Month: November 2018

Authored by Steven Guinness via Steven Guinness’ Blog,

Over two years of conflict between people who voted to leave the European Union and those who opted to remain has predominately been contested through the political rather than economic paradigm. 2018 has seen this conflict exacerbate amidst warnings of the UK potentially vacating the EU with no withdrawal agreement, coupled with increased talk of a second referendum.

On one side you have campaigners for a ‘People’s Vote‘ clamouring for another say, one that would offer the option to remain in the EU in order to ‘call off‘ Brexit. On the opposing side you have the ‘Brexiteers‘, who insist that the 2016 referendum result must be honoured with or without a deal in place.

The latest anti-Brexit gathering to demand a referendum on the terms of exit served only to accentuate the division between both camps. Many of those against the UK leaving the EU continued to denounce it as a ‘Tory Brexit‘ and a manifestation of the hard right, whilst those in favour described the ‘March for the Future‘ protest in London as ‘remoaners‘ trying to thwart the ‘will of the people‘.

What neither group have contemplated is how their own ideological bias is potentially being used against them. Whilst they bicker over the day to day theatrics of the Brexit process, the economic side – namely the actions and communications from the central banking fraternity – is largely ignored.

In articles posted throughout 2018, I have written extensively about how a no deal scenario between the UK and EU is advantageous to the Bank of England as they continue to ‘normalise‘ monetary policy by raising interest rates. The economic ramifications from a no deal are not difficult to speculate on. An inevitable sharp depreciation of sterling would, as witnessed after the 2016 referendum, serve to push up the rate of inflation and give cause for the bank to persist in hiking rates. Add to that constricted trade supplies and increased tariffs, and the troublesome realisation of higher borrowing costs and higher consumer prices coalesce as one.

Only the other week did the Bank of England’s deputy governor Jon Cunliffe warn that a ‘bad‘ Brexit outcome could see a ‘big fall‘ in the pound. This came after multiple warnings from the IMFand also Federal Reserve chairmen Jerome Powell and the U.S. Treasury over how Brexit is a key risk to the stability of the global economy.

In the event of no deal, if you believe the Bank of England would come to the rescue of the British economy by cutting interest rates and pumping further hundreds of billions of pounds into the financial system, official communications from the bank might make you think otherwise. BOE governor Mark Carney has made it clear that the only way rates could be cut was if a ‘disorderly‘ Brexit proved DIS-INFLATIONARY. There are no circumstances in which a no deal exit fit this criteria.

During an appearance in September at the Treasury Select Committee, Carney discussed the probable ramifications of no deal:

• I would expect the MPC (Monetary Policy Committee) would want to use the flexibility it has to support real activity – despite upward pressure on inflation – but only within the limits of its tolerance. After all, we have a very clear remit to bring inflation back to that 2% target.

• This scenario we’re talking about, which is no deal / no transition, is quite an extreme scenario. It’s very easy to see a case where tolerances would be breached and policy would have to be tighter not looser.

But the bank cut rates and recommenced with quantitative easing after the first referendum. Would they not seek to do the same again? The problem is that whilst it is true that the bank did indeed loosen policy in the aftermath of the leave vote, they did so with inflation running at 0.5%. With inflation today running above the bank’s 2% target, a no deal exit would see it spike further. Brexit, in short, is inflationary. And inflation is what the Bank of England are basing the majority of their reasoning on to raise rates.

What has been forgotten is that from late 2009 to early 2014, inflation was continuously above 2%. The bank’s response was to keep interest rates locked at 0.5% and persist with quantitative easing measures. The polar opposite is occurring today. It is only since Brexit that the bank’s remit for 2% inflation began to matter once more.

The trend of western central banks over the past two years has been to raise interest rates amidst the backdrop of rising inflation. The US, UK and Canada are all doing it. And in all three countries inflation is above the mandated 2% target.

So if a no deal outcome enables the Bank of England to carry on tightening, how might this eventuality become a reality? In September The People’s Vote campaign released a ‘Roadmap to a People’s Vote‘ which detailed ways in which a second referendum could materialise. On the advisory committee of the report was Lord Kerr, the same man who conceived Article 50 and is a member on the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission.

The report consulted closely with a group called The Constitution Unit, who themselves published a recent paper on how a second referendum could be engineered (The Mechanics for a Further Referendum on Brexit). It also shares it’s name with a manifesto published earlier in the year by the anti-Brexit group Best for Britain (Join the roadmap to a People’s Vote).

In the foreword to the report, Kerr is clear that every stage in the quest for another referendum must embody the principles of ‘speed, clarity and simplicity.’ These principles are repeated a further ten times throughout the paper.

To break these down, speed refers to the impending Article 50 deadline of March 29th, 2019, and the argument for a referendum to take place as quickly as possible to assuage uncertainty.

Clarity is in reference to understanding the precise content of a withdrawal agreement and whether parliament or the public would have the casting vote for either accepting or rejecting the terms.

Simplicity refers to how a deal or no deal would be presented to the electorate on any ballot paper. The report outlines a preference for a binary choice (as witnessed in 2016), which could be anything from No deal vs. Remain, Deal vs. Remain or Deal vs. No Deal. A three way option is mooted (Deal vs. No Deal vs. Remain) but is considered too complex for the carefully constructed guidelines that the roadmap advocates.

‘Speed, Clarity and Simplicity‘ must, according to the report, encompass all practicalities, timetables, democratic debates and public engagement.

For example, legislation from 2016 could be used to simplify progress for a second vote. The Constitution Unit estimate that the process of a referendum – from the introduction of legislation to polling day – stands at 22 weeks. In practice, this means the Article 50 deadline would likely be extended to accommodate the vote. They measure the first possible polling day as being in May 2019, although The People’s Vote raise the prospect of the Electoral Commission condensing the timetable. In their words, the ‘simplest and clearest thing would be a vote before March 29th 2019.’

Incidentally, it was Best for Britain that first called for a vote to take place prior to March 29th.

Whilst this date is written into the EU Withdrawal Act for the UK’s departure, a clause within stipulates that the government has the power to ‘amend the definition of exit day‘ beyond March 2019. It is reasonably clear that the length of time needed for a vote to be organised and held can be reduced if deemed necessary.

Moving on, the paper calls for the franchise used in the first referendum to be maintained, meaning those aged under 18 would not be permitted to vote. By not campaigning for sixteen and seventeen year olds to have a say, this would very likely keep a large number of remain votes on the sidelines.

Finally, the organisation propose that a simple and straightforward question and format should be legislated for. The report details how the government may push to have the option of deal vs. no deal on the ballot, but it is ‘difficult to see parliament sanctioning it.’ The Constitution Unit also view the prospect of such a ballot as unlikely.

This leads us to perhaps the most important line in the report, which stipulates that the government has ‘no mandate to take the UK out of the EU with no deal.’

Since The People’s Vote was launched back in March 2018, other groups campaigning for a second referendum – including Best for Britain, Our Future Our Choice (OFOL) and For Our Future’s Sake (FFS) – have focused their efforts in manoeuvring the debate around Brexit on to young people. The central message has been not only to call for another vote, but for the option of remaining in the EU to be on the ballot. It is Best for Britain that have angled their entire remit around this demand. OFOL and FFS have dutifully taken the baton and directed their energies into wanting to stop Brexit altogether.

A crucial sentence in Lord Kerr’s foreword was that, ‘it will ultimately be for our elected representatives to determine the precise route to a People’s Vote and the mechanics by which it would operate.’

The People’s Vote roadmap is adamant that the option to remain must be on the ballot (a position which again falls in line with Best for Britain), but it would be for parliament to decide on the question. Lord Kerr’s position has consistently been that the final decision should be made by the British people. Most recently he commented that, ‘informed public consent is essential.’

Consider this through an ideological lens for a moment: two years on, remainers are still fighting to overturn the original referendum result and see Brexit abandoned. Leavers perceive the push for a second referendum as a deliberate attempt to undermine the 17.4 million who voted to vacate the EU. As one side works to draw the country towards the ballot box again, others want a clean break from the union (even if that means leaving without a deal).

I have contended in previous posts that the UK will probably in the end leave the EU on World Trade Organisation terms, meaning no deal and no transition period. It is through a second referendum that I believe this would be achieved.

What we are witnessing right now are campaigners pushing for the very mechanism that could ultimately facilitate the no deal scenario they so ardently oppose.

If advocates for the EU get their way and a referendum is granted, what happens after that is out of their hands. Logic dictates that large swathes of the UK would react unfavourably to remain being on the ballot, and channel their annoyance through voting for no deal should that be an option. Also possible is parliament denying voters the choice of remaining in the EU, instead legislating between the deal or leaving on WTO terms.

My concern is that both sides of the Brexit divide are being guided down the path towards no agreement. One of them through the belief that the UK’s departure can be prevented via a referendum, and the other as a reaction to Brexit negotiations being frustrated amid calls for the UK to remain. The synthesis that would bring this conflict to a head is another vote.

No deal would be to the economic detriment of both sides. I fear that campaigners against Brexit – those who take part in marches and act with sincere intentions – are failing to consider the potential kick back that a second vote may cause.

There may not be a majority for no deal in parliament. But the same cannot be said with anything like the same conviction when it comes to the British people.

Public consent is key. Each expression of ‘populism‘ that globalists have exploited in order to reverse monetary accommodation – be it with Brexit or Donald Trump – has come about through the ballot box. The method has been to allow the public to bestow the breakdown of the ‘rules based global order‘ upon themselves, to trap a majority into believing that the false re-emergence of nationalism and self determination is somehow to the detriment of globalist elites like the Bank for International Settlements and the IMF.

On close examination, the fallout from a no deal scenario would not be a handicap to internationalists. Rather, it would be to their benefit. Which is why I believe it is more likely than not to happen.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PM1Eb8 Tyler Durden

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

The House of Saud’s ties to the Khashoggi slaying are being milked by the Turkish President for maximum benefit amid debate on leadership of the Islamic world and how the crisis may affect US and Saudi strategy in the Middle East…

It was packaged as a stark, graphic message, echoing across Eurasia: Presidents Erdogan and Putin, in a packed hall in Istanbul on Monday, surrounded by notables, celebrating completion of the 930 kilometer-long offshore section of the TurkStream gas pipeline across the bottom of the Black Sea.

This is no less than a key landmark in that fraught terrain I named ‘Pipelineistan’ in the early 2000s. It was built by Gazprom in only two and a half years despite facing massive pressure from Washington, which had already managed to derail TurkStream’s predecessor, South Stream.

TurkStream is projected as two lines, each capable of delivering 15.75 billion cubic meters of gas a year. The first will supply the Turkish market. The second will run 180 km to Turkey’s western borderlands and supply south and southeast Europe, with first deliveries expected by the end of next year. Potential customers include Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary.

Call it the Gazprom double down. Nord Stream 1 and 2 supply northern Europe while TurkStream supplies southern Europe. Pipelines are steel umbilical cords. They represent liquid connectivity at its best while conclusively decreasing risks of geopolitical friction.

Turkey is already being supplied by Russian gas via Blue Stream and the Trans-Balkan pipeline. Significantly, Turkey is Gazprom’s second largest export market after China.

Erdogan’s speech, strenuously emphasizing the benefits of Turkey’s energy security, was played and replayed all across a rainy, ultra-congested Istanbul. To witness this geopolitical and geoeconomic breakthrough was particularly enlightening, as I was deep into discussing Turkish geopolitics with members of the progressive Turkish Left.

Even the opposition to what in Europe is routinely defined as Erdogan’s brand of “Asian illiberalism” concedes Turkey-Russia trade connectivity – in energy, in the military domain via the sale of the S-400 missile system, in the building of nuclear power plants – has been conducted with consummate skill by Erdogan, who is always careful to send direct and indirect messages to Washington that Turkish national interests will not be compromised.

The big prize: leading Islam

Now juxtapose this developing entente cordiale between the Bear and the (aspiring) Sultan with the gripping drama in Istanbul. Ibrahim Karagul – never afraid to apply a Rabelais touch – is always useful as a mirror reflecting the state of play of AKP circles around Erdogan.

For this political elite, a breakthrough in the Erdogan-conducted “Death By a Thousand Leaks” is imminent, allegedly proving that Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) directly gave the order for the killing and slaying of Jamal Khashoggi.

The consensus among the AKP leadership – confirmed by independent Left academics – is that the US-Israel-House of Saud-UAE axis is deep in negotiations to extricate MBS from any culpability.

That includes key items in the hefty Erdogan “package” dangled to the axis to essentially buy Ankara’s silence – an end of the Saudi blockade on Qatar and the extradition of Fetullah Gulen, described across the Turkish political spectrum as the leader of FETO (the Fetullah Terrorist Organization).

The Kremlin and the Russian Foreign Ministry are very much aware that the high-stakes game goes way beyond ‘Pulp Fiction’ in Istanbul and the Astana peace process on Syria – carefully micro-managed by both Putin and Erdogan alongside Iran’s Rouhani. The big prize is no less than the leadership of the Islamic world.

There is nowhere better than a few stops in select landmarks of Ottoman imperial power, or a lively conversation at Istanbul’s Old Book Bazaar, to be reminded that this was the seat of the Islamic Umma for centuries – a role usurped by those Arabian desert upstarts.

Alastair Cooke has captured with perfection the House of Saud’s close involvement in the slaying of Khashoggi and how this raises questions about Saudi Arabia’s status as “no more than an inept Custodian of Mecca and Medina”. This is indeed splashed all over the – Erdogan-aligned – Turkish media. And Cooke notes how this status “would strip the Gulf of much of its significance and value to Washington”.

My ongoing conversations with progressive, Kemalist Turkish academics – yes, they are a minority – have unveiled a fascinating process. The Erdogan machine has sensed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to simultaneously bury the House of Saud’s shaky Islamic credibility while solidifying Turkish neo-Ottomanism, but with an Ikhwan framework.

And that’s the rationale behind Erdogan and Turkish media relentlessly denouncing what is interpreted as a plot concocted by MBZ (MBS’s puppet master), Tel Aviv and the Trump administration.

No one can possibly advance the endgame. But that carries the strong possibility of a dominant, Erdogan-led Turkey all across the lands of Islam, allied with Qatar and also with Iran. Plus all of the above enjoying very close geopolitical and economic relations with Russia. Expect major fireworks ahead.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2BqBgeq Tyler Durden

It turns out that Christopher Steele, the former MI6 spy tasked with creating an opposition research dossier on then-candidate Donald Trump using “Kremlin sources,” actually had terrible intelligence on Russian matters, reports The Hill‘s John Solomon. 

In a business matter unrelated to the dossier, Steele boasted in a Feb. 8, 2016 email to a potential private-sector client that Russian President Vladimir Putin might be losing his grip on power. 

“I also don’t believe any Russian client or associate will admit to a Western business contact that PUTIN has been weakened or is on the way out, as the intel suggests, out of fear of being branded an oppositionist,” Steele cautioned the recipient. “We shall see but I hope you find them informative/useful anyway.” –The Hill

Steele was very hush-hush to the prospective client of his firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, writing “All are sensitive source, of course, and need handling accordingly with anyone Russian or Ukrainian.”

Not only was Steele’s information dead wrong, it flew in the face of CIA intelligence indicating that Putin was in fact gaining power. 

…more than two-and-a-half years later, Steele’s intelligence seems debunked in retrospect.

Putin is firmly entrenched in power and, in the summer and fall of 2016, he pulled off one of his most daring feats against the Western world with his meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

Yet, even more alarming at the time was the fact that Steele’s reporting in February 2016 flew in the face of the CIA’s own assessment of Moscow, ironically given that exact same month to Congress in the agency’s annual global threats assessment. –The Hill

On Feb. 9, 2016 – just one day after Steele sent the email, the CIA declared that Putin was pursuing a “more assertive foreign policy approach,” as well as a Western disinformation campaign since his popularity at home was soaring. 

“President Vladimir Putin has sustained his popular approval at or near record highs for nearly two years after illegally annexing Crimea,” the CIA reported, suggesting that protests in 2016 over the weakening Russian economy could be tamped down using “repressive tactics.”

In other words, Steele’s Russian intel was crap. 

Washington, Moscow, what’s the difference?

When it came to the wildly salacious and unproven “Trump-Russia dossier,” meanwhile, the icing on this particular cow-pie has to be that Steele’s “Kremlin” sources – described in Vanity Fair as “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” and “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin – was instead a former intelligence figure in Washington D.C. 

In notes between Steele’s former employer, Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, and the former #4 official at the Justice Department, Bruce Ohr, Ohr writes “Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the US,” quoting Simpson. 

In other words, Steele’s intelligence was hearsay collected a continent away from Moscow. -The Hill

What makes this particularly troubling is that the FBI relied on Steele’s Trump-Russia dossier, which they struggled to verify, in order to justify surveiling the Trump campaign. 

Steele’s correspondence with the business associate is the latest piece of evidence suggesting the former British spy may not have been as well-versed or -sourced in Russian intelligence as he was portrayed when the FBI used his now-infamous anti-Trump dossier to support a request for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Both the DOJ’s inspector general and multiple committees in Congress are investigating whether the FBI properly handled the Trump-Russia collusion case or whether it fell prey to political pressure and shoddy investigative work, as congressional Republicans and President Trump himself claim.

The FBI has an obligation to submit only verified information to support a FISA warrant. –The Hill

No wonder Steele is afraid to come to the United States and testify in front of lawmakers! 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2DAuzb8 Tyler Durden

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

What gives you a sense of meaning and purpose in life?

That may seem like a very unusual question, but I believe that it is a very important one considering how deeply unhappy our society currently is.  Everyone needs a reason to get out of bed in the morning, because there wouldn’t seem to be much point to living a life that was completely void of meaning and purpose. 

So what motivates most Americans to do what they do?  Well, a new survey that was just released by the Pew Research Center has some rather startling results.  When people were asked an open-ended question about what gives them a sense of purpose and meaning in life, 69 percent mentioned family, 34 percent mentioned career, 23 percent mentioned “money” and only 20 percent mentioned faith.

In other words, Americans find more meaning and purpose in life from money and from their careers than they do from faith.

Wow.

I have previously written about the stunning decline in church attendance in America, but I still would have figured that more than 20 percent of all Americans would mention faith when discussing what gives them a sense of meaning and purpose in life.

And the question was not limited to just one answer.  If you will notice, the combined total for just the top four answers was well over 100 percent.  So respondents could have actually chosen to mention as many factors as they would have liked.

But only 20 percent mentioned faith at any point during their answers.

As you can probably guess, conservatives were far more likely to mention faith than liberals were…

Spirituality and faith are commonly mentioned by very conservative Americans as imbuing their lives with meaning and fulfillment; 38% cite it in response to the open-ended question, compared with just 8% of very liberal Americans – a difference that holds even when controlling for religious affiliation.

That is a huge gap, and I think that it helps to explain some of the division that we are witnessing in our nation right now.

Of all of the religious groups, the survey found that evangelical Protestants were the most likely to mention faith in their answers…

Spirituality and religious faith are particularly meaningful for evangelical Protestants, 43% of whom mention religion-related topics in the open-ended question. Among members of the historically black Protestant tradition, 32% mention faith and spirituality, as do 18% of mainline Protestants and 16% of Catholics.

Millions of Americans find a sense of meaning and purpose in the Christian faith, but so many others have been burned by hypocritical religious leaders that do not live out what they supposedly believe.

For example, check out what just happened in San Francisco…

San Francisco police on Tuesday announced a sweeping child-porn bust that netted five suspects, including the senior pastor at a Sunset District Lutheran church who allegedly possessed hundreds of pictures and videos of children engaged in sexual acts and was sharing them on social media.

The suspect, the Rev. Steven Sabin, 59, is senior pastor at Christ Church Lutheran on Quintara Street, where he has been since 2001, according to the church’s website. Church officials did not return multiple phone calls or messages.

Nobody wants that kind of sick behavior from our faith leaders.

But just because there are some really bad people out there, does that mean that Americans should abandon faith altogether?

In “Living A Life That Really Matters”, I lay out a blueprint for what a truly faith-filled life can look like.  There is a reason why hundreds of millions of people around the world find meaning and purpose in the Christian faith, and no matter what has happened in the past, God can take the broken pieces of your life and turn them into a beautiful thing.

If your meaning and purpose come from your career and your bank account, what happens when you lose your job and your money dries up?

Or if your meaning and purpose come from family and friends, what happens when they let you down?

People change, and so do circumstances.  And if you allow your sense of meaning in life to be based on such temporal things, it is a recipe for disaster.

Today, Americans are more anxious than ever before.  The following comes from an outstanding article for The Week by Damon Linker entitled “American Anxiety”…

The United States is a country consumed by anxiety. This has been true for a very long time. But it’s getting worse.

Be honest: You sense it in yourself. The vague mist of worry that always lurks in the background, ebbing and flowing through the day, the sense of creeping inadequacy that prompts you to work ever-harder. You can detect it in the agitated drive to do ever-more to protect those you love from an endless stream of dangers and threats — and in the urge to keep up with friends, acquaintances, and news online during almost every waking moment, perhaps even crowding out sleep, making it impossible to settle down or drive away the subtle sensation of insufficiency.

And Linker also shared some statistics to back up his bold assertions…

Nearly one-third of adolescents and adults suffer from some form of anxiety disorder, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. A poll released in May by the American Psychiatric Association, meanwhile, found that 39 percent of respondents were prepared to describe themselves as more anxious than they were just a year ago. Another 39 percent say they are equally anxious, while only 19 percent feel less anxious now than they did in the recent past.

Right now, more Americans are on anti-depressants than ever before in our history, and the suicide rate has risen 34 percent since the year 2000.

What we have been doing is clearly not working.

We desperately need a different path as a nation, and let us hope that people start waking up while there is still time to do so.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Ty9cwv Tyler Durden

One of Russia’s highest ranking spies and the powerful head of military intelligence has died “after a long and serious illness,” a Defense Ministry spokesperson told the news agency RIA Novosti. Gen. Col. Igor Korobov, the 63-year old head of Russia’s Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU), was reported dead early Thursday morning; currently there’s no reports of foul play though officials did not reveal specific details or the circumstances of his death. 

Crucially Korobov had been dubbed by the West the “Novichok spymaster” — as the Russian GRU chief ultimately blamed for the Salisbury attack as well as the downing of MH17 over Ukraine in 2014, which the Kremlin in turn had blamed on pro-Kiev national forces.

Korobov had for two years been under US sanctions, added by US Treasury in December 2016 related to allegations of Russian hacking and “efforts to undermine democracy”. Ironically, however, he was seen as at times as cooperative ally in Washington’s “war on terror” efforts since 9/11. In one particular stunning and unprecedented case, he was still allowed to participate as part of a high level Russian intelligence delegation to the United States in February 2018 to meet with American intelligence officials to discuss counter-terror initiatives. 

At that time Korobov made the trip to D.C. despite officially being under US sanctions while accompanied by the directors of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) and Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). 

According Korobov’s bio in Meduza he ascended the ranks of the USSR’s military intelligence wing starting in the 1980’s:

He served in the Soviet and Russian armed forces since 1973, joining the USSR’s military intelligence in 1985 and becoming Russia’s GRU director in 2016.

A career intelligence officer who started out in the 1980s, Korobov graduated from the “Conservatory” and went on to oversee Russia’s strategic intelligence gathering, including the management of all foreign stations. His appointment was no surprise: since the 1990s, the president has traditionally entrusted the job to lieutenants who supervised Russia’s foreign stations.

According to TASS, “in 2016 he was appointed by a presidential decree as the head of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces and Deputy Chief of General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.”

Korobov had been ill since early October, when reports revealed he was severely reprimanded by President Putin himself over mishandling accusations surrounding the alleged Salisbury poison attack the West pinned on Russian intelligence. 

According to The Daily Mail:

President Vladimir Putin personally gave a dressing down to the head of Russian spy agency GRU over ‘deep incompetence’ shown in the Salisbury poisonings and other international operations.

GRU chief Col-Gen Igor Korobov, 62, reportedly emerged shaken and in sudden ‘ill health’ after his confrontation with the furious Russian president.

This detail alone means we could soon hear more to the story and circumstances surrounding his death, which the defense ministry has yet to be forthcoming about in terms of details or exact cause of death. 

An official defense ministry statement called Korobov “a wonderful person, a faithful son of Russia and a patriot of his homeland.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2R4ciqk Tyler Durden

Authored by Hali Czosnek via Global Risk Insights,

The nature and likelihood of the next pandemic presents many challenges to governments and health organisations, as it could be an unknown pathogen that the world is ill-equipped to contain. The risks associated with such a pandemic has secondary effects as it not only affects human health, but also causes severe disruptions in economic, political, and social areas.

In 2017, scientists and public health organizations warned that the next global pandemic is imminent, and that no country is prepared to confront the coming waves of illness. If the next pandemic is anything like the 1918 Spanish Flu that killed 30 million people in six months, the global population will face unprecedented uncertainty. There is some indication that the next flu outbreak could involve the H7N9 strain, an influenza virus that is not yet highly contagious. H7N9 is a type of avian influenza; the first cases in humans began appearing 2013 in China. This particular strain of influenza has mainly spread through poultry to humans. There are growing numbers of reported cases that are expected to be a result of human-to-human contact.  Scientists hypothesize that the longer the virus circulates in humans who have been infected with H7N9 , the potential exists for the strain to spread to larger populations.

At present, the Centers for Disease Control in the United States rate H7N9 as having a high likelihood of evolving into a wide-spread pandemic. Based on  H7N9 cases in China, scientists know that 88 percent of those diagnosed developed pneumonia, and 41 percent of these patients died. H7N9 will not remain contained within China; as it adapts to the human body, H7N9 has the potential to possibly infect  millions of people globally. The questions that remain are when will H7N9 develop these capabilities, how quickly the virus will spread, and to what degree will it contribute to social instability?

Economic Disruptions

The interconnectedness of the global economy is a blessing, but also the world’s Achilles heel. If H7N9 is the next pandemic, it is likely to affect millions of people and result in high death rates. The world would likely experience a decline in economic output and growth at a devastating scale. Past pandemics are case in point. During the SARS epidemic in 2003, it is estimated that the global economy lost over $30 billion. SARS originated in Guang Dong province, circulated in southern China and Hong Kong before spreading to Canada through international air travel. Ebola negatively impacted economic growth in Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, and border closures resulted in the decreased movement of goods and services. West Africa lost $2.2 billion as a result of the outbreak. It also spread from West Africa to the United States and Europe as a result of healthcare workers traveling back to their home countries from Ebola-affected areas. Also, the 2015 circulation of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in South Korea, saw tourism decrease by 54 percent, resulting in economic losses.

During an outbreak, slower movement of goods and services, and decreased economic productivity are likely to negatively impact the speed and quality of vaccine development and dissemination. This slowdown could then contribute to the continued spread of a pandemic and compound issues of vaccine production and distribution even further, resulting in a hard-to-break vicious cycle. These secondary effects of pandemic emergencies raise important questions for policymakers. It becomes necessary to consider the benefits of investing in research and preventive measures over the ad hoc implementation of public health protocols during a crisis. The world devotes little to pandemic preparedness; a trend that should be reconsidered given the potential of likely social and economic disruptions that can ensue as a result of one.

Social Upheaval

Economic degradation could lead to a host of social and political issues. A global economic downturn could lead to lower outputs of vaccines for distribution to affected populations worldwide. It is possible that societies could descend into conflict as tensions escalate over low vaccine stock, long wait times, and concern over who would receive a vaccine that would likely be in scarce supply. A pandemic would disproportionately burden smaller developing countries. These countries would likely have weak public health infrastructure that would not be able to handle the added strain from a major disease outbreak. For instance, during the Ebola pandemic from 2013-2016, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea were on the verge of collapse due to their overburdened health systems. Public health officials would also struggle to implement health measures to halt the virus’ spread, while at the same time not limit individual freedoms such as travel, going out in public, attending school or work.

The international community has failed to invest in detection technologies and research into new and emerging pathogens. These measures that could keep governments and institutions at a higher level of readiness to face diseases. The international pharmaceutical market is worth an estimated $1 trillion; however, the market for vaccines is only 3 percent. Greater emphasis should be placed on research and development and pandemic surveillance and preparedness as the H7N9, and other dangerous strains, continue to mutate.

The risk of pandemic spillover

New infectious diseases have emerged in all regions of the world every year for the last 30 years . Prior to the large increase in international travel, pandemics were often well contained because travel was either difficult or limited due to terrain or distance. As the global community becomes increasingly connected, the risks of infection are greater, and so are the risks associated with spillover of a virus, such as H7N9 from animals to humans. This trend is predicted to become more prevalent over time, as other viruses spread across species and eventually to humans.

Viruses and bacteria that crossover between species are likely to wreak havoc on economic and social stability as countries struggle to aid victims and prevent future cases. Though the world may not know when the next pandemic will hit, or even if it will be H7N9, governments and international organizations should be well-equipped. Early preparations for the potential secondary and tertiary disruptions to economic and social spheres will be crucial to limit chaos. The ability of national authorities to demonstrate an open and informative relationship with their citizens during a pandemic (or any other emergency) is fundamental to a population’s ability to cope with unconventional health threats.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2DUZ9Nw Tyler Durden

Threats issued from Iranian officials against U.S. military operations in the Persian Gulf are nothing new, however, it will be interesting to see the White House response to an elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander specifically designating that American bases in Afghanistan, the UAE, Qatar, as well as U.S. aircraft carriers in the Gulf were within range of Iranian ballistic missiles. 

Amirali Hajizadeh, the head of the IRGC airspace division, was quoted as saying by Tasnim news agency, via Reuters: 

They are within our reach, and we can hit them if they make a move… Our land-to-sea missiles have a range of 700 kilometers [450 miles]… and the US aircraft carriers are our targets.

In his remarks the IRGC commander singled out the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which hosts some 10,000 US troops involved in routine operations in the Middle East, as well as Al Dhafra base in the United Arab Emirates and Kandahar base in Afghanistan.

The Iranian military official further boasted about the improved the precision of their missiles — a claim that hasn’t been born out by both recent tests and a series of rocket launches in October which targeted an ISIS camp in Eastern Syria — nearly all of which failed to hit their target, with a number landing in the desert near the Iran-Iraq border. 

Tensions between Washington and Tehran are already at their highest point in years as aggressive sanctions especially targeting the energy sector continue crippling Iran’s economy, and after threats and counter-threats over Tehran laying claim to the vital Strait of Hormuz oil waterway over the past two months, through which some one-third of the world’s oil passes. 

And emboldened by closer trade ties with Shia-majority Iraq, which is Iran’s second largest export market, in August Iran transferred ballistic missiles to Shia proxy forces in Iraq, according to Western and Iraqi intelligence sources cited in a Reuters report at the time.

It’s possible that the IRGC’s Amirali Hajizadeh could have also been referencing short and medium-range missiles now reportedly in the hands of its regional proxies as ready and capable of hitting American assets.

One senior IRGC commander previously boasted to Reuters that its ballistic missile systems had already been proliferated through the region, saying: “We have bases like that in many places and Iraq is one of them. If America attacks us, our friends will attack America’s interests and its allies in the region.” 

Unfortunately such statements will only give beltway neocons more fodder to utilize in arguing to the administration that it’s time to more aggressively pursue regime change in Tehran, beyond the unprecedented level of sanctions currently in place. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PNEZvr Tyler Durden

Authored by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) via SHTFplan.com,

As a review of some of the current events that have been taking place in the U.S. recently, on 11/5/18, Anne Arundel County Police in Maryland shot and killed a man as they attempted to exercise a “red flag” gun removal order.

Those “red flag” orders went into effect on October 1 of this year. Let’s take the definition of this new “game” directly from Wikipedia and examine it:

A red flag law is a “gun violence protection” law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question. After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.  Such orders are known as “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” (ERPO) in Oregon, Washington, Maryland, and Vermont, as “Risk Protection Orders” in Florida as “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” in California; as “risk warrants” in Connecticut; and as “Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm” in Indiana.

Returning to the incident in Maryland, take a look at this excerpt from CBS News from 11/6/18:

Neither of the officers were injured. Their names weren’t released.

It wasn’t clear why the “red flag” order was issued. A spokeswoman for the Maryland Judiciary denied a request from the Baltimore Sun to release protection order requests associated with the home, citing the law which states the orders are confidential unless a court rules otherwise.  Michele Willis, the man’s niece, told the Baltimore Sun that one of her aunts requested the protective order against Willis, but she declined to say why.

Maryland’s law, which went into effect Oct. 1, is more broad in that it allows certain health care providers to seek an order, in addition to family members and law enforcement.

LOOK HOW THINGS WORK IN THE TOTALITARIAN HEIR TO THE SOVIET UNION THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS BECOME!

Sounds as if it’s something right out of Solzhenitsyn, but here it is:

• The names of the cops were not released. [Secretive Policing]

• The Baltimore Sun could not report on associated case actions. [Muzzling of the Press]

• Maryland Judiciary using a law to prevent the public’s knowledge without court approval. [Press & Public Censorship]

• An aunt reported him…but no reasons given by family or police.  [“Finger-Pointing” initiated]

• Health Care reporters and family members can “blow the whistle and enable these “red flag” orders to be set in motion. [State Powers of Arrest and complete abrogation of rights under the Constitution of the United States with no recourse]

That’s it. Everyone with the “300 Spartans” patch and the “μολὼν λαβέ” or “ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ” written on their sleeves? [ Translation: “Come and Take it!” ]

Yes, they will. They are. For now, they’re attempting to do it without a fight…passing the legislation (or circumventing it, rather) and forcing the compliance of the citizenry. They are in the process of doing far more, and another episode really summarizes the key concept: the Totalitarian mindset of elected officials. This piece is entitled, “California Democrat threatens “Nukes” if Americans don’t hand over their guns.”

This threat is not figurative: it is literal.

I strongly recommend reading the whole article. Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell (D, CA) is proposing that the government offer up to $1,000 for semi-automatic weapons, and a “buy-back” to place those firearms in the hands of the government…for an estimated cost of $15 billion.

Here’s a photo of Eric Swalwell for you:

Just think: this is probably the pose he will strike when he’s evacuated to Cheyenne Mountain, or Denver, CO to escape nuclear war when it comes…on your taxpayer dollar…fully supplied with provisions, protection, and with his family by his side. An elected official…one of your “representatives.” Eric Swalwell: menacing a U.S. citizen with the threat of the U.S. government’s nuclear weapons. And to “frost the cake,” here is a direct quote from Wikipedia that you’ll just love, emboldened to the max so you can keep him in mind. He’s been in office since 2013. Remember Obama? Well, here’s the fresh, clean-cut guy with Northern European heritage to attract the women voters and who can seem as “one of the people” to the gullible….here’s the quote, with punch-line underlined:

“Swalwell has been mentioned as a potential presidential candidate in 2020, and has publicly expressed interest in such a prospect.”

President of the United States. Mind you, this guy is trying to “one up” a citizen, blustering and menacing with an allusion to the U.S. nuclear arsenal being used on the citizens.

Remember that scene out of “The Dead Zone” where Martin Sheen shields himself from Christopher Walken’s bullet by using the baby as a shield? Yeah. Here’s that kind of thing all over again.

This next quotation is a variance from one reported by Peterson in “The Daily Oklahoman” in 1951, as first attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler (although many think it’s De Tocqueville’s):

“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

In this case we have a (Mis)Representative of the U.S. Congress who wants to use public funds with the threat of force behind them to engineer social change (in this case, the purchase equals the removal of semiautomatic weapons from the hands of the citizens). Legislation toward that effect is being crafted: Legislation is a tool in the hands of the globalists to institute social change.

Social engineering is accomplished in this manner: 1) the Politician is elected, 2) the Politician is then Titled, 3) the Representative/Senator/Official then uses his position to circumvent or ignore the will of the people and institute social form not generally agreed upon by his/her constituents.

The laws are emplaced, the courts uphold the laws, the police will kill you if you do not obey the laws, and the Media-Hollywood complex shapes the public’s awareness and perceptions, pushing the paradigm toward Communism with the mantra of “community.” The shift is duplicitous to help ensure obedience, compliance, and conformity…and by creating such “believers,” they marginalize everyone outside of their construct.

This wretched piece of garbage masquerading as a “Representative” actually used the literal threat of nuking…with nuclear weapons…those who will not comply with such an order. Another “Marbury vs. Madison” affront to the people and onerous to the Constitution that does not hold the true effect of law.

Nevertheless, you can hold up your copy of the Constitution when a squad of jackboots kicks in your front door with masks and MP-5’s…hold it up and tell them about your rights. “Molon Labe?” Yes, they will.

Here is the Tweet Swalwell sent back in response to someone who stated he will refuse such a confiscatory order (in graphic terms) and that it would amount to citizens declaring war against the government. Pay attention. This is Swalwell’s reponse:

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018

The infant in his arms is a nice touch. This man should be removed from office immediately, no questions asked…placed upon administrative leave and then brought to bear for his statement.

The mindset is the danger: this is not the exception among politicians, but the norm. In these “neo-feudal” times, you the citizen are expected to wear your “uniform,” the tan (called “khakis” erroneously…a fabric composition substituted for a “color”) pants, and the red shirt of Target or the navy blue shirt of Wal-Mart. Wear them, and the little name tag, and give half of what you make to the government…and allow them to craft your lives…as you obey.

Once again, the “Benjamin Martin” character in “The Patriot” portrayed by Mel Gibson…that character’s lines were correct:

“An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king.”

They are coming for the guns. They are marching forward with their legislation, to provide “legitimacy” for their actions “under the color of law.” Their doorkickers are “ass-kickers,” in good shape and sharp reflexes with good mental acumen. They are “psychologically protected” to allow them to act with full force without restraint: protected with direct deposit of their check, protected with life insurance, and protected with healthcare for their families…all of their basics taken care of, plus a badge: they’re covered, when they come for the citizens.

The last step for a full-blown tyranny before the actual collapse (political, military, economic, or a combination thereof) is evident in the tyrannical measures and inflictions they foster against their own populace. These two examples cited here? They are no longer the exceptions. They are the norm, the normative behavior of a police state…a “soft” socialist society that is just a tiptoe away from a full-blown dictatorship, complete with death camps and firing squads without trials. To deny such a thing is a form of intentional blindness toward the current events, and the recurring theme of the history of man. We are seeing it unfold, and when it opens completely, it will not be a flower, but a hydra that will devour any of those who are unprepared for the long and protracted struggle to come and who are unprepared to show resolve and reclaim the rights earned for us by the Founding Fathers of the United States.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PP3xnO Tyler Durden

A British high school has banned students from wearing Canada Goose, Pyrenex, Moncler, and other expensive designer coats in a bid to stop “poverty shaming.”

School officials at Woodchurch High School in the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, in North West England, sent a shocking letter to parents last week that said expensive winter coats would be prohibited from campus once students return from winter break (January 01).

The assistant headteacher said:

“As you are all aware from an email that was sent out yesterday, pupils will not be permitted to bring in Canadian Goose and Monclair coats after the Christmas break.

The support from parents/carers has been overwhelmingly positive and we are very thankful for this.

Some have also asked whether Pyrenex coats, which are also in a similar price range (with some also having real fur) will also be prohibited.

I am writing to confirm that these brands will also be prohibited after Christmas.

Thank you for your on going support.”

A spokesperson for Woodchurch High School told the Liverpool Echo, the school is “concerned with poverty proofing” and its policy has “always been to minimize uniform costs to parents and carers.”

“We are concerned with poverty proofing in school, where issues can routinely if unintentionally, stigmatize children living in poverty and contribute to the increasing cost of the school day to parents and carers.

It has always been our policy to minimise the cost to parents and carers of uniform.

The decision was taken following consultation with representatives of the pupils themselves and has been welcomed by the vast majority of parents and carers who have responded to the letter,” the spokesperson said.

Most of the Canada Goose jackets are usually spotted on celebrities or in the most frigid regions around the world, easily cost upwards of $1,000.   Other designers banned from campus include Moncler and Pyrenex, whose winter coats cost equally as much.

So, what is Poverty Proofing?

Poverty Proofing the School Day is a program developed by Children North East. The program is based out of North East England, provides toolkits for school administrators to poverty-proof their schools,  to reduce stigma and remove barriers to learning and to assist teachers in exploring the most effective methods to increase student learning. 

“Poverty Proofing the School Day consists of an audit for each individual school, questioning pupils, staff, parents and governors. The result is an action plan tailored to each individual school to address any stigmatizing policies or practices. There is then the opportunity to be awarded an accreditation following a review visit. We also offer training to staff and governors on poverty and its impact on education,” said the Children North East’s website.

Headteachers talk about their experiences of Poverty Proofing- 

What does social media think of Woodchurch High School officials poverty proofing their school via the banning of expensive coats?

@RadioCityTalk mick my son goes too Woodchurch High he has been asking for one of these coats for Xmas.. Since the school announced this. He has told us not too bother as he can’t wear it for school.. Result for me 👍😁

— ⚽️DAVE HANNAFORD⚽️ (@trfc_rover) November 15, 2018

Well done ! Woodchurch High School, #Birkenhead https://t.co/ZhTdnneNED

— Maureen Fitzsimmons (@mojos55) November 14, 2018

Wow wearing a £400 coat to school ! Madness – well done Woodchurch High in Birkenhead ! https://t.co/xzBir59ryV – I get by fine with jackets of under £100 – even £200 will buy the best but I’d not wear that to school !

— JSkiScotland #FBPE 🇪🇺 (@JWils60) November 15, 2018

This is why all schools should have school uniforms. Good on Woodchurch High School https://t.co/3FWs2zewp0

— Rebecca Soni (@Bexst8r) November 15, 2018

via RSS https://ift.tt/2BqW19T Tyler Durden

Authored by Martin Jay via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Trump’s relationship with Erdogan raises new questions about the credibility of US mainstream journalism. Was Khashoggi a victim of a Turkish ‘honey trap’?

The Washington Post continues its banal attack on the regime of Saudi Arabia, following the horrific murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate on October 2. In Turkey too there is much which the western media cannot understand or refuses to probe, as Ankara plays a game of blackmail with Riyadh in a bid to extract a deal from Mohammad bin Salman who is at the centre of its character assassination.

But what are we missing? What is at the heart of this story which isn’t getting picked up by journalists or even TV commentators in the region?

Much has been written about the ‘free license’ that Trump and his son in law, Jared Kushner gave the Saudi prince and that this murder is an inevitable consequence of such blinded dogma towards ones allies. There is some truth in this, but if you are to look at the coverage of, in particular, the US media over Khashoggi, you might be curious to understand why it is so extensive and prolonged. After all, Saudi Arabia has been kidnapping its own dissidents for years and there are many western journalists who are killed or go missing around the world which get minimal coverage. Why such an entrenched campaign for Khashoggi?

Guilty

Partly this is a guilt complex of the Wapo editors, who I have accused in earlier articles for more or less sending Khashoggi on a suicide mission when they chose to publish his articles in Arabic. This was recently confirmed when Khashoggi’s editor at the Post – Karen Attiah – admitted to The Independent that the traffic which the Arabic articles generated shocked bosses there. I have always argued that this was a final blow for MbS, humiliated now by his adversaries in Riyadh who can read about his failings on a regular basis.

And it’s also about the fact that the Post considered him part of the DC elite. One of their own, which explains why he has become so canonised and his personality enshrined in virtue.

Their trade is treachery

In truth, Khashoggi was no saint. He took the King’s shilling from the Saudi elite all his life and made a good lifestyle for himself. At the end of a thirty year relationship of working for them and learning all of their secrets, he used that privilege as a weapon to destroy MbS. In most cultures around the world, this is called treachery. We should remember that even in London in 1963, when British spy Kim Philby defected to Moscow, many wanted him to hang for selling out to the Russians and being a double agent for all his career. Khashoggi may well have been an amiable character. But he was also a traitor.

We are led to believe that he left Riyadh in 2017 because he feared being detained. But could it be that he was frustrated at not being promoted within the hierarchy?

A select number of journalists and academics, like Dr Nafeez Ahmed, support this theory, in part at least and go further to say that Khashoggi was murdered because he was about to distribute solid evidence of the Saudis using chemical weapons in Yemen. The British academic also underlines Khashoggi’s role for Saudi intelligence and, moreover, how he helped the Saudi royal family support Bin Laden, right up until 9-11.

Yet my own sources close to the Saudi elite tell me that MbS wanted to call him back to Riyadh because Khashoggi was at the centre of a coup in the making, which would have benefitted the former Crown Prince Mohamed bin Nayef, and still operated very much as though he was a Saudi intelligence asset. Not so much a treacherous journalist who didn’t know which side his bread was buttered, but more a double agent who was the gatekeeper of incendiary information. Something had to be done about Khashoggi.

Frustrated journalists are dangerous people. They lose sight of their loyalties and promises they made. And Khashoggi was an odd character struggling with an identity crisis. Is it the same case with Karen Attieh on the Oped desk of the Post which managed him? Did she connect with him as she too feels not taken seriously by her bosses at the Washington Post?

Conspiracy theory extended? Unfortunately we are led to feral speculation when we are denied the facts, especially deliberately.

Western media has a lot to be ashamed of on both covering up the Khashoggi murder – by going along with the demonization of the kingdom – and in being part of it happening in the first place. How does all of the gory details about Khashoggi’s murder get reported as fact by the Post, when it has no proof from the Turkish police sources who supply them? There is gargantuan hypocrisy at play here as the Post is part of a conspiracy now. It played a role in Khashoggi getting murdered and it is now playing a role in diverting blame away from itself and blithely accusing Saudi Arabia’s leader of the murder with little or no solid evidence. This is sloppy journalism on a whole new scale and shows a dire lack of journalistic credibility and judgment (unless of course the Post is part of a murky campaign of disinformation which has been agreed between Ankara and Washington whose firebrand leaders are now on good terms once again). Is the Post part of a dirty deal which has been struck by Trump and Erdogan to rewrite this story?

Far fetched? Ludicrous? Maybe, but let’s look at the facts. Trump is standing back and letting Erdogan continue with his drip feeding of sensational detailed evidence, in a blackmail game with MbS – but what’s the price Americans pay for that? To place himself at the centre of that charade, Trump has indicated to the Saudis that they need to release women activists from jail (likely to happen soon) and to cancel the Qatar blockade (on the cards, but will take longer). But before that happens, what we are witnessing is Trump looking for a media distraction (sanctions against the Saudi ‘killers’) while he mulls the idea of letting Erdogan have the exiled cleric, Gulen, who the Turkish President accuses of being the architect of the July 2017 attempted coup.

But he has also allowed Erdogan to use the US media as a platform for his own moral tutelage. Yes, astonishingly, the Washington Post – which presents itself as an arbiter of free speech and a protector of journalists and their sanctity, following Khashoggi’s murder – chose to publish Erdogan’s Oped about the affair, giving the Turkish leader the edge in the power game by selling out the lives of all 170 journalists in Turkish prisons, which, presumably, Wapo editors just forgot about on that given day. One can only assume that Karen Attiah managed to hold back the tears for those who are rotting in Turkish prisons for merely writing an Oped which vexed the Turkish leader.

Presumably Erdogan paid the Post to publish the piece – otherwise, if it were gratis, then that would be like wapo supporting him and his political leadership. But was this the same money that Saudi Arabia is reported to pay to regional media outlets to buy their loyalty? How can a Middle Eastern leader who has imprisoned a record number of journalists and who is now blackmailing the Saudis, get the support from the Washington Post? Can this really be happening?

Erdogan must be laughing his head off in Turkey as he sees day after day that western media just report as facts, what his officials say about the details of the murder. And laughing even hysterically when all he needs to do is write an article taking the moral high ground – don’t laugh – on the rights of journalists in the region and give it to the Post to publish.

The dark side of Khashoggi murder

Good investigative journalists are cynical about everything which is presented to them. Is, for example, the relationship between Khashoggi and his fiancé entirely what it seemed, or was she directed by Erdogan to ‘honey trap’ the Saudi journalist as part of an elaborate plot to ensnare the Saudi crown prince? Sources from the intelligence community of one middle eastern country (I prefer not to name which one) are at least beginning to wonder about this. And almost certainly so are the Saudis. Yet western journalists who refuse to at least consider that the Khashoggi abduction was bungled (and ended up being a murder) are likely to call this a conspiracy theory. Even if it is, they should at least report on it and mull it. What about all the tools which the hit team brought, they might ask. Could they have been brought to be used to scare Khashoggi into handing over the information that MbS was seeking?

Khashoggi’s fiancé doesn’t seem distraught and the sheer speed in which the couple headed towards the marriage courts is questionable, as is, indeed her own personal relationship with Erdogan, which she even admitted to the BBC. Other questions should be the ‘evidence’ presented by Erdogan, which is looking ropy to say the least, which some journalists are identifying as such.

For the moment, the only certain thing about the Khashoggi affair is how standards of western media have plummeted to an all time low with the Post leading the pack with partisan judgment, check book journalism and an internal guilt trip fuelling their unremarkable reporting, not to mention their abysmal editorial judgment. American media has lost the moral compass and Khashoggi will be remembered for this above all – with many arguing that this, in itself, plays a role in the impunity of those carrying out the rendition and murder. When the Saudis fell into the Turkish trap, they probably believed that Turkey would be the last place in the world to care about one kidnapped journalist. But they could never have imagined how partisan, sloppy and hypocritical western media would be in covering the story. What Khashoggi has taught us is that the day that Americans read newspapers based on the editors’ judgment are well behind us. So why should we read them at all?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2zpeqSR Tyler Durden