Author: admin

Authored by Nikolas Gvosdev via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Will a future, formal Trump-Putin summit be a game changer?

Last week, I noted that any encounter between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin that would take place at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Da Nang, Vietnam, would have to address two critical questions if there was to be any clarity in U.S.-Russia relations.

We’ve now gotten a first draft of answers.

I argued that, for the Russian side, the overarching issue is whether or not Donald Trump is calling the shots on U.S. policy. Seven days ago, the White House press operation was signaling that there would be a formal encounter between the two presidents, a scheduled meeting with a defined agenda. As the week progressed, the United States began to back away from those announcements. By the end of the week, the encounter was a far less structured event, essentially folded in around an informal stroll to a photo opportunity and brief chats in between APEC sessions – nothing at all like the meeting that took place at the G-20 summit in Hamburg in July. What happened? And does it suggest that Donald Trump has a George W. Bush problem – the apparent inability to take a personal rapport with Vladimir Putin and transform it into concrete policy directives?

Because of the way the United States geographically boxes Russia in as only a “European” state, Trump’s “Russia hands” were not scheduled to join his delegation to APEC. Thus, there were concerns that any substantive meeting between Trump and Putin would occur without the U.S. officials who would be most likely to provide necessary expertise (and who would wind up implementing any results). Linked to that were fears that, if another meeting followed the Hamburg precedent (of just the two presidents and their chief diplomatic officers), Putin might convince Trump to accept a series of compromises: trading Russian support of Trump’s initiatives in return, for instance, for concrete sanctions relief and acceptance of Russian preferences for Syria and Ukraine. There had already been some advance warning of this, such as, when Saudi Arabia’s King Salman visited Moscow last month in an historic summit, the Saudi delegation seemed to suggest that a Russia playing a more constructive and stabilizing role in the Middle East would outweigh the logic of maintaining the full raft of U.S. sanction, imposed after the 2014 incursions into Ukraine and after the 2016 elections.

But then we have Trump’s comments to the press following the Da Nang summit. Much of that coverage has focused on Trump’s willingness to accept Putin’s denials of Russian interference in the 2016 election at face value, but two other items deserve greater attention.

The first is that the president, having been convinced, guided, or maneuvered into not having a formal sit-down with Putin in Vietnam, is apparently committing to a full-fledged summit meeting of the two presidents and their respective “teams” at some indefinite point in the future. If so, then how the agenda for that meeting is set, and what parameters are established for the negotiations, will be critical.

 

The second is what role Trump himself intends to play in Russia policy. What struck me at times about his comments on Air Force One was how he seemed to view himself, as “the president,” as something separate and distinct from the executive branch as a whole. As chief executive, Trump is in charge of the U.S. intelligence community, the diplomatic corps and the military. Yet his comments seem to suggest that, at times, the government is pursuing a policy towards Russia that he personally disagrees with but somehow has little power to change.

So while we’ve gotten a first set of answers, the questions still remain unresolved. Sideline encounters at the G-20 and at APEC were not successful in changing the dynamic of the U.S.-Russia relationship. So will a direct Trump-Putin summit be a game changer? Only if those original questions can be answered definitively.

via http://ift.tt/2z7iadG Tyler Durden

As we detailed previously, the foreign and defense secretaries of 23 EU countries (out of 28 in total) agreed on Monday to take further steps towards forming a European defense force.

Five countries opted out: The United Kingdom (that's is leaving the EU), Denmark, Ireland, Portugal and Malta.

The defense union has been on the agenda for a long time and is called the Permanent Structured Cooperation, or PESCO.

This chart shows the EU countries with the largest standing armies, according to data provided by GlobalFirePower.com.

You will find more statistics at Statista

It counts in all active military personnel, so-called "ready-to-fight" elements, but not civilian employees or reservists.

France has the biggest standing army, counting 204,000 Soldiers, followed by Germany and the relatively small Greece.

via http://ift.tt/2iZGgvS Tyler Durden

Was Brexit also Putin’s fault?

The simmering anti-Russia hysteria that has emerged in the UK recently has finally boiled over, and it appears last night’s story in the        Times of London claiming that a swarm of Twitter bots reportedly created by a troll farm possibly linked to Russian intelligene (sound familiar?) posted more than 45,000 messages about Brexit in 48 hours during last year’s referendum to try and “so discord” among the public was the grain of rice that tipped the scale.

Details that will sound familiar to anybody who’s been following the ongoing hysteria surrounding the multiple investigations into Russian influence in the US election, the suspicious twitter accounts shared messages that promoted both the ‘Remain’ and ‘Leave’ campaigns, purportedly a “sophisticated” ploy to confuse and bewilder voters.

Most of the tweets seen by this newspaper encouraged people to vote for Brexit, an outcome which Russia would have regarded as destabilising for the European Union. A number were pro-Remain, however, suggesting that the Russian goal may have been simply to sow division.

 

“This is the most significant evidence yet of interference by Russian-backed social media accounts around the Brexit referendum,” said Damian Collins, the Tory MP who chairs the digital, culture, media and sport select committee.

 

“The content published and promoted by these accounts is clearly designed to increase tensions throughout the country and undermine our democratic process. I fear that this may well be just the tip of the iceberg."

According to the Times, more than 150,000 accounts based in Russia, which had previously confined their posts to subjects such as the Ukrainian conflict, switched attention to Brexit in the days leading up to last year’s vote, according to research for an upcoming paper by data scientists at Swansea University and the University of California, Berkeley.

In other words, after months of tweeting about pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, these bots started firing off messages amplifying the voice of the ‘Leave’ campaign into the void.

The researchers said Russian activity spiked on June 23, the day of the referendum, and on June 24 when the result was announced. From posting fewer than 1,000 tweets a day before June 13, the suspicious accounts posted 39,000 tweets on June 24 before dropping off almost entirely.

The Swansea and Berkeley paper says that a “massive number of Russian-related tweets was created a few days before the voting day, reached its peak during the voting and the result and then dropped immediately afterwards”. Tho Pham, one of the paper’s authors, said that “the main conclusion is that bots were used on purpose and had influence”.

Of course, the Times report neglected to explain the Swansea researchers methodology. Facebook, Twitter and Google used the inadequate standard of having one’s browser language set to Russian. It’s unclear whether these researchers something that, like browser language, can be easily changed or mimicked by other groups.

On Monday, Theresa May accused Moscow of using fake news to “sow discord” and of meddling directly in elections. Her remarks followed a brief, impromptu meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at an Asian economic summit in Vietnam.

In what appeared to be an attempt to deflect attention away from a challenge to her leadership, UK Prime Minister Theresa May blasted Russia Monday evening, using her speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet to accuse them of interfering in foreign elections.

May accused Moscow of attempting to "weaponize information" as part of a "sustained campaign of cyberespionage and disruption." Russia's actions were "threatening the international order," she said.

"We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed. Because you underestimate the resilience of our democracies, the enduring attraction of free and open societies, and the commitment of Western nations to the alliances that bind us," May said.

May listed off a litany of ills she ascribed to Russia since its annexation of Crimea, including fomenting conflict in eastern Ukraine, violating the airspace of European countries, and hacking the Danish ministry of defense and the German Parliament. Russia has also been accused of interfering in elections in the US, the Brexit referendum in the UK, and the independence vote in Catalonia.

Following May’s speech, reports emerged that individuals working on behalf of the Kremlin tried to set up meetings with conservative MPs, including Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

Last night, one of the UK's cyber-defense chiefs adding to the anti-Russia sentiment by accusing Russian intelligence of attacking Britain's media, telecommunications and energy sectors over the past year.

Ciaran Martin, chief executive of GCHQ's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), echoed May’s claim that Russia was "seeking to undermine the international system."

Of course, there were at least two prominent British polls who decided to question the dubious accusations of interference.

Jeremy Corbyn wants to “see more evidence” that Russia is trying to undermine Western democracy, his spokesman said Wednesday.

And of course, as we noted yesterday, Nigel Farage pointed out during a speech at the European Parliament that financier George Soros has spent billions of dollars to push his political agenda across Europe, the US and the UK.

“How many of you have taken money from Open Society?” He asked his peers, referring to Soros’s Open Society foundation.

While the Russian hysteria has been raging for a year in the US now, in the UK, it’s only just beginning. In time, we will see of May’s government will continue to use Vladimir Putin as a boogeyman on which they can blame their failure to successfully negotiate amenable Brexit terms for the UK.

via http://ift.tt/2mxuvSA Tyler Durden

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

A half-naked woman whose theft of an Uber driver’s tips was caught on video is complaining of online harassment after footage of the brazen incident went viral.

Scantily clad 18 year old Gabrielle Canales – a horrible human being, was caught on surveillance video reaching into the Uber driver’s tip jar after she and two other passengers reached their destination in Brooklyn, New York.

After posting a now-deleted Instagram response in which Canales showed little remorse, the Crown Heights woman finally admitted she was “completely wrong” for stealing the money – $5.00 by her count – which she says she paid back.

“I understand I’m completely wrong and I’m not denying it,” Canales told BuzzFeed. “The lesson was learned that same day. That’s why the gentleman was paid back.”

Watch:

After the video went viral, Canales told Buzzfeed she’s been subject to harassment and mocking.

“I didn’t need this video to go viral to teach me a lesson. I learned the lesson that same day. Before the video went viral, the man was paid back,” Canales said. “I apologize on the matter once again.”

Canales then doubled down on her self-righteous half apology and played the woman card, saying “I’m wrong for taking $5, and according to the world, I need to die,” she said. “I understand I’m going to get hate from a lot of people and that’s something I accepted, but I don’t think it’s okay to disrespect me as female.”

Uber bans woman, ignores driver

Following the incident, Uber banned the woman from the platform, stating “What’s been shown has no place on our app and the rider’s access to the app has been removed.” The driver, meanwhile, told the Daily Mail that he was “too busy working to file a police report after the video was filmed.”

When he reached out to Uber, they sent him a canned response:

We understand your frustration with this experience. We’ve attempted to contact the rider by phone and email, but haven’t been able to resolve this issue. The rider responded to us and advised us that she didn’t steal your cash from the tip jar. If you believe the rider has your cash as captured from your dash cam and is refusing to return it, you may want to initiate a formal investigation via the police.

Uber drivers raping passengers, passengers robbing Uber drivers – some of whom were then shortchanged by the company … I bet the ridesharing behemoth can’t wait to replace those pesky human drivers with self-driving cars.

Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel

via http://ift.tt/2yL6c54 ZeroPointNow

On 2 November 2017, the Bank of England raised rates for the first time in a decade and Sterling’s initial rise was promptly sold off by forex traders as we discussed.

The 7-2 vote by the Monetary Policy Committee was not the unanimous decision some had expected, while Cunliffe and Ramsden saw insufficient evidence that wage growth would pick up in line with the BoE’s projections from just over 2% to 3% in a year’s time. Ben Broadbent, MPC member, deputy governor and known to be a close confidant of Governor Carney, gave a speech today at the London School of Economics (LSE) in which he warned markets that Brexit issues didn’t necessarily mean that interest rates have to remain low.

Bloomberg reports that Broadbent stated that the Brexit impact on monetary policy depends on how it affects demand, supply and the exchange rate.

"There are feasible combinations of the three that might require looser policy, others that lead to tighter policy."

Which sounds alot like he doesn't know, although he stuck to the central bankers trusty tool, reassuring LSE students the Phillips Curve "still seems to have a slope".

According to the FT.

The deputy governor of the Bank of England has warned that financial markets have underestimated the chance of further interest rate rises. In a speech at the London School of Economics on Wednesday, Ben Broadbent said markets had placed too much emphasis on the idea that interest rates needed to be kept low in the face of Brexit uncertainty. The deputy governor said it was “uncertain” and “complex” to anticipate how Brexit would affect inflation. But he rejected the assertion that Brexit “necessarily implies low interest rates”.

 

“Even as inflation rose, and the rate of unemployment fell further, interest-rate markets continued to under-weight the possibility that (the) bank rate might actually go up this year,” he said.

 

The BoE’s Monetary Policy Committee announced its first interest rate rise in more than a decade earlier this month. But the central bank has struggled to convince financial markets that it is likely to raise rates further.

 

BoE officials were taken aback when sterling sold off on the day it announced the rate rise, and two-year gilt yields remain below the BoE base rate, suggesting markets are sceptical that the MPC will raise rates further while there is still considerable uncertainty around the UK’s economic future outside of the EU.

Broadbent acknowledged that there is a risk that Brexit uncertainty could adversely impact UK demand. However, he sees the potential for other factors, a reduction in trade, for example, which could crimp UK capacity and necessitate a rise in rates. While Broadbent’s thinking is flawed, and his barley field example plainly ridiculous, the FT continues.

Brexit-related uncertainty could weigh on demand and motivate the MPC to keep interest rates low to support the economy, but other factors could push the central bank to raise rates.

 

For example, if Brexit reduced the UK’s openness to trade, the country’s output capacity could suffer, which would require the BoE to raise rates to temper inflation.

 

“Economists often presume that changes in an economy’s underlying productivity occur only slowly,” Mr Broadbent said. However, he added: “A sharp reduction in the degree of openness (to trade) could have a more immediate impact. “A field currently producing barley, sold into the European market, can’t easily or as fruitfully be replanted with olive trees”. He said the challenge for monetary policymakers was that “reductions in supply can add inflationary pressure even as they lower aggregate (gross domestic product)”.

So, let’s consider Broadbent’s example…

The UK suffers a drop in aggregate demand due to a contraction in trade, the BoE raises rates in an over-leveraged economy to stem the inflation and…undoubtedly makes the contraction in GDP much worse. That makes no sense and is the kind of one dimensional thinking that we’ve had to put up with from central bankers. What’s worse is that Broadbent has specific responsibility for monetary policy and a c.v. as long as your arm – Cambridge, Harvard PhD, Fulbright Scholar, Columbia University, Goldman Sachs and UK Treasury.

It’s no wonder we are in such a mess with people like this pulling the levers of policy in the central banks. Crazy ideas aside, Broadbent and his BoE colleagues might be unhappy with market projections for the future path of interest rates, but they can hardly blame investors for being sceptical.

Which way are rates going, Ben?

via http://ift.tt/2z5jaip Tyler Durden

Authored by Andrei Akulov via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The EU on Nov.13 officially launched a new era in defense cooperation with a program of joint military investment in equipment, research and development, known as permanent structured cooperation, or PESCO.

Foreign and defense ministers gathered at a signing ceremony in Brussels to represent 23 EU governments joining the pact, which is to become legally binding when signed by heads of state at EU summit in mid-December. 

With so many ministers signing, approval seems a given. From now on, the EU will have a more coherent role in tackling international crises, while reducing the reliance on the United States.

The UK, which is scheduled to leave the EU in 2019, is not part of PESCO.

Until Brexit, London had opposed the idea of European Defense Union or European Army, saying it would undermine NATO and the UK alliance with the US. Denmark, which has a special opt-out status, is not expected to participate. Ireland, Portugal and Malta are still undecided whether or not to join.

This is the first time ever EU member states legally bind themselves into joint projects as well as pledging to increase defense spending and contribute to rapid deployment. Member countries will submit an action plan outlining their defense aims. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, EU military chiefs and the European Defence Agency will evaluate whether the plans agreed on are being respected. Those not living up to their commitments could be kicked out of the group.

PESCO is intended to reduce the number of different weapons systems in Europe and to promote regional military integration. It is also intended to establish joint training of military officers. The jointly developed European military capabilities will enable the EU to conduct operations separately or in coordination with NATO. Formally, the North Atlantic Alliance backs the project, aiming to benefit from stronger militaries.

Federica Mogherini called the deal a “historic moment in European defense.” According to her, PESCO is complimentary to NATO, in which 22 of the EU's 28 countries are members. The EU, she said, has tools to fight hybrid warfare — the use of conventional weapons mixed with things like propaganda and cyber-attacks — that the military alliance does not have at its disposal. German Foreign Minister Gabriel praised the agreement as "a great step toward self-sufficiency and strengthening the European Union’s security and defense policy – really a milestone in European development."

Under PESCO, EU countries will commit to increase military spending. The pact is to be backed by a 5-billion-euro defense fund for buying weapons, a special fund to finance operations and money from the EU’s common budget for defense research. Joint efforts will reduce duplication and waste. More than 50 joint projects in the fields of defense capabilities and military operations have already been submitted. The UK and other states, which have not become parties to PESCO, can take part in some if they are of benefit to the entire EU.

The European Commission also proposed on Nov.10 a series of measures often called a "military Schengen" to facilitate the movement of forces and defense equipment between member states. The moves dovetail with the goals set by the EU strategy document titled European Union Global Strategy that the bloc should look to create greater military autonomy from NATO. «As Europeans we must take greater responsibility for our security. We must be ready and able to deter, respond to and protect ourselves against external threats», the paper reads.

An independent EU military capability will weaken NATO and put an end to Europe’s dependence on the United States. Sweden and Finland, EU members outside NATO, might find an EU alliance preferable to the North Atlantic alliance. After all, European states got entangled in the military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan due to solidarity with the United States, not because the European interests were involved. These two examples alone are enough to give precedence to European, rather than transatlantic, security interests. Quite often these interests do not coincide. Today, a joint border force to keep away refugee flows, not forces deployed to counter Russia, is the real priority for Europeans.

The US views Europe’s migrants’ crisis as a far-flung problem that doesn’t affect its direct interests. It has other priorities, such as containing China and opposing Iran, the country where European businesses have great economic interests. Many common Americans question the need to pay for European «free riders». They strongly believe that the Europeans should do much more to enhance their own security. It’s only natural that the EU, a powerful international entity with 28 members accounting for more than 20% of global GDP, strives to acquire the capability to conduct independent military operations.

The idea of creating an independent European defense potential has its pros and cons but one thing is indisputable – only a truly European force – not an assortment of national armies operating under the auspices of US-led NATO – can really protect European interests. Europe has just made a big stride towards moving away from the reliance on the United States to its greater independence and ability to set its own priorities.

via http://ift.tt/2z5cbGd Tyler Durden

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

For years now, I have been warning about the relationship of interdependency between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and how this relationship, if ended, would mean disaster for the petrodollar system and by extension the dollar's world reserve status.

In my recent articles 'Lies And Distractions Surrounding The Diminishing Petrodollar' and 'The Economic End Game Continues,' I point out that the death of the dollar as the premier petrocurrency is actually a primary goal for establishment globalists.

Why?

Because in an effort to achieve what they sometimes call the "global economic reset," or the "new world order," a more publicly accepted centralized global economy and monetary framework is paramount. And, this means the eventual implementation of a single world currency and a single global economic and political authority above and beyond the dollar system.

But, it is not enough to simply initiate such socially and fiscally painful changes in a vacuum. The banking powers are not interested in taking any blame for the suffering that would be dealt to the masses during the inevitable upheaval (or blame for the suffering that has already been caused). Therefore, a believable narrative must be crafted. A narrative in which political intrigue and geopolitical crisis make the "new world order" a NECESSITY; one that the general public would accept or even demand as a solution to existing instability and disaster.

That is to say, the globalists must fashion a propaganda story to be used in the future, in which "selfish" nation-states abused their sovereignty and created conditions for calamity, and the only solution was to end that sovereignty and place all power into the hands of a select few "wise and benevolent men" for the greater good of the world.

I believe the next phase of the global economic reset will begin in part with the breaking of petrodollar dominance. An important element of my analysis on the strategic shift away from the petrodollar has been the symbiosis between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been the single most important key to the dollar remaining as the petrocurrency from the very beginning.

The very first oil exploration and extraction deal in Saudi Arabia was sought by the vast international oil cartels of Royal Dutch Shell, Near East Development Company, Anglo-Persian, etc., but eventually fell into the hands of none other than the Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company. The dark history of Standard Oil aside, this meant that Saudi business would be handled primarily by American interests. And the Western thirst for oil, especially after World War I, would etch our relationship with the reigning monarchy in stone.

A founding member of OPEC, Saudi Arabia was one of the few primary oil-producing nations that maintained an oil pipeline that expedited processing and bypassed the Suez Canal. (The pipeline was shut down, however, in 1983). This allowed Standard Oil and the United States to tiptoe around the internal instability of Egypt, which had experienced ongoing conflict which finally culminated in the civil war of 1952.

Considered puppets of the British Empire at the time, the ruling elites of Egypt were toppled by the Muslim Brotherhood, leading to the eventual demise of the British pound sterling as the top petro-currency and the world reserve. The British economy faltered and has never since returned to its former glory.

Perhaps we are seeing some parallels here?

Civil war may not be in the cards for Saudi Arabia; so far a quiet coup has been rather effective in completely changing the power base of the nation over the past few years. The primary beneficiary of that change in power has been crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman, who only answers to King Salman, an 81-year-old ruler barely involved in leadership.

To understand how drastic this coup has been, consider this – for decades Saudi Kings maintained political balance by doling out vital power positions to separate, carefully chosen successors. Positions such as Defense Minister, the Interior Ministry and the head of the National Guard. Today, Mohammed Bin Salman controls all three positions. Foreign policy, defense matters, oil and economic decisions and social changes are now all in the hands of one man.

But the real question is, who is behind that man?

Well, the recent political purge of various "neo-conservative" tied Saudis might lead some to believe that Prince Mohammed is seeking an end to globalist control of Saudi oil and politics.

These people would be wrong for a number of reasons.

Prince Mohammed's revolutionary "Vision for 2030" developed as he entered power was touted as a means to end Saudi reliance on oil revenues to support economic stability. However, I believe this plan is NOT about ending reliance on oil, but ending reliance on the U.S. dollar. In fact, the plan indicates a move away from the dollar as the world's petrocurrency and a de-pegging of the Riyal from the dollar.

Prince Mohammed has also established much deeper ties to Russia and China, creating bilateral agreements which may end up removing the dollar as the mechanism for oil trade between the nations.

You would think that this kind of strategy would be highly damaging to the West and to American interests in particular and that the corporate establishment would be doing everything in their power to stop it. However, this is not at all the case. In reality, the globalist establishment is fully behind Mohammed Bin Sulman's "Vision for 2030."

Corporate behemoths such as the Carlyle Group (Bush family, etc), Goldman Sachs, Blackstone and Blackrock have ALL been backing the Vision for 2030 and Prince Mohammed through his Public Investment Fund (PIF), of which he is the chairman.

Trillions in capital are flowing through PIF, most of it from the coffers of globalist establishment companies. Once again I point out that the so-called "East versus West division" and the Eastern "opposition" to the globalists is complete nonsense; banking elites and globalists are the true influence behind the move away from the dollar, as the Saudi example and the Vision for 2030 shows. The end of the dollar as world reserve works in their favor — it is planned.

This does not end with the death of the dollar's petro-status, though. These kinds of upsets in the power dynamic invariably lead to war. War acts as a kind of cleansing of the historical record; it tends to distract the public, for generations, from those that truly benefit from geopolitical and economic strife.

Prince Mohammed has already triggered conflicts with Yemen and Qatar, but this seems to have only been a precursor to greater kinetic displays of force. The next target appears to be Lebanon, and eventually Iran and Syria.

The first signal came with the resignation of Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri on November 4, a resignation Hezbollah claims was forced by the Saudi government. Interestingly, Saad Hariri recorded the televised announcement in Saudi Arabia.

This shocking disruption to Lebanon's political apparatus has been followed by an escalation in saber rattling by Saudi Arabia against Hezbollah (which is considered by many to be merely a puppet organization of the Iranian government). If official polls are to be believed, the Lebanese population is in extreme disagreement over Iran and Hezbollah, which could add to internal divisions and civil war if tensions continue to grow. Add to this the suspected (but officially denied) "secret visit" by Prince Mohammed to Israel in September, and the newfound "friendship" between the two nations in the months since, and we have quite a bit of momentum for a war in Lebanon.

The question is, will a war between Saudi Arabia and perhaps Israel against Hezbollah in Lebanon remain a proxy war, or will it gestate into a wider conflict drawing in Iran, Syria and perhaps even the U.S.?

First, keep in mind that Prince Mohammed has already frozen and/or confiscated approximately $800 billion in assets from his imprisoned political enemies. More than enough to fund a war campaign for several years, maybe even an expanded war against Iran.

Trump's rhetoric against Iran and his re-institution of sanctions seems to coincide nicely with the increasing tension between the Saudis and Hezbollah. Israel attempted an invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and was soundly and embarrassingly defeated. But, the Israeli government does still showcase a willingness to enter into a ground war in the region, and with the combined forces of the Saudis and the Israelis, we might see a different outcome. Iran would be forced to intervene.

Syria under the Assad regime would also most likely be drawn in through its mutual defense pact with Iran.

I believe that major powers like the U.S. and Russia will probably not become involved in a wider sense, but continue to insert covert forces into the region and support opposing nations through funding and armaments. As with North Korea, I would not expect "world war" on the scale of a nuclear conflagration to develop in the Middle East.

What I do expect is something far more devastating – namely an accelerated disintegration of our already collapsing economic structure as war plays out abroad and the loss of the dollar's world reserve and petro-status hits us hard at home. So far, in my view it appears that the insanity in Saudi Arabia, (along with the continued war drums against North Korea), is a perfect trigger point that provides a catalyst for mass distraction.

World economic war is the real name of the game here, as the globalists play puppeteers to East and West. It is a geopolitical crisis they will have created to engineer public support for a solution they predetermined.

via http://ift.tt/2hF4bnM Tyler Durden

It was only twenty years ago that the last Australian state, Tasmania, decriminalised male homosexuality. Whether one is in favour or not, Australia had a lot of catching up to do with other western nations.

In an Australian general election, there is no such thing as a “low turnout” since voting is compulsory for citizens. In contrast, the vote on gay marriage was voluntary and conducted by post, following two failed attempts by the government to hold a compulsory national vote that was denied twice in the Australian Senate. Senators opposing a compulsory vote had expressed concern that it would be more costly and exacerbate hate campaigns. Nevertheless, it was costly (A$100million or $76 million) and, at times, the campaign became violent. For example, a man was charge last month after former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, an opponent of same-sex marriage, was headbutted. Abbott called the incident “politically motivated violence.” Police were called to intervene in a confrontation between rival groups at the University of Sydney, while some workers complained that they were harassed if they did not show support for the “Yes” vote.

Despite its voluntary nature, 12.7 million people, 79.5% of those eligible to vote, participated in the poll during an eight-week period. It asked one question.

"Should the marriage law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

With the votes counted, the “Yes” vote gained more than 60%, as the BBC reports.

Australians have overwhelmingly voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage in a historic poll. The non-binding postal vote showed 61.6% of people favour allowing same-sex couples to wed, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said. Jubilant supporters have been celebrating in public spaces, waving rainbow flags and singing and dancing. A bill to change the law was introduced into the Senate late on Wednesday. It will now be debated for amendments. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said his government would aim to pass legislation in parliament by Christmas.

 

"[Australians] have spoken in their millions and they have voted overwhelmingly yes for marriage equality," Mr Turnbull said after the result was announced. "They voted yes for fairness, yes for commitment, yes for love."

The Yes campaign argued that it was a debate about equality. The No campaign put the focus on the definition of family, raising concerns about how issues like gender will be taught in schools. Australia's chief statistician David Kalisch said about 7.8 million people voted in support of same-sex marriage, with approximately 4.9 million against it. He said participation was higher than 70% in 146 of Australia's 150 electorates. All but 17 electorates supported changing the law.

 

"This is outstanding for a voluntary survey and well above other voluntary surveys conducted around the world," Mr Kalisch said. "It shows how important this issue is to many Australians."

As the FT reports, “Yes” supporters celebrated after the result was announced, with high-profile business and celebrity figures getting involved.

The resounding victory for the Yes campaign sparked celebrations across the country, with supporters wearing rainbow colours and glitzy costumes at events to reflect on the eight-week campaign for marriage equality. Alan Joyce, the Irish-born Qantas chief executive who donated A$1m to the Yes campaign, performed a jig on stage at an event in Sydney, declaring it was an “amazing result, on an amazing day”. Tiernan Brady, director of Australians for equality, a lobby group that co-ordinated the Yes campaign, said voters had reaffirmed that most deeply-held Australian value — a “fair go for all”.

 

“Their message today is one of confidence in their values and their country. Their message to LGBTI people is one of generosity and inclusion. Their message to politicians is clear — it is time for them to do their jobs and pass marriage equality,” he said.

 

The vote in favour of marriage equality marks a watershed moment for gay rights in Australia, which remains one of the last English speaking developed nations that has not yet implemented the reform.

While the draft bill to legalise same-sex marriage is expected to pass the Australian parliament by Christmas, it has ignited division within the ruling political party, according to the FT.

However, Mr Turnbull is likely to face a tricky internal battle within his own party from a group of conservative lawmakers, who have used the issue as a proxy war for control of the ruling Liberal party. They are pushing for exemptions to individuals or companies who did not want to provide services to gay weddings due to religious or “conscientious” objections. The exemptions would allow parents to withdraw their children from school classes that do not accord with their own understanding of marriage. They would also enable people to discuss their traditional views about marriage without fear of legal penalties. Tony Abbott, a prominent No campaigner and former prime minister, said this week more protections were needed to guarantee freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

 

“I look forward to a parliamentary process that improves on (the draft bill) to implement same-sex marriage with freedom of conscience for all, not just the churches,” he said. Critics say approving such exemptions would roll back years of anti-discrimination laws and encroach on protections for gay and lesbian people.

The following infographic from the FT shows the 26 nations which had legalised same-sex marriage before Australia’s landmark “Yes” vote.

via http://ift.tt/2zM53M2 Tyler Durden

Via CaseyResearch.com,

“America is a marvelous idea, a unique idea, fantastic idea. I’m extremely pro-American. But America has ceased to exist.”

Longtime readers will recognize this. It’s one of Doug Casey’s more memorable quotes.

I’m sharing it with you today because Doug said something last week that touched on this radical idea. He said the United States could break apart due to racial tensions.

Most people haven’t considered this possibility. After all, the U.S. is supposedly a “melting pot” where different races can coexist peacefully.

So, a few days ago, I called Doug to learn why he thinks this. Below is the first part of our discussion.

*  *  *

Justin: Doug, the last time we spoke, you said the United States could break apart because of racial tensions. Why do you think that?

Doug: Well, I used to know a guy by the name of Michael Hart. He would come to our Eris Society meetings in Aspen. Eris was a private annual event I ran for 30 years, for authors, scientists, and people who were well-known for something. It enabled people who might not otherwise meet to get to know each other and exchange ideas. Michael was a university prof, best known for his book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential People in History.

One year, he gave a speech about how the U.S. was going to break up into smaller countries, and part of it would be on racial lines.

I thought that unlikely at the time; it was about 1990. Now, I think Michael may have been right.

I’ll explain why in a minute. But we should first discuss the origins of democracy.

Democracy originated in 6th-century BC Greece. It was a unique and workable method of governance for city-states of a few thousand people. And in the case of Athens, as many as 40,000 people.

But these people all shared a common language. They worshipped the same gods. They were the same ethnicity. They had the same customs and beliefs.

They were like an extended clan with many similarities. Differences were among individuals, not groups.

When the U.S. democracy was started, it was much like that. It was very much like a Greek city-state, an extended one. Everybody shared culture, ethnicity, language, habits, and so forth, with just minor regional differences. People saw themselves first as New Yorkers, Virginians, or whatever, just as the Greeks saw themselves first as Athenians, Thebans, Corinthians, or many scores of other polities.

As you know I don’t believe in democracy, I believe in personal freedom. Democracy is workable enough in something like a cohesive city-state. But absolutely not once voters get involved in economic issues—the poor will always vote themselves a free lunch, and the rich will buy votes to give themselves more. Democracy always devolves into class warfare.

In ancient Greece, if you weren’t a landowner you weren’t respected. In the U.S., voting rules were determined by the States, and originally, everywhere, you had to be a landowner. That meant you had something to lose. But that’s not the case anymore.

Justin: What’s changed?

Doug: For one thing, anybody can vote. People who are penniless. Eighteen-year-olds who have no knowledge or experience and are fresh out of the indoctrination of high school. Lots of non-citizens, probably millions, manage to vote. Voting has become, as H.L. Mencken said, just an advance auction on stolen goods.

For another thing, today, the United States is multicultural. America used to have its own distinct culture; the U.S. no longer stands for anything.

Race is just the most obvious thing that divides people. You can see that somebody’s of a different race just by looking at them. The old saying about birds of a feather flocking together is basically true. It’s very politically incorrect to make that observation, of course. Certainly if you’re white. But it’s factually accurate. Most things that are PC fly in the face of reality.

If people are of a different race, it increases the chances that they’re not going to share other things. The key, for a rational person, is to judge people as individuals. Race, sex, religion, and cultural background are quick indicators of who a person might be. As are dress, accent, attitude, and what they say among many other indicators. You need as much data as you can get to help you judge what the other person will do, and who he is. It’s actually quite stupid to not discriminate among people you encounter. But then the whole PC movement is quite stupid by its very nature.

But, back to the subject, you can’t have a multicultural democracy. And you especially can’t have one where the government is making laws that have to do with economics…where it allocates wealth from one group to another group.

So, sure. The U.S. is going to break apart, and you can certainly see it happening along racial lines. The active racism among many blacks isn’t an anomaly.

Justin: I agree that racial tensions are rising in this country. But that’s clearly not the only source of tension. What else might cause the U.S. to break apart?

Doug: Cultural differences.

The Pacific Northwest draws people who like the idea of ecotopia. Southern California draws a very different type of person than Northern California does. People that live in Las Vegas are quite different from the people that live in Omaha, and very different again from people that live in New York.

The U.S. has turned into a domestic empire. It’s no longer the country that it was when it was founded.

And the constitution itself has changed at least as much. It’s a dead letter. Mainly window dressing. It’s been interpreted out of existence.

Sure, the U.S. is going to break up; throughout history the colors of the map on the wall have always been running. I don’t think the racial situation in the near term is going to get better. And the breakdown of the culture is definitely getting worse.

On the other hand, there’s more racial intermingling and marriage now than there’s ever been in the past. If we look down the road 1,000 years or so, racial distinctions will probably disappear. The average person will probably look like most Brazilians. Brazil, incidentally, is theoretically an integrated country—but there’s still a huge amount of racism. Go farther into the future, when homo sapiens has conquered the planets and hopefully the stars, and we’ll likely transform not only into new races, but new species. But I don’t think any of us are looking that far ahead.

*  *  *

Stay tuned for Part II of our discussion tomorrow. In it, Doug explains why the U.S. is “no longer a country”… And gets into all the problems that are bubbling to the surface…

via http://ift.tt/2ALnNub Tyler Durden