Category: zerohedge

Authored by Jonathan Tennebaum via AsiaTimes.com,

This is part 2 in a series. Click here to read part 1.

Germany now generates over 35% of its yearly electricity consumption from wind and solar sources. Over 30 000 wind turbines have been built, with a total installed capacity of nearly 60 GW. Germany now has approximately 1.7 million solar power (photovoltaic) installations, with an installed capacity of 46 GW. This looks very impressive.

Unfortunately, most of the time the actual amount of electricity produced is only a fraction of the installed capacity. Worse, on “bad days” it can fall to nearly zero. In 2016 for example there were 52 nights with essentially no wind blowing in the country. No Sun, no wind. Even taking “better days” into account, the average electricity output of wind and solar energy installations in Germany amounts to only about 17% of the installed capacity.

The obvious lesson is: if you want a stable, secure electricity supply, then you will need reserve, or backup sources of electricity which can be activated on more or less short notice to fill the gaps between electricity demand and the fluctuating output from wind and solar sources.

The more wind and solar energy a nation decides to generate, the more backup capacity it will require. On “bad days” these backup sources must be able to supply up to 100% of the nation’s electricity demand. On “good days” (or during “good hours”) the backup sources will be used less, or even turned off, so that their capacity utilization will also be poor. Not very good economics.

Much better would be to limit wind and solar to a relative minimum, and rely instead upon controllable, non-fluctuating power sources operating with a high capacity factor, to meet the nation’s base load electricity requirements and to adjust total output in accordance with varying demand. This corresponds to world-wide practice prior to the recent huge buildup with renewable energy.

In theory the ideal backup for wind and solar energy would be to store excess electricity produced when the Sun is shining and strong winds are blowing, and inject it back into the grid when needed. Unfortunately, electricity is a difficult and expensive commodity to store.

By far the most efficient presently available solution for storing excess electric power is to use it to pump water against gravity into a reservoir. When electricity is needed again, it is produced by letting water flow down again via a turbine generator. In this process about 25% of the energy is lost.

Naturally, the costs of construction and operation of such pump storage plants will add to the real costs of providing electricity. Plus, these installations use up a large amount of land area.

Here, too, Germany provides an instructive example. A 2014 study by the Bavarian Ministry of Energy came to the conclusion that pump storage plants were not an economically viable solution. Much better would be to exploit already existing water reservoir resources in Norway and Sweden, where the capacity of pump storage plants can be greatly expanded and new ones built at much lower cost.

This “solution,” however, would require transporting large amounts of electricity over long distances back and forth between Germany and those countries – which in turn would require additional high-voltage lines and cables that have not been built and that no one wants to pay for.

Given the high costs and other obstacles to creating large electricity storage systems, it is not surprising that Germany’s electricity storage capacity amounts today to less than 2% of total electricity output.

There has been much discussion and research concerning alternative ways to store electricity. Theoretically one could be to use excess power to produce hydrogen, store it somehow and then use fuel cells to generate electricity back from the hydrogen. This would be vastly more expensive than pump storage, however, and with much greater losses.

Overdose of renewables?

Today, in order to guarantee stable baseline power and fill the gaps left by its fluctuating wind and solar generators, Germany is forced to rely on (1) CO2-spouting coal and natural gas power plants; (2) its remaining handful of nuclear plants, which it plans to shut down by 2022; and most notably (3) importing electricity from other European nations.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) fetches a green folder from her briefcase at the start of a government consultation round concerning bill on renewable energy at the Chancellery in Berlin, Germany, 31 May 2016. Photo: AFP / Maurizio Gambarini / dpa

Most of the imports come from France, where about 75% of electricity is produced by nuclear plants, and from Sweden, where 40% is nuclear-produced. On “bad days” Germany could hardly get along without a piece of this much-dreaded nuclear energy.

On “good days” Germany floods the rest of Europe with excess power from its wind and solar installations, often at dumping or even negative prices. In this way Germany has turned its huge amounts of wildly fluctuating renewable power sources into a European-wide problem.

Even with the flourishing European electricity trade, however, Germany is still far from being able to close down its coal and gas power plants.

The German Energy Agency (DENA) published a long-term scenario for electricity production in Germany, based on the assumption that so-called renewable sources should account for 80% of total electricity consumption by the year 2050.

Among other things DENA concluded that in order to insure a stable electricity supply, Germany would still need to maintain 61 gigawatts of conventional power plant capacity “in reserve” and for a remaining portion of base-load production. Electricity storage systems would provide only 9% of reserve capacity in 2050.

Despite – and to a large extent because of — the massive expansion of renewables, conventional power capacity could only be reduced by 14% up to 2030 and by a maximum of 37% by 2050.

Given the government’s commitment to shut down nuclear energy in Germany, this would mean keeping a large reserve of CO2 -emitting, fossil fuel-based generation capacity. At the same time the political decision has been made to phase out the coal-power stations which up to now have produced the largest part of Germany’s electricity.

That leaves essentially only petroleum (heating oil) and natural gas as realistic fuels for backup power. Natural gas would take first place because it generates about 50% less CO2 per kWh of electricity than coal or petroleum-powered plants.

With this background one can appreciate the German government’s concern to guarantee long-term supplies of natural gas at stable prices. Hence also the government’s insistence on the North Stream 2 project to build a system of offshore natural gas pipelines from Russia to Germany.

The good news, so to speak, is that for most of the time the backup plants would operate at only a fraction of their installed capacity, with many even standing still on “good days.” That way they would release much less CO2 to the atmosphere.

That’s nice for the environment, but not a very efficient way to utilize equipment, infrastructure and manpower – and not very attractive for investors. Also it’s still far from the green dream of a CO2-free energy system.

Preserving the stability of Germany’s electricity grid while at the same time integrating tens of thousands of fluctuating energy sources distributed over the entire country has been a major technical challenge. It has meant reorganizing much of the electricity transmission and distribution system, which was designed and built to operate in a completely different regime.

It means also the construction of thousands of kilometers of new high-voltage lines, including four projected long-distance transmission lines which are needed to move electricity from the windy north to the industrial west and south of the country. This again adds to the real (systemic) costs of supplying the country with electricity.

There is no doubt that the attempted transition to renewable sources as the foundation of Germany’s energy system – Angela Merkel’s famous “Energiewende” – has already significantly reduced the country’s economic efficiency. The constantly rising electricity prices, taxes and levies only begin to reflect the true costs of the government’s policy. There is also a debate concerning the future stability of the electricity grid.

Merkel and others often argue that a successful “Energiewende” would place Germany in a unique position to export know-how and technology for the ongoing “green transformation” of the world economy. Increased income from export of green technology is supposed to compensate for the costs of the Energiewende. This calculation assumes that the other countries will choose to follow the radical German example in reorganizing their power sectors, which is doubtful.

Meanwhile resistance has been growing inside Germany itself, as local environmental groups and citizens’ initiatives mobilize to block construction of wind turbines, transmission lines, pump power stations and other renewable energy projects.

The environmentalist ideology is coming into contradiction with itself. The unprecedented scale of destruction of the natural landscape by 30 000 gigantic wind turbines has brought a growing realization, that reliance on renewable energy is by no means friendly to the environment – and not necessarily safe.

People don’t want to live near wind turbines, because of unpleasant noise and possibly dangerous infrasound emissions, disturbing optical effects, reports of fires, broken-off turbine blades flying through the air, ice throws,  etc. And the dead birds.

In Germany there is political pressure to increase the legally-set minimum for the distance between wind turbines and houses to 1 or even 1.5 kilometers, which would drastically reduce the availability of construction sites. Already, protests and law suits have brought the construction of new wind turbines in Germany to a near-standstill.

Wind farm photo by Winchell Joshua, US Fish and Wildlife Service (Wikicommons)

Solar energy has encountered much less resistance, no doubt to a large extent because only a few large solar farms have been built in the country. Most of the present capacity comes from roof-mounted solar cells, especially on private houses, where they have become quite popular.

The big problem is how to store the electricity, which is generated only during daylight hours and fluctuates according to the cloud cover. So far relatively few house owners have been willing to pay for batteries and other storage devices. Instead, excess electricity is taken up by the grid at a subsidized price.

Projects for pump storage stations, and for new transmission lines have met with such intense resistance, that there is little chance of fulfilling the original goals of the Energiewende.

The question is, whether it makes sense at all to depart from the tried-and-proven model of a stable electricity system based on continuously functioning sources, a large percentage operating in base load mode.

If we want the system to be largely CO2-free, then the only available option is nuclear energy.

With spreads so tight – despite credit risks (leverage) at or near record highs – it would appear the bankers have returned to what they know best to be able to keep demand for new issues high and at the same offload their exposures in case of crisis – “baffle ’em with bullshit.”

IG and HY spreads relative to turns of leverage are at their tightest levels (least risk-aware) in two decades…

Thanks in large part to the incessant and heavy hand of The ECB on the bid for European corporate debt, credit spreads are at their tightest since 2007, and that, according to IFRE, has sparked several European banks into action.

Source: Bloomberg

JP Morgan, Nomura and BNP Paribas are among the banks racing to sell the first managed synthetic collateralised debt obligation since the financial crisis, according to people familiar with the matter, with sources signalling that a deal could land in the first quarter of the year.

Such a move, as IFRE points out so accurately, would represent a further landmark in the rehabilitation of this controversial breed of structured credit investment that many associate with the kind of excessive financial engineering that led to the financial crisis of 2008.

As a reminder, a synthetic CDO, sometimes called a CSO, invests in a portfolio of single-name CDS, not mortgages to obtain a supposedly diversified portfolio of fixed-income exposure. The returns of that portfolio of premiums is then divided (or tranched) up to meet investors’ needs from a demand vs risk perspective (high yields and higher risk, low yields and relative safety) which typically – thanks to the magic of leverage and some financial engineering -can outdo the more generic sources of income available to investors.

Volumes of collateralised synthetic obligations have surged in recent years as historically low interest rates have encouraged money managers to delve into more complex investments. But a subsequent decline in the returns CSOs offer has encouraged banks to find ways to make them more appealing to investors.

And that is why the shift to ‘managed’ CSOs is so notable, as until now have mainly been short-dated (up to two years in maturity) and static. That means the hedge fund investors that mostly buy these products cannot substitute credits in the underlying portfolio of CDS.

As IFRE details, banks are looking to change that by crafting longer-dated, managed CSOs that would offer meatier yields. Funds including Apollo Global Management and CQS are considering participating if such deals were to come to fruition, sources say.

Allowing the investor in the riskiest portion of the CSO to swap credits in and out of the portfolio should help mitigate the increased risk of defaults that comes with longer-dated investments. These structures would also bear a closer resemblance to the more mainstream collateralised loan obligation market, potentially bringing in a wider range of investors.

“There’s definitely a focus on getting the first transaction completed. We’re hoping that once we do a managed deal, the investor base can expand – the traditional CLO investors will look at CSOs too,” said Sukho Lee, an executive director in structured credit trading at Nomura.

Translation:

“baffle ’em with enough bullshit and offer enough juice and we can sell ’em anything we need to offload.”

As a reminder, the synthetic CDO machine loomed large over credit markets in the run-up to the financial crisis, helping to fuel the extraordinary growth in credit derivatives over that period. The CDS market expanded more than fourfold in the space of two years to reach a peak of US$58trn in 2007, according to the Bank for International Settlements, before shrinking back to US$8trn by mid-2019.

Another driver of longer-dated CSOs is that spreads have compressed so much that it’s become very difficult to place two-year deals.

“The five-year product helps execution as you’re trading the more liquid part of the curve, but this obviously brings added risk of losses due to the longer duration,” said Ben Hammond, an executive director in credit structuring at Nomura.

“As a result, equity [investors] in particular are keen to look at transactions where they can substitute names over the life of the trade.”

Investment banks have a strong incentive to make these deals work so they can keep the CSO machine running. That means it could be a matter of when, not if, the first managed CSO comes back to the market.

“If dealers can demonstrate that it’s not their trading desk selecting the names but credit managers… that could help banks get more investors involved,” said Christian Adler.

And while the equity tranche of these deals will soak up 5% to 10% of default losses (and pay a chunky 1000bps for that risk), the state of the corporate debt markets suggests, sooner rather than later, losses will far exceed that.

Read more here at IFRE…

Finally, we note that with central banks expected to support government debt, BofA warns that “the biggest recession risk is disorderly rise in credit spreads & corporate deleveraging.”

Even the World Bank’s vice president for equitable growth, finance and institutions, Ceyla Pazarbasioglu is worried that the dangers were building up.

“History shows that large debt surges often coincide with financial crises in developing countries, at great cost to the population,” she said.

And maybe the renaissance of managed CSOs is the canary… now we just have to wait for CDO-squared to make an appearance to ‘sell, Mortimer, sell’!

Authored by Aaron Kesel via TheMindUnleashed.com,

The age-old question of are we alone in the universe may not be answered any time soon, but the fact that Britain is planning on declassifying its UFO files for the first time puts us one step closer to the truth.

The Royal Air Force (RAF) ran a UFO unit for 50 years that took in public sighting reports but it was shut down in 2009 after it was determined none of the reports offered evidence of a real threat. The records from the unit were then given to the British National Archives where they were classified.

A spokesman for the RAF said that “it had been assessed that it would be better to publish these records, rather than continue sending documents to the National Archives, and so they are looking to put them on to a dedicated gov.uk web page.”

A clearance process for the documents is currently underway before publication, which is expected to take place “sometime within the first quarter of 2020,” according to the Telegraph.

“Given the massive public interest in this subject, I’m pleased that these files will be released and made available online,” said Nick Pope, who used to investigate UFO sightings for the country’s Ministry of Defense (MoD).

In June 2013, the MoD previously reported it was releasing the final UFO files in the UK’s possession. However, we now know that’s not true thanks to a Freedom of Information Request by PA News.

In response to the FOI, the RAF described the files it held as “comprising entirely of correspondence with members of the public.”

“The MoD has no opinion on the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial life and does not investigate UFO reports.”

While the attempts to hide the truth about the existence of UFOs is dying down, disclosure is ramping up. As TMU previously reported, U.S. Navy officials have acknowledged that video footage showing UFOs flying is real.

In the video below, Lt. Col Lawrence J. Tacker and Maj Hetor Quintanilla, Jr., speak about unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and Project Blue Book, which relates to the investigation of UFOs in the United States.

Just like RAF, the Blue Book commission determined that UFOs did not pose a security risk and that they were identifiable in 1966 under hearings. However, Dr. J. Allen Hynek who was the lead scientist on the Blue Book commission confessed years later that there was a cover-up.

Project Blue Book wasn’t the only investigation into UFOs—there was also Project Grudge, Project Sign, the Cometa Report, Majestic 12, Robertson Panel and more recently a whistle-blower disclosed that the U.S. claimed to have an Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). The U.S.’ own interest in UFOs is obviously well documented up to the 21st century.

In fact, the very first former CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter agreed with Hynek in a 1960 New York Times article oddly titled, “AIR FORGE ORDER ON ‘SAUCERS’ CITED; Pamphlet by the Inspector General Called Objects a ‘Serious Business“ that contradicts Project Blue Book’s findings and the CIA’s own comments a few years ago. Hillenkoetter said that the Air Force called UFOs “serious business in secret.”

It’s no wonder that they were called “serious business” because years prior in 1942, the incident known as the Battle Of Los Angeles took place where the U.S. military shot at an unknown disk over California that they later called a weather balloon—just like the infamous Roswell incident in 1947 which was first reported as a saucer, later changed to a balloon filled with crash dummies.

Another high-ranking official Major Donald Keyhoe alleged in an earlier 1958 interview that the Air Force was deliberately dismissing and covering up UFOs, confirming Hillenkoetter and Hynek’s claims made years later. Major Keyhoe also exposes the CIA life that all of the UFO sightings were the agency when he says that “one pilot was killed in 48 chasing one.” He also said that if they don’t exist “why do they rush to these crash sites?” A report also exists stating that the Air Force was ordered to shoot down flying saucers in 1952.

While the RAF is prepared to disclose its UFO files, the U.S. Navy has stated the opposite—that it would be a national security threat to disclose the Nimitz incident and the release would result in “exceptionally grave damage.”

UFOs are frequently seen around missile silos causing nuclear weapon stations to go haywire and even go offline, disabling them since 1948, according to Captain Robert Salas.

The truth is out there and X-Files fans everywhere are itching for disclosure. However, if history is any guide, we are unlikely to get anything of value from the RAF reports on citizen sightings.

Transparency International just released its 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index.

Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes that the organization stating that despite anti-corruption movements gaining momentum around the world last year, a staggering number of countries have showed little to no improvement in tackling the problem.

The index ranks 180 countries and territories on perceived public sector corruption with 0 meaning “highly corrupt” and 100 meaning “very clean”. This time around, more than two-thirds of countries scored 50 or below which means they have serious problems preventing foul play in their public sectors.

The average global score was 43.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Denmark and New Zealand came joint-first with a score of 87 followed by Finland, Singapore and Sweden. Somalia was rock bottom of the index with a score of just 9, followed by South Sudan and Syria with 12 and 13 respectively.

Transparency International said that only 22 countries saw a significant improvement in their scores over the past eight years including Greece, Guyana and Estonia. During the same time frame, 21 countries recorded a significant decrease with Canada, Nicaragua and Australia among their ranks.

The U.S. had a disappointing score of 69 this year, its worst score in eight years.

Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,

The German government recently announced that it would be cracking down on free speech, with Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht claiming that the German government “is confronting right-wing extremism and anti-Semitism by all means enabled by the rule of law.” The government presented a package of measures, including some that will limit free speech. According to German news outlet Deutsche Welle:

“[O]nline service providers, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter will be obliged to report hate speech to German authorities, and also pass on the IP address of the conspicuous user. Until now, such social media giants have only been required to delete hate speech within a certain time period.”

Germany’s controversial censorship law, known as NetzDG, which came into effect on October 1, 2017, requires social media platforms to delete or block any online “criminal offenses” such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint. Social media companies receive seven days for more complicated cases. If they fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros for failing to comply.

Lambrecht, in announcing the package, referred to the attack on the synagogue in Halle, in which a German man, Stefan Balliet, tried to enter the synagogue to kill Jews there, but failed. He subsequently murdered two people in other locations. Balliet admitted that anti-Semitic and right-wing extremist beliefs motivated him to commit the attack. He is believed to have sought inspiration for the attack on the internet. “What the disinhibition and unleashing of hatred in the net can lead to was shown again in the terrible attack on the Jewish community in Halle”, Lambrecht said.

According to Die Welt, the new package will ensure that, “Existing and proven approaches to prevention against right-wing extremism are to be continued and developed. Specifically, programs to promote democracy and prevent extremism… as well as political education measures in general…” In addition, according to Die Welt, “The work of constitutional protection against right-wing extremism is to be intensified” and measures be taken so that “security authorities and the judiciary are adequately equipped to combat politically motivated crime from the right as necessary”.

The new governmental initiative, however, appears to be directed only against anti-Semitism committed by right-wing extremists. It appears, for example, to ignore anti-Semitic acts committed by Islamist extremists — a peculiar omission, considering the findings of the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA): “Second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in the EU, published in December 2018. According to the survey:

“With respect to the most serious incident of antisemitic harassment, on average, across the 12 Member States surveyed, the most frequently mentioned categories for perpetrators were: ‘someone else I cannot describe’ (31 %); ‘someone with an extremist Muslim view’ (30 %); ‘someone with a left-wing political view’ (21 %); ‘work or school/college colleague’ (16 %); ‘teenager or group of teenagers’ (15 %); ‘an acquaintance or friend’ (15 %); ‘someone with a right-wing political view’ (13 %)”.[1]

Germany was among the 12 member states surveyed.

Previously, in November 2018, the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights published a report, “Antisemitism – Overview of data available in the European Union 2007–2017,” which quoted the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) for stating that in 2017:

“The main perpetrators of antisemitic incidents are ‘Islamists’ and radicalised young Muslims, including schoolchildren, as well as neo-Nazis and sympathisers of extreme-right and, in some cases, extreme-left groups”.[2]

Perhaps most importantly, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) — Germany’s domestic intelligence service — published a report in June 2019 on “Anti-Semitism in Islamism.” The purpose of the report was “to raise public awareness of Islamist anti-Semitism”. According to the report:

“In order to get an idea of the extent and manifestations of anti-Semitic propaganda and events in the Islamist milieu in Germany, since the end of 2015 the BfV has been recording… anti-Semitic events with a suspected Islamist background…

“The recording of these events proves that anti-Semitic events with an Islamist background are not uncommon in Germany. For the period from January to December 2017 alone, more than 100 incidents were recorded, ranging from anti-Zionist sermons to anti-Semitic graffiti to verbal and physical attacks against individuals. Probably this is just the proverbial ‘tip of the iceberg’. [Emphasis added].

“Violent events have so far been recorded only to a limited extent. Even individual cases, however, make it clear that the ideological radicalization of people and the incitement to hatred and violence through anti-Semitic ideas provide the breeding ground for violent escalations.

“It is also noteworthy that numerous incidents have been caused by individuals, who have so far had no evidence of a link to organized Islamism. For example, in April 2016, a woman in Berlin was addressed by two Arab men because of her necklace pendant in the shape of the land of Israel. The two men then insulted her with the words ‘You shit Jews! You are the scum of the world’. In December 2017, an Arab classmate attacked a Jewish high school student in Berlin with the words: ‘You are child murderers; you should have your heads cut off!’ Also in December 2017, two unknown persons attacked a synagogue in North Rhine-Westphalia and insulted the staff there with the words: ‘Al-Quds belongs to us! Disappear from here, you sons of whores!’

“Such events suggest that the anti-Semitic ideas spread by Islamists are increasingly also found in Muslim social groups outside Islamist organizations. Whether this is a permanent phenomenon – perhaps even a sustained trend – remains to be seen.

“Irrespective of the perspective, however, it should be noted that the anti-Semitic ideas spread by Islamist groups and individuals already present a considerable challenge to peaceful and tolerant coexistence in Germany today”.

The question, then, is why jihadi anti-Semitism does not appear to have been included in the German government’s package of initiatives to combat anti-Semitism?

Especially as, in April 2018, according to Die Welt, Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted in an interview:

“We now also have new phenomena, whereby we have refugees or people of Arab origin who bring another form of anti-Semitism into the country.”

Furthermore, German authorities do not always appear to take Islamist anti-Semitism seriously, even when it has obviously deadly potential. On October 4, a knife-wielding Syrian man tried to enter a Berlin synagogue while shouting “Allahu Akbar” and “Fuck Israel.” According to the regional newspaper Neues Deutschland, police took the man into custody in a psychiatric hospital, because there was “no urgent suspicion of a crime, only the initial suspicion of trespassing”. In addition, “there were no indications of the possible radicalization of the man”. The police released him the next day, even though he had literally been “caught in the act” by the synagogue guards.

The foiled knife attack, however, did cause Berlin’s interior administration to announce an increased police presence in front of Jewish institutions. What, however, is the point of an increased police presence, when potential perpetrators are immediately set free and only seen as causing a “suspicion of trespassing?”

The Central Council of Jews in Germany criticized the man’s release. “The speedy release of the perpetrator is incomprehensible,” said President Josef Schuster, adding that the prosecutor’s office had “negligently handled an attempt to attack a synagogue”.

German intelligence assessments, found in the 2018 Annual Report on the Protection of the Constitution, confirm the magnitude of the jihadi threat, not only against German Jews, but against all Germans:

“Considering nothing but the hard numbers, one can say that the Islamist extremist following increased slightly to a total of 26,560 individuals in 2018 (2017: 25,810). While no Islamist extremist attack was staged in Germany in 2018, the detection of a number of attack plans in various stages of preparation has shown that there is no reason to give the all-clear. The threat situation in Germany remains tense; it has stabilized on a high level…Germany continues to be a target of jihadist organizations such as ISIL or al-Qaeda. Consequently, Germany as well as German interests in various regions in the world are facing a constantly serious threat, which may any time manifest itself in terrorist attacks motivated by jihadism”.

Given the official threat scenario, the German government owes all its citizens an explanation as to why it is so “selective” in its response to anti-Semitism.

Authored by Alanna Kelter via Collective Evolution blog,

Often when we think of the word psychopath, we think of deranged serial killers that are hopefully locked up in prison for life.

While there are many psychopaths who kill for reasons that are unfathomable to most of us and who are indeed in prison, there is an even greater number roaming free in our society and often using their condition to their advantage in any way possible.

In fact, it is very likely that you know some – they might even be your colleagues.

Most of us do not know or work with any serial killers, at least not that we are aware of. So, what exactly is a psychopath and how can we define them? The dictionary definition is as follows:

“A person suffering from a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.”

As you can probably tell, a lot more than just serial killers will fit into this broad definition. In fact, according to Canadian psychologist Dr. Robert Hare, a world-renowned expert on psychopathy, an estimated 1% of the Earth’s population is psychopathic and around 25% of the population of male inmates at federal correctional facilities are psychopathic.

Psychopathic Traits

It is important to note that, in contrast with the popular image of the ‘deranged psycho,’ psychopaths tend to be very well composed, take good care of their appearance and are very charming (think of Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman in American Psycho). Because of this you may have a difficult time spotting them out, as they are masters of deception and are able to fake a lot of the qualities that define regular people. Some other psychopathic traits, according to Hare’s Psychopath

• Glib and superficial charm

• Grandiose estimation of self

• Need for stimulation

• Manipulative and cunning

• Complete lack of remorse or guilt

• Pathological lying

• Have a parasitic lifestyle, often latching onto and taking from others

• Have a history of early behavioral problems

• Overly impulsive

• Are very irresponsible

• Unable to accept responsibility for actions

• Unable to commit to long-term relationships

• History of juvenile delinquency

• Display criminal versatility

• Experienced a “revocation of conditional release”

• Lacks realistic long term goals

• History of promiscuous sexual behavior

• Have poor behavioral controls

• Are callous and lack empathy

• Have a “shallow affect” (psychopaths show a lack of emotion when an emotional reaction is appropriate.)

You can actually rate yourself to find out if you are psychopath. On each criterion, the subject is ranked on a 3-point scale: (0 = item does not apply, 1 = item applies somewhat, 2 = item definitely applies). The scores are summed to create a rank of zero to 40. Anyone who scores 30 and above is most likely a psychopath. Hare has used this test and checklist to detect which inmates are psychopaths.

Snakes In Suits

What many of us don’t realize is that psychopaths actually thrive in the corporate world. Hare has actually co-authored a book with Dr. Paul Babiak on this topic entitled, Snakes In Suits: Understanding and Surviving the Psychopaths in Your Office. Psychopaths manipulate others to accrue power, sometimes pitting them against each other in an attempt to divide and conquer. They are often attracted to bigger, dynamic corporations with very little structure or supervision. They generally don’t work well in teams because they don’t like to share information or skills and it brings them joy to watch others fail. They are addicted to power, status and money. Sound familiar?

Sadly, the corporate world is set up to favor psychopathic traits such as fearlessness, dominant behavior and immunity to stress. Because of this, psychopaths often find themselves in these types of positions, and then have an easier time climbing the corporate ladder and obtaining positions of great power. This is where they can do real damage to society.

Are Psychopaths Running The World?

Not only as corporate heads do psychopaths find success in our modern-day society, but also within our governments and political system — often as front-line politicians. This may come as a shock to you, but when you really look at some of the atrocities that are taking place on our planet, and if you’ve ever wondered how things that are so inhumane could actually be happening, well, therein lies your answer.

When you consider the war, genocide, senseless murder of civilians, treatment of the indigenous cultures of the world, chemicals in our food, air and water supply, acts of “terrorism”, war crimes and so many other unjust and cruel actions which are often instigated by our political leaders, it becomes easy to see how psychopaths actually fit the requirements for these types of roles quite well. As mentioned before they are masters of deception, pathological liars and often quite charming.

Many soldiers go to war and because they are conditioned to believe that they are fighting an enemy in the name of peace. They do as they are told and commit these heinous acts against other human beings. The reason why so many soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder is because it is not within human nature to murder other humans, and especially innocent civilians

We already know how many politicians are crooked, but perhaps its time to start looking at them with the psychopath checklist in mind so that we can be better equipped to protect not only ourselves but our society from their malicious acts.

But Can’t We Help Them?

It is natural for anyone who is an empath or those involved in spiritual work to have compassion for these individuals and feel compelled to help them overcome their psychopathic behavior. However, most research has pointed towards the understanding that psychopaths are born, not made and therefore cannot be cured. This is one of the main differences that separates sociopaths from psychopaths. Another is that sociopaths have a conscience, albeit a weak one, and will often justify something they know to be wrong. By contrast, psychopaths will believe that their actions are justified and feel no remorse for any harm done. Sociopaths are made, and have a higher likelihood of overcoming their condition. However, many of those with sociopathic behavior will find themselves in similar corporate positions.

Hare’s research discovered that by attempting to heal or help a psychopath, you might actually be strengthening their cunning abilities, as they will find a way to manipulate you into believing that they are remorseful and understand how their actions were wrong.

The best we can do is learn to recognize the traits of psychopaths and be sure to stay clear of their actions and behaviors to protect ourselves from the wake of their inevitable destruction.

Look on the bright side: At least you still have a job.

After an almost unrelentingly demoralizing 2019, Deutsche Bank’s CEO is asking his bankers to make one last sacrifice for the sake of Sewing’s grand turnaround vision to keep this melting icecube intact just a little while longer.

What’s he doing, exactly? Well, waiting few extra months for pay raises promised last year.

But hopefully employees don’t read too much into the delay: because of the pay raises taking effect on Jan. 1, bankers will need to wait until April Fool’s Day instead, according to Reuters and the New York Post.

“After thorough discussions, we on the Management Board have taken the decision that, from 2020, any fixed pay adjustments in connection with the annual review or promotion process will be effective April 1 (not retroactively effective as of January 1).”

Unsurprisingly, Sewing blamed the many scandals and penalties that have plagued Deutsche Bank, saying they’ve hastened the need for dramatic cost cuts. For context: The bank has paid out more than $20 billion in fines over the last decade.

“We carefully assessed how this decision would impact our employees and benchmarked ourselves against peers,” Sewing said in a memo obtained by the New York Post.

Sewing stressed that for the bank to become more competitive and avoid even more painful cutbacks, it must be run in a “disciplined manner”. Perhaps he should tell that to his predecessors who allowed the global headcount at the German giant to swell to nearly 90,000.

“For the bank to be competitive and meet its goals for sustainable returns to shareholders it is vital that we further manage costs in a disciplined manner,” Sewing wrote. “This also relates to compensation.”

Deutsche Bank isn’t the only European bank embracing “cost cuts” in its investment-banking unit (though DB bankers will also have to do more with less this year), and Sewing assures his staff that DB’s efforts have been “benchmarked against peers”.

“We carefully assessed how this decision would impact our employees and benchmarked ourselves against peers,” Sewing added.

Anybody complaining about the delay should take a second to think about what they have to be thankful for: At least they still have jobs, and will continue to be paid.

“We will continue to compensate employees for their qualifications, experience and skills, commensurate with the requirements, size and scope of their role,” Deutsche Bank said.

Many of their now-former colleagues aren’t so lucky.

Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

Earlier this month, the Washington Post reported that the homicide rate in Washington, D.C., in 2019 was higher than it was in 2018. There were 166 people killed in 2019, compared to 160 in 2018. In fact, the 2019 D.C. homicide rate is the highest number since 2008.

But isn’t that impossible? After all, our nation’s capital has one of the strictest gun-control laws in the United States.

The Post points out, “D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham has identified illegal firearms as a major factor fueling homicides.”

But how is that possible? Given that the city has such strict gun-control laws, how is it possible that people are still being killed by guns?

The answer is very simple. People who are willing to murder people don’t give a hoot about gun-control laws. Why should they? If they get caught, prosecuted, and convicted of murder, they are going to have to serve a very long jail term, maybe even life in prison. They know that. What difference does it make if a judge adds another 5 years for violating some gun-control law?

Clockwise starting at topleft: Glock G22, Glock G21, Kimber Custom Raptor, Dan Wesson Commander, Smith & Wesson Air Weight .357, Ruger Blackhawk .357, Ruger SP101, Sig Sauer P220 Combat.

That’s what many in the gun-control crowd have never been able to process. They just naively assume that if possession of guns is made illegal, everyone will comply with the law.

In making that assumption, the gun-control crowd, of course, is right. Most people will comply with the law. They don’t want to take the chance of being convicted of a felony. The problem, however, is that those are the people who oftentimes are the victims of violent crime. Thus, what a gun-control law does is disarm those people, thereby preventing them from defending themselves against people who don’t give a hoot for gun-control laws.

The Post adds another dimension to the gun-control equation. It writes: “We also hope that Virginia — a major source of the illegal firearms that flood the District — reimposes a law to limit purchases of handguns to one a month.”

So, you see, it’s not enough to impose strict gun control in D.C. It then becomes necessary to impose strict gun control in Virginia. Once that is accomplished, however, the guns will begin flooding in from Maryland,  which means even stricter gun control there. And let’s not forget the likelihood that smugglers from North Carolina, seeing the soaring prices of black-market guns in D.C., will begin flooding guns into D.C. by boats traveling up the Potomac. They’re going to need strict gun control in North Carolina too to ensure that gun control in D.C. works.

In other words, to order to make D.C. a gun-free society, which is what the gun-control crowd really wants to accomplish, a strict gun-control regime will ultimately be needed all across the country. That means disarming law-abiding people in every state, thereby preventing them from defending themselves against the violent people who don’t care whether they violate gun-control laws.

Let’s assume the gun-control crowd got its wish and that the only people who have guns are the Pentagon, the military establishment, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the TSA, the DEA, ICE, and other federal officials.

The question then arises: Who protects the citizenry from those people? What if a national “emergency” or “crisis” involving “national security” occurs and those federal people begin rounding up American families who officials think pose a threat to “national security” and placing them in Abu Ghraib prison camps all across the nation? At that point, many American citizens will wish they still had their guns.

But one thing is certain: Once people surrender their guns to the government, they will never make the mistake a second time because they simply will not have the opportunity to make the mistake a second time. That’s because once people give up their guns to their government, there is no possibility that the government will let them ever have their guns back.

The real problem in America is violence, not guns. Enacting a one-per-month purchase of a handgun in Virginia, as the Post recommends, is like putting a Band-Aid on a massive hemorrhaging wound.

There are two major ways to drastically reduce violence in America:

(1) Legalize drugs, all of them. That would immediately put out of business all drug cartels and drug gangs. It would also drastically reduce the price of drugs, thereby reducing robberies, muggings, and thefts to get the money to pay the exorbitant black-market prices for drugs; and

(2) Bring all the troops home from the Middle East and Afghanistan (and everywhere else), where they have been killing and injuring people and wreaking massive destructive violence on a constant level for decades. It is a virtual certainty that this culture of violence has seeped into American society, especially with what appear to be copycat killings that target people for what appears to be no rational reason.

Let’s legalize drugs and end the Pentagon-CIA culture of violence overseas. Violence would plummet here at home, which would thereby eliminate one of the principal excuses for gun control here in the United States.

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, God-given right, one that exists independently of the Second Amendment and the Constitution itself.

It is also a key to a safer, more secure society.

Gun control leads to higher homicides and to the possibility of federal tyranny. Too bad people in Washington, D.C., haven’t figured that out.

San Francisco’s Director of Public Works was arrested on Monday by the FBI over a series of suspected pay-to-play schemes, according to the San Francisco Examiner.

Mohammed Nuru, 57, was charged alongside San Francisco businessman Nick Bovis are alleged to have engaged in “corruption, bribery, and side deals by one of San Francisco’s highest-ranking public employees. San Francisco has been betrayed as alleged in the complaint,” according to a 75-page complaint unsealed this week.

“The complaint alleges corruption pouring into San Francisco from around the world,” said US Attorney for the Northern District of California, David Anderson, who added that the complaint alleges “corruption, bribery and side deals from one of San Francisco’s highest-ranking public employees.”

Of note, the Public Works department oversees San Francisco’s ‘poop patrol,’ which pays crews making six-figure salaries to clean up after the city’s notorious homeless population.

Thank you to Nick Bovis for his leadership & all he does for the children of the Bay Area& beyond w/@LODKids pic.twitter.com/xFPbE6MpGi

— Mohammed Nuru (@MrCleanSF) December 24, 2013

Nuru faces 20 years in prison if convicted on all counts – including an additional five years because he lied to the FBI about not keeping quiet about the investigation as originally agreed upon when he was arrested January 21st.

The alleged actions took place in 2018 and 2019 and were documented during a long-running and broad investigation involving undercover agents, informants, and extensive wire-taps. Other figures Bovis or Nuru interacted with are described obliquely in the complaint. Anderson said he’s certain individuals will recognize themselves and encouraged them to come forward.

“They have an opportunity to do the right thing — for San Francisco and all of us,” he said. “If they are inclined to do the right thing, they should … run to the FBI offices and disclose what they know. Or we’ll do it the other way.”

Bovis, Nuru’s partner in several of “five schemes” outlined today, is facing 20 years in prison. Both are free on $2 million bonds and will next appear in court on Feb. 6.

Anderson and FBI special agent in charge Jack Bennett outlined “five schemes.” The charges stem from the first and the four others are “charged to show state of mind.”

They are: 1. The Airport Scheme; 2. The Multimillion-Dollar Mixed-Use Development Scheme; 3. The Transbay Transit Center Scheme; 4. The Bathroom Trailer and Homeless Shelter Scheme; 5. The Vacation Home Scheme. –Mission Local

(Read about the schemes in detail here)

It is unknown how this might affect the poop patrol.

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

In some not so surprising news, a spy expert has come out saying what most of us already knew: the Steele dossier was completely “fabricated.”  Nigel West, one of Britain’s leading experts on espionage, was hired to examine the dossier written by his friend Christopher Steele. He concluded it was all manufactured falsehoods.

West, hired to examine the dossier back in 2017, quickly concluded that “there is… a strong possibility that all Steele’s material has been fabricated,” according to the Sunday Times.

Woah. Britain’s @thesundaytimes reports that the infamous “Steele Dossier” on @realDonaldTrump, compiled by a former MI6 spy, which accused the US president of being compromised by Russia & drove the “Russigate” hoax, was a work of “fabrication.” https://t.co/Yyc8Bt5r4M

— Bryan MacDonald (@27khv) January 27, 2020

Steele’s scandalous document, which claimed extensive ties between the then-US President-elect Donald Trump and the Kremlin, was published by BuzzFeed in January 2017 and quickly became the cornerstone of “Russiagate.” Media talking heads insisted that much of it had been corroborated. In fact, nothing was. –RT

It took West a long time to come out with the information that the dossier was an utter fabrication.  It isn’t clear why he waited so long to reveal what most already knew anyway. Even the FBI director at the time, James Comey, described the dossier as“salacious and unverified” in testimony to Congress. But the fact that this dossier was “unverified” did not stop Comey from signing an application for a FISA warrant that the Bureau used to spy on the Trump campaign via one of its advisers, Carter Page.

Steele himself was paid purely above-board, of course: by Fusion GPS, which was a client of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP, on behalf of the Democratic National Committee, at the direction of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. 

West told RT that he was surprised Steele made such obvious errors in the dossier.  Some of the most glaring mistakes were those such as treating one particular source as an expert in three entirely different fields or making up the existence of the Russian consulate in Miami, Florida. The source in question starts out as a middle-manager at the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow, but is later described as an expert on cyber warfare, and later yet as an expert on money-laundering by Russian immigrants in the US, West explained.

“On the face of it, it looked inherently improbable that this single source was as proclaimed.”