Connect with us

IBM CEO Arvind Krishna On His Letter To Joe Biden

IBM CEO Arvind Krishna On His Letter To Joe Biden

Published

on

IBM CEO Arvind Krishna

CNBC Transcript: CNBC’s Jon Fortt Interviews IBM CEO Arvind Krishna From The CNBC Evolve Summit Today

Get The Full Series in PDF

Get the entire 10-part series on Charlie Munger in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues.

Q3 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

 

Interview With IBM CEO Arvind Krishna

JON FORTT: Welcome, Arvind, it is good to see you. I want to start off not with NewCo and the spinoff of the infrastructure services business unit yet, but first this letter that you wrote to President-Elect Joe Biden. You laid out some specific priorities there. I'm curious about the timing of it, very quick out of the blocks after the networks, including NBC, called this election over the weekend for President-Elect Biden. But what was your thinking behind doing it and doing it now?

ARVIND KRISHNA: Jon, first, it's a pleasure to talk to you again. And thank you to you and to CNBC for allowing me here. So following the networks, we are no political experts, let me just say that. But the networks and the various states, as they called for President-Elect Biden, IBM has historically worked with administrations of both parties in order to further our country's economic agenda. We felt it was really important to lay out priorities which can help further where we are.

And as I said in the letter, promoting unity, promoting science, promoting digital infrastructure and providing economic opportunity so that people who are disadvantaged can move forward, and promoting better trust is really important to move our nation forward. Then, in order to provide a little bit of color, we note a little bit of what we mean by each of these.

Really, using science to fight COVID, using artificial intelligence, as well as supercomputing, to come up with better therapeutics and recipes in order to promote reskilling. And maybe not everyone needs to have a four-year college degree to have a great job. And I think you would agree that really promoting racial justice by furthering trusted technology, using precision regulation to avoid inappropriate use, I think are great examples where the public and private sector can come together to really move the needle forward in this country.

JON FORTT: Yeah, you specifically recommend first off, in the letter, the establishment of a scientific readiness reserve, that in the context of the continuing fight against COVID. We're talking about evolving, and largely in the context of business in this event, but government, I suppose, needs to evolve too, we could all agree. What would a scientific readiness reserve do toward that governmental evolution?

ARVIND KRISHNA: You know, I got great advice from -- I'll call them 4 stars in the United States defense recently. And they talked about the fact that it's not enough to have only active members, let's think of those as the scientists who work within the government, but they have a reserve corps. And you call on the reserve corps when everybody in the active is being overwhelmed, in order to provide brainpower, in order to provide physical power, and in order to supplement what is already there.

It's not casting any aspersions or stones that who's there; but it's providing greater capacity. 70 percent, maybe even more, of the U.S. scientific manpower is in the private sector. So creating a reserve out of that which can help on certain topics, like I think the current pandemic, clearly requires that help. Would then be able to go do that. So that's what we kind of modeled on, where you can draw upon those people who have the kind of training and the skills because it is those skills that can be brought to bear to solve these incredible problems we have right now around these health crises.

JON FORTT: Now I see that iconic red hat over your left shoulder, so let's go there, as well as talking about the restructuring that you have planned. That's two big moves that you've been a part of, the Red Hat acquisition, before you were named CEO, continuing into now, and now this spinoff of the infrastructure services business. Is this the most significant portion, those two things of the evolution you see, or are there further structural moves perhaps to go for IBM?

ARVIND KRISHNA: No, I would call these the most significant moves. But maybe, Jon, if you don't mind to give me a minute, I'll give you some context against these. We saw and called hybrid cloud as a fundamental tectonic force in our industry about three years ago. We built the confidence on that by doing many projects, building technologies, and that led to the Red Hat acquisition.

The Red Hat acquisition gave us the technology base on which to build a hybrid cloud technology platform based on open source and based on giving choice to our clients as they embark on this journey. With the success of that acquisition now giving us the fuel, we can then take the next step and the larger step of taking the managed infrastructure services out so the rest of the company can be absolutely focused on hybrid cloud and artificial intelligence.

Our estimates are this is a trillion-dollar opportunity. If you have an opportunity that big and you're still in the early stages of that, it behooves you as a business to put all your focus, all your energy behind that, and pieces that may be relevant but are not that critical to that opportunity can be separated so they themselves can also thrive and grow in the best way possible. So going after the hybrid cloud opportunity, recognizing the trillion dollars, putting an absolute maniacal focus on going after it, creating the platform based on Red Hat, and creating the expertise and services to help our clients make their journey, that's what we're all about, Jon. And that is why this is so exciting, and I think that we have now got the right strategy and the right portfolio to pursue that opportunity.

JON FORTT: Well, Arvind, go even broader with me strategically and how you're thinking about IBM's evolution, because I think back several years to another big technology company, Microsoft.

So many of the chattering classes, we can say now, had it wrong about what Microsoft needed. There were talks about somebody coming in from the outside, perhaps from the auto industry, and what a great idea that would have been; massive shakeups and blowups of the business. But it turned out that there were some other pieces that others didn't see that were important. So when you look at culture, when you look at communication, as well as the technology piece, how are those things going to change, and how does that fit into your vision for IBM's evolution?

ARVIND KRISHNA: So Jon, we talked a lot for the last few minutes about our current portfolio. Other than portfolio, culture is absolutely critical. And I've talked a lot internally about a growth mind-set and about being much more entrepreneurial. And we can be entrepreneurs even within large companies, but it comes from having extreme focus. So when you provide the focus of being focused on hybrid cloud and artificial intelligence, which I believe are the two fundamental forces, then you say, how do you unlock everybody being able to go after that? And the growth mind-set, whether -- And that's, by the way, based on research from a Stanford psychologist -- I believe she's from Stanford -- called Carol Dweck. So I give full credit to Professor Dweck.

And I'm going to paraphrase it in a way that you find overly simplistic, but you can think about it as, is the glass half full or half empty. Focus on what can be done as opposed to what cannot be done, and really the ability to pick up and go after what is a fundamental north star of the goal you're after. And I think many sports teams are great examples of this. But even if you're a bit behind, you can go after it.

So putting that culture through the whole company, making sure that that is what is part of the attributes of successful employees is a big piece of what we're after, but it's always about being much more entrepreneurial. Going after what you believe is going to be the best victory, both for our clients and for ourselves, which is pursuing hybrid cloud. Look, when I begin to define what our clients are after, I believe that most of our clients, especially the large ones, will use multiple public clouds, not just one.  They will also use multiple "as a service" properties. They are also likely, because of regulation or latency, to use things on premise, whether we want to use the word "edge cloud" or "private," etc. So when you put that together, that is hybrid.

What's a technology platform that gives you comfort in what is called the DevSecOps platform, or what gives you comfort around the overall resilience. How can you have only one way to develop across this environment? That's what we're after with what we call the technology platforms, and that is where Red Hat plays such a key role, based on their wonderful history on bringing open source innovation to bear for enterprises and governments. The other side of it is, many of our clients need help in moving the technologies forward.

JON FORTT:  Right.

ARVIND KRISHNA: And in moving our people forward.

JON FORTT: And that's what I wanted to ask about next. You've got this IBM hybrid cloud ecosystem initiative that really involves pulling in a lot of partners, figuring out specific customer needs, and charting a path using a hybrid cloud. As you really focus on hybrid, but you also have to bring in partners to that, what are some of the challenges in remaining focused, but also messaging outside the organization as you try to bring clients along?

ARVIND KRISHNA: So I began by talking a little bit about open source, but open source is not enough to be just a piece of cord and a piece of technology. It's also important to be open so you can bring the innovation of all our partners on behalf of our clients. And so that's why you're hearing us talk about investing a billion dollars in our ecosystem. And the goal of this is to really say that we can work with our ecosystem to bring their capabilities, both products and technologies and services, on top of our hybrid cloud platform on behalf of our clients.

Some great examples in there recently, on the product side of "as a service," SaaS made great announcements with Adobe and ServiceNow in the last few weeks.  And that is about bringing their capabilities on behalf of our clients. You also heard us make great announcements with services companies like Tech Mahindra and Vikram, amongst others, as they're building on practices on these platforms. Because then our client gets the best of all worlds, they can begin to pick and choose. And other than those, we also have a Red Hat open marketplace which has now over 100 different software vendors who are bringing their capabilities on top of the OpenShift platform.

So when you go across high speeds, you go across "larger as a service," you go across services, it's giving the best of all on behalf of our clients.

JON FORTT: Yeah, makes a lot of sense. And now I want to remind our audience, get those questions in.  They are getting to me. And we've got one now, Arvind, from Sanjay who asks: Given that IBM is currently positioned number 4 in the cloud service provider market and the number 1 and 2 -- that would be Amazon and Microsoft -- command nearly 80 percent of the market share, how does IBM intend to compete and gain market share in the hybrid cloud market?

ARVIND KRISHNA: Well, so I think it's a question of understanding what's hybrid as opposed to pure public. So I look at both Microsoft and Amazon as likely partners in this journey, not as being the 1 and 2.  It's about -- in the hybrid world, the question is: Where does the client want to decide where the workload runs? They can run it on Amazon, they can run it on Microsoft, they can run it on IBM, they can run it on private. What are the technology platform that goes across all of those? Red Hat gives a great answer to that technology platform.

There are many capabilities people lead around integration, around cybersecurity. We bring those to bear. Then if we bring services to bear for those clients who would like to get that help both in improving the skills of their own people or for us to do the work for them -- and that is why you see us report $24 billion in 20 -- 12 months on total cloud revenue.  That's a hybrid market, not a singular public cloud market.

JON FORTT: Now, to follow up on that, Arvind, how much do you have to work on IBM's reflexes to make that vision work the way you want? Because often organizations might have reflexes to serve their internal units even above perhaps a customer's particular wants and needs, I don't want to steer them toward another IBM product, for example, are those reflexes where you want them to be; or is that part of the evolution process you're talking about now?

ARVIND KRISHNA: I would call that an opportunity moving forward, Jon. And the reason why you hear me talk about both the ecosystem and also the split we are doing of the spinoff our new company of the managed infrastructure services is to allow the remaining company to be much more focused on the path that I described in hybrid cloud. That implies, then, all that fiction that may have been there is gone. But it's a step -- I believe it will be one of the steps that will help unlock the growth that we will deliver in the medium-term.

JON FORTT: Talk to me about your personal evolution as a leader, a technical leader, a CEO. Oftentimes that takes a particular focus on deciding to work on specific things versus doing everything. What are you working on, as the CEO of IBM, getting into the seat in a year like none other?

ARVIND KRISHNA: Well, so just given where we are right now, number one, I've got to focus on health and safety of our employees, as well as the stability of our balance sheet. So I focused on that. I think we've done a great job on that. 98 percent of our people are comfortable working from home. We have a great balance sheet, I think $16 billion is what we reported at the end of the third quarter as cash on our balance sheet. So I'll sort of chalk it up and say, the team now knows how to do that. I have to be focused on two things: How do we make the remaining company grow?

And that is what we've focused on. We have chartered a path, which I have extreme confidence and complete conviction on. And I have to make sure that we can communicate that message to our employees, to our clients, to our investors and to our communities. Jon, as a quick example, on community, you can see the letter to President-Elect Biden; to our employees, you talked about the culture we do inside; to clients, our hybrid cloud and AI message; and to investors is the growth we will deliver. So those are the four, and those are the four I think large audiences that every CEO ought to focus on.

JON FORTT: Okay. Let's talk about your customers and the evolution that they're going through and the ways that you're working on helping them. I know that telemedicine and oil and gas are a couple of areas that you're giving particular focus during this time. How do you engage with them with these hybrid cloud technologies in a way that makes that evolution both as smooth and as quick as possible?

ARVIND KRISHNA: So I think, Jon, we'll agree. I think the digital journey that everybody is on, leveraging both cloud and AI, is the backdrop of the fundamental forces and information technology. Then, if you look at health, I think that we've all been looking at the opportunity for telemedicine for 10 years, maybe even longer, but it's been really, really slow to move forward. What this current crisis drove is that people are now quite willing. Providers are willing to give telemedicine, because that allowed them to make revenue as well as to provide services to patients; and people who are not willing to leave their home could get telemedicine.

So some of our clients have 40 million patients, 40 million, now taking advantage of telemedicine services. And that is with Anthem. So when you look at that, I think that's a great example of leveraging both hybrid cloud and AI with all of the networking and other technologies that other people on this session have talked about, are going there. Then if I look at another client, like Schlumberger -- I would actually call them a partner, not a client -- how do you take the ability to provide much cleaner gas, to use much less water, to be wonderfully better for the environment while finding clean energy, and be able to take those technologies and apply them using software all over the globe? Because not everywhere is there a public cloud available. Many countries are reluctant to let the data cross the national boundaries.

So working on a 100-cloud platform, again based on Red Hat, but bringing IBM services together with the wonderful intellectual property and software assets that Schlumberger has, and then opening them up for the whole world, I think it's a win, win, win. A win for our clients because they get the technology, a win for Schlumberger because they can go to places they couldn't go before, and a win for us because it's a proof of hybrid cloud.

JON FORTT: A couple of questions. I want to try to hit on them both so -- I know you can be concise, but Rashida asks: Are there any tips that you can share for leading innovation and strategic planning using Agile?

ARVIND KRISHNA: Trust your team. Be really, really focused on what are the two, three, four, five things.  You asked earlier about my change. Don't be a micromanager. I focus on three to five things  I've got to trust that my team is good enough to focus on everything else. So let them do what they do best and provide value in the three to five things that make a really big difference to the team. And Agile. Walk into every meeting prepared. Don't let people use the meeting to educate. Use the meeting for discussion and to make a decision. And use the written word to communicate ahead of time and to educate.

JON FORTT: I've been trying to get Jimmy in here, too. He asks: What is next beyond the crowded market, the cloud? You and I have talked about Quantum, so I know that's kind of a layup for you.

ARVIND KRISHNA: So we all know, I think we all agree, Moore's Law is coming to an end. So it's not that there won't be more designed and more integrated circuits, but Moore's Law is coming to an end, and so I think that the power of computing to solve difficult problems is soon going to hit a plateau. Quantum offers a fundamentally different approach. Quantum, we laid out a roadmap. We are now setting around Quantum volumes of 60. I believe Quantum volumes will get towards 1000 by 2023, and that's the roadmap we gave. It doesn't need to get to millions. Our Quantum volume of 1000, and that's three to five years out, you're going to begin to solve problems in materials, in risk, in pricing, that can make a fundamental impact and provide competitive advantages.

Look, when we want lightweight materials, when we all want better batteries for our EVs, when we want lightweight materials for aircraft, these are all examples which can make such a big difference for a sustainable world. And not to forget, I think it's a little bit harder than just materials, but I think drug discovery will be something that Quantum computers are going to be great at, as well. You can see I'm so excited about what these will bring, and in the near term, not that far away, when I talk about three to five years.

JON FORTT: I can see it. So I knew that that would be a bump-set-spike for you. And no better point to end a technology conversation about evolution than quantum computing. Arvind Krishna, CEO of IBM, thanks so much.

The post IBM CEO Arvind Krishna On His Letter To Joe Biden appeared first on ValueWalk.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

The Coming Of The Police State In America

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now…

Published

on

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now patrolling the New York City subway system in an attempt to do something about the explosion of crime. As part of this, there are bag checks and new surveillance of all passengers. No legislation, no debate, just an edict from the mayor.

Many citizens who rely on this system for transportation might welcome this. It’s a city of strict gun control, and no one knows for sure if they have the right to defend themselves. Merchants have been harassed and even arrested for trying to stop looting and pillaging in their own shops.

The message has been sent: Only the police can do this job. Whether they do it or not is another matter.

Things on the subway system have gotten crazy. If you know it well, you can manage to travel safely, but visitors to the city who take the wrong train at the wrong time are taking grave risks.

In actual fact, it’s guaranteed that this will only end in confiscating knives and other things that people carry in order to protect themselves while leaving the actual criminals even more free to prey on citizens.

The law-abiding will suffer and the criminals will grow more numerous. It will not end well.

When you step back from the details, what we have is the dawning of a genuine police state in the United States. It only starts in New York City. Where is the Guard going to be deployed next? Anywhere is possible.

If the crime is bad enough, citizens will welcome it. It must have been this way in most times and places that when the police state arrives, the people cheer.

We will all have our own stories of how this came to be. Some might begin with the passage of the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in 2001. Some will focus on gun control and the taking away of citizens’ rights to defend themselves.

My own version of events is closer in time. It began four years ago this month with lockdowns. That’s what shattered the capacity of civil society to function in the United States. Everything that has happened since follows like one domino tumbling after another.

It goes like this:

1) lockdown,

2) loss of moral compass and spreading of loneliness and nihilism,

3) rioting resulting from citizen frustration, 4) police absent because of ideological hectoring,

5) a rise in uncontrolled immigration/refugees,

6) an epidemic of ill health from substance abuse and otherwise,

7) businesses flee the city

8) cities fall into decay, and that results in

9) more surveillance and police state.

The 10th stage is the sacking of liberty and civilization itself.

It doesn’t fall out this way at every point in history, but this seems like a solid outline of what happened in this case. Four years is a very short period of time to see all of this unfold. But it is a fact that New York City was more-or-less civilized only four years ago. No one could have predicted that it would come to this so quickly.

But once the lockdowns happened, all bets were off. Here we had a policy that most directly trampled on all freedoms that we had taken for granted. Schools, businesses, and churches were slammed shut, with various levels of enforcement. The entire workforce was divided between essential and nonessential, and there was widespread confusion about who precisely was in charge of designating and enforcing this.

It felt like martial law at the time, as if all normal civilian law had been displaced by something else. That something had to do with public health, but there was clearly more going on, because suddenly our social media posts were censored and we were being asked to do things that made no sense, such as mask up for a virus that evaded mask protection and walk in only one direction in grocery aisles.

Vast amounts of the white-collar workforce stayed home—and their kids, too—until it became too much to bear. The city became a ghost town. Most U.S. cities were the same.

As the months of disaster rolled on, the captives were let out of their houses for the summer in order to protest racism but no other reason. As a way of excusing this, the same public health authorities said that racism was a virus as bad as COVID-19, so therefore it was permitted.

The protests had turned to riots in many cities, and the police were being defunded and discouraged to do anything about the problem. Citizens watched in horror as downtowns burned and drug-crazed freaks took over whole sections of cities. It was like every standard of decency had been zapped out of an entire swath of the population.

Meanwhile, large checks were arriving in people’s bank accounts, defying every normal economic expectation. How could people not be working and get their bank accounts more flush with cash than ever? There was a new law that didn’t even require that people pay rent. How weird was that? Even student loans didn’t need to be paid.

By the fall, recess from lockdown was over and everyone was told to go home again. But this time they had a job to do: They were supposed to vote. Not at the polling places, because going there would only spread germs, or so the media said. When the voting results finally came in, it was the absentee ballots that swung the election in favor of the opposition party that actually wanted more lockdowns and eventually pushed vaccine mandates on the whole population.

The new party in control took note of the large population movements out of cities and states that they controlled. This would have a large effect on voting patterns in the future. But they had a plan. They would open the borders to millions of people in the guise of caring for refugees. These new warm bodies would become voters in time and certainly count on the census when it came time to reapportion political power.

Meanwhile, the native population had begun to swim in ill health from substance abuse, widespread depression, and demoralization, plus vaccine injury. This increased dependency on the very institutions that had caused the problem in the first place: the medical/scientific establishment.

The rise of crime drove the small businesses out of the city. They had barely survived the lockdowns, but they certainly could not survive the crime epidemic. This undermined the tax base of the city and allowed the criminals to take further control.

The same cities became sanctuaries for the waves of migrants sacking the country, and partisan mayors actually used tax dollars to house these invaders in high-end hotels in the name of having compassion for the stranger. Citizens were pushed out to make way for rampaging migrant hordes, as incredible as this seems.

But with that, of course, crime rose ever further, inciting citizen anger and providing a pretext to bring in the police state in the form of the National Guard, now tasked with cracking down on crime in the transportation system.

What’s the next step? It’s probably already here: mass surveillance and censorship, plus ever-expanding police power. This will be accompanied by further population movements, as those with the means to do so flee the city and even the country and leave it for everyone else to suffer.

As I tell the story, all of this seems inevitable. It is not. It could have been stopped at any point. A wise and prudent political leadership could have admitted the error from the beginning and called on the country to rediscover freedom, decency, and the difference between right and wrong. But ego and pride stopped that from happening, and we are left with the consequences.

The government grows ever bigger and civil society ever less capable of managing itself in large urban centers. Disaster is unfolding in real time, mitigated only by a rising stock market and a financial system that has yet to fall apart completely.

Are we at the middle stages of total collapse, or at the point where the population and people in leadership positions wise up and decide to put an end to the downward slide? It’s hard to know. But this much we do know: There is a growing pocket of resistance out there that is fed up and refuses to sit by and watch this great country be sacked and taken over by everything it was set up to prevent.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending