搜尋此網誌

2019年6月25日星期二

男不男女不女- 更少的年青男性尋求婚姻: '女人不再是女人'

男不男女不女- 更少的年青男性尋求婚姻: '女人不再是女人'
Fewer Young Men are Seeking Marriage: 'Women are Not Women Anymore'
硏究發現青年男人尋求結婚的數字下跌
Study finds drop in young men seeking to get married

24th June 2019

Fewer young men are seeking marriage, while the desire to get married among young women is rising, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.

Since 1997, aspirations for wedded bliss has risen from 28 to 37 percent among young women while young men's has lowered to 29 percent from 35 percent.

Admittedly, these figures still show the idea of getting married wasn't a high priority in the last 20 years in the first place.

The cause of the switch is speculated to be the strengthening of feminism and the feeling that a man's place in the world is being diminished.

Women are graduating from higher education in droves, they are outnumbering men in the workplace and still have a decided edge in the family court system when it comes to divorce and child custody.

The rise of women as providers and decision-makers in the household has turned some men off married life.

According to one expert, the rise in feminism has caused men to feel like "women are not women anymore."


Writer Suzanne Venker believes that modern feminism has created the issue that no longer allows men to feel like real men.

Ladies increased independence and some of the older laws that were put in place to protect women in the event of divorce as they generally not the breadwinners (such as alimony) has created a shift in the balance between male and female partners in favor of the female.

She also believes that men feel attacked by current feminist ideals and that a culture of hatred towards men has also soured some from pursuing marriage.

She notes that online men's groups have emerged that promote the option of avoiding any kind of relationship.

As for sex, there are multiple ideas with some opting to never have sex again to those who opt for promiscuity.

The Pew Centre revealed that about half of the adults in the US are currently married and that the age of men and women getting married for the first time has risen for both genders.

The decline in young marriages (those 18 to 29) by 32 percent from the 1960s to today is at least partly explainable by the aforementioned increases of females in higher education and in the workplaces.

Many modern fathers and mothers advise their daughters to complete their education and establish a career before sorting their personal lives.

Travel is also a highly desirable experience young females look for in their twenties. 


These distractions can add to lengthening marriage and childbearing ages.

Some additionally blame the much debated Millennial mindset that is considered by the older generations to be self-focused.

Interestingly, while Millennial's don't have a high opinion of marriage, they have determined good parenting is a much more important aspect of life.

Marriage and parenthood don't necessarily go hand in hand for Millenials, and this could be partially explained by the high divorce rates their parents suffered.

Venker believes that now women are achieving without their male counterparts, it spells doom for the future of marriage, as men are not allowed to fulfill what is in their nature - heading a household by providing for, and protecting, wives and children.

Marriage rates are soon expected to dip below the halfway mark.

https://neonnettle.com/features/1632-fewer-young-men-are-seeking-marriage-women-are-not-women-anymore-














阿根庭上週的奇怪牛群肢解歸咎卓栢卡布拉


阿根庭上週的奇怪牛群肢解歸咎卓栢卡布拉
Chupacabra Blamed for Strange Cattle Mutilations in Argentina

June 24, 2019


“Blame it on the Chupacabra” sounds like it could be the title of a country western song (note to self: dust off guitar and call agent) but it’s more likely to be the lament of farmers – particularly in Puerto Rico, Texas and Central and South America – who have lost goats, sheep and chickens under mysterious circumstances. However, cattle mutilations, at least in the U.S., are often attributed to aliens, especially if they occur in the 37th parallel latitude which is home to many UFO sightings. But not in Argentina, where a particularly brutal cow mutilation last week is being blamed on a Chupacabra. Unfortunately, this is eerily similar to another series of cattle mutilations in September 2018 in Argentina that were also blamed on Chupacabras. Are they connected? Is this story worthy of a song … or an investigation?
“The Chupacabras is back, in action , and with such inexplicable consequences that they never cease to surprise others and others. The precision of the cuts, the state of the animal that does not seem to decompose, the absence of scavengers, are some of the many curiosities that are in suspense to the town of La Paz, in Catamarca where the event occurred.”
Infocampo, an agricultural media source in Argentina, appears to be the first to report the incident on the farm owned by Ariel Sorribes in the northwestern province of Catamarca on the Chilean border. (Apologies to them for the poor Google translations.) After noticing the herd count down by one, a worker found the mutilated cow under a tree. Sorribes stated that the cow had been healthy and vaccinated. The site cautioned that the photos were horrific (see them here) and the report listed the missing organs (udder, vulva, anus, eyes, tongue, and maxillary muscle) and complimented the killer on the precise cuts made to remove them – cuts that in the U.S. would be blamed on aliens or a surgeon who dabbles as a weird rustler or a provider of organs to cults. But wait … there’s more:
“No one can make such a perfect cut with a scalpel, in addition all the wounds seem sealed. There are even rarer things, for example, no scavenger comes close to the body of the animal. Nothing eh, nothing at all. Not a carancho, not a vulture, nothing. Above, it seems that the meat does not decompose and is all intact.”
OK, now it’s getting strange … and beyond the powers of a normal Chupacabra. No decomposition, wounds sealed and no vultures. If only there were more pictures …
“In addition to all that, when the pawn wanted to take more pictures, his cell phone was turned off. He thought it was the battery that had run out, but no. Then came a teacher from a nearby school, because she wanted to film the cow, and neither did her cell phone … It is as if it were a magnetic field, or something that prevents taking pictures.”
Whoa! This is obviously the work of aliens, right? Farmer Ariel Sorribes asked for an answer and this is what he got from SENASA, the National Service of Agri-Food Health and Quality:
“For similar cases, SENASA has said that it is the work of the snout mouse.”
The what? Believe it or not, the Hocicudo is a long-snouted mouse that was blamed for the mutilations last year. Hocicudo are scavengers that like to dine on the soft parts of dead animals and there are plenty of dead animals in cattle country.

What about the dead phones? The precise cuts that seemed to heal themselves? The lack of vultures? The web site La Gran Epoca (The Epoch Times) says the ranchers are nervous because the unexplained mutilations have been going on for years. One explained the financial consequences:
“It’s not just in my field, it’s in the whole region. Behind the Cerrito killed five, in Malabrigo a while ago killed seven, a neighbor killed two, so they add up and when you get the count are 20 or 30 animals per month … and are 15,000 pesos (about 335 dollars) each heifer.”
Would you blame the Chupacabra? Aliens? If not those, then who … or what? What latitude is Catamarca? (28th south.) Does anyone dare follow it to search for more dead cattle?
In the meantime … what rhymes with Chupacabra besides macabre and candelabra?

I killed that Chupacabra
With my candelabra
It was real macabre

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/06/chupacabra-blamed-for-strange-cattle-mutilations-in-argentina/






伏: 洛歇馬田航天物理學家爆紅互聯網卻不存在

伏: 洛歇馬田航天物理學家爆紅互聯網卻不存在
The Lockheed Martin Physicist Who Blew Up the Internet and Doesn’t Exist

June 25, 2019


Last week, a Quora user claiming to be a Lockheed Martin staff physicist named Ibtaseem Reaz made a somewhat provocative claim when he said that after considering all of the evidence surrounding recently disclosed Navy UFO encounters, we are “left with a stronger impetus to speculate that the US government does indeed have something to do with the Tic Tac.” Many of us throughout the web jumped on the story, as it seemed to be one of the first times someone who claims to have advanced aerospace knowledge has come forward to state that maybe, justmaybe, all of this Navy UFO business is some kind of misinformation or disinformation campaign after all.
tinfoil hat and tinfoil cat hat
I never thought I’d be among the ones wearing tin foil, but here we are.
As it turns out, that Lockheed Martin staff physicist might not even exist at all. Shortly after that Quora post began making its rounds on various UFO-related subreddits and blogs, strange things starting happening. First, Ibtaseem Reaz – or the Quora account named “Ibtaseem Reaz” – scrubbed Quora of the Navy UFO response and all other posts (luckily, I guess, an archived version can still be read here). Those Quora posts went as far back as 2011 and covered topics ranging from the genetic basis for male pattern baldness to the Roswell crash. After removing all of those Quora posts, that user then changed his or her username from “Ibtaseem Reaz” to “Bob Lazar” and then “Bob Bigelow,” as it reads now. It’s unclear if this is just some elaborate troll, or if an actual Quora user’s account got hacked.
It gets weirder, though. Whoever this “Ibtaseem Reaz” is, they also had a LinkedIn profile which has since been deleted. That profile only had 5 total connections – an oddly low number for a Lockheed physicist to say the least – and stated that Reaz had advanced degrees from the University of Michigan. The only other mention of Ibtaseem Reaz was a dissertation uploaded to academia.edu, a free online repository for academic research. That dissertation has also been deleted.
tin-foil face mask
Maybe hats aren’t enough anymore.
Armchair sleuths on reddit alsodiscovered that the profile photo of Ibtaseem Raez on both Quora and LinkedIn is the same as a picture found online for one Ravindra Pisharody, a former director of India’s Tata Motors automotive brand. What exactly is happening here?
There are a few possible explanations. One, this could be an elaborate troll. It’s odd that a Quora account dating back 8 years would suddenly go full-on troll, but perhaps it was hijacked by pranksters looking to capitalize on the current Navy UFO buzz. That could explain the name change to the two Bobs.
Two, perhaps Ravindra Pisharody led a double life on the internet as Ibtaseem Reaz and was afraid to get discovered after his Quora answer blew up the weirder corners of the internet. Then why not take down his own LinkedIn account which clearly uses a picture of the same guy?
What exactly is going on with this “Ibtaseem Reaz?” We’ll likely never know. It’s probably just some weird prank that got bigger than its creator intended. As usual, when any big UFO news breaks into the mainstream, the crazies come out of the woodwork to hijack the conversation and turn it all into a circus.
This is why we can’t have nice things.

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/06/the-lockheed-martin-physicist-who-blew-up-the-internet-and-doesnt-exist/





印第安納州南本德6月23日在龍捲風籠罩下看著窗㚈的嚇人場景

印第安納州南本德6月23日在龍捲風籠罩下看著窗㚈的嚇人場景
Tornado golpeó con fuerza en South Bend  Indiana #23jun


https://www.facebook.com/100036953685282/posts/124555648786224/




印尼喀拉喀托火山今早爆發被CVGHM相機捕捉到的情景

印尼喀拉喀托火山今早爆發被CVGHM相機捕捉到的情景
Indonesia Erupción de Anak Krakatau esta mañana capturada por la cámara de CVGHM.



https://www.facebook.com/100036953685282/posts/124680538773735/

秘魯烏比納斯火山6月24日的爆發過程
Proceso eruptivo y emociones de ceniza del volcán Urbinas de Perú #24jun


https://www.facebook.com/100036953685282/posts/124681318773657/

美國左翼學院提出'上帝是同性戀者,'天堂嚴禁你挑戰這説法!

美國左翼學院提出'上帝是同性戀者,'天堂嚴禁你挑戰這説法!
US college suggests ‘God is queer,’ heaven forbid you challenge it!

June 24, 2019

Another liberal institution is challenging an age-old dogma – this time on hallowed religious ground – with radical new ideas. This would not be worrisome if dissenting voices were invited, but that is not the case.

Hell hath no fury than a liberal scorned, and if Swarthmore College, situated on a lush, tree-lined campus in the state of Pennsylvania, teaches that God might be experiencing some doubt over his (her?) sexual identity then who are we mere mortals to doubt it? Perhaps the liberal college might even consider extending an invitation to God the Almighty, who micromanaged the Creation in just seven days, to enroll in this course, which promises to “stretch the limits of gendering, and sexing, the divine.”

Yes, sexing the divine. Questioning whether God might be male or female, however, is not a very radical concept. It is a harmless game of intellectual pursuit, a bit like pondering the existence of angels or whether that eternal hot spot for sinners known by the Italians as ‘Inferno’ is real. Then, along came Pope John Paul II with his 1992 hit release ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church,’ which had the last word on the debate by stating unequivocally that “God is neither man nor woman: he is God.” That blast of papal certitude worked to placate everyone, at least for a while anyways.

Today, with ultra-liberal classes like the one being offered by Professor Gwynn Kessler, entitled ‘Queering God: Feminist and Queer Theology,’ religious doctrine threatens to be turned on its head to such a degree that what is left bears no resemblance to Christian teachings. That could eventually have long-term consequences for society at large, which has depended on religious teaching as a moral anchor in various ways, including in the rite of marriage, raising children and even punishing criminals, for example.

Without delving into specific Biblical passages, it goes without saying that introducing “feminist, queer and transgender” interpretations of God and the Holy Book is guaranteed, at the very least, to spark some heated controversy. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. After all, robust debate between dueling parties has been part of the Western world’s experiment with democracy since its inception, and is even enshrined in the First Amendment.

If a controversial idea is presented by some authority figure – in this case, a Swarthmore college professor – then people have the right to offer opposing viewpoints. There is a remedial purpose for this function. If bad ideas are permitted to take root, a bit like an invasive weed, they could literally breed to such an extent that they destroy society from lack of ‘sunlight’ or opposing ideas.

It needs to be emphasized that the course being offered at Swarthmore is not an isolated case. Last year, for example, Pomona College in California hosted a course entitled ‘Queering Childhood,’ which examined “the figure of the child and how this figuration is used… to justify continued cultural investment in reproductive heteronormativity and productive able bodiedness.”

Try wrapping your brain around that idea. Or better yet, try to criticize the college for entertaining such an idea in the first place. Regardless of one’s opinion on the matter, it is only natural to expect that a large number of people will find it controversial and objectionable. And there are many other equally provocative ideas – from teaching elementary school students about transgender lifestyles, to allowing biological males who ‘identify’ as females to compete in women’s sports – which demand careful consideration.

But here is where the relationship with free speech in the United States is getting very complicated. While the so-called progressives enjoy the freedom to challenge every traditional aspect of society and culture, the same freedoms are being denied to those people – mostly conservatives – who are skeptical of their latest pet projects. The fact that this censorship is happening on university campuses, the very birthplace of intellectual discovery, is beyond comprehension. Yet, many students seem oddly oblivious to the problem.

For example, Campus Reform, the publication that reported on Swarthmore’s ‘Queering God’ course, quoted a student who said her college embraces “normalized progressivism, unfazed by even the most controversial topics.” Well isn’t that awesome? Swarthmore College, like many other high-security fortresses of ‘free’ thinking, are totally “unfazed” by the most radical new concepts. However, the remark failed to include a much-needed caveat. The student failed to mention that many institutions of ‘higher learning’ – or ‘hire learning,’ as a wit once called it – are not so accommodating when it comes to tolerating the ideas of those whom they disagree with. In fact, they can get downright testy.

In 2017, for example, UC Berkeley erupted in violent protests ahead of a planned talk by right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, who has spoken out in the past against feminism and the transgender movement. The protests caused $100,000 worth of damage to the campus.

Today, the typical (il)liberal university, instead of serving as an open, tolerant and receptive setting for healthy and diverse opinion, resembles instead a Trojan horse that is loaded up with controversial ideas – up to and including the ‘queering’ of God and the Bible – and delivered under the cover of darkness into society before any serious debate is allowed. In many cases, these academic courses serve a political agenda, as the Democrats overwhelmingly embrace these liberal experiments, even encode them into law.

In 2016, for example, Barack Obama passed his fiercely controversial ‘transgender bathroom’ law, that allowed biological males who ‘identify’ as females to use the women’s toilet and changing-room facilities. That’s not, of course, how education was designed to work. In fact, the situation has gotten so out of control that Donald Trump signed an executive order this year that cuts funding to any publicly funded university that is “hostile to free speech.” But like a game of tennis, the legislation is guaranteed to swing left once the Democrats are back in the White House.

Although it may seem natural for liberals to challenge tradition, not least of all religious teachings, there could come a point when the modifications are so great that the original product is no longer recognizable. That’s when society could experience a crash of Babel-esque proportions, which might have been avoided had the proper amount of public debate been allowed.

The Western university must once again throw open its windows to the light and allow a diversity of opinion and debate. Nothing less than democracy is at stake.


Note: Campus Reform, a project of the Leadership Institute, is a team of professional journalists that works alongside student activists and student journalists to report on the conduct and misconduct of university professors, whom it accuses of indoctrinating students with their agendas and silencing conservative students.

https://on.rt.com/9wwt








歌革瑪各對以色列: (預言了的)戰爭很快可能變成核世界末日

歌革瑪各對以色列: (預言了的)戰爭很快可能變成核世界末日
Gog-Magog VS Israel: The (Prophesied) War That Could Soon Become Nuclear Armageddon

June 23, 2019


Could Israeli air strikes in Syria trigger war between Israel and Russia? Israel remains determined to continue pounding Iranian forces in Syria in a bid to keep Tehran’s forces away from Israel’s northern border. At the same time, Russia has thousands of troops in Syria that could be caught in the crossfire—or even become belligerents if Moscow tires of its Syrian ally being pummeled. And if Israel and Russia come to blows, would Israel’s big brother—the United States—feel compelled to intervene?

https://www.skywatchtv.com/2019/06/23/gog-magog-vs-israel-the-prophesied-war-that-could-soon-become-nuclear-armageddon/

俄羅斯對以色列: 能夠變成核災難的戰爭
Russia vs. Israel: The War That Could Become a Nuclear Disaster

June 10, 2019

It would be epic.


There are deconfliction mechanisms in place, including a hotline between the Israeli and Russian militaries. “We are very strict about informing the Russians about our activities and that their operational picture is up to date,” said the IDF official. Yet those procedures were not sufficient to avoid a downing of a Russian plane.
Could Israeli air strikes in Syria trigger war between Israel and Russia?
(This first appeared several weeks ago.)

Israel remains determined to continue pounding Iranian forces in Syria in a bid to keep Tehran’s forces away from Israel’s northern border. At the same time, Russia has thousands of troops in Syria that could be caught in the crossfire—or even become belligerents if Moscow tires of its Syrian ally being pummeled.
And if Israel and Russia come to blows, would Israel’s big brother—the United States—feel compelled to intervene?

Not that Jerusalem or Moscow are eager for such a fight. “Neither of us desire a military confrontation,” a senior Israel Defense Forces (IDF) official told me during a recent interview in Jerusalem. “It would be detrimental to both sides.”
Yet Israel’s policy boils down to this: it will do whatever it sees as necessary to eject Iranian forces from Syria. And if Russia doesn’t like it, then that’s just the price of ensuring that Syria doesn’t become another Iranian rocket base on Israel’s border.

Relations between Jerusalem and Moscow are far warmer than during the Cold War. The result is a strange embrace reminiscent of the U.S.-Soviet detente of the 1970s. On the surface, a certain friendliness and desire for cooperation.  Yet beneath the smiles is wariness, suspicion and a clash of fundamental interests.
“No one in Israel is confused about who the Russians are and who they are aligned with,” said the IDF official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The Russians are not our allies, to put it mildly. We have one ally, and that is the United States. The Russians are here for totally different objectives. They are supporting a regime [Syria] that has an outspoken goal of annihilating Israel if it only could. They are also part of a coalition that supports Iran.”
Just how easily Israeli military operations can trigger an incident became evident during a September 2018 strike on ammunition depots in western Syria. Anti-aircraft missiles launched by Syrian gunners accidentally shot down a Russian Il-20 surveillance aircraft, killing fifteen people. Israel denies Russian accusations that it deliberately used the Russian plane as cover, or failed to give Moscow sufficient warning of the raid. Yet Russia still blamed Israel for the mishap and retaliated by supplying advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria.
Nonetheless, Israel sees value in Russia as a potential restraint on Iran, and a possible lever to get Iranian forces out of Syria. After a February meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Vladimir Putin to mend fences after the Il-20 incident, Israeli officials claimed Putin had agreed that foreign forces should withdraw from Syria. For Moscow, friendly relations with Israel offer more influence in the Middle East even as America may be scaling down its presence in the region.
Still, the Kremlin has denounced Israeli strikes in Syria as “illegitimate.” Syria has been a Russian ally for more than fifty years, and it was Russian air strikes—along with Iranian and Hezbollah troops—that saved Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s faltering regime from ISIS and other rebel groups. At least 63,000 Russian troops have served in Syria since 2015. Though Putin has promised since 2016 that Russian forces would withdraw, Russia currently retains more than 5,000 troops and private military contractors in Syria, backed by several dozen aircraft and helicopters.

And Russia is in Syria to stay. The Syrian port of Tartus is Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean: in 2016, Moscow and Damascus signed a forty-nine-year agreement that allows nuclear-powered Russian warships to operate from there. In addition, Russian aircraft and surface-to-air missiles, including the long-range S-400 air defense system, operate from at least two air bases in western Syria.

Israel can live with the Russians next door—but not the Iranians. Israeli officials warn of Tehran’s plan to station 100,000 Iranian and allied troops in Syria. Hezbollah, with its estimated arsenal of 130,000-plus rockets, already menaces Israel’s Lebanon frontier. Syria joining Lebanon as a second Iranian rocket base is the stuff of Israeli nightmares.
“We can – and we intend to – make it as difficult as possible and inflict a price tag that the Iranians aren’t willing to pay,” the IDF official said. And the Israeli Air Force has been just doing that, attacking “Iranian and Hezbollah targets hundreds of times,” Netanyahu announced after a devastating attack on Iranian arms depots near Damascus International Airport in January.

“We continue to implement our plans,” the IDF official replied when asked if Russia would deter Israeli raids into Syria. “Our activities suggest that, despite everything, we enjoy significant freedom of action.”
But more telling was his one-word response when asked how willing is Israel to fight for that freedom of action.

Willing.”
Which leaves the question: Can Israel target Iran in Syria without triggering a clash with Russia?
There are deconfliction mechanisms in place, including a hotline between the Israeli and Russian militaries. “We are very strict about informing the Russians about our activities and that their operational picture is up to date,” said the IDF official. Yet those procedures were not sufficient to avoid a downing of a Russian plane.
Perhaps that ill-fated Il-20 was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Still, it is not hard to imagine a multiplicity of equally fatal scenarios. Russian advisers or technicians caught in an Israeli raid on an Iranian or Syrian installation. An errant Israeli smart bomb that hits a Russian base, or a Russian pilot or anti-aircraft battery spooked by a nearby Israeli raid into opening fire. Or, perhaps Russia will just feel obligated to support the prestige of its Syrian ally and its shaky government. Just how incendiary Syrian skies are for everyone became evident in December 2017, when U.S. F-22 fighters fired flares to warn off two Russian Su-25 attack jets that breached a no-go zone in eastern Syria.

To be clear, the IDF is neither boastful nor belligerent about its capabilities versus Russia, a former superpower with the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. The IDF official likened Israel to “The Mouse that Roared,” the classic novel of a tiny nation that challenges the United States.

But if Israel resembles any mouse, it’s Mighty Mouse: small, powerful and not afraid to use its fists. In fact, what makes a potential Israel-Russia battle so dangerous is that it is not hypothetical. After the 1967 Six-Day War, Soviet fighters were sent to Egypt. This led to a notorious July 1970 incident when in a well-planned aerial ambush over the Suez Canal, Israeli fighters shot down five Soviet-piloted MiG-21 jets in three minutes.
On the other hand, Russia doesn’t need to fight Israel to hurt Israel. Indeed, the IDF official seemed less concerned about a physical clash between Israeli and Russian forces, and more concerned that Russia could choose to supply advanced weapons—such as anti-aircraft missiles—to Israeli enemies such as Syria and Iran. In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union supplied numerous air defense missiles and guns to Egypt and Syria, which inflicted heavy losses on Israeli planes in the 1973 October War. If it wants to, Russia can make Israeli air operations very expensive.
As always with the Arab-Israeli (or Iranian-Israeli) conflict, the real danger isn’t the regional conflict, but how it might escalate. In the 1973 war, the Soviets threatened to send troops to Egypt unless Israel agreed to a cease-fire. The United States responded by going on nuclear alert.
Were the Israelis and Russians to come to blows, or if Moscow were to seriously threaten military force against Israel, could the United States risk a grave loss of prestige by not intervening to back its longtime ally? Could Russia—whose Syrian intervention is a proud symbol of its reborn military muscle and great power status—not retaliate for another downed Russian plane or a dead Russian soldier?
Which leads to the ultimate question: could tensions between Israel and Russia lead to a clash between American and Russian troops?
In the end, somebody will have to back down. But Iran isn’t about to give up its outpost on Israel’s border, and Russia probably can’t force them to. Then there is Israel, which is grimly determined to stop Iran.

As the IDF official said, “We have proven over more than 70 years as a sovereign state that you don’t push us around.”

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-vs-israel-war-could-become-nuclear-disaster-61892


彌賽亞回來的時間沒人知道,但回來的時機,聖經卻是清楚說了的: 敘利亞對以色列發出最後通牒

彌賽亞回來的時間連主耶穌自己也不知道,沒人知道,'只有父知道'。但回來的時機,聖經舊約是清楚說了的,亞述就是現今的敘利亞:
Not even Jesus knows when he shall return as Messiah; but it has clearly told the occasion in Micah and Assyria is Syria today:

https://autumnson-nwo.blogspot.com/2019/03/blog-post_41.html






4個大理由比特幣的價錢這一次將不會在2萬美元停止

4個大理由比特幣的價錢這一次將不會在2萬美元停止

4 Big Reasons Bitcoin's Price Won't Stop At $20K This Time

06/24/2019

As bitcoin’s price keeps setting new yearly highs, the question on everyone’s mind right now is whether it’s different this time. Let’s take a closer look at why this rally is nothing like the “bubble” in 2017.
As many experts pointed out, BTC going above the key psychological $10,000 mark is likely to trigger FOMO (i.e., fear of missing out), according to Fundstrat’s Tom Lee, who adds that bitcoin can now easily take out its all-time highs.
Other market analysts, such as Tone Vays, however, disagree. He told Cointelegraph:
“I actually don’t think it’s important at all. The $10,000 benchmark did nothing to slow down price back in 2017. And it looks like it did nothing to slow down the prices here in 2019.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LGmtWZkToss

Institutions, not retail, in the driver’s seat

Bitcoin broke through into the mainstream in late 2017. At the time, its historic surge to nearly $20,000 was driven mainly by retail investors. This time, however, the public is still largely on the sidelines, according to Google Trends.
In fact, the number of Google searches for “bitcoin” is only around 10% of what they were in 2017. In other words, retail investor FOMO has not even started yet, which may suggest that BTC price could go much higher than last time.
On the other hand, institutional demand for bitcoin has soared. As of June 17, open interest at CME Group saw 5,311 contracts totalling 26,555 BTC, or approximately $246 million — dwarfing the volumes during the 2017 price peak.
“CME Bitcoin futures (BTC) shows growing signs of institutional interest,” CME Group tweetedJune 18.
“BTC open interest rose by a record 643 contracts in a single day, establishing a new all-time high of 5,311 contracts on June 17 (26,555 equivalent bitcoin; ~$250M notional).”
Other indicators, such as the GBTC price premium as well as record volume for bitcoin derivatives exchange BitMEX (on a Saturday!), also suggests that “smart money” is pouring in.

Network fundamentals better than ever

As Cointelegraph reported on Friday, hash rate hit a new all-time high at over 65,000,000 TH/s. In other words, Bitcoin is more secure than ever and would require an unfathomable amount of computing power to affect the network.
Bitcoin network Hash Rate. Source: blockchain.com
Meanwhile, other fundamentals have also grown in lockstep with hash rate. Daily on-chain transaction volume, block size and other metrics are also confirming that more people than ever are using bitcoin.
Additionally, network transaction fees have remained relatively low compared to 2017, with optimizations like SegWit and off-chain scaling solutions like the Lightning network helping ease congestion.

Bitcoin reward halving still 11 months away

The latest rally to five figures is also happening way before the Bitcoin block reward halving set for May 2020. This is when mining block rewards will be cut from 12.5 to 6.25 BTC, thus reducing the bitcoins minted by miners who are naturally market sellers.
Interestingly, the previous halving event occurred in the summer of 2016 — or more than a year before the price skyrocketed.This time, however, BTC/USD appears to be front-running the event, as the halving is still 333 days away.
A popular bitcoin market analyst known as PlanB suggests that investors may not be waiting this time around for the expected reduction in supply. He added:
“Front running would be in line with Efficient Market Hypothesis: if you believe S2F and that BTC will be $50k May 2020, why wait?”

The bigger macroeconomic picture

Of course, intraday BTC price moves are not as important for low time preference investors. These “hodlers” are confident that bitcoin — with its fixed supply — will outperform fiat currencies, whose supply is growing at an accelerating pace over the long term.
On June 18, European Central Bank head Mario Draghi hinted that a monetary stimulus is on the way if the economy doesn’t improve. This is an increasingly dovish tone that was applauded by the financial sector.
At the same time, Draghi was criticized by United States President Donald Trump, who said this would spark unfair European competition against the U.S., whose Federal Reserve bank is also suggesting it will hold off on raising interest rates.
Morgan Creek co-founder Anthony Pompliano tweeted that this will make bitcoin even more scarce as interest rates go lower and more fiat currency is created:
“Cut rates.
Print money.
Make BTC more scarce.
Long Bitcoin, Short the Bankers!”
Therefore, the biggest macroeconomic picture looks bright for bitcoin investors who are dumping ever-depreciating fiat currencies for hard-capped “digital gold.”
What’s more, investors are starting to not only realize that bitcoin’s supply is fixed and transparent, but it’s also the world’s first neutral, open-access money that no authority can control.
In other words, what the internet did to information, bitcoin is starting to do to money.
Historic BTC market cycles, rising institutional interest alongside an increasingly robust network fundamentals, as well as the confirmed depreciating value of fiat currencies, could all propel bitcoin’s price orders of magnitude higher than in 2017.
However, as CoinTelegraph's William Suberg reports, a key bitcoin indicator suggests $21,000 'fair value' by end of 2019.
The bitcoin price is unlikely to break $40,000 in 2019, Bitcoin Knowledge podcast host Trace Mayer declared as part of new analysis on June 24.
Uploading fresh readings from his price forecasting tool, the ‘Mayer Multiple,’ the serial commentator and bitcoin proponent said that current trajectory should favor an end-of-year bitcoin price of $21,000.
This, while below the estimates of other industry figures such as Fundstrat’s Tom Lee, still places the largest cryptocurrency ahead of its record high set in December 2017.
The Mayer Multiple is a calculation achieved by dividing the current bitcoin price by its 200-day moving average. Currently at 2.09, the metric has only seen higher readings 14.79% of the time, meaning that a giant leap to $40,000, in particular, is unwarranted.
“...Very low probability of $40k in a few months,” Mayer summarized.
As Cointelegraph reported, bitcoin succeeded in retaking the $10,000 barrier late last week, only to go on past $11,000 within 24 hours.
The performance buoyed analysts, many of whom considered $10,000 to be a watershed moment. Investors waiting on the sidelines, they argued, would jump on board once five figures were reached, triggering a snowball upward price effect.
At press time Monday, markets were nonetheless taking a break from bullish movement, BTC/USD settling at around $10,850.
For the rest of the year and beyond, however, the Mayer Multiple considers moves through $15,000, $21,000 and then $30,500 to be probable. The first of these would nonetheless be “overvalued” should it hit in September, but thereafter, bitcoin would find its price niche.
June 2020 should trigger the $30,000+ bitcoin, roughly a month after the next block reward size halving event.
*  *  *
Finally, while we are well aware of the fact that correlation does not imply causation, the following chart showing the relationship between the bid for Bitcoin and the surge in negative-yielding global debt does make some implicit sense...
Bitcoin as 'world gone mad' safe-haven?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-24/4-big-reasons-bitcoins-price-wont-stop-20k-time