long-term aim of the Liberals but Wilson has not upheld his end of the bargain. Grimond is also struck by the suicide of his son Andrew during the campaign which takes a great mental toll on Grimond and seemed to take a lot out of him (as you’d expect).
Europe again – Edward Heath is one of the firmest supporters of Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community, a policy which the Liberals also support. Wilson’s position is more confused. Wilson personally opposes entry as does the left-wing of the Labour party, but those on the right support entry. Wilson in a desire to keep the party together has made speeches indicating he supports entry but has not committed to actually joining and has accused Heath of “rolling on his back like a spaniel at any kind gesture from the French”.
9-5-1 – Heath has managed a rare hit on Wilson by referring to Britain’s economic figures. As mentioned before Labour has gained the trust of the public by managing to quickly bring down Britain’s budget and trade deficits but Heath has referred to 9-5-1 meaning the 9% rise in wages, 5% rise in prices and meagre 1% rise in production. Heath is warning about the issue of inflation, but Wilson saw the unpopularity of Home’s attempts at a wage pause, and also wishes to continue full employment both of which have led him to committing little action to combatting inflation.
Issues
Labour:
New incentives for exports, maintenance of tariffs on imports, cuts onoverseas military expenditure, new taxes on overseas income and control over the export of capital to stop the flight of the rich abroad
Increased productivity by selective investment, incentives to reinvest profits, a new corporation and board to reorganise industry and increase productivity
Encouragement of agricultural and horticultural co-operation, increased and cheaper marketing of foodstuffs, support for farm workers
Fixed income, prices, and rent control to curb the cost of living
500,000 new homes a year by 1970, continuation of Crown Land Commission to seize land at below-market prices to combat “land famine” and remove land from the free market, improved public transport for commuters, modernization of old city centres, and continuation of the policy of building new towns
Commitment to full employment, new recognition of the right to a trade union, equal pay for equal work
increase by 1970 the annual spending on hospital building to a figure double the highest sum spent in any year by the Conservatives, increase in medical students, rapid expansion on health and welfare services for old and disabled
Creation of “The Open University” by using TV and Radio to deliver University lessons
A new tax on gambling and gaming, and a land tax based on the difference between the value of the land as it’s currently used and the price received when its sold for redevelopment
Votes at 18 years old, reorganisation of civil service, local governments, law commission to revise and modernize old laws, and a conference to review the UK’s voting system
“Realistic” controls on immigration
Increase in police officers, new youth parole system to cut down on numbers in jail
Commitment to European Free Trade Association but no commitment to join or stay out of European Economic Community
Conservative:
Tax incentives for saving money, a new act for industrial relations to end restrictive practices, intimidation and establish that agreements between unions and employers are legally enforceable, encouragement of competition between businesses
Wider ownership of houses, pensions and capital
Restrictions on immigration and fairer treatment for immigrants
An attack on rising rates of crime
Goal of 500,000 new houses
Entry into the European Economic Community
New cost effectiveness department to cut government waste, reorganisation of economic ministries into one department as well as combining the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and the National Assistance Board into a single Department, hiring of university and industry professionals to help draft legislation and policies
New inspectors of welfare to co-ordinate support between local authorities and hospitals, improved benefits for old, children, and widows
Establishment of education television centre to help teach children, more power to local education providers and authorities, more choice in education for parents
Expansion of education and higher education budgets for Scotland and Wales
Initiate peace talks to break the deadlock in Rhodesia
Support for admission of China into the U.N.
Liberal:
Simplification of tax system, reduction of direct taxes, cutting of tariffs, continuation of incomes policy but wages to rise in line with productivity,
New works councils to force management of businesses to regularly consult and negotiate with workers, workers to become shareholders in their place of work, A standard contract of service to be introduced covering the right to Union representation; an equal range of security benefits for wage and salary earners; holiday pay based on average earnings; a guaranteed opportunity for further education and training in employer's time; and equal rates of pay for men and women doing identical work
Increased prices for beef, expansion of production of cereals to eventually end tariffs on cereal imports
Parliaments for Scotland and Wales, elected regional councils responsible for the use of land, including new towns and new industries, public transport and hospital building, water supplies, regional resources and all facilities for leisure and the arts, streamlining of government ministries
Creation of new motorways but for all new motorways to be pay roads
No controls on amount of immigrants entering UK, expansion of teaching facilities to teach immigrants English and special funds for housing in areas with rapidly growing immigrant communities
Cuts to defence spending, British nuclear weapons to be given to international organisations
Proportional representation, votes at 18
Increase in state pensions, encouragement of employers to supplement them, increase in sick and unemployment pay, paid for by A Social Security Tax, replacing National Insurance stamps and levied on employer (two thirds) and employee (one third)
Increase in number of GPs and nurses, better facilities for them, and new hospitals as well as improvements to existing hospitals
salaries, working conditions and pensions of teachers to be improved, 11+ exam to be abolished, slum schools to be improved
Entry into European Economic Community
Increased trade and international aid for poverty stricken countries, pressure on Rhodesian government to step down and the formation of a new government to represent all Rhodesians
Jan/12/2021 news: __ Gas prices could rise: ֏ vs $ __ Jailed for taking Azeri bribe __ How much will AM-AZ railway cost? __ COVID strain, vaccine, stats __ POW & borders __ Childbirth subsidy __ Seismic resistance __ IRS to monitor casinos __ Environmentalists to have voice __ Yezidi theater __ more
Your 11-minute Tuesday report in 2562 words.
gas prices could rise due to currency fluctuations
Russian gas price (at the border) had increased from $150 to $165 per 1000m3 in 2019. Although the Russian currency Ruble was devaluing against the Dollar, Armenia was/is paying for gas with Dollars. Since 2019, the Pashinyan administration has been trying to convince Russia to implement a different gas payment mechanism within the EAEU trade bloc. Making payments in Rubles instead of Dollars was one of the priorities: "We are constantly talking about high dollarization within the EAEU, but we still pay for Russian gas in dollars. Our proposal was that it would be more correct if we paid for gas in rubles, because I think it is more logical, also within the EAEU," said Pashinyan in early 2020. This idea was also shared by Vladimir Putin's personal adviser back in October 2018. It appears the EAEU has been working towards this goal lately. But meanwhile, Armenia has to pay for Russian gas in Dollars. With Armenian Dram devaluing against the Dollar, the pricing for consumers will likely be revised. Consumers pay 139 Drams per cubic meter. This was calculated in 2020 when $1 was 480 Drams. Today $1 = 520 Drams. Large consumers pay in Dollars and have their rates adjusted periodically, while small consumers (general public) pays in Drams. Armenia imports 2.2 billion m3 gas from Russia annually, at the price of $165 per 1000m3. 0.7 billion of it is consumed by the general public. Dram was devalued by 6.6% since November. This could prompt the internal gas company to raise the prices, including for the general public. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039886.html http://www.armbanks.am/en/2020/04/07/128024/ https://neftegaz.ru/en/news/energy/406887-armenia-should-pay-for-russian-gas-in-rubles/
Public Council meets drone and robotics industry
The Public Council (linked to PM's office) held a meeting with engineers from the drone, robotics, AI, and nano-tech industries. They discussed ways to help the state to develop the military-industrial complex, drone production, aviation, and to bring their quality to international standards. https://factor.am/327477.html
former PACE MP sentenced to 4 years for taking bribes from Azerbaijan
An Italian court has concluded that Italian PACE representative Luca Volonte, who is the former head of the European People's Party, took €2.4 million in bribes from the Aliyev regime in 2012-2013. The bribe was handed over by Azerbaijan's PACE delegation leader Suleymanov. The scheme was coordinated by an Azeri lobbying firm based in Brussels. In return, the MP gave Azerbaijan favors during PACE and Italian Parliament sessions. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039927.html Tags: #caviar
POWs and searches
The search crews in Artsakh discovered bodies of 10 soldiers and 1 civilian in Jabrayil, Hadrut, and Sgnakh regions. The civilian has already been identified by his relatives. The cause of death is being investigated. Many bodies under the possession of the Armenian side are yet to be identified, while more bodies will likely be found during daily searches for the foreseeable future. Overall, 575 calls have been made by families who are looking for missing relatives, says the Russian humanitarian envoy in Artsakh. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039900.html , https://www.panarmenian.net/arm/news/289293/ Human Rights Ombudsman Tatoyan once again criticized Azerbaijan for intentionally politicizing and delaying the POW swap mission. "It is against international laws to file felony cases and arrest POWs because that's a form of a prohibited punishment. Azerbaijan is also hiding the true number of POWs." The Ombudsman has noted that Armenian residents in Tegh, Vorotan, and several other bordering villages have lost access to 2500 hectares of farming lands due to border changes. (some lands that were internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan were given to Azerbaijan after the war). https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039933.html , https://factor.am/327226.html , https://www.armtimes.com/hy/article/204175
POW discussions: general prosecutor meets Azeri counterpart
Chief prosecutor Arthur Davtyan and his Azeri counterpart were invited to Russia. The three sides held a conversation about the establishment of future contacts in the field of international law and other related topics. Prosecutor Davtyan mentioned the importance of implementing the November 9th statement about the return of POWs, "which will serve as an assurance for implementation of other [trade unblocking] issues." https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039953.html , https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039972.html
how much will a new railway network cost?
Azeri economists believe it will cost around $430 million to build a railway network connecting Kars(TR)-Nakhijevan(AZ)-Meghri(AM)-Zangelan(AZ)-Baku(AZ). Overall, if you add Gyumri between Kars and Nakhijevan, it could cost about $434 million. Economists believe Armenia can use this network to connect with Russia via two directions: Gyumri-Nakhijevan-Meghri-Baku (southern trip), or Ijevan-Ghazakh-Baku (northern trip). https://www.panarmenian.net/arm/news/289313/
rumors & rebuttals: traitors are not selling Azeri juice in Armenia
Telegram channel Mediaport circulated rumors that "Azeri Sandora juice is being sold in Armenia". The misinformation was picked up by several outlets and caused confusion among the buyers. Fact-checkers contacted Sandora's local importer who said the producer is a Ukrainian company that sells its product in multiple post-Soviet republics, so they have one unified tag that contains information both in Armenian and Azeri languages. https://fip.am/14469
Pricing for 43 commonly-consumed items was examined by the consumer protection agency in Artsakh. 12 became more expensive, 5 cheaper, 26 remained the same. Onion +25%, cottege cheese +6%, milk +6%, gloves +5%, ..., pear -12%, rice -1%, eggs -1%, butter -1%. Several dairy product prices went up, and since Artsakh has dairy companies that own dominant market share, the consumer agency will launch an investigation to see if there was price-fixing. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039946.html
seismic resistance assessment for old buildings
A significant portion of Armenia's large apartment complex buildings were built half a century ago. They may not be seismically safe, considering Armenia's geolocation. After the 1988 earthquake, some buildings remain populated despite being deemed highly unsafe. Many other buildings have safety irregularities. It is necessary to assess the situation, so the Urban Development Committee has drafted a bill "Methodology for assessing the priority of increasing the seismic resistance of buildings and structures". https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039887.html
IRS will closely monitor gambling industry / RFID chips & servers
IRS press release: gambling facilities and online betting services will be more closely monitored. We worked with international experts to digitize the gambling industry and bring it on par with international standards. All gambling machines and platforms operating in Armenia will be connected to one server which will be connected to a monitoring Center. All betting and winning transactions will be recorded. The Center will also install RFID microchips in casinos to monitor the movement of chips, the chips purchased or won by players, in real-time. The government's Digital Council has approved the bill, which is yet to be discussed and voted in the Parliament. The goal is to be able to monitor the financial flows in this sector and to estimate the actual revenues. It will combat money laundering. (BHK skipping a Parliament session due to "COVID" in 3, 2, 1, ... /joke) https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039915.html
new "public council" will advise Nature Ministry
Nature Minister Romanos met several environmental organizations and environmentalists and discussed the creation of a new Council, which will advise him on nature protection issues, help draft bills and roadmaps, work with other environmental organizations and NGOs. The Council is accepting applications. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039896.html
large quantities of illegally-cut trees were busted
Context: An incident happened last week between parents of drafted soldiers and military officials at a military unit. The parents wanted assurances that their sons would be safe after being deployed on Artsakh borders. The parents wanted to know why Armenian soldiers are still being sent to Artsakh "despite the November 9th statement saying Armenians should withdraw from Artsakh." During the confrontation, an incident happened between a military official and a journalist. The official struck the camera and instructed it to be turned off. Several media outlets released a message condemning the officer for hindering the journalist's work. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039973.html
infrastructure upgrades
Four settlements in Kotayk province (Yeghvard, Nor Gegh, Aragel, Zovuni) have a newly renovated irrigation pipeline as part of a govt subsidy program. https://www.armtimes.com/hy/article/204202
today in history
1932: First Yerevan tramway began operating in Yerevan 1951: The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was implemented. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039885.html
get your free colonoscopy today
The National Center for Oncology has purchased the latest generation tools and will perform a free and enjoyable colonoscopy for residents over the age of 45, for the next 6 months. The goal is to detect suspicious growths at an early stage. It's the third most common cancer among adults in the world. It has become more common in Armenia in the past decade. When detected early, it can be fully treated. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039911.html
... we lift some of the restrictions! "Aye, aye, Captain!" "I can't hear you!" "The rule that limits attendance to non-commercial gatherings to no more than 60 people has been removed. All other safety requirements remain in place," said a Healthcare official. "You can enter Armenia via air or land by presenting negative COVID test results that were taken within the past 3 days. If you don't, you will be tested at the airport and will need to self-isolate until the results arrive." https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039931.html
Armenia will soon import COVID vaccines
Healthcare Ministry: we are negotiating with multiple entities. The first batch of vaccines will arrive between late-January and mid-February. We are negotiating with producers whose vaccines have passed the necessary tests: Sputnik V, Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca. In the first phase, the vaccines will be given to the most vulnerable 10% of the population. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039921.html
Sputnik V vaccine has already been tested in Armenia
Healthcare Ministry: no complications were reported by the 15 patients, including Minister Torosyan. The often-discussed "skin redness" in the injection area has not been observed, either. The first injection gave a 91.4% efficiency. The second increased it to 94%. Even if the vaccine doesn't fully prevent the infection, it can save the patient's life by making the case mild (is that right??). https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039925.html
the new COVID strain: good news, bad news
Doctor Davit Melik-Nubaryan: the version of COVID that mutated in the UK will eventually reach Armenia. Preliminary data shows that those who have already been infected and gained immunity from the original COVID will be immune to this new strain. It is believed that the immunity will last 6-12 months for the majority. The good news is that the new strain isn't more deadly and doesn't result in heavier cases. The bad news is that it spreads a lot faster. The Healthcare system could be overloaded again. The vaccines against the original strain will likely work against the new one. Pharmaceutical companies may have to modify the vaccines, but it will only take weeks. Closing borders with the UK won't be helpful to prevent it. We may already have the new strain. We need to develop a new strategy from the ground up. Viruses mutate all the time. It's part of the evolution. Sometimes they cause more severe symptoms, sometimes lesser. From the evolutionary and survival standpoint, viruses want to cause less severe symptoms for the host so they can have a chance to spread wider. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039856.html
Armenian scientists will study the COVID strain
CDC chief Bakunts: Armenia will have the ability to study the genetic mutations of the coronavirus. Active work is underway to invest in research resources. Meanwhile, we can submit a virus sample to a WHO laboratory to conduct a study for us. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039962.html
families with newborn children receive mortgage subsidy
450 families have so far taken advantage of a government subsidy program that helps with purchasing apartments. ֏526 million will be paid as part of this 2020-2023 program. It is part of a recent initiative to boost the birthrate. Two other aid programs went into effect in mid-2020. Provincial families received a downpayment subsidy equalling 5% of the total price. Another one subsidizes insurance payments. The same family can apply for all three programs, and there is no age limit for parents. https://factor.am/327385.html
diaspora-government cooperation expands: iGorts
iGorts is a program that recently recruited 48 highly skilled diasporan Armenians to visit Armenia and work at 19 various government agencies. Three more volunteers have arrived today to begin their work: Shila Palyan from Canada, Zaven Ayvazyan from Russia, and Anahit Mikaelyan from Cyprus. https://www.armtimes.com/hy/article/204211
Yerevan to install 32 more elevators in apartment complexes
Arabkir district is the next recipient. Hundreds of units were installed in 2020. They replace the decades-old elevators that have become dangerous and poopy. The new elevators come equipped with running water and flush so you can drain your crap /s. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039954.html
have you been buying stuff right and left lately?
...because trade turnover increased by +34%, and the number of printed receipts by +7%, during this year's New Year's holidays. ֏91 billion was spent between December 29-31, which is ֏23 billion more. https://www.armtimes.com/hy/article/204195
would your majesty be pleased to take a salt bath?
Nerqin Getashen will have a halotherapy "salt bath" center to help alleviate certain conditions. It's the first in Gegharquniq province. There will also be rooms for aromatherapy (oils), ogyxenotherapy (oxygen cocktails), and massage. The owner claims it helps boost immunity and alleviates breathing, allergy, and insomnia issues (take the claim with a bath of salt). https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039974.html
first Yezidi theater to open in Armenia
"шəp' y əBин" or "war and love" will be the first performance in a newly opened Yezidi theater in Ejmiatsin. It's part of a «Եզդիների կողքին» cultural initiative. The crew had planned a major performance about Yezidi national legend but the 44-day war began and some were drafted. The crew ended up performing the "шəp' y əBин" during the war. It's about the importance of Yezidis in Armenia, and their love for the country. The January 17th performance will be dedicated to Yezidis who died fighting. The performers aren't professional actors but they received acting training on-the-fly. "It seems to work because their enthusiasm is great. A very good team has been formed," said the producer. https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1039941.html
Aram Khachaturian House-Museum will resume "Musical Thursdays"
Netherlands college will donate large quantities of school supplies
Several thousands of desks, chairs, furniture pieces, computers, lockers, etc. are being loaded in containers to be shipped to Armenia. The Hermann Wesselink college is renovating its building with new items so they decided to donate the old stuff to Armenian kids. This will be enough to equip 15 provincial schools. https://factor.am/327135.html
To think of these stars that you see overhead at night, these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could; I often think of that. It makes me sad to see them so clear and yet so far. -- Cecil Rhodes, Last Will and Testament
This is the 3rd post in a series on South Africa and Apartheid and so far in the first two neither Apartheid nor South Africa even exists. But we are to the mid climax. In first part we discussed how our groups of players: Afrikaners, British, Xhosa, Zulu, minor tribes, other ethnicities got to what would become South Africa. In the second part we discussed how the Zulus and Xhosa knocked themselves out of the game leaving the British and Afrikaners as the main players standing for who got rule what would become South Africa. We also discussed how the British policy was non-viable. This part is going to discuss how the British changed course and consequently won control. We are also going to get to the genesis of the Western Left's hatred of the Afrikaners and the genesis of Apartheid, We'll end on the creation of the Union of South Africa which while not the Republic of South Africa will allow me to stop talking about "Southern Africa", "territory that will become South Africa".... But unfortunately you will have to sit through this one more post where South Africa doesn't exist yet. Cecil Rhodes was born in 1853 the sickly asthmatic 5th son of a not particularly notable clergyman. He'd remain sickly his entire life dying in 1902 at the age of 48 from the sorts of deterioration of the heart and lung one wouldn't expect to see until a man was at least well into their 90s. In that short span he would: become one of the richest men in the world; found several countries; change the entire economic structure of the territories that would become: South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Mozambique, Namibia and Zimbabwe; found 2 major corporations: the British South Africa Company and De Beers; rethink British imperialism inventing what would become the British Commonwealth; becoming one of the defining figures and great visionaries of the Victorian Age; trigger the 2nd Boer War; demonstrate the strategy changing nature of the machine gun decades before World War 1; be the only genuinely important Prime Minister of the Cape Colony; invent the concept of corporate armies; play a large role in saving the South African wine industry and most importantly be the only individual getting his own post in this series. :) Rhodes was sent to South Africa at the age of 17 so that the British weather didn't kill him. Rather than doing the normal thing and spending the money (amounting to a decade or less of a comfortable middle class salary, but no great fortune) on living with some gambling and girls thrown in he decided to head to the newly discovered diamond mines in Kimberly and started buying up small diamond mining operations leveraging each mine's output and outside financing to buy the next. Later he partnered with leading financing and trading firms so by 1888 had what amounted to monopoly control of diamond industry turning De Beers into the diamond powerhouse it remains to this day though the last pieces wouldn't fall into place until 1890. He by the 1880s De Beers was throwing off enough excess profits that he could pay investors and continue expending De Beers while being able to found the predecessor to the British South Africa Company operating much further into the interior opening up Bechuanaland and Rhodesia as colonies using his own profits to fund the administrative expenses much as the East India Company had done a century earlier. Rhodes believed that British policy wasn't viable because it was petty. A vibrant healthy economy throws off an enormous amount of tax revenue. Petty colonialism, like the kind the British were engaging in would never generate much profit because of its very short term nature. Britain should make money by investing in the local economy, spend some on upkeep, reinvesting most of the profits and just skim a little of a forever growing payout. What Britain had tried to do with the American colonies encouraging economic development was the right approach. The problem was London had been shortsighted and selfish turning the local administrators against them. The independence of the USA wasn't a strategic failure it was the result of poor tactical implementation. The problem the British were facing in Southern Africa was similar and since the policies had been similar the results would be as well. The Afrikaners had no reason to be loyal to a Britain which had spent almost a century making very clear that it had no interest in their welfare or society beyond some ports which were frankly not nearly so important since Suez had opened. Rhodes changed policy to have Britain stop acting like a colonizing power and start acting like the domestic government of South Africa as much as possible .Outlining his changes to colonial governing policy:
Colonial financing -- utilize profits from business ventures fund army. Rhodes' companies were good examples of this the British charter and the backing of British troops allowed him to make excess profits which allowed him to incur expenses which the previous skinflint administration could never have tolerated. For example British colonial bonds generated an average return of 4.7%. Investments in independent American bonds generated an average return of only 2.9%. The difference was not being taken into account when the Colonial Office calculated their return on investment which to Rhodes' mind was simply lousy accounting.
Long term investment -- In general rewire the metrics used at the London Colonial Office to focus on long term investment not short term profits.
Demographics -- The British were the world's first people. Physically populate as much of the world as possible. Assimilate other people's into the British way of life. In South Africa in particular he intended to win the hearts and minds of the Boer.
Stability -- The previous administration had focused on stability because instability created upheavals that increased administrative costs. For too long British colonial policy was to tolerate and coexist with local culture. To create a profitable economy agricultural efficiencies are going to need to be introduced. That means 90% of the natives are going to freed up to work in a manufacturing and processing workforce. It also means the agricultural tribal traditional culture is going to be completely destroyed. Instability not stability should be policy. Seek to replace local culture with British culture to enhance the potential for economic growth.
Glory to British not England -- English colonies exist for glory of England. British colonies self exist. England's glory is that is the Birthplace of the 1st people not how much of the world remains completely non-British while in some vague unimportant sense recognizing Victoria as their Queen.
Representation -- As long as colonial governments respond to a English democracy they will be unrepresentative of their people. Create a democratic institution which provides representation for all British people in a British Parliament. There should be an English parliament for England. Invite the United States to join this new institution. "Inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity" (NB: this is essentially the British Commonwealth, though of course the USA was not invited)
Devastating defeat of enemies -- Colonial policy was designed to solve conflict cheaply. Small military victories do not undermine the hostile's economy nor their society and thus don't accomplish much. They simply delay and prolonging the problem created by the enemy allowing the enemy to choose points in time to achieve advantage. Avoid costly wars certainly but when war is needed seek to inflict devastating defeat so the subject people realize their inferiority. This realization facilities undermining their institutions and thus during the peace their way of life easily becomes more British. Further a willingness to war like this makes challenging Britain very costly and risky for potential enemies and thus wars will be far less frequent. The financial people are correct that the aggregate cost of inflicting devastating defeats infrequently is higher than more frequent small wars but the benefits are far greater. War carried out towards devastating defeat becomes a form of investment not a pure non-productive expense.
Scope -- The British were far to unambitious in their aims. The goal of British colonialism should be "all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise". The scope was, "the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire"
map of Cecil Rhodes' proposed British Empire You'll notice that all of Africa was in the map. Rhodes was of the opinion that Africa was incredibly rich in minerals and peoples. But it wasn't exploitable for profit because of a lack of transportation infrastructure. Rhodes was pushing to start fixing this by creating a full African north-south railway connecting "Cairo to the Cape". Rhodes' BSAC conquests were designed to drive north while he used his political influence to push the Egyptian conquest further south into Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and then a business similar to BSAC run by Sir William Mackinnon to push into Uganda. For the northward push (primarily in what today is Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana) Rhodes was directly implementing his policy using a private army funded from the British South Africa Company. The Ndebele and Shona (Zulu tribes) were handled easily by the devastating defeat principle. Rhodes' forces demonstrated how effectively Maxims (a primitive form of machine gun) and barbed wire worked against simple rifles, spears and long shields achieving kill ratios never before seen in the history of warfare. As an aside these battles against the Zulus would also be used by those military theorists and historians who correctly anticipated in the later 1890s through 1910s how devastating a war between the great powers would be using these weapons against each other. Rhodes through BSAC had managed to push north of Lake Mweru and to the Northern tip of Lake Nyasa. Which almost connected with Sudan were it not for German East Africa (Burundi, Rwanda, and Tanzania) in the middle. In theory an alternative route through the Belgian Congo would also work but the gold mines in Tanzania kept Rhodes focused on taking German East Africa. Further Rhodes met his match in ruthlessness when it came to the Belgians. When Rhodes' negotiating agent sought a development contract for mineral-rich Katanga (in Congo) the native ruler Msiri refused. King Leopold II of Belgium obtained the same concession by having his agent signing it to Belgium himself over Msiri's dead body in the name of the "Congo Free State". At the same time Rhodes worked with the Colonial office and in 1890 British issued the "1890 British Ultimatum" to Portugal. This ultimatum by the British government forced the retreat of Portuguese military forces from areas which had been claimed by Portugal on the basis of historical discovery and recent exploration, but which the United Kingdom claimed on the basis of effective occupation. Portugal had attempted to claim a large area of land between its colonies of Mozambique and Angola including most of present-day Zimbabwe and Zambia and a large part of Malawi, which had been included in Portugal's "Rose-coloured Map". This ultimatum violated the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373 which to that point had been the longest standing peace treaty in history. Who owned what by the early 1900s Take a look at the map above and imagine the British controlling the north-south line connecting to a British/Portuguese line running east-west in the south and a joint French/British/Italian line running east-west in the north. From there local government and companies could construct smaller feeder lines creating a modern rail system. Hopefully and you start to see how Rhodes intended to start developing the transpiration infrastructure needed to create a strong African economy. All this was going to be for naught though if Southern Africa ended up as a Boer state hostile to British interests on the model ZAR (Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, Transvaal Republic). So Rhodes decided to run for Prime Minister of the Cape Colony and solve the problems of British strategy explicated in part 2. The primary problem the Boer had with British government is their divide and conquer approach. The British tilted to whomever was losing (a standard British policy they would also follow in Palestine) which for decades meant treating the Boer and native Africans as both being subject peoples while favoring the native Africans against the Boer. In Rhodes mind you could not expect to get loyalty from people you were obvious disfavoring. The British were the ones turning the Boer into enemies. So in 1892 Rhodes instituted the Franchise and Ballot Act. This was seen as a compromise between factions in the Colonial Office and the traditions in the Cape Colony for a broad democracy (anyone with £25 in property could vote) and Orange and ZAR's (Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, Transvaal Republic) more exclusive democracy. Rhodes raised the amount of property to £75, an amount specifically chosen to disempower many of the native Africans while allowing many Boers to vote. With a Boer and British based democracy locked in the Cape Colony's democratic powers could be strengthened, creating more self rule and making the involvement of the London Colonial Office less obvious. This concept of using a not explicitly racial criteria while instituting laws with racist intent is very modern. Various Liberals in the London Colonial Office especially missionaries disagreed strongly with Rhode's policies. They had been the ones advocating for the enlightened colonialism that was British policy. Missionaries in particular saw their role as: combating godlessness, superstition and backwardness. In particular encourage better use of land; encourage paycheck work; become trusted advisor to tribal leaders. The slogan "Bring the 3Cs into Africa" referred to Commerce, Christianity and Civilization. To their mind Rhodes' vision of British Imperialism was straight up military tyranny. If followed he would make England no different than a modern day Genghis Khan, creating a empire loathed by a vast expanse of subject peoples who would unite against it from all directions. Instead interfering minimally and being seen as an ally while slowly educated the elite in British custom and religion would cause a gradual consensual change that would build British alliances that would last centuries. Plus such an approach would fulfill the Lord's Great Commission (term for Jesus' command to convert the entire world to Christianity) in a way that honored God rather than shamed him. One need only look at how the Spanish, Portuguese and Balkans had thrown off Islam after centuries to see how ineffective military tyranny was at long term conversions that didn't require force. So in their mind: No the London Office should stand by its traditional values of: monopoly companies and plantations run in (unequal) partnership with indigenous elite. free trade, free (and indeed forced) migration, infrastructural investment, balanced budgets, sound money, the rule of law and incorrupt administration. As far as their Boer, in their mind the Boer were the primary impediment to enlighten British rule in South Africa, being Christians they were obligated to agree with the missionaries on the vision of the White Man's Burden and Enlightened Empire. Rather than making concession to the Boer they needed to be crushed to demonstrate the moral difference between the Boer and the British. With Rhodes' change in policy tilting towards rather than away from the Boer the Western Left came to truly hate the Boer in 1890s. Since the point of this series is the analogy I'll add that I wrote two posts about more or less the same groups of Liberal Christians turning against Israel again having to do with Israeli/Jews discrediting Liberal Western values and thus interfering with the Great Commission: WCC churches and Quakers. Rhodes in debates before and at the time considered this Liberal Empire stuff to be simply aspirational. Without economic interference there wasn't enough money to fund anything like what the Liberals proposed. He'd point to facts like that after a century of such rules in India they had increased the secondary schooling 7x to a whopping 2% while England with not nearly as many well funded missionary organizations was over 16%. Rhodes hoped to unify all of Southern Africa around this compromise approach to the franchise. ZAR however rejected this compromise. By the mid 1990s approximately 1/3rd of their white population were British (Anglicans). ZAR had every intent of maintaining religious based voting criteria (i.e. citizenship in ZAR was only open to people who were members of several Dutch Reformed Churches, see part 2). Obviously for Rhodes a situation where British people were the disempowered minority was intolerable. Additionally the ZAR were maintaining an anti-Cape Colony / anti-British / anti-Rhodes trade policy. It was becoming increasingly clear there would need to be regime change. So in 1895 Rhodes organized an attempted coup d'état now called the "Jameson Raid" (yes the same Jameson who went on to be Prime Minister 1904-8 of the Cape Colony after the 2nd Boer War). The Afrikaners were more astute than natives had been caught wind of the early organization and waited until the forces were committed trapping hundreds of Rhode's people creating a great embarrassment. Its at this point that the Boer made by far the greatest mistake of their history as a people. The 4 years between 1895-9 were when they made the choices that led to their ruin. The British were really embarrassed. A colonial governor who had a crown chartered corporation had been caught red handed engaging in a serious act of war against another sovereign state with no approval from Parliament. The Colonial Office admitted as much and forced Rhodes out of office in 1896. The Afrikaners had real negotiating leverage to work out a deal. It obviously would be extremely important that the next leader of the Cape be friendly. But they didn't decide to negotiate. Instead they started flirting with the Germans, while not actually signing a formal alliance with Germany that at least had the potential to provide them real protection. The flirtation however, turned a nasty incident into a serious threat to all British interests in Southern Africa forcing a British response. In Britain an alliance of Jingoists (populist military hawks) angry about the humiliation of 1st Boer War, Conservative Imperialists who wanted to end Boer independence especially in the ZAR (the 3 core values for Conservatives at the time were: Union with Ireland, the Empire and the superiority of the British race), Liberal Imperialists who supported Rhodes' vision and Missionaries who hated the Boer formed pushing for a war. Seeing this alliance form against them the Afrikaners did nothing to avert the danger. Rather they made a mistake many 2nd tier powers do when it comes to 1st tier powers. The Afrikaners confused the light force and weak will the 1st tier power is willing to spend on them with the amount of force the 1st tier power is capable of employing if it so chooses. Having beaten the British handily in the 1st Boer War when they were fighting the C-team (as I called in part 2) the Afrikaners grossly underestimated what they would face against a British army that had a political mandate for victory, what Britain's A-team would look like. Preparing for something slightly worse than the 1st Boer War the Boer began a serious arms buying program in 1897. ZAR also got more belligerent in their rhetoric which led to a formal alliance with the Orange State and Boer guerilla groups that could support the war effort in the Cape. The Boer had about 63k troops including some foreign troops. . The British were determined not to lose the 2nd Boer War. This was going to be the British-A team. By the second phase of the war between British soldiers, soldiers from other colonies and local Africans providing auxiliary Boer were facing a 500-600k man army. Nor was the command third or even second rate as it had been in the 1st Boer War. For example, the top military command would be Herbert Kitchener who was fresh from the victorious Anglo-Egyptian invasion of Sudan. Kitchener after the 2nd Boer War would go on to be the Commander-in-Chief for the armies in India and a decade after that the UK's Secretary of State for War during World War 1. He's this guy: Kitchener famous 1914 recruiting poster The cost to maintain that army would be £60m / year far more than Britain could ever pull out of Southern Africa (GDP and inflation adjusted the Boer War would cost the UK about $250b). The first phase of the war was a Boer offensive while the British were still deploying troops in October–December 1899. Once the British were done they conquered all pockets of resistance in the Cape and Orange as well as essentially the entire ZAR territory January to September 1900. The Afrikaners decided to fight when surrender was the better option. Leading to a guerrilla war between September 1900 and May 1902. The British simply could not afford to keep an army of that size in the field for years dealing with guerilla tactics until the Boer admitted they were beat. Facing time pressure the British felt they had no choice but to come down hard. The British cut the guerilla war short by instituting a scorched earth policy against areas giving support to guerillas in the ZAR (most of the ZAR). ZAR men were mostly in the militias. Scorched earth destroyed the food supply in the ZAR so the British threw the women and children in concentration camps. The army hadn't prepped for needing to support massive numbers of civilians so malnutrition and disease were rampant in the concentration camps. This disease and malnutrition resulting in a camp death rate of approximately 30% annually. A policy amounting to genocide. Pro Boer forces in the UK generated widespread opposition to the camps so the military response was to not confine woman and children and instead leave civilians on the now barren earth to die of starvation and exposure. Actual POWs were deported to Bermuda and India preventing the Boer from standing any chance of liberating them. African tribes that had lost territory to the Boer began moving in. While both sides had agreed not to arm natives or recruit tribes. But the British weren't going to fight for the Boer if tribes decided to take advantage of their defeat. The Boer were quickly losing everything they were fighting for: freedom, their lands, their family, the self dependence and surrendered rather than have their population geocoded to oblivion, being left with no economy and whatever lands they managed to hold being assaulted on all sides by natives who would take it from them. The Boer society that emerged from the surrender did not have separatist attitude. Destitute Boers now willing to work in the minds and alongside black Africans swelled the ranks of the unskilled urban poor competing with the "uitlanders" in the mines. The new economy was unambiguously focused on gold causing mine production to swell enriching the British interests. The Afrikaners were both physically and psychologically crushed, and wouldn't be causing any more problems for decades. In the UK the war came to be seen as excessive especially as the financial cost of the war sunk in. The Conservatives' suffered a spectacular defeat in 1906 driving the Conservative Prime Minister at the time (12 July 1902 – 4 December 1905) Arthur Balfour from office. He comes up rather regularly on this sub in his later role as Foreign Minister. As the Boer are no longer resisting the British Empire the shift towards more pro-Boer policies from England continues. In 1909 the British Parliament dissolves the British colonies of: Cape of Good Hope, Natal, Orange River Colony, and Transvaal and combines them into a Federal Union of South Africa. This makes South Africa into a Dominion (essentially Australia's status at the time). Jan Smuts (an Afrikaner) resurrects Rhodes' idea of a Common Wealth and the British embrace it. And so we conclude part 3 our story of how the British eventually won and South Africa came to exist. How the Western Left started to hate the Boer, a hatred they would resurrect later. And how the first steps towards apartheid were taken. Whew that was longer than I intended!
Do You Have to Pay Taxes on Slot Machine Winnings?
We all love to read stories about big wins and imagine ourselves in the shoes of those winners. But, have you ever thought about what happens at that very moment after successfully beating the slot machine? Usually, the slot machine locks up and, in most cases, you hear the music and see the flashing lights on top of the machine. But one of the first questions every player asks is whether they have to pay taxes on casino winnings? Well, you’re about to find out!
Taxes on Slot Machine Winnings in USA
In the USA, when a lucky player hits a jackpot, there’s the option of receiving the winnings in cash or check. In case it’s a large sum, it’s usually paid by check. However, the IRS only obliges the casinos to report winnings that are larger than $1,200. Of course, all winners are obliged to show a proper identification— a valid ID or passport. When the casino checks for your identification they also look at your age to make sure you are officially and legally old enough to play. As the minimum legal age for gambling varies from state to state, be sure to check it out before you decide to play.
Do I Have to Report All Winnings?
All gambling winnings received from slot machines are subject to federal taxes, and both cash and non-cash winnings (like a car or a vacation) are fully taxable. Apart from slot machines, the same applies to winnings from lottery, bingo, keno, poker or other games of chance. So, if the amount won on a slot machine is higher than $1200, the casino is required to report it. In other words, all your gambling winnings have to be reported on your tax return as "other income" on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8.
Slot Machine Winnings in W-2G Form
In case it happens to you and you snag that big win (which we hope one day you will), it’s useful to know that casino or other payer must give you a W-2G Form, listing your name, address and Social Security number. So, if the winnings are reported through a W-2G Form, federal taxes will be withheld at a rate of 25%. If, however, you didn’t provide your Social Security number (or your Tax Identification Number), in that case the withholding will be 28%. Either way, a copy of your Form W-2G should be issued, showing the amount you won alongside the amount of tax withheld. One copy needs to go to the IRS, as well. Aside from slot winnings, Form W-2G is issued to winners of the following types of gambling activities like:
bingo (for players who win $1,200 or more),
keno (for at least $1,500 worth wins)
poker tournament players (for the $5,000 win or more).
a horse track (if the winnings are 300x your bet)
However, not all gambling winnings are subject to IRS Form W2-G. For instance, W2-G forms are not required for winnings from table games like blackjack, baccarat, and roulette, whatever the amount. You’d still have to report your winnings to the IRS, it’s just you won’t need to do it through W-2G Form.
Are My Slot Losses Deductible?
The good news is that you can deduct your slot losses (line 28 of Schedule A, Form 1040), while the bad news is gambling losses are deductible only up to the amount of your wins. In other words, you can use your losses to compensate for your winnings. So, let’s say you won $200 on one bet, but you lost $400 on one or a few others, you can only deduct the first $200 of losses. Meaning if you didn’t win anything for a year, you won’t be able to deduct any of your gambling losses. In order to prove your losses, you need to keep good records and have suitable documents. So, whenever you lose, keep those losing tickets, cancelled checks and credit slips. Your documentation must include the amount you won or lost, a date and time, type of wager, type of your gambling activity, name of each casino/address of each casino you visited and the location of their gambling business. You may as well list the people who were with you.
Do State and Local Taxes Apply Separately?
Yes, you are required to pay your state or local taxes on your gambling winnings. In case you travel to another state, and snag some huge winning combo there, that other state would want to tax your winnings too. But don’t worry, you won't be taxed twice, as the state where you reside needs to give you a tax credit for the taxes you pay to that other state. Keep in mind though that some states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Ohio don't allow gambling losses.
Online Slot Taxes
Whether you usually spin the reels of your favourite casino games in land-based casinos in the US, overseas casinos, or online casinos, all income for the citizens of the US is taxable. As a US citizen, you are required to send Form W2G for all winnings from a slot machine (not reduced by the wager) that equals to or is more than $1,200.
Taxes on Slot Machine Winnings in UK
As a resident of the United Kingdom, your gambling winnings won’t be taxed. Unlike the USA mentioned above, you’ll be allowed to keep whatever it is that you have won and earned in Britain, even in case you are a poker pro. Then again, you won’t be able to deduct any losses you might collect. It doesn’t really matter if you win £5 or £5 million playing online slots, your winnings will be tax-free as long as you reside anywhere in the UK, be that in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.
Taxes on Slot Machine Winnings in Canada
If you are a recreational player who lives in Canada, we have good news for you. When it comes to gambling, you don't have to pay taxes as your winnings are totally tax free. According to laws in Canada, gambling activities don’t fall under the category of constant source of income, therefore your winnings will not be taxed. Canadians don't even pay taxes on their lottery winnings. The only exception here are professional gamblers who make a living from betting and are, therefore, obliged to pay taxes. Keep in mind though, this is the current situation - laws in Canada change frequently, which may also include tax laws.
Taxes on Slot Machine Winnings in Australia
In case you reside in Australia and like to visit casinos from time to time, you’ll be happy to find out that your winnings in Australia will not taxed and here are 3 core reasons for that:
Gambling is not treated a profession (it's treated as a hobby)
The government doesn’t see profits from gambling activities as income, but as a result of good luck
The Australian government taxes casino operators and lottery organisers instead.
Of course, taxation varies from state to state.
Taxes on Slot Machine Winnings in New Zealand
Unlike in Australia, where even professional players can claim they are recreational, in New Zealand slot machine winnings (and any other winnings from casino games) are considered taxable income, in case the player has little income from other resources. But, apart from professional gambling, it is very unusual for winnings to be taxed in New Zealand. Most often, gambling is considered recreational and not income, so players can enjoy their gameplay as they do not have to pay taxes on their winnings.
States are not homogenous entities. They are composed of dozens of different interest groups and cliques, each with their own vision for what the state ought to do and what society ought to look like. In functioning states, these groups agree on more things than they disagree on--or at least, the powerful groups are able to monopolize power enough to keep dissident voices drowned out. Carefully crafted power sharing arrangements, usually aided along by some sort of common enemy or common mission, keep states functioning well enough to work as coherent actors in the international arena. But these alliances are not set in stone. Like the sands of the Rub’ al Khali, they shift with the winds. One day, two factions may be the closest of allies. The next, one might overreach. One might think they have become too powerful to need to be held down by the commitments they’ve made to their erstwhile allies. And what happens when they’re wrong? Chaos. Power in Saudi Arabia On paper, the King of Saudi Arabia holds near-absolute power over the country. With no constitutional constraints, it would seem that the King (or more recently, the Crown Prince) enjoys unlimited power in Saudi society. There is no elected--nor even appointed--legislature to serve as a check on the King’s power. If the King wishes to permit women to drive, he need nearly decree it, and so shall it be. Viewing Saudi Arabia through this lens, however, flattens the existing power dynamics in the country. The King’s absolute power is in practice constrained by the varied interest groups that help to lend legitimacy to the institution of the monarchy, such as (to name a few) the military, the House of Saud, and the religious establishment (the ulema). The relationship between the ulema and the monarchy has been critical to the continued existence of the Saudi Arabian state. Starting with the 1744 alliance between Muhammad ibn Saud, the founder of the al-Saud dynasty, and Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, the two groups have formed something of a symbiotic relationship. The House of Saud provides the Wahhabist movement with protection and propagates its beliefs, and in exchange the Wahhabist movement lends legitimacy to the monarchy. The Grand Mosque Seizure; or, Why Saudi Arabia is the Way it Is In November 1979, hundreds of armed religious militants took control of the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca--the holiest site in Islam. Their leader, Juhayman al-Otaybi, declared his brother-in-law, Mohammed Abdullah al-Qahtani, to be the *Mahdi--a redeeming figure in Islami prophesied to arrive on Earth several years before Judgement Day. For a period of two weeks, al-Otaybi and his supporters managed to maintain control of the Mosque. The ensuing assault led to the deaths of hundreds of fighters and pilgrims. The Grand Mosque Seizure was, in part, a response to the growth of “western influence” within Saudi Arabia. Al-Otaybi condemned the West calling for the abolition of television and radio, the expulsion of non-Muslims, and the removal of women from the workplace. For al-Otaybi, the ruling al-Saud family’s refusal to resist this western influence had robbed them of their right to rule. While al-Otaybi was ultimately unsuccessful in overthrowing the House of Saud, his insurrection did led to an important revelation for the Saudi monarchy: religious extremism was perhaps the single greatest threat to their continued hold on power in Saudi Arabia. Rather than restricting the power of the ulema in an attempt to curtail this threat, King Khalid dramatically expanded the role of the ulema and the religious police, surrendering some of the House of Saud’s power in exchange for additional stability and security. This state of affairs, with some tinkering, would remain the status quo for the next three decades. Shifting Sands Since the September 11th, 2001 attacks and the beginning of the Global War on Terror, the monarchy has taken significant steps to attempt to curtail the influence of the ulema. The monarchy has become much less tolerant of clerics that speak out against the monarchy, often arresting them (though these arrests are usually temporary, they are enough to scare the dissident clerics into silence). The rise of Mohammad bin Salman in the mid-2010s accelerated this curtailment of the ulema’s power. Viewed as a youthful reformer, MbS has undone many of the laws that were put in place following the Grand Mosque Seizure: in 2018, he removed the ban on female drivers, while in 2021, he legalized gambling and the consumption of alcohol. While he was within his rights to do so--again, the monarchy has no formal restrictions on its authority--these actions flew in the face of the alliance struck between the House of Saud and the ulema. Had the Crown Prince stopped there, conservative opposition to his rule might have been vocal, but nevertheless manageable. Resistance in this period was largely restricted to existing Saudi exile groups like Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia and Hizb ut-Tahrir. A collection of senior clerics in Saudi Arabia rallied together to compose a new Memorandum of Exhortation--a call-back to the 1992 Memorandum written in the aftermath of Gulf War--condemning the Kingdom’s slide away from righteousness and towards western hedonism. The participating clerics were quickly stripped of their positions, arrested, or forced into exile, but their memorandum nevertheless made the rounds--especially in more rural, more conservative communities, where the monarchy had less power (relatively) than the ulema. Still, it spawned little but discontent whispers and prayers that someone would do something to set the Kingdom back on the righteous path. But he didn’t stop there. No more than four months later, Saudi Arabia invited the Bahraini Shi’a cleric Isa Qassim to Saudi Arabia. By itself, this would have created a diplomatic incident--Qassim was, in essence, the leader of the Shi’a opposition to the Saudi-aligned Sunni ruling dynasty of Bahrain, serving as a persistent thorn in the side of the Bahraini royal family. The fact that the House of Saud was inviting him to Saudi Arabia not just as a guest, but paying for the construction of a Hawza (a Shi’a seminary), was nothing short of sacreligious. The moment this news went public, conservative Saudi society flew into an outrage. How dare the monarchy collaborate with the radifa. Whatever control the monarchy had over the clergy melted away overnight, with most every Sunni cleric in the country denouncing the government’s support of the heretics in some form or another. Eight of the twenty-one members of the Council of Senior Scholars, the highest religious body in the country (and also one of the religious institutions most aligned with the House of Saud) resigned in protest. Among those resigning included several members of the al ash-Sheikh family, the foremost family of religious scholars and the direct descendents of al-Wahhab. Even Abdul-Rahman Al Sudais, the Imam of the Great Mosque of Mecca, issued a public denouncement of the government’s decision to fund the Hawza. Protests broke out throughout the country, especially in Mecca, Medina, and the Nejd, and while Saudi security forces were able to break their resolve after a week or two of protests, their discontent did not dissipate. The Saudi government’s 2022 decision to invite sixteen new American military bases only reignited tensions. Overnight, Saudi Arabia went from having no American bases to being the country with the sixth most American military bases. That anger stayed, bubbling beneath the surface. Waiting for an outlet. It finally found that outlet in 2022. At the opening ceremony of the new Hawza 'Ilmiya Dammam, a car bomb ripped through the crowd, destroying the largest building in the compound. When first responders arrived at the scene to treat the casualties, another suicide bomber--this one disguised as a first responder himself--detonated his vest, killing several dozen paramedics and security personnel. Several hours later, on the other side of the country in Jazan, a car bomber struck an under-construction American base, killing several Saudi construction workers (most of whom were migrant workers from South Asia or the Philippines), two American contractors leading the construction effort, and three American officers. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks the next day. In total, some eighty-four people, including three American servicemen, two American contractors, and forty Saudi nationals, died in the attacks, while another two- to three-hundred were wounded. Among those dead were several of the most important clerics of the new Hawza, including Qassim and the Pakistani marja’ Muhammad Hussain Najafi. The other Pakistani marja’ involved in the Hawza, Bashir al-Najafi, succumbed to his injuries a week later. The response from the predominantly Wahhabi Sunni clergy in the country ranged from silence (for those not willing to risk the ire of the monarchy) to celebratory (for those more dedicated to their faith than self-preservation). For the Saudi government, this was a concerning sign of what was to come. Older members draw comparisons between the current political moment and that of the 1990s, when outrage against the monarchy led to the formation of conversative opposition groups and an increase in terror attacks by groups like al Qaeda. And indeed, their fears may be legitimate. Anti-American protests are becoming increasingly common throughout the country, with the country’s American embassies, consulates, and base construction sites under near constant siege by conservative protesters. The Sahwa movement, a peaceful Islamist group affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood opposed to American bases on the Arabian peninsula, has returned in full force after being all but crushed by government repression in the 1990s. Increasing numbers of Saudi clerics are issuing open criticisms and condemnations of the government and its recent activities, posing a serious challenge to the legitimacy of the rule of King Salman and the Crown Prince. In a different world, the monarchy might have been able to find some way to placate these dissidents. The warnings were there. But once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s impossible to put it back in. In April 2022, King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman launched an unprecedented purge of the religious establishment and the non-ruling branches of the House of Saud. Over the course of 48 hours, Saudi security forces rounded up and arrested numerous prominent figures on corruption charges. While this was in and of itself insignificant--MbS had already used corruption arrests to establish his power in the House of Saud in the past--the scale of them was substantially larger than any previous arrests. Moreover, those royals detained through this process found themselves stripped of the rights and comforts they had come to expect during detentions like these: rather than the Ritz Carlton, they instead found themselves thrown into dank, musty jail cells, as though they were any other criminal. This was a signal to the rest of the House of Saud: Mohammad bin Salman would no longer tolerate anything even remotely resembling opposition to his agenda. The Prince’s seizure of power did not end there. Later that week, King Salman announced that the Wahhabi religious clerics would no longer have any temporal power outside of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. Saudi Arabia, according to the King, was going to become a more tolerant, progressive nation. Non-Muslims would have the same rights as Muslims for the first time in the Kingdom’s history. As if this weren’t an insult enough to the religious establishment, the King then declared that the Kingdom would be holding an interfaith celebration in the city of Mecca. This celebration would mark the first time that non-Muslims were (legally) allowed entrance into the Grand Mosque in over a thousand years--flying in the face of a restriction that predated the House of Saud itself. While King Salman’s decree robbed the Wahhabi religious establishment of its temporal power, it could never hope to so suddenly deprive them of their ability to sway the hearts and minds of the masses. Almost every cleric in the country, Salafi or Sufi, Wahhabi or Shafi’i, Sunni or Shi’a, immediately and unequivocally condemned the King’s decision to reverse a thousand years of tradition and allow non-Muslims into the holiest site of Islam. The Imam of the Grand Mosque resigned in disgust, stating that he would rather die than preside over kafirs gaining entrance to Holy City. Most of the Mosque’s clerics resigned with him.
The Situation on the Ground
The country has exploded into massive protests, attended by millions of people across the country. There are near-constant masses of people in the streets of Saudi Arabia’s major cities, while construction work on the proposed Church in Riyadh has been unable to continue due to the hundreds, if not thousands, of protesters surrounding the site at all times. Every day, their grip on Saudi society seems to slip further. Saudi Arabia has long relied on the cooperation of the religious establishment to quash dissent and break up protests. With that alliance shattered by King Salman’s recent actions, Saudi Arabia has had a harder time containing these protests than ever before. There are frequent reports of Saudi security personnel collaborating with the protesters, often sneaking advance warning of police crackdowns to protesters or allowing protest leaders to slip away from arrest warrants. This environment has allowed numerous critics of the government a new lease on life, as dissent is simply too large and too widespread for the government to crack down on all dissidents at once. One major resurfaced critic of the Saudi government has been the Muslim Brotherhood. Once an ally of the Saudis, the Muslim Brotherhood was declared a terrorist organization in 2014, after its Egyptian leadership was deposed in the 2013 coup d’etat. Since then, the group’s Saudi Arabian leaders were forced to flee into hiding in Qatar, Iraq, and, to a lesser extent, Bahrain. While the Muslim Brotherhood itself is not Wahhabist, and has many doctrinal disputes with the leading branch of Islam in Saudi Arabia, it has nevertheless made significant inroads into Saudi society over the past several months. As clerics and Saudi conservatives have become convinced that monarchy is unable to deliver the Sharia-adherent society they so desire (and worse, that they have little ability to coerce the monarchy into doing so), many have turned towards the Muslim Brotherhood and its promises of democracy. If nothing else, at least the system promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood would allow them to vote out incompetent royals like Mohammad bin Salman! While many of these groups are not openly violent and are content to continue peaceful (if still terribly disruptive) means of protest against the government, other groups are not. Saudi intelligence is reporting a large surge in the membership numbers of extremist groups like Al Qaeda, Islamic State, and their affiliates. These groups are able to tap into the discontent that has manifested in Saudi society, using the more peaceful groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Sahwa Movement as a front for radicalizing and recruiting disenfranchised and disgruntled Saudi conservatives. Saudi intelligence suspects that the Kingdom’s sky-high youth unemployment rate--about 25 percent in 2019--has not helped matters, with many of the new recruits coming from the under-30 age group. Saudi intelligence suspects that the growth of these dissident and jihadi groups has also been assisted by covert funding from Qatar and the Qatari nobility (and in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood only, from Turkey as well), though as of yet, they have been unable to find concrete proof. Perhaps the most major opposition to Saudi rule, though, comes from the Wahhabi clerics that once lent so much legitimacy to the Saudi monarchy. Wahhabi clerics that had erstwhile been major supporters of the Saudi government took to every venue available to them--the pulpit, the streets, the internet, the radio--and loudly and repeatedly condemned the actions of the King and the Crown Prince, declaring that they had strayed from the path of the righteous and no longer had the moral authority to lead. Throughout the country, these Saudi intelligence and security forces have been overwhelmed trying to track down and arrest all of the clerics that have broken the law--either by insulting the King, calling for the death of unbelievers, or some other crime. Increasingly, they find that the public is providing a great deal of assistance in avoiding security personnel, providing housing, food, and other essentials that allow the clerics to go to ground and avoid arrest. Worse still, upper levels of the Saudi security apparatus have reported that their subordinates are, in some cases, simply refusing to carry out these arrest orders. Finally, elements of Saudi intelligence loyal to the Crown Prince himself are reporting rumors that should have Mohammad bin Salman very concerned. The recent instability in Saudi Arabia has led several members of the House of Saud to think that they could do a much better job running the country than this upstart reformer. While intelligence is unable to pinpoint exactly who is a threat to Mohammad bin Salman at this time, they have managed to suss out that there are ongoing talks between some members of the House of Saud and some members of the religious establishment that a palace coup might be the best way to ensure that their interests are protected. King Salman and MbS go away, the House of Saud can continue with its graft and corruption, and Sharia law and the power of the Wahhabis comes back. It’s a win for everyone. In short, Mohammad bin Salman faces a great number of issues that must be addressed--quickly--if he is to retain power.
Government Pockets Dry Up
(Written by Erhard) Saudi Arabia has been largely discounting oil export revenues to favor stronger relationships with its allies. This was destined to cause problems when $200 Bn, over 90% of total Saudi exports, come from revenues off of the oil they export. These oil revenues are so critical to the Saudi economy, that cutting off the revenue would send the economy into recession. The targets of these discounts were namely strong Saudi allies like the US, UK, Australia, India, Japan, and many more who are all known to be heavy oil consumers. Saudi Aramco, one of the largest companies on Earth by revenue, had shored up many of its accounts and had begun selling off assets to private investors and other companies just to keep itself afloat. The company, a state-owned enterprise, had to consult the government for this, but had really no other way to save itself. There were rumors in the company of bankruptcy, in one of the most profitable organizations, and layoffs had begun. Of the 76,000 employees, the company quickly shrunk down to 40,000 to recoup the losses. Oil prices across the world had never ever been lower. Fuel across the US was reporting record prices of $1.12 per gallon, which made consumers very happy while the Saudi economy was doing damage control, preparing for an implosion. It would seem the only way the company could recover would be to cut oil operations to slow the quantity to the market, and jack up the price to 20% over market value, effectively eliminating the discount and charging premiums to those who formerly had discounts. If implemented, the US consumer’s dream would be short-lived as they would approach prices of $4.15 per gallon, but would likely save the economy.
The Paper Tiger
A recent series of arrests has also brought to light an unanticipated vulnerability in the Saudi security establishment. Early in 2022, the Ministry of Defense announced plans to double the number of active-duty personnel in the Saudi Land Forces in a period of just two years. Assuming no retirements or fatalities (something that is hard to assume, given the ongoing Saudi intervention in Yemen), the Royal Land Forces will have to hire over three hundred people per day. Meeting this requirement in a country without conscription has required a massive increase in recruitment targets, coupled with a corresponding decrease in the standards used in hiring. In essence, anyone with a warm body that can hold a rifle and walk is being allowed into the military. Moreover, the massive increase in junior enlisted personnel has further taxed the brass’s ability to maintain discipline and unit cohesion: the army’s absenteeism rate has sky-rocketed, as there are simply too many recruits and too few skilled officers and NCOs in order to adequately enforce punishments. While the drop in Saudi Arabia’s combat capacity that this has caused is concerning on its own, far more concerning is the fact that not all of the recruits to the Saudi military have the country’s best interests at heart. A recent arrest of an Al Qaeda member in Riyadh revealed that numerous terrorist organizations, as well as other dissident organizations, have infiltrated substantial amounts of their members into the newly-expanded Saudi military. If left unchecked, these cells will pose a significant threat to the security of Saudi Arabia, and will be able to use their military training to greatly improve the efficiency of their parent organizations in the future. Moreover, it will give their parent organizations access to classified intelligence on Saudi (read: American) weapons systems, and likely lead to some of these systems ending up in the hands of militant groups in countries like Yemen. Similarly worrying is the monarchy’s deteriorating control of the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Separate from the traditional command structures of the Saudi military, the SANG has long served as the anti-coup, counter-insurgency, and counter-protest wing of the Saudi security establishment. It is comprised of a mixture of (largely conservative) tribal militias and personnel recruited from the Wahhabi religious establishment. Traditionally, these affiliations have helped protect the government from coups by the more liberal-minded military. In this instance, where the threat to the regime’s existence comes from conservative, religious parts of society, the loyalty of the National Guard has been called directly into question. Some worry that the ousted clerics and the more conservative elements of the House of Saud have compromised the integrity of the SANG, and may be able to use it in order to depose the current ruling family. Whatever the case, most agree that something needs to be done--and soon.
Issues Abroad
Naturally, when things go badly in a country as large as Saudi Arabia, they have a tendency to spill over into their neighbors. Below is a brief summary of some of the spillover effects in neighboring countries. The United Arab Emirates While the United Arab Emirates has long been the most “progressive” of the Gulf States, it is not without hardliners and conservatives. The country’s recent decision to decriminalize gay marriage has been met with considerable criticism from the country’s right-wing. Outrage against this decision--coupled with, Emirati intelligence suspects, but cannot prove, some assistance and funding from Qatar--has led to a revival of Al Islah, the UAE-branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The US presence in the UAE at Al Dhafra Air Base has also under scrutiny as the Sahwa Movement has spread across the border into the UAE, but so far, the movements are still content to resort to peaceful protest. Bahrain The death of Isa Qassim has sent shockwaves throughout Bahraini society, worsening already-existing tensions in the Shi’a-majority, Sunni-dominated nation. An important leader of the Shi’a community and political movement on the island, Qassim served as a constant voice for peace, frequently working to curtail the more militant wings of the Shi’a rights movement and channel them into peaceful activities like protest and, before the suspension of the legislature, voting. His martyrdom (and indeed, he is viewed as a martyr now in Bahrain) on Saudi territory has led to a great deal of suspicion in the Shi’a community of Bahrain, with many believing that Saudi security forces let the assassination occur in order to eliminate one of the peninsula’s largest Shi’a opposition leaders. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant: enough people believe it that the new leaders of the opposition who have risen to fill the void have become more convinced that the only way to have their demands met is through violence. In the future, Shi’a opposition groups on the island will be more likely to turn to violence in order to have their demands met. The royal family has become increasingly skeptical of Saudi Arabia’s commitment to their continued existence and independence following its actions in Qatar. While they are not brave enough to stand up to Saudi Arabia (yet) owing to their proximity to the country, the Royal Family is deeply uncomfortable with the Saudi coup in Qatar. In essence, it appears to the Royal Family that Saudi Arabia will abuse the Crown Prince’s marriage ties in order to replace other leaders of the GCC as punishment for working against Saudi interests. Given the marriage ties between the grand daughter of the King of Bahrain and the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, Bahrain considers itself to be at heavy risk of one of these new “succession coups.” As such, Bahrain has started to (quietly) search for new allies to help guarantee its security against an aggressive Saudi Arabia. Iraq The death of Grand Ayatollah Basheer al-Najafi on Saudi territory at the hands of Sunni jihadists has led to a dramatic flare-up in sectarian tensions in Iraq. As one of the Big Four clerics in the holy city of Najaf, al-Najafi was one of the preeminent leaders of the Shi’a faith. Candlelight vigils and other mourning ceremonies have been held throughout the country to mark the passing of one of Shi’a Islam’s greatest minds, while anti-Saudi sentiment has been further cemented in the country. tl;dr
Saudi Arabia has dramatically curtailed the powers of the religious establishment, and broken a thousand-year-old prohibition on non-Muslims entering the Holy City of Mecca
There are massive conservative protests in Saudi Arabia. The largely conservative security establishment is sympathetic to these protests, hampering the Saudi response.
The threat of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia has increased dramatically
So far, two Al Qaeda attacks have led to the destruction of the Hawza in Dammam (and the death of three very important Shi'a marja') the death of 84 people (including forty Saudi nationals, three American servicemen, and two American contractors), and the injury of another two- to three-hundred
Saudi Arabia is facing a massive revenue crisis due to its heavy discounting of oil exports
There is large resistance to the rule of MbS and King Salman within conservative circles, with some suspecting that they will not be in power for much longer.
Smaller conservative protests are occurring in the UAE
I wanted to share my thoughts on why I think we've been seeing these recent huge gains and a possible way to capitalize on them. The Motivation I too am trying to become a rich fellow autist, just like you. Usually, I'm late to the meme stock party and miss out on profits. So, I thought to myself "If I can think of the similarities between these companies, maybe I can beat the crowd and make some real wsb front page worthy shit."hopefullyasgains The Baseline Stock As my first stock of analysis, of course, I took the latest meme stock $SPCE, Virgin Galactic. Founder Richard Branson is a multi-billionaire with the proper financial backings to make a company huge. But, I figured that is not enough drive for even the newest of new investors to buy calls/shares in the masses and the stock price to soar. With a quick background check, you could find that Branson tried sending tourists to space back in 2008. [ref] He even said he had over 250 people prepaid for $200,000 each. If that happened today, the stock would have probably rocketed to another dimension. Even better, the market $SPCE is entering isn't controlled by a single company, leaving room for huge growth and a market with gigantic potential. Fox already reported this hype that the space market is projected to reach upwards of $1 trillion. This was even before Virgin Galactic took off in December, albeit this market cap projection included weather, Wi-Fi, shipping and logistics, television and radio rely on satellite-based services. [ref] This could be a factor. Past Trends Analysis It seems, especially nowadays, hype drives certain stocks through the roof. Even the slight thought of a company having a massive market cap leads to a huge response from investors. No news becomes good news for the company and good news creates huge share volumes. Most recently, $SPCE and $TSLA bulled their way to daily gains at unimaginable rates without much concrete news. Some meme stocks mentioned here do well ($AMD, $MSFT), those <10% daily gains have some premise, having solid financials to back it up. But, they do not demonstrate extreme leaps like $SPCE who hasn't even made a penny (since I'm Canadian, I should say a Nickel instead). To strengthen my original reasoning, I needed to think of other stocks that had this situation. Then, it all started to come together...
$TSLA - The BEV vehicle with a bonus of technology and renewable energy market? Close enough of a guess, but who cares because it went +270% in 4 months
Though this is not a stock, Bitcoin investments when it was seemingly the first kind of major form of cryptocurrency was insane. +2,390% in 1 year. I'd call this an outlier but I don't know anything about the market so maybe another will happen.
This is a list of stocks I can think of, irrelevant of their revenue, that showed the best of best short term gains and all had that similarity. Ahead of the Party If I want to get ahead of these parties I need to pick the $BYND or the $SPCE @ $8 before it runs up a 89.9° incline. Finding a company that has the potential to completely enter and control a market, without any actual revenue history. That's where this prediction comes in: $DEAC. The market: Major sports betting on the US market is not yet available and this acquisition corporation plans to change that by merging with DraftKings. [ref] Before this merger was made public, CNBC wrote a huge article on the sports betting, including a market projection of $150 billion (the estimated current illegal gambling market size). DraftKings and FanDuel own 83% of the legal gambling market in New Jersey. [ref] This leads to a massive potential upside in having an IPO in the sports betting industry, projected to be $5 billion dollars. The opportunity: $DEAC is an acquisition corporation meant exactly for this purpose. They plan to merge with DraftKings and change to a publicly-traded DraftKings. Not only is the market projected to be large, but this deal is also said to be priced in at a market cap of $3.3 billion. By the way, $DEAC is currently at an $840 million market cap. Now... I'm no mathematician, but those numbers are definitely far apart. The challenge: While a supreme court ruling allowed any state their own legalization ability for sports betting, I believe NYC just turned down daily sports fantasy betting again. It most likely will be appealed but state legalization it is something to keep in mind. Currently, it shows 21 states have DFS regulations. [ref] Tax incentives could be a push for the other states to follow and legalize DFS regulations. Conclusion/TLDR There's one thing in common with these huge gaining stonks, They are breaking through to a market that's yet to be controlled. I'm not a millionaire yet, nor I may never be, but the potential upside of a $DEAC investment seems like a great way to make people millionaires, cough cough calls. May the gains be with you all!
Persuasion Playbook Part 1: The Need For Stronger Messaging
Key Points - Feel free to skip the rest of this post beyond this section We have to make people question their many negative assumptions about Bernie, which they mostly got from the media. Here's how:
The mainstream media is a private industry made up of corporations whose owners care more about profits than about us.
Bernie wants to reverse tax cuts for the rich.
To protect their profits, the mainstream media manufactures false narratives ("unelectable", "can't get things done", "toxic Bernie Bros", "too radical", etc), spins pro-Bernie news to be negative, and does everything to censodisparage him to turn voters away from him.
When media personalities say "the economy will be ruined by these government programs", it's really just their bosses not wanting to pay their fair share of taxes. These talking heads would not be employed in these positions if their beliefs did not conform with the elites' views.
We can continuously bomb middle eastern countries with billion-dollar weapons, give subsidies to fossil fuel companies, bail out Wall Street when their gambles fail, yet somehow we can't invest in the future of everyday Americans?
Bernie's ideas are not radical at all. Take universal healthcare for example. Most Americans want it. Canada has it. The UK has it. Singapore has it. Japan has it. And yet somehow, we can't have it because it's "socialist"?
That's what they want us to think because that way of thinking benefits them, not us.
With the mainstream media mostly against Bernie, our campaign faces a massive disadvantage in terms of reach. The unprecedented grassroots organization and volunteer army behind him makes up for this disadvantage. We're growing everyday, but our strength has yet to match the absolute power of the media, in cahoots with big money groups and the political establishment (who collectively stand to make a bit less profit under a Sanders presidency).
Therefore, we need to grow even faster than we're doing now. To do this, we need much stronger messaging that really gets through to people who are not already on-board.
A good place to start is by exposing the anti-Bernie bias of the media, and explaining why they have that bias. See the above points for the explanation.
It's not enough to point out that "the media, the establishment, the corporate elites don't want us to win." Thewhyis more important.
While anecdotal, this line of argumentation is extremely effective from my experience online. Post creative content on all major websites: Reddit, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc. pointing this out. Bernie supporters and canvassers should tell this to the people they're trying to convince. Inform your friends, family, neighbors, classmates, coworkers. Bernie himself has to spell this out at some point. We need to spread it far and wide.
Do not hesitate to bring this up to every person you can get. Especially to people who are "avoiding politics". We need to plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of everyone.
This will make people question their assumptions about Bernie, and they can turn towards less biased sources of information. The more they find out about him, the more they will like him. His record of integrity, courage, and compassion spanning decades speaks for itself.
The mainstream media won't explicitly contrast Biden's record with Bernie's fantastic record over the decades. They will not show Biden's record on busing, Glass-Steagall, the Iraq War, DOMA, the bankruptcy bill, and the Patriot Act. They will not show his frequent gaffes and untoward behavior with girls. We have to do it ourselves.
Perhaps more importantly, this will make people question their over-reliance on a few news sources. Diversifying our sources keeps us more informed. An informed populace is essential to a functioning democracy.
Debunking the individual narratives manufactured by the corporate media is very important in further exposing their bias, and we will do that. I will write about them in later parts of this series (this is Part 1).
The play would go as follows: Debunk media myth -> Explain that the myth is part of a larger pattern of anti-Bernie bias -> Explain why this bias exists -> Sway them to our cause
We're onto them. We know their game. They're trying to trick us into voting against our own interests. But it won't work if we awaken everyone to this reality.
This is how we win.
Introduction
I am not American, but I feel like I am part of this movement. Bernie is the most inspiring candidate in my lifetime and he has given me hope amidst my descent into cynicism. The past few years have been a quagmire of post-truth politics and authoritarianism and laughable incompetence and bigotry and cynicism and shameless disregard for the planet's future in favor of short-term profits. I want to save the planet from further environmental exploitation, and I want to live in a kinder, more accepting, more compassionate world. With Bernie at the helm of the most powerful country, perhaps we can make that a reality. I've never looked forward to any election as much as this one, and I can' t even vote in it! (Again, not American) Don't mess this up please. The rest of the world is watching. You can read the Key Points section and skip the rest. The above Key Points section was initially supposed to be a TL;DR of what I wanted to say, but it can stand well enough on its own. For each part of this series that I intend to (hopefully) write, you can read the Key Points section and skip the rest. I don't want impenetrable walls of text and long paragraphs. We need solid talking points that get to the heart of issues -- ones that can successfully convince people. The rest of these write-ups will expand on the key points and provide supplemental links and sources. I will adopt a language as though I were American so you can just copy-paste to reply to someone. Please do not hesitate to do so, and don't bother crediting me. Convincing people is the top priority right now, and as more primary contests loom in the horizon, we need to start as soon as we can. Participate in discussions and debates, online and offline. That is the only way we will beat the anti-Bernie airwaves.
The Role Of Mainstream Media - Manufacturing Consent
Six corporations own 90% of the media. This means that very few people control the information flow to and from the vast majority of Americans' minds. This allows them to control the broad public consensus on many important issues. Unsurprisingly, the consensus they try to push will always align with the interests of the rich who own them. So many things make sense when we realize that corporate media serves not as an instrument of finding truth, but as a propaganda outlet subservient to the needs and interests of the elite. In the 1988 book "Manufacturing Consent" by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, the authors lay out a propaganda model that exposes the mechanism by which the media selectively favors and suppresses certain narratives. According to this model, there are five different "filters" that effectively constrain the narratives and stories the media is allowed to publish. The filters are as follows:
Ownership: News stories that go against the interests and profits of the owners of news corporations are heavily suppressed.
Advertising: The high expenses associated with running a mass media firm means that they need to please advertisers to be commercially viable.
Sourcing or Media Elite: Media journalists must be careful to preserve their privileged access to the people in prominent institutions -- like government agencies and corporations -- who are generally regarded as "authorities" or "experts".
Flak: Broadcasting that goes against the narrative favored by the elites will be subjected to "flak" in the form of letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions.
Anti-Communism or more generally, the Common Enemy: Media will try to force a consensus by invoking fear and contempt for a "common enemy", and any positive portrayal of these entities will be avoided.
It's a phenomenally eye-opening book. I strongly recommend it if you have the time. If you don't, this video gives the gist of the propaganda model. A notable example: Remember the Iraq War of 2003? The media played a significant role in shaping public opinion to support the invasion. 71% of the coverage in American media was pro-war, and only 3% was against. The rest (26%) was neutral. They put forward false narratives about Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraqi soldiers killing babies. They stoked the fires of patriotism and "bringing freedom". The consent of the American people was manufactured. And who benefited from the war? Not the brave working class Americans who lost their limbs, their friends, and their lives. Certainly not the hundreds of thousands (some estimates reach millions) of innocent Iraqi civilians who got killed and millions more who were displaced. It's never the billionaires' children who die in wars. No, all they got was some good money from the weapons sales, the oil they appropriated, and significant boosts to tv ratings. Meanwhile, this guy led the opposition to that war, bravely standing against all the corporate bloodlust. And guess what? Everyone is now retroactively in agreement with the position he championed. On the right side of history yet again.
Ownership: Bernie will tax the rich so corporate media will make sure they turn voters against him. Journalists working for these corporations either have views tolerable to the owners or are avoiding offending their bosses.
Advertising: Similar to ownership. Greedy corporations would be opposed to Bernie for the exact same reason as above: reversing tax breaks. So they will avoid media firms that portray Bernie positively.
Sourcing or Media Elite: Media journalists will make sure to mostly invite pundits and "experts" that have negative views of Bernie. They will invite just enough pro-Bernie guests to maintain the appearance of "neutrality", but they will nonetheless be heavily prejudiced against these guests' views. Prominent establishment members will say things like "nobody likes Bernie" even though he has the highest favorability ratings of all the candidates.
Flak: Big Money groups like Big Pharma, the health insurance industry, the fossil fuel industry, the NRA, Facebook, the prison-industrial complex, the military-industrial complex, and multinational corporations, etc (goddamn our opposition is powerful) will fund SuperPACs to launch negative ads on tv and even full-blown disinformation campaigns on social media.
Anti-Communism or more generally, the Common Enemy: This one's easy. "Bernie is a communist", "he's too radical", "he honeymooned in the Soviet Union", "he praised Fidel Castro", "he will turn us into Venezuela".
That is what we're up against. Our opposition seems overwhelming. All the powers that be are heavily invested in the status quo where millions are suffering while they're getting richer and richer. We did not anticipate the degree to which they're willing to throw everything against us by having two decently strong candidates drop out just before Super Tuesday, then having the billionaire drop out as well to support the new centrist frontrunner. Meanwhile, the progressive vote continues to be split. But consider what happened: they've shot their shot and yet it's still neck and neck. They threw everything they had, and that was not enough to stop us. We're not new to this. We were never gonna be a normal campaign. We are a movement. We organize and spread the word ourselves because the media won't do us any favors. And now, we can adopt more powerful rhetoric to spread the word and inoculate people against media bias. Let's do it! Frontrunner status comes and goes as the race heats up. Over the past year, Bernie has beaten seemingly insurmountable odds as he gradually chipped away at the other candidates' leads and came out on top. He can do it again. The field has narrowed, the establishment has played its hand, while our movement is stronger than ever.
2.1) The personal characteristics: One of the key reasons that Floyd would succeed in the arena of politics is that he is naturally extremely charismatic. He's no stranger to media controversy, tense interviews and to the bright lights of public life. Look at the ease at which he deals with difficult journalists. In terms of a debate style situation? Floyd is a natural at sitting/standing across from an opponent and dismantling them with rhetorical mastery. Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C. Physical appearance also plays a big factor in success - politicians like JFK, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama had movie star good looks which definitely aided in their marketability. Floyd is a handsome man with an incredible physique. But what defined Floyd Mayweather's boxing career were two simple words - hard work and dedication. The man has a disgusting work ethic - he is able to balance the grueling demands of preparing for the biggest professional boxing bouts and engaging in countless hours of media commitments. The stress of campaigning will be easy work for the boxing legend. 2.2) The qualifications For one thing, Floyd is filthy rich. The man is boxing's first billion dollar fighter and his net worth at present is above $500,000,000. Not only that, but he has a built in fan base as evidenced by his almost 8 million Twitter followers. That is more than AOC's, for reference. And Floyd isn't even in politics yet. Considering that the current President was elected in large part due to being rich and having a Twitter game, these are two great building blocks from which to launch a career in politics. Floyd Mayweather is also an absolutely masterful businessman. His rise to the top of sports and entertainment came as the result of a brilliant multimedia marketing strategy, a few risky gambles, association with celebrity and an unmatched understanding of personal branding. The man already has multiple possible campaign songs. It's often been said that politics is just show business for ugly people and no one grasps the business of show better than Money Mayweather. 2.3) What sort of politician will he be? Floyd Mayweather has managed to, at times, walk a line between two the two major political camps of Democrat and Republican. On one hand, he is a major supporter of Barack Obama but also is a supporter of Donald Trump. He similarly refused to criticise George W Bush in 2007, because, and I quote:
"George Bush has never said anything bad about me."
On the war in Iraq, Mayweather said he favors talking over fighting, and has asked soldiers requesting his autograph whether they know why they are at war. Many reply no, he said. His children have seen soldiers maimed and asked what happened.
However, we can gleam a lot about his defense policy by examining his boxing style, because boxing is often compared to chess and chess is often compared to warfare. Ergo, boxing is like warfare. Floyd Mayweather's boxing technique can be defined by two words: Defense and precision. He is the greatest defensive fighter in the history of boxing. Rather than relying on overwhelming force, he takes time to analyse opponents, expertly defending himself and picking the opposition apart with precision counter striking. As such, this will be the doctrine of his foreign policy. Rather than seeking to use overwhelming man power and preemptive attacks, his usage of America's military might will be based on precision strikes (likely through the use of drones) and defense before offense. He is a natural diplomat and international statesman, as he's spent time and mingled with the powerbrokers in Russia, Chechnya, Japan, the Philippines, the UAE and he intends to fight in China sometime next year. This is a man with a natural instinct for foreign policy. Thus, his foreign policy will likely adhere to the adage coined by Theodore Roosevelt: "Speak softly, but carry a big stick". As a black man who grow up in a ghetto surrounded by drug use and violence, Floyd Mayweather has a unique perspective on the issue of poverty in the black community and is devoted to acts of charity. As someone who has been to jail and is now a reformed citizen, Mayweather is the perfect man to tackle America's broken criminal justice system and reduce the rate of incarceration in the United States. His involvement in the Republican Party may open up new avenues for the party and ensure they become the "big tent" that the likes of Paul Ryan intended after their loss in 2012, which Donald Trump has turned his back on through his embrace of white nationalism. As Floyd Mayweather's influence grows, they may indeed once again become the party of Lincoln, Grant and Eisenhower.
PART 3: A PATH TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Now, Floyd would be wise to work his way up the ranks of political power. Here is how I believe TBE can rise to the top of politics. In 2022, Floyd should run for Governor in the state of Nevada, where he resides. Using his marquee name, massive war chest of millions of dollars, charisma and public speaking ability, Floyd will ride a wave of success straight into the Governor's mansion. From there, he should proceed to govern as a centre right moderate leader. Floyd should serve two terms as Governor, before leveraging his success into a White House bid in 2032. His running mate should be a politician with a great deal of experience in national politics and foreign policy. He'll be 55 at this time, which is currently the median age for the election of first term Presidents. His Presidency will mirror his success as a Governor and will likely encompass a political doctrine that I have outlined above. If he can do this, he will become one of the all time great Presidents. Hail to the chief!
I contacted the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation and they told me that they think lootboxes do constitute gambling under Victorian legislation. Full correspondence within.
I'm not going to show my original message (it's quite long, it also includes my name and student-email, but if people really want to read it I can post it in a comment), but I will post below the response I got from the VCGLR. I'll also note that I'd be quite happy to forward the correspondence to news agencies (on condition that my name/e-mail not be mentioned). Anyway, here's the reply I received:
My name is Jarrod Wolfe and I am the Strategic Analyst for the Compliance Division at VCGLR. I have received your correspondence in regards to gambling functionality (loot boxes) being incorporated into games. Your research and suppositions on the matter are correct; what occurs with "loot boxes" does constitute gambling by the definition of the Victorian Legislation. Unfortunately where the complexity arises is in jurisdiction and our powers to investigate. Legislation has not moved as quick as the technology; at both State and Federal level we are not necessarily equipped to determine the legality of these practices in lieu of the fact the entities responsible are overseas. We are currently engaging with interstate and international counter parts to progress wider policy changes and to modernise and inform both Federal and State based legislation. We take on board responses from the community, such as your concerns, to ensure that our actions are reflective of the risks these products pose as well as the community’s expectation. Watching recent Reddit activity certainly indicates the majority of the gaming community is at odds with decisions made by certain companies. The focus of my concerns currently is on the more predatory aspects related to "pay to win". Skins, skins betting and virtual currencies are certainly a peripheral consideration. However, the idea that (genuine) progression in a game could be reliant on the outcome of a random number generator is at odds with responsible gambling and the objectives of our acts. More importantly the normalisation of gambling vernacular and mechanics targeted at vulnerable persons (minors), is not just morally reprehensible, but is also legally questionable. In response to our appraisal or understanding of these matters, it is perhaps unfortunate for these companies that gamers have infiltrated most areas of government; be assured that knowledgeable and interested parties are undertaking a large body of work in relation to issues you noted. And if an avenue of investigation or enforcement is found; then we will most definitely pursue it. Thanks for your detailed enquiry and interest.
I followed up with these questions: What is the legal effect of the responsible entity being based overseas? Does it matter that persons residing in Australia may be making use of those services? What do you think is the biggest barrier to enforcement in relation to this issue currently, and how do you foresee it being overcome? What steps do you think the average citizen/consumer can take towards effecting such change? I also asked if he would mind me sharing the correspondence online. Here is his response:
Thanks for the follow up. Gambling isn’t necessarily “Unauthorised gambling” so there are a lot of variables at play. For perhaps a real world example think of overseas betting agencies. Such as Bet 365 – Australians can and do use this service; yet it is clearly administered and run from the UK. This isn’t illegal. However, if that company set up “shop” in Victoria or started specifically advertising and offering gambling products to Victorians. Then we could investigate and it could be considered a breach of legislation and we would pursue, overseas or not. One of the downfalls is that using overseas based products, Victorian residents do not have us to investigate any complaints or issues they have. Lootbox and “pay to win” set ups are even more nuanced than just being operated from overseas. Imagine if the legislation was read “strictly” and so you and a couple of friends have a poker game in your garage. You play for real money and sometimes other people join and leave. Now this is obviously gambling, however, is it “unauthorised gambling”? The legislation makes clear determination on some products such as Casino games and the like. But I don’t think parliament ever intended for a Compliance Inspector to kick in your garage door and fine you and your buddies for playing ‘texas hold’em’ in your garage. In order for that to happen we would require far more definitive proof and details and identify profits and purpose and a lot of other factors. This would be the steps we would have to take in order to get close to showing that these video game functions are, strictly speaking, Unauthorised… even then, convincing a magistrate in a prosecution would be a whole other nightmare that would probably cost Victorian tax payers way more money than they would be willing to spend. But I am a Strategic Analyst, my job is essentially to look at strategies to bring about changes without the necessity of kicking in garage doors and scaring the hell out of a bunch of students. Hence our interest in “loot boxes”. Enforcement is probably not an option, but we can consider working with other agencies to bring about change in other ways. For instance; if these companies want to include significant elements of gambling in their products then perhaps we should work with “The Australian Classification Board” to ensure than any product that does that and monetises it gets an immediate R rating. I could imagine that this would send ripples through the industry and it would support the objectives of the Gambling Legislation to ensure minors are not encouraged to participate in gambling. As far as affecting change from the consumer perspective. For me, instead of playing certain Star Wars games I was looking forward to, I will be concerting my efforts on collecting EVERY.SINGLE.MOON in Odyssey. Thanks for your interest. Nothing I am saying is secret; we are working on these complex problems and unfortunately solutions are a lot slower than the technology. The more people that know we are looking the better. The VCGLR want to set the example for dealing with these kind of issues; getting correspondence from you (and others) makes it a lot easier to gauge the feelings of Victorians and lets us know there is genuine interest and concern.
TL;DR - the VCGLR considers lootboxes gambling, but if the entities are based overseas they lack the necessary powers of enforcement. I was quite surprised to hear this to be honest, as I thought our system would be more like the American inter-State system (where online gambling bodies are bound by the laws of the State that the person using their services is residing in, rather than by the laws of the State where the gambling body is based). EDIT: I've forwarded the original correspondence e-mail to the BBC, and have forwarded it to Kotaku Australia at their request. I'll update this post with article links if they write stories based on this. EDIT2: Here is the Kotaku article; Power-up Gaming article
Persuasion Playbook Part 1: The Need For Stronger Messaging
Key Points
The mainstream media is a private industry made up of corporations whose owners care more about profits than about us.
Bernie wants to reverse tax cuts for the rich.
Predictably, the mainstream media manufactures false narratives ("unelectable", "can't get things done", "toxic Bernie Bros", "too radical", etc), spins pro-Bernie news to be negative, and does everything to censodisparage Bernie to turn voters away from him, so they can protect their profits.
When media personalities say "the economy will be ruined by these government programs", it's really just their bosses not wanting to pay their fair share of taxes. These talking heads would not be employed in these positions if their beliefs did not conform with the elites' views.
We can continuously bomb middle eastern countries with billion-dollar weapons, give subsidies to fossil fuel companies, bail out Wall Street when their gambles fail, yet somehow we can't invest in the future of everyday Americans?
Bernie's ideas are not radical at all. Take universal healthcare for example. Most Americans want it. Canada has it. The UK has it. Singapore has it. Japan has it. And yet somehow, we can't have it because it's "socialist"?
That's what they want us to think because that way of thinking benefits them, not us.
With the mainstream media mostly against Bernie, our campaign faces a massive disadvantage in terms of reach. The unprecedented grassroots organization and volunteer army behind him makes up for this disadvantage. We're growing everyday, but our strength has yet to match the absolute power of the media, in cahoots with big money groups and the political establishment (who collectively stand to make a bit less profit under a Sanders presidency).
Therefore, we need to grow even faster than we're doing now. To do this, we need much stronger messaging that really gets through to people who are not already on-board.
We can start by exposing the anti-Bernie bias of the media, and explaining why they have that bias. See the above points for the explanation.
It's not enough to point out that "the media, the establishment, the corporate elites don't want us to win." Thewhyis more important.
While anecdotal, this line of argumentation is extremely effective from my experience online. Post creative content on all major websites: Reddit, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc. pointing this out. Bernie supporters and canvassers should tell this to the people they're trying to convince. Inform your friends, family, neighbors, classmates, coworkers. Bernie himself has to spell this out at some point. We need to spread it far and wide.
Do not hesitate to bring this up to every person you can get. Especially to people who are "avoiding politics". We need to plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of everyone.
This will make people question their assumptions about Bernie, and they can turn towards less biased sources of information. The more they find out about him, the more they will like him. His record of integrity, courage, and compassion spanning decades speaks for itself.
The mainstream media won't explicitly contrast Biden's record with Bernie's fantastic record over the decades. They will not show Biden's record on busing, Glass-Steagall, the Iraq War, DOMA, the bankruptcy bill, and the Patriot Act. They will not show his frequent gaffes and untoward behavior with girls. We have to do it ourselves.
Perhaps more importantly, this will make people question their over-reliance on a few news sources. Diversifying our sources keeps us more informed. An informed populace is essential to a functioning democracy.
Debunking the individual narratives manufactured by the corporate media is very important in further exposing their bias, and we will do that. I will write about them in later parts of this series (this is Part 1).
The play would go as follows: Debunk media myth -> Expose media bias and disinformation campaigns -> Explain why this happens -> Sway them to our cause
We're onto them. We know their game. They're trying to trick us into voting against our own interests. But it won't work if we awaken everyone to this reality.
This is how we win.
Feel free to skip the rest of this post.
Introduction
I am not American, but I feel like I am part of this movement. Bernie is the most inspiring candidate in my lifetime and he has given me hope amidst my descent into cynicism. The past few years have been a quagmire of post-truth politics and authoritarianism and laughable incompetence and bigotry and cynicism and shameless disregard for the planet's future in favor of short-term profits. I want to save the planet from further environmental exploitation, and I want to live in a kinder, more accepting, more compassionate world. With Bernie at the helm of the most powerful country, perhaps we can make that a reality. I've never looked forward to any election as much as this one, and I can' t even vote in it! (Again, not American) Don't mess this up please. The rest of the world is watching. You can read the Key Points section and skip the rest. The above Key Points section was initially supposed to be a TL;DR of what I wanted to say, but it can stand well enough on its own. For each part of this series that I intend to (hopefully) write, you can read the Key Points section and skip the rest. I don't want impenetrable walls of text and long paragraphs. We need solid talking points that get to the heart of issues -- ones that can successfully convince people. The rest of these write-ups will expand on the key points and provide supplemental links and sources. I will adopt a language as though I were American so you can just copy-paste to reply to someone. Please do not hesitate to do so, and don't bother crediting me. Convincing people is the top priority right now, and as more primary contests loom in the horizon, we need to start as soon as we can. Participate in discussions and debates, online and offline. That is the only way we will beat the anti-Bernie airwaves.
The Role Of Mainstream Media - Manufacturing Consent
Six corporations own 90% of the media. This means that very few people control the information flow to and from the vast majority of Americans' minds. This allows them to control the broad public consensus on many important issues. Unsurprisingly, the consensus they try to push will always align with the interests of the rich who own them. So many things make sense when we realize that corporate media serves not as an instrument of finding truth, but as a propaganda outlet subservient to the needs and interests of the elite. In the 1988 book "Manufacturing Consent" by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, the authors lay out a propaganda model that exposes the mechanism by which the media selectively favors and suppresses certain narratives. According to this model, there are five different "filters" that effectively constrain the narratives and stories the media is allowed to publish. The filters are as follows:
Ownership: News stories that go against the interests and profits of the owners of news corporations are heavily suppressed.
Advertising: The high expenses associated with running a mass media firm means that they need to please advertisers to be commercially viable.
Sourcing or Media Elite: Media journalists must be careful to preserve their privileged access to the people in prominent institutions -- like government agencies and corporations -- who are generally regarded as "authorities" or "experts".
Flak: Broadcasting that goes against the narrative favored by the elites will be subjected to "flak" in the form of letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions.
Anti-Communism or more generally, the Common Enemy: Media will try to force a consensus by invoking fear and contempt for a "common enemy", and any positive portrayal of these entities will be avoided.
It's a phenomenally eye-opening book. I strongly recommend it if you have the time. If you don't, this video gives the gist of the propaganda model. A notable example: Remember the Iraq War of 2003? The media played a significant role in shaping public opinion to support the invasion. 71% of the coverage in American media was pro-war, and only 3% was against. The rest (26%) was neutral. They put forward false narratives about Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraqi soldiers killing babies. They stoked the fires of patriotism and "bringing freedom". The consent of the American people was manufactured. And who benefited from the war? Not the brave working class Americans who lost their limbs, their friends, and their lives. Certainly not the hundreds of thousands (some estimates reach millions) of innocent Iraqi civilians who got killed and millions more who were displaced. It's never the billionaires' children who die in wars. No, all they got was some good money from the weapons sales, the oil they appropriated, and significant boosts to tv ratings. Meanwhile, this guy led the opposition to that war, bravely standing against all the corporate bloodlust. And guess what? Everyone is now retroactively in agreement with the position he championed. On the right side of history yet again.
Ownership: Bernie will tax the rich so corporate media will make sure they turn voters against him. Journalists working for these corporations either have views tolerable to the owners or are avoiding offending their bosses.
Advertising: Similar to ownership. Greedy corporations would be opposed to Bernie for the exact same reason as above: reversing tax breaks. So they will avoid media firms that portray Bernie positively.
Sourcing or Media Elite: Media journalists will make sure to mostly invite pundits and "experts" that have negative views of Bernie. They will invite just enough pro-Bernie guests to maintain the appearance of "neutrality", but they will nonetheless be heavily prejudiced against these guests' views. Prominent establishment members will say things like "nobody likes Bernie" even though he has the highest favorability ratings of all the candidates.
Flak: Big Money groups like Big Pharma, the health insurance industry, the fossil fuel industry, the NRA, Facebook, the prison-industrial complex, the military-industrial complex, and multinational corporations, etc (goddamn our opposition is powerful) will fund SuperPACs to launch negative ads on tv and even full-blown disinformation campaigns on social media.
Anti-Communism or more generally, the Common Enemy: This one's easy. "Bernie is a communist", "he's too radical", "he honeymooned in the Soviet Union", "he praised Fidel Castro", "he will turn us into Venezuela".
That is what we're up against. Our opposition seems overwhelming. All the powers that be are heavily invested in the status quo where millions are suffering while they're getting richer and richer. We did not anticipate the degree to which they're willing to throw everything against us by having two decently strong candidates drop out just before Super Tuesday, then having the billionaire drop out as well to support the new centrist frontrunner. Meanwhile, the progressive vote continues to be split. But consider what happened: they've shot their shot and yet it's still neck and neck. They threw everything they had, and that was not enough to stop us. We're not new to this. We were never gonna be a normal campaign. We are a movement. We organize and spread the word ourselves because the media won't do us any favors. And now, we can adopt more powerful rhetoric to spread the word and inoculate people against media bias. Let's do it! Frontrunner status comes and goes as the race heats up. Over the past year, Bernie has beaten seemingly insurmountable odds as he gradually chipped away at the other candidates' leads and came out on top. He can do it again. The field has narrowed, the establishment has played its hand, while our movement is stronger than ever.
UK. Gambling was legalised in the UK in 1968 with the introduction of the Gambling Act. In 2005, the act was amended to include regional and online casinos. Casino operators pay 2.5-40% of their gross gaming revenue. Online gambling. So you might be wondering, do I have to pay tax on my online gambling winnings? This will depend on your location. Gambling wasn’t always tax-free however—check out the section below for a summary of the history of gambling and taxes in the UK. History of Gambling Laws. Betting shows were first legalised with the 1960 Betting and Gaming Act, in which a tax was levied either on stakes or winnings in high street betting shops. Gambling Winnings Tax In The UK How much do you owe the taxman after that big win? The answer is 0%! Casino players based in the United Kingdom do not have to pay any tax on their winnings, no matter the size of the win. The tax on the gambler was replaced with a 15% levy on the gross profits of bookmakers and since that momentous day over 10 years ago there has been no tax at all for punters to pay no matter how much they win from gambling. $1,200 or more in gambling winnings from bingo or slot machines; $1,500 or more in proceeds (the amount of winnings less the amount of the wager) from keno; Any gambling winnings subject to federal income tax withholding. Gambling winnings are fully taxable and must be reported on your tax return. Land-based gambling establishments are taxed according to their income, anything from 5%-25% for slots and 15%-50% for other games like poker, roulette and blackjack. The betting tax remained at the previous level of 15%, and lotteries have a special Lottery Duty of 12% on all money staked and paid out within a period of accounting. Currently, the UK government allow basic rate tax payers to earn up to £1000 in interest during the tax year before being required to pay tax on this interest. This amount reduces to £500 for higher rate tax payers. So, if you have significant winnings held in accounts that aren’t tax free, such as ISAs and certain National Savings accounts, you could be required to pay tax on the interest New 21% Point Of Consumption Tax For Remote Gambling in 2019 The UK chancellor, Philip Hammond, announced in his budget in 2018 that the a higher rate 21% point of consumption tax will now be imposed for online gambling on 'games of chance', up from 15%. Gambling winnings are not currently taxed in the United Kingdom. Instead, casinos and other betting sites pay taxes on their profits. Remote gaming operators currently pay a 15% duty. Unless you plan on operating a casino, this will be of little concern to you. List of information about Gambling duties. Help us improve GOV.UK. To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today.
MASSIVE $18,000 HAND PAY JACKPOT BIGGEST PAYOUT HIGH ...
In case you missed these AMAZING VegasLowRoller YouTube videos, here are a few huge wins from my channel:A HUGE WIN:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCOLBnVO5... The basic exemption limit is not available in case of winnings from lottery i.e You are required to pay tax at the rate of 30% on total winnings. Under Section 194B of ... Searches related to ... Lottery taxes are really high, so if you think you will ever win this is how much money you would actually get to keep. Rock - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... When the odds of something happening are really low, you say: “It’s like winning a lottery.” Yet, one man, over the course of 30 years, actually did win the ... SUBSCRIBE to the Barcroft network: http://bit.ly/Oc61HjA FORMER gambling addict spent over a decade compulsively gambling - and spent over $1 million on the ... Bringing you unbiased news and information so that you can form your own educated opinion. This channel is all about giving you free and helpful information. Please subscribe and I'm rooting for ... BIGGEST RIO DREAMS JACKPOT in YouTube history!!!! While playing Rio Dreams at Wynn Las Vegas we hit a 4 jewel bonus game and a few re-triggers after...#SlotM... --~--This video today is about tax basics for stock market investors. Taxes for beginners can be hard to understand but today this tax video should be helpfu... You will be prevented from using gambling websites and apps run by companies licensed in Great Britain, for a period of your choosing. 🔞 18+ Only I Love making videos please support my YouTube ... accidental $30 max bet pays off my biggest jackpot on mighty cash outback bucks high limit slot machine @ las vegas cosmopolitan casino and resort. thanks fo...
