- Democracy Thrives In Poland
Democracy Thrives In Poland
Authored by Grzegorz Adamczyk via Remix News,
Despite repeated claims from several opposition politicians suggesting the end of democracy in Poland, recent parliamentary elections have proven that democracy is alive and well in the country, with no apparent threats in sight…
While the Law and Justice (PiS) party secured the most votes, they will not form the next government. The number of seats they fell short by to establish a majority is simply too large, and no miraculous event can change this. Although the opposition, in total, garnered more seats than the ruling party, the Civic Coalition (KO) did not overcome Law and Justice, as Donald Tusk frequently predicted.
Poland’s conservative ruling Law and Justice party leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, gets in a car after voting during parliamentary elections in Warsaw, Poland, Sunday, Oct. 15, 2023. (AP Photo/Michal Dyjuk, File)
The opposition’s seat count was significantly boosted mainly due to the stellar performance of the Third Way, a result not foreseen by any poll, and a loss in support for the Left and the Confederation.
Donald Tusk celebrated the election results, saying, “We did it.”
While it’s true that Tusk had an outstanding personal result, garnering over 538,000 votes in Warsaw, most of the success of the coalition was attributed to Third Way’s performance. Despite Tusk’s claims that there’s “no third way” and the repeated attacks on Third Way and Szymon Hołownia by radical opposition supporters, the party, combined with the Left, secured a majority of seats.
However, let’s not be under any illusion. It will be challenging for the current opposition parties, who have the majority of seats, to come to a consensus. The differences between Tusk and Zandberg or even between Kosiniak-Kamysz and Hołownia are vast. Still, voters would never forgive them if they didn’t reach an agreement. Moreover, no one is keen on early elections, as politicians are exhausted from a campaign that’s both a significant human and financial effort.
The success of the Third Way also signals a strong message from many young Poles, tired of the Tusk-Kaczynski rivalry. Catchphrases like “enough of the quarrels” resonated with them. I’ve always maintained that voters deserve respect, even if I disagree with their views, and I’ll never resort to insults. I understand young people’s need to escape from constant disputes, even if it is inherent to democracy. The current opposition needs to realize that the 7,640,854 PiS voters are here to stay, despite Rafał Trzaskowski’s claim that there’s no place for such views in Poland.
I often say that the favor of voters is unpredictable. This election highlighted that fact with interesting intra-list battles. People from the bottom of the list outperformed those at the top, proving that voters were making more informed choices rather than blindly supporting the list’s first candidate.
Record voter turnout underscores the continued polarization among Poles and their vision for the country. However, as demonstrated by the elections, democracy in Poland is far from over. The only potential threats are changes to the EU treaties, plans for EU centralization, and catering to the will of the biggest states. Alongside with inevitable societal shifts due to the “voluntary solidarity” with the EU’s migrant relocation mechanism and Russia’s growing imperial ambitions, these issues seemed insignificant to most voters. However, in the coming years, we might realize their importance.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/19/2023 – 02:00 - Some Call It Conspiracy Theory, Part 1
Some Call It Conspiracy Theory, Part 1
Authored by Iain Davis via IainDavis.com,
There are certain assumptions that are applied to anyone labelled a “conspiracy theorist”—and all of them are fallacies. Indeed, the term “conspiracy theory” is nothing more than a propaganda construct designed to silence debate and censor opinion on a range of subjects. Most particularly, it is used as a pejorative to marginalise and discredit whoever challenges the pronouncements and edicts of the State and of the Establishment—that is, the public and private entities that control the State and that profit from the State.
Those of us who have legitimate criticisms of government and its institutions and representatives, who are therefore labelled “conspiracy theorists,” face a dilemma. We can embrace the term and attempt to redefine it or we can reject it outright. Either way, it is evident that the people who weaponise the “conspiracy theory” label will continue to use it as long as it serves their propaganda purposes.
One of the most insidious aspects of the “conspiracy theory” fabrication is that the falsehoods associated with the term have been successfully seeded into the public’s consciousness. Often, propagandists need do no more than slap this label on the targeted opinion and the audience will immediately dismiss that viewpoint as a “lunatic conspiracy theory.” Sadly, this knee-jerk reaction is usually made absent any consideration or even familiarity with the evidence presented by that so-called “lunatic conspiracy theorist.”
This was the reason why “conspiracy theorist” label was created. The State and its propagandists do not want the public to even be aware of inconvenient evidence, let alone to examine it. The challenging evidence is buried under the “wild conspiracy theory” label, thereby signalling to the unsuspecting public that they should automatically reject all of the offered facts and evidence.
There are a number of components that collectively form the conspiracy theory canard.
Let’s break them down.
-
First, we have a group of people who supposedly can be identified as conspiracy theorists.
-
Second, we have the allegation that all conspiracy theorists share an underlying psychological weakness.
-
Third, conspiracy theory is said to threaten democracy by undermining “trust” in democratic institutions.
-
Fourth, conspiracy theorists are purportedly prone to extremism and potential radicalisation.
-
Fifth, conspiracy theory is accused of not being evidence-based.
According to the legacy media, there’s a link between so-called “conspiracy theory” and the “far right” and “white supremacists.” Guardian columnist George Monbiot, for example, wrote that:
[. . .] conspiracism is fascism’s fuel. Almost all successful conspiracy theories originate with or land with the far right.
Apparently, this is a common belief held by people who imagine that “conspiracy theory” exists in the form they have been told it exists. It is also a bold claim from an alleged journalist. There is no evidence to support Monbiot’s assertion.
Numerous studies have tried to identify the common traits of conspiracy theorists. These studies tend to initially identify their subject cohort simply through opinion surveys. If, for example, someone doesn’t accept the official accounts of 9/11 or the JFK assassination, the researchers label them “conspiracy theorists.”
Probably the largest demographic study of these alleged “conspiracy theorists” was undertaken by political scientists Joseph Uscinski and Joseph Parent for their 2014 book American Conspiracy Theories. They found that “conspiracy theorists” could not be categorised demographically.
Ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, employment and economic status and even political beliefs were not indicative. The only firm trait they could isolate was that conspiracy theorists, so-called, tended to be slightly older than the population average—suggesting, perhaps, that scepticism of State narratives increases with life experiences.
Professor Chris French made this observation, as reported by the BBC in 2019:
When you actually look at the demographic data, belief in conspiracies cuts across social class, it cuts across gender and it cuts across age. Equally, whether you’re on the left or the right, you’re just as likely to see plots against you.
This is not to deny that a minority of conspiracy theories are promoted by people on the far right of the political spectrum. Nor that some on the far left don’t advocate other similar theories. A few “conspiracy theories” can be considered “racist” and/or “antisemitic.” But there is no evidence to support the allegation that “conspiracy theorists,” when compared to the general population, are any more or less likely to hold extreme political beliefs or promote extremist narratives.
George Monbiot is certainly not alone in his views, but his published opinion—namely, that conspiracy theories “originate with or land with the far right”—is complete nonsense. So let’s discard his claim right now as ignorant claptrap.
George Monbiot – claptrap
Monbiot’s allusion to “conspiracism” relates to the alleged psychological problems that supposedly lead people to become “conspiracy theorists.” The “conspiracism” theory is a product of the worst kind of junk science. It is primarily based upon the notoriously flaky discipline of experimental psychology.
One of the seminal papers informing the theory of “conspiracism” is Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories (Wood, Douglas & Sutton, 2012). The researchers asked their “conspiracy theorist” subjects to rate the plausibility of various alleged conspiracy theories. They used a Likert-scale, where 1 is strongly disagree, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly agree. Some of the “theories” the subjects were asked to consider were contradictory.
For example, they asked the subjects to rate the plausibility of the notions that Princess Diana was murdered and that she faked her own death. Using this methodology, the researchers concluded:
While it has been known for some time that belief in one conspiracy theory appears to be associated with belief in others, only now do we know that this can even apply to conspiracy theories that are mutually contradictory.
But the researchers did not ask their subjects to exclude mutually contradictory theories—only to rate the plausibility of each individually. Thus, there was nothing in their reported findings to support the conclusion they unscientifically reached.
Subsequent research has highlighted how ludicrous their falsely named “scientific conclusion” was. Yet, despite being roundly disproved, the erroneous assertion that conspiracy theorists believe contradictory theories simultaneously is repeated ad nauseam by the legacy media, politicians and academics alike. It forms just one of the groundless truisms spouted by those who spread the “conspiracism” myth.
One of the most influential scholars—if not the most influential—in the field of conspiracy research is political scientist Joseph Uscinski. Like many other of his peers, he has tried to differentiate between evidence-based knowledge of real or “concrete” conspiracies, such as Iran-Contra or Watergate, and what scientific researchers allege to be the psychologically flawed and evidence-free views held by so-called “conspiracists.”
Uscinski cites the work of Professor Neil Levy as definitive. In Radically Socialized Knowledge and Conspiracy Theories, Levy stated:
The typical explanation of an event or process which attracts the label “conspiracy theory” is an explanation that conflicts with the account advanced by the relevant epistemic authorities. [. . .] A conspiracy theory that conflicts with the official story, where the official story is the explanation offered by the (relevant) epistemic authorities, is prima facie unwarranted. [. . .] It is because the relevant epistemic authorities — the distributed network of knowledge claim gatherers and testers that includes engineers and politics professors, security experts and journalists — have no doubts over the validity of the explanation that we accept it.
Simply put, the scientific definition of “conspiracy theory” is an opinion that conflicts with the official narrative as reported by the “epistemic authorities.” If you question what you are told by the State or by its “official” representatives or by the legacy media, you are a “conspiracy theorist” and, therefore, according to “the Science™,” mentally deranged.
All related “scientific research” on conspiracism and claimed conspiracy theory starts from the assumption that to question the State, the Establishment or the designated “epistemic authorities” is delusional. As hard as this fact may be for many to accept, the effective working definition of “conspiracy theory” in the scientific literature is “an opinion that questions power.”
Clearly, this definition is political, not scientific. The supposed underlying psychology of “conspiracism,” which allegedly induces people to engage in “conspiratorial thinking,” is an assumption stemming from the academic’s political bias in favour of the State and its institutions. It has absolutely no scientific validity.
In his 1949 essay Citizenship and Social Class, sociologist T. H. Marshall examined and defined democratic ideals. He described them as a functioning system of rights. These rights include the right to freedom of thought and expression, including speech, peaceful protest, freedom of religion and belief, equality of justice, equal opportunity under the law, and so on.
Most of us who live in what we call representative democracies are familiar with these concepts. “Rights” and “freedoms” are often touted by our political leaders, academia and the legacy media as the cornerstones of our polity and culture. The entire purpose of representative democracy, it is alleged, is to empower “we the people” to hold decision-makers to account. “Questioning power” is a foundational democratic ideal.
If we accept the working scientific definition of “conspiracy theory,” then its inherent questioning of power and overt challenge to authority embodies perhaps the most important democratic principle of all and forms the bedrock of representative democracy. It is not unreasonable to aver that representative democracy cannot possibly exist without “conspiracy theory”—again, as it is defined in the scientific literature. As we can see, the claim that “conspiracy theory” threatens democratic institutions is without merit.
Representative democracy is not founded on public trust in the State, in its agents or in its representatives. On the contrary, representative democracy is built upon the right of the people to question the State, its agents and its representatives.
Autocracies and dictatorships demand public “trust.” Democracies do not. In a representative democracy, “trust” must first be earned and, through their actions, State institutions must constantly maintain whatever trust the public originally chose to invest in them. Wherever and whenever that “trust” is no longer warranted, the people who live in a democracy are free to question, and ultimately dissolve, State institutions they don’t trust.
Trust is not a democratic principle. Questioning power is.
Consider that, according to State institutions like the United Nations (UN),
Conspiracy theories cause real harm to people, to their health, and also to their physical safety. They amplify and legitimize misconceptions [. . .] and reinforce stereotypes which can fuel violence and violent extremist ideologies.
This is a wholly misleading statement. It is disinformation.
The most violent act imaginable, and the most extreme ideology of all, is war and the all-out commitment to it. Full-scale war is possible only when a State declares it. International war is solely within the purview of one entity: the State. Wars are frequently justified by the State using lies and deception. Furthermore, the ideology of war is unwaveringly promoted by the legacy media on behalf of the State.
To be clear: the UN alleges that when ordinary men and women from across all sectors of society—representing all races, economic classes and political views—exercise their democratic right to question power, they are expressing opinions that “fuel violence and violent extremist ideologies.”
For such an extraordinary, apparently anti-democratic allegation to be considered even remotely plausible, it must be based upon irreproachable evidence. Yet, as we shall see, the UN’s claim is not based on any evidence at all.
In 2016, UN Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson issued a report to the UN advising its member states on potential policies to counter extremism and terrorism. In his report, Emmerson noted the lack of a clear, agreed-upon definition of “extremism.” He reported that different UN member states defined “extremism” based upon their own political objectives and national interests. There was no single, cogent explanation of the “radicalisation” process. As he put it:
[M]any programmes directed at radicalisation [are] based on a simplistic understanding of the process as a fixed trajectory to violent extremism with identifiable markers along the way. [. . .] There is no authoritative statistical data on the pathways towards individual radicalisation.
A year later, in 2017, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) delivered its report, “Countering Domestic Extremism.” The NAS suggested that domestic “violence and violent extremist ideologies” were the result of a complex interplay between a wide gamut of sociopolitical and economic factors, individual characteristics and life experiences.
The following year, in July 2018, the NAS view was reinforced by a team of researchers from Deakin University in a peer-reviewed article, “The 3 P’s of Radicalisation.” The Deakin scholars collated and reviewed all the available literature they could find on the process of radicalisation that potentially leads to violent extremism. They identified three main drivers: push, pull, and personal factors.
Push factors are the structural factors that propel people towards resentment, such as State repression, relative deprivation, poverty, and injustice. Pull factors are factors that make extremism seem attractive, like ideology, group identity and belonging, group incentives, and so on. Personal factors are individual character traits that make a person more or less susceptible to push or pull. These include psychological disorders, personality traits, traumatic life experiences, and so on.
Presently, the UN maintains that its report, Journey To Extremism in Africa, is “the most extensive study yet on what drives people to violent extremism.” In keeping with all previous research, the Africa report concluded that radicalisation occurs through an intricate combination of influences and life experiences.
The myriad of contributory factors to the radicalisation process according to the UN’s “most extensive study.”
Specifically, the report noted:
We know the drivers and enablers of violent extremism are multiple, complex and context specific, while having religious, ideological, political, economic and historical dimensions. They defy easy analysis, and understanding of the phenomenon remains incomplete.
In its report called “Prevention of Violent Extremism“—published in June 2023—the UN noted that “deaths from terrorist activity have fallen considerably worldwide in recent years.” Yet, in its promotional literature for the same report, the UN claimed that the “rise of violent extremism profoundly threatens human security.”
How can the UN have it both ways? How can it be that a “rise of violent extremism” correlates with a considerable reduction in terrorist activity and associated deaths? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
And remember that in the Africa report, which the UN currently calls its “most extensive study yet,” the UN acknowledged that the causes of radicalisation “are multiple, complex and context specific” and “defy easy analysis.”
This thoroughly refutes the manifest ease with which the UN proclaims, without cause, that so-called conspiracy theories “fuel violence and violent extremist ideologies.” This begs the question: what on Earth does the UN think “violent extremism” is, if not terrorism?
The bottom line is that, by its own admission, the UN has absolutely no evidence to support any of its “conspiracy theory” assertions. Rather, the UN is simply making up its entire “conspiracism” thesis from whole cloth.
In reality, so-called “conspiracy theorists” are overwhelmingly ordinary people with legitimate opinions that span a wide range of issues. Their opinions do not lead them to adopt extremist ideologies or to commit violent acts. There is no evidence at all to support this widely promulgated contention.
Nor are alleged “conspiracy theorists” a unique group of malcontents with psychological problems. The only defining characteristic these people possess is that they exercise their right to question power.
They do not seek to undermine democracy but, rather, exercise the rights and freedoms that democracy is supposedly based upon. It is this behaviour that the State deems unacceptable and that leads the State and its “epistemic authorities,” including the legacy media, to label them “conspiracy theorists.”
This observation in no way implies that the conspiracy theorists are always right. Conspiracy theories can be bigoted. They can be ridiculous. They may lack supporting evidence. They may cause offence. And they are sometimes just plain wrong. In other words they are just like any other opinion. But, equally, there is nothing inherently inaccurate or dangerous about every opinion labelled “conspiracy theory.”
There is only one way to ascertain if an alleged conspiracy theory is valid or not: examine the evidence. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory label was created specifically to discourage people from looking at the evidence.
There are countless examples of the conspiracy theory or theorist label being used to hide evidence, obscure facts and deny legitimate concerns.
In Part 2, we will look at a few of these examples and explore the wider geopolitical context in which the conspiracy theory label is deployed.
* * *
If you value what Iain does then please consider supporting his work.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/19/2023 – 00:00 -
- Insurrection? Pro-Palestinian Protesters Occupy Capitol Building
Insurrection? Pro-Palestinian Protesters Occupy Capitol Building
The far-left pro-Palestinian protests continue in the US with activists now occupying the Capitol, accusing lawmakers of having Palestinian blood on their hands.
As with most leftist efforts, the first goal is a narrative shift in which the people who triggered the conflict are painted as victims. The Hamas soldiers who launched terrorist attacks killing thousands of civilians in Israel are dismissed down the memory hole, and now the focus is only on Palestinian tragedy.
The most logical decision is for America to stay out of the conflict completely. However, rabid involvement by leftists on the side of Hamas may actually push a majority of Americans to throw full support behind Israel simply because any cause backed by woke organizations is a cause worth obstructing. The public will ask themselves: “When have these people ever been right?”
There’s an insurrection happening now on Capitol Hill https://t.co/hBMIcv3pqW
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) October 18, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The DC event adds insult to injury, considering Democrats have been accusing conservatives of insurrection for the past few years after occupying the Capitol.
JUST IN: The United States Capitol has been taken over inside and outside by pro-Palestine protesters as Rep. Rashida Tlaib spoke with a crowd nearby.
Are we only allowed to call people like this insurrections when they are Donald Trump supporters?
Police are now making… pic.twitter.com/W0rttqIx51
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 18, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
But of course, it’s only insurrection when conservatives do it…
INSURRECTION
OH MY GOD
THIS IS 9/11 ALL OVER AGAIN https://t.co/fyowFEho02
— Tim Pool (@Timcast) October 18, 2023
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 23:30 - The Rise Of China And The Permanence Of Change
The Rise Of China And The Permanence Of Change
Authored by Siamak Tundra Naficy via RealClear Wire,
In the midst of concerns regarding the debacle in Russia, it is important to recognize what still looks to be predominantly an Asian century. While the Western media and audience focus on the horrific crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s brutal invasion, this truth still hangs on the horizon. The United States will inevitably be pulled to prioritize Asia more firmly. The important question then is whether this fact can be managed awkwardly or gracefully.
China’s exponential growth follows a hard arithmetic, ensuring that regardless of its future trajectory, in terms of scale, it will not revert to a time before the 1980s. The nation is actively pursuing hegemony (or as you prefer—primacy or “leadership”) in Asia, presenting significant implications for the United States and its global footprint. With its status as the largest near-peer rival and the richest challenger the U.S. has ever faced, China’s growth demands a concentrated effort due to the scarcity of both resources and time. Considering the implications of changing power dynamics, it is essential to balance power with goals and assess whether commitments ultimately benefit or hinder the United States.
As an anthropologist, I am interested in what is particular and local but also in what is true across time and space. America’s alliances worldwide—supported by military bases and shared resources—augment its hard power and reach, but to put it bluntly—they also serve to contain its allies and control regions. NATO, then, exists not solely to counter Russia or formerly, the Soviet Union, but also to ensure stabilization in ways that favor the United States.
We talk of the permanence of things, like alliances. But alliances can and do shift. The word ‘alliance’ itself has become overused, vague, and means too many things. It is used too often and means little. The lexicon of partnerships, Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs), and Treaty Allies ought to transparently reflect their prescription of commitments during crisis and not be merely descriptive. More often than not, these coalitions have veered and expanded beyond their intended scope.
Undeniably, the theater of maritime drills, and technological and intelligence sharing confer benefits, but these alone don’t mean unmeasured support. History demonstrates that even superpowers can abandon. For instance, in 1999, despite all its talk of a pan-Slavic identity Russia pragmatically deserted the Serbs in Kosovo. The optimism Ukraine held prior to the Russian invasion exemplify the complexities of relying on assumed alliances. Afterall, while Ukraine was not in NATO, NATO was in Ukraine. NATO’s presence in Ukraine in the past decade was not insignificant.
So, it’s unfortunate but not particularly surprising if many Ukrainians believe they were led down a primrose path. The recent NATO 2023 summit again was replete with self-aggrandizement, with open-ended assurances to Ukraine. So, though not a big advocate of NATO expansion, it seems to me prudent to favor a more serious presence in say the Baltics—to not leave it to local interpretations of Article 5— such that to attack a NATO state is to attack NATO physically and materially.
Or consider the case of Saudi Arabia, who when in 2019, was integral to U.S. President Trump’s failed “maximal pressure” campaign against neighboring Iran, found themselves suddenly on the frontlines. An extremely daring and sophisticated attack against two major oil facilities in the Kingdom knocked out half of Saudi Arabia’s oil production for three weeks. Many believe this was a drone attack by Iran. The Saudis expected that as a result of this incident the U.S. would call on the Carter Doctrine and attack Iran. But that is not what Trump had in mind. He made it clear that he did not see this as an attack on the United States. “I’m somebody who would not like to have war,” Trump said at the time.
This retort sent shockwaves throughout the region and built up into what is called the Baghdad Dialogue in which the Iraqis facilitated diplomacy across the Persian Gulf (as well as diplomacy between the Turks and the Egyptians) that help mend fences. For many years the House of Saud refused diplomatic engagement with Iran. Various efforts by the Iranians to start negotiations with the Saudis had been declined. Part of the reason the Saudis felt that they could decline diplomacy was the belief that the U.S. would have its back—no matter what.
But, when some states could no longer hide behind American military power, diplomacy—as brokered through China—became the next best option. Surely, the more rapprochements are engineered (by anyone) the better for all stakeholders and populations (the military-industrial complex excepting). Moreover, the more China expands its reach and ventures into new territories, the more resentment it may provoke. The potential emergence of an “ugly Chinese” could be a worse alternative to the “ugly American,” which might ultimately redound to the United States.
Power Dynamics and the Role of Smaller Powers
The tail can also start to wag the dog. A kind of reverse leverage can emerge— where “small powers” or “client states” goad their “patrons” to do things that are not in their interest. In their “We Now Know” (1998), International Relations (IR) theorists Richard L. Russel and John Lewis Gaddis write that during the Cold War, both regimes and rebels “learned to manipulate the Americans and Russians by laying on flattery, pledging solidarity, feigning indifference, threatening defection, or even raising the specter of their own collapse and the disastrous results that might flow from it.” We’ve seen this again under a number of different administrations, both republican and democrat—where for example former SecDef Bob Gates warned that the Saudis wanted to “fight Iran to the last American.”
It is crucial for politicians to avoid overstating the unyielding nature of their support, especially when it might have unintended consequences for other states. NATO states declare guarantees towards Ukraine as if it doesn’t affect other NATO states in a domino fashion. Some will argue that there is benefit to strategic ambiguity. But, even if this helps build some kind of deterrence against rivals, it does little for friends. At the very least, there should be an audit at home to determine what the U.S. is willing to bleed for and what it isn’t.
The U.S. continues to sell arms to authoritarian states like Saudi Arabia even when it doesn’t produce the things (i.e., democracy, human rights—and/or stability, security) that the U.S. says it wants it to produce. One reason for this is that there is currently little else to discuss with the Saudis—not values or shared ideals of what a stable region might look like. Therefore, weapons become a proxy for an actual relationship.
Another reason is the profits arms sales bring—historically playing an oversized role in foreign policy. This failure to restrain the military-industrial complex undermines global stability. The U.S. sells weapons to over 100 countries—including countries it sanctions. There are conflicts where both sides are using U.S. arms.
This profit motive also undermines the idea that foreign policy is guided by a moral compass. Ironically, a principles-guided approach could yield better results. The U.S. should lean towards its strengths vis-à-vis Russia and China. A principled actor guides allies, unafraid that they will move in the direction of Russia or China. After all, arms sales alone don’t guarantee coordinated defense.
U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, rightfully took a measured and optimistic analysis of the Nordstream pipeline disaster and suggested it as a good opportunity for Europe to wean itself off of Russian gas. However, he was remiss in failing to recognize the U.S.’s need to cut its dependence on authoritarian states. In an increasingly multipolar world, the dynamics of power globally have shifted. We should expect and prepare for states to increasingly act in their self-interest.
The main aim of U.S. foreign policy should be to avoid a Eurasian super-threat. Not as in a two-headed giant, but two different states—Russia and China—overcoming natural tensions by having a common adversary. If this threat is deigned inevitable, then we had better buckle in for a world of hurt to come. Realists tend to have a hawkish view of the defenses that a state requires, but a cautious view and a restrained finger on the trigger of hard power. Their perspective brings a necessary tonic to a faith-based and expansive view of security, and the unrestrained use of hard power abroad. History suggests that large powers try and maintain their regional spheres, reasonably or not.
China’s “Marching Westward” strategy aims to rebalance its geostrategy, and confront President Obama’s 2012 “Pivot to East Asia”—relying on land access in the west to solve the riddle of U.S. maritime supremacy in the east. Belt and Road Initiative is a means to that end, and China’s attention to West Asia has only intensified due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and American pressure in the Indo-Pacific and Taiwan.
As the U.S. confronts the challenges presented by Russia, China, and the shifting global landscape, it must acknowledge the prominence of the Asian century. While the crisis in Ukraine rightfully garners attention, the gravitational pull of Asia on the United States cannot be ignored. Balancing power dynamics, reevaluating the enduring nature of alliances, and considering the perspectives of smaller powers are crucial steps in addressing the complexities of our contemporary world.
It is crucial to acknowledge and accept the current multipolar world, wherein nations like China— and eventually India and others—will assume a more significant, perhaps even leading, role in diplomacy and conflict resolution. The U.S. should adopt a more agile and flexible approach to adjust to this reality and appreciate the potential benefits it offers, rather than viewing it as only a negative and dangerous development. Particularly in the Middle East, the U.S. must refrain from pursuing the same traditional approach, which has consistently resulted in taking sides and being a part of the problem rather than the solution. Otherwise, we risk a future where countries turn to China for peacemaking and to the U.S. only for warcraft.
Siamak Tundra Naficy is a senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School’s Department of Defense Analysis. An anthropologist with an interdisciplinary approach to social, biological, psychological, and cultural issues, his interests range from the anthropological approach to conflict theory to sacred values, cognitive science, and animal behavior. The views expressed are the author’s and do not reflect those of the Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Army, or the Naval Postgraduate School.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 23:20 - Victoria's Secret Ditches 'Wokeness'; Wants To Make Sexy Great Again
Victoria’s Secret Ditches ‘Wokeness’; Wants To Make Sexy Great Again
Victoria’s Secret’s shift towards “woke” trends in fashion in recent years, which included showcasing trans and plus-size models instead of their traditional sexy models, sparked a wave of discontent among customers, resulting in a significant revenue drop, crashing stock price, and Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show ratings hitting rock bottom.
The American lingerie chain spent the last several years ‘Bud-Light-ing’ itself with transgender models like Valentina Sampaio and super woke soccer player Megan Rapinoe while abandoning its iconic sexy models.
Trans model Valentina Sampaio
Soccer player Megan Rapinoe
What changed in the last two decades?
One can only guess who might have pushed ‘wokeness’ on the brand…
As consumers ditched Victoria’s Secret, investors panic-dumped shares to record low prices.
… because sales plunged a stunning $1.8 billion since 2018 (revenue for its last full fiscal year fell 6.5%, with net income down nearly half). Consumers went elsewhere – maybe there was a conservative brand that took market share.
Earlier this year, CEO Amy Hauk was booted out of the company amid ‘woke’ controversies. Now CNN reports the brand has given up on out-woking others and wants to ‘Make “Sexiness” Great Again.’
Victoria’s Secret: The Tour ’23, an attempt to revive the runway show format that launched last month fell somewhere in between the personification of male lust of the brand’s aughts-era heyday and the inclusive utopia promoted by its many disruptors.
But in a presentation to investors in New York last week, it was clear which version of the brand Victoria’s Secret executives see as its future.
“Sexiness can be inclusive,” said Greg Unis, brand president of Victoria’s Secret and Pink, the company’s sub-brand targeting younger consumers. “Sexiness can celebrate the diverse experiences of our customers and that’s what we’re focused on.”
Chief executive Martin Waters also disclosed that woke initiatives were not profitable for the company, stating, “Despite everyone’s best endeavours, it’s not been enough to carry the day.”
This comes as the ESG bubble is imploding. And Larry Fink’s BlackRock has ditched the term ESG.
BlackRock has faced intense criticism from Republican lawmakers who accuse the firm of violating its fiduciary duty by putting wokeness ahead of investment returns.
BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street hold about 15 and 20% of the outstanding shares of S&P 500 companies and can have enormous direct power in corporate decision-making.
Some in corporate America are beginning to realize the challenges ESG poses for business sustainability.
However, if these companies want to go woke, and then go broke – so be it. There is a parallel economy that is exploding.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 23:00 - Menthol Cigarettes And Flavored Cigars To Be Banned By FDA
Menthol Cigarettes And Flavored Cigars To Be Banned By FDA
Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is looking to ban menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars due to concerns these tobacco products are harming American youth.
The FDA submitted the final rule for regulatory review to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Friday. “This final rule is a tobacco product standard to prohibit the use of menthol as a characterizing flavor in cigarettes,” according to an OMB website. Legal resource center Law Insider defines the term “characterizing flavor” as meaning “a taste or aroma, other than the taste or aroma of tobacco” that is imparted either prior to or during the use of the tobacco product. Flavored cigars would also be banned under the rule.
The FDA has long been pushing to ban menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars. Last year, the agency announced it was proposing rules to this effect to “prevent youth initiation [and] significantly reduce tobacco-related disease and death,” according to an April 28 press release.
Menthol is a flavor additive with a minty taste and aroma that aids in reducing the harshness and irritation of smoking, the agency said. This boosts the appeal for cigarettes and makes the menthol variants popular among youth and young adults. Menthol can also interact with nicotine in the brain, enhancing the nicotine’s addictive effects.
“The combination of menthol’s flavor, sensory effects, and interaction with nicotine in the brain increases the likelihood that youth who start using menthol cigarettes will progress to regular use. Menthol also makes it more difficult for people to quit smoking,” the FDA said.
The agency estimated there were 18.5 million menthol cigarette smokers aged 12 and above in the United States in 2018, with “particularly high rates of use by youth, young adults, and African Americans and other racial and ethnic groups.”
If menthol cigarettes were not available, there would be a 15 percent reduction in smoking within four decades, the agency said citing multiple studies. This would translate into 324,000–654,000 saved lives.
The FDA expressed hope that once the rule comes into effect, it would reduce the appeal of cigarettes among youth and young adults, thus reducing the chances that nonusers who experiment with menthol cigarettes end up progressing to regular smoking.
The OMB review is the last step to be completed to finalize the rule.
Harm to Youngsters
In an Oct. 16 statement, Harold Wimmer, president of the American Lung Association (ALA), called the FDA rules banning menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars “the most significant actions that the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products has taken in its 14-year history.”
“The American Lung Association is eager for these lifesaving rules to be implemented and urges the White House to finalize these rules before the end of the year. The science and data are clear. Ending the sale of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars will save lives,” it said.
A display of packs of menthol cigarettes and other tobacco products at a store in San Francisco, Calif., on May 17, 2018. (Jeff Chiu/AP) “One study estimates almost one million smokers would quit smoking within 17 months of the end of the sale of menthol cigarettes, including almost a quarter of a million black individuals living in America. After Canada stopped selling menthol cigarettes in 2017, the country saw an increase in quit attempts and cessation among people who smoked menthol cigarettes.”
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids also welcomed the FDA proposal, asking the OMB and the White House to consider expediting the review and issuing final regulations by the end of the year given the “profound, lifesaving benefit” of the rules, according to an Oct. 16 press release.
Tobacco is the number-one cause of preventable death in the United States, it said. Cheap, flavored cigars are sold in “kid-friendly flavors” like “berry fusion,” “cherry dynamite,” and “iced donut,” the organization stated.
“These flavored products have flooded the market in recent years and fueled the popularity of cigars with kids.” The group cited the 2022 National Youth Tobacco Survey which showed that cigars are the “second most popular tobacco product” after e-cigarettes among American high school students.
Crackdown on E-Cigarettes
Some have argued against the ban. In March last year, the Tax Foundation warned in a report that the federal menthol ban would result in losses for local governments due to the high level of taxation and the large market share of flavored cigarettes.
Disposable vaping e-cigarette products are displayed in a convenience store in El Segundo, California, on June 23, 2022. (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images) In the United States, excise taxes alone make up 40 percent of the retail price of tobacco products on average, it said. A third of the market is made up of flavored cigarettes.
“Federal action does not only impact federal revenue, and combined, governments stand to lose more than $6.6 billion in the first full year following prohibition,” the group stated.
Meanwhile, the FDA is also cracking down on flavored e-cigarettes. Last week, the agency issued denial orders for the marketing of six flavored e-cigarette products being sold under the Vuse Alto brand, including three menthol-flavored ones.
“Evidence submitted by the applicant did not demonstrate that the menthol- and mixed berry-flavored products provided an added benefit for adults who smoke cigarettes—in terms of complete switching or significant smoking reduction—relative to that of tobacco-flavored products that is sufficient to outweigh the known risks to youth,” the agency said.
In July, it issued a marketing denial order for a menthol-flavored e-cigarette made by Fontem US. In May, the FDA issued similar orders to 10 companies that collectively marketed around 6,500 flavored e-cigarette and e-liquid products.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 22:40 - Bill Browder: The So-Called "Human Rights Activist" Got Rich Himself With Shady Deals
Bill Browder: The So-Called “Human Rights Activist” Got Rich Himself With Shady Deals
Authored by Rafael Lutz via VoiceFromRussia.ch,
Bill Browder managed to rob the Russian state and sacrifice his closest Russian collaborator for it.
His death, in turn, was abused by the U.S. administration, together with Browder, to create a law that would allow it to take action against any unpopular person worldwide in the name of human rights. A political thriller, of which the general public is unfortunately not being informed honestly in its true dimensions.
The US investor wants to sanction former Swiss officials for not expropriating funds from Russians. Browder himself is a convicted felon. He helped loot the Russian state in the 1990s. In doing so, he collaborated with business partners who also earned their money through organized crime, various sources say.
Switzerland’s financial center supports Russian oligarchs – and thus Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine. That is the opinion of Bill Browder. The US investor and multi-billionaire is currently running a veritable campaign against Switzerland. Browder can count on a large network of influential people. He is very well connected with the Western power elites.
Major Swiss media outlets have offered Browder a platform on several occasions in recent weeks. He has used this stage to launch his attacks on Swiss banks and the judicial system. According to Browder, Bern is today making itself an accomplice of Putin.
Only recently, he spoke alongside others before the Helsinki Commission, a committee of the US Congress, in which possible sanctions against Switzerland were discussed. There he sharply criticized Switzerland regarding its Ukraine and Russia policy. Now this commission intends to sanction Swiss citizens. It has recently submitted a request to that effect. In its sights are ex-Federal Prosecutor Michael Lauber and two other former federal officials. Browder even demanded that Stefan Blättler, the current Swiss federal prosecutor, should also be sanctioned. However, the Helsinki Commission rejected this demand.
The Foreign Policy Committee of the Council of States (APK-S) rejected the attacks on August 22. The Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) is also fighting back. It recently protested the commission’s actions, speaking of “unsubstantiated allegations” that the foreign ministry considers “unacceptable.”
Browder accuses Swiss officials of corruption in connection with the affair involving Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Russian prison on Nov. 16, 2009. The inconsistencies in this affair will be discussed in a moment.
The short version, which Browder has conveyed to the world countless times and which almost all major media have uncritically adopted, is as follows: Sergei Magnitski, who worked as a “lawyer” for Browder, uncovered how corrupt Russian officials enriched themselves and stole 230 million dollars from the state. Browder’s company “Hermitage Capital Management” had served them as a vehicle for this, which they expropriated with forged documents. Because he exposed the scandal, Magnitski later died. Magnitsky blamed the two policemen Pavel Karpov and Artyom Kuznetsov for the crimes. The latter later arrested him and saw to it that he was sent to prison, where he was killed in 2009. So much for Bill Browder’s point of view.
According to the US investor, Switzerland is also involved in this tax scandal. The reason for this is that some of the money that allegedly corrupt Russians had looted from the state is said to have flowed into UBS and CS accounts and been laundered in this country. This put Browder on the map. In 2011, he filed criminal charges on behalf of his fund company. In the same year, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland opened criminal proceedings on suspicion of money laundering. 18 million francs were temporarily seized in connection with the matter. In July 2021, however, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland drew a line under the proceedings and closed them.
“Based on its extensive investigations, the Federal Prosecutor’s Office has determined that there is no substantiated suspicion of a crime that would justify charges in Switzerland,” the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland attributed in its media release at the time. However, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland did have four million francs confiscated – as a “connection between some of the assets seized in Switzerland and the crime committed in Russia could be proven.”
Since the case was dropped, Browder has been up in arms. Switzerland? In his eyes, a rogue state. The federal prosecutor’s office? A corrupt bunch. In the meantime, the prosecution has denied Browder the status of a private plaintiff. In the course of its investigations, it concluded “that despite the extensive investigations, it could not be proven that the funds that are the subject of the Swiss proceedings originated from a criminal act committed to the detriment of ‘Hermitage Capital’.”
Browder does not want to accept this. He has filed an appeal with the Federal Court. The ruling is still pending. Against this background, the US investor recently launched a veritable campaign against Switzerland. The reason: In this country, 14 million Swiss francs were paid to “corrupt Russians” in connection with the Magnitski affair, he told the Luzerner Zeitung and other newspapers of the media group CH-Media in an interview on August 14. In it, he sounded the big attack. “Switzerland must finally become clean,” Browder said. He accused the country of not being “reliable”.
A thorn in Browder’s side is the fact that Switzerland is not moving strictly in line with the U.S. line. In the Ukraine war, which is primarily a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia, he said, Switzerland is too Russia-friendly – especially the local commodities and financial center, where Russian money is stored. “According to the Swiss Bankers Association, up to 200 billion of Russian money is held in Switzerland,” Browder said. But of that, he said, Switzerland has frozen only 7.5 billion. He also accuses Switzerland of not participating in the G7 task force to track down “corrupt Russians.” He also criticizes Swiss weapons for not reaching Ukraine.
Browder claims to know exactly what is right for Switzerland. He draws a direct line from the dormant assets affair that troubled Switzerland in the 1990s to the present. Literally, “Switzerland also depended on U.S. help to return Nazi looted gold to Jewish families. And Switzerland also depended on U.S. help to close the secret bank accounts of money launderers. Even today, Switzerland stubbornly adheres to its tradition (…). The country now needs to modernize and become part of the civilized world when it comes to financial matters. Obviously, this is not possible without the US.”
The U.S. investor also received support for his latest attacks mostly from the major Swiss media. Critical distance? No such thing. The journalists here have hardly questioned Browder’s statements so far. On the contrary, individual journalists have uncritically adopted Browder’s arguments as their own. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) recently even called him a “human rights activist” – Wikipedia sends its regards. Reason enough to take a closer look at Bill Browder’s past and his contradictory statements.
The investor who is beyond reproach
A native of the United States who has taken British citizenship for tax reasons, Browder’s positions are close to those of U.S. neoconservatives who advocate U.S. supremacy in the world.
For Browder, Putin is “just as much a terrorist as Osama bin Laden.” The U.S. investor also argues for tougher action against China. Otherwise, there is a danger that Xi Jinping will invade Taiwan. The U.S. investor is not lacking in self-confidence: with his anti-Russia campaign, he claims to have uncovered how Russia manipulated the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. At least this is what he claims in his book “Freezing Order.” Meanwhile, it has long been clear that the story of Russian election interference had little to do with reality (see here and here).
Before Browder made headlines as an investor in Russia – which will be discussed later – he worked for media magnate and multi-billionaire Robert Maxwell in the early 1990s. Maxwell was building an Eastern European investment fund at the time. Browder was responsible for some of Maxwell’s investments and traveled extensively throughout the former communist bloc.
Maxwell’s business empire collapsed in the early 1990s, however. He was sitting on a mountain of debt. To keep his companies going, Maxwell resorted to fraud. He stole 460 million pounds from the pension fund of the “Maxwell Communications Corporation,” leaving thousands of employees and pensioners penniless. At the time, the BBC called the multi-billionaire the biggest fraudster in British history. Maxwell died mysteriously in November 1991 during a vacation in the Canary Islands.
“For Browder, working for Maxwell was poison for his career. For a time, no other employer wanted to hire him,” writes Alex Krainer, who has traced Browder’s rise in detail in his book “The Killing of William Browder“.
Robert Maxwell is the father of Ghislaine Maxwell, the former confidante of Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein, who for years maintained a ring for the sexual exploitation of minors, died in prison in 2019. Ghislaine Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022 in connection with the Epstein affair.
After working for Maxwell, Bill Browder finally found a new job in mid-1992 at Salomon Brothers, a scandal-ridden investment bank. The U.S. investor became better known toward the end of the 1990s, when he made a name for himself as an investor during the “robber years” in Russia. In doing so, Browder embarked on a path that was not at all destined for him. Browder’s grandfather, Earl Browder, had been a colorful figure within the Communist Party of the USA. He had run for the U.S. presidential election in 1936 and 1940. Browder’s father, Felix Browder, was a well-known mathematician.
“My grandfather was the biggest communist in the USA (…). I wanted to become the biggest capitalist in Russia,” Browder told SonntagsBlick on August 20, 2023.
The U.S. investor came very close to achieving this goal: During the era of President Boris Yeltsin, Browder and his Hermitage Fund were in part the largest foreign investor in Russia. Shortly after his start in Moscow, Browder succeeded in making enormous profits with his fund. Author Krainer attributes:
“In 1997, the Hermitage Fund achieved a 235 percent gain. This made the fund the best performer in the world that year. Even more impressive, the fund had gained 718 percent since its inception. Its assets under management had grown from an initial $25 million to more than $1 billion.”
Within a few years, he snatched up assets worth $4 billion. Initially, Browder was also a longtime supporter of President Vladimir Putin, in stark contrast to today. Browder’s fund invested money in Russian companies such as Gazprom. His strategy was to invest money in corrupt companies and then pillory them in the media and in public, thus steering them in a clean direction. As a result, share prices often rose, which in turn benefited Browder and his company.
Business partners repeatedly operated in illegality
Browder, equipped with a “clean-cut” image, likes to play the part of a human rights activist. He fearlessly takes up the fight against the autocratic Putin regime, according to the image conveyed in the West. But Browder’s “clean-cut” image has little to do with reality. His rise in Russia was only possible thanks to important supporters from the moneyed elite, who had no fear of contact with organized crime. Among his most important business partners in Russia were Edmond Safra and Beny Steinmetz. Browder’s Hermitage Fund started in the mid-1990s with a “$25 million seed investment from Safra and Steinmetz,” as author Krainer attributes.
Let us take a brief look at Safra at this point: Edmond Safra was a Sephardic Jew from Beirut with a Brazilian passport. Born in 1932, he was the patriarch of the Safra clan for a long time. He operated out of Geneva; the city he had made the “world capital of Sephardim banking,” as Gian Trepp ascribed in his book “Swiss Connection.” Edmond Safra died under mysterious circumstances in a fire in his penthouse in Monaco in 1999.
During his lifetime, Safra, whom journalist Bryan Burrough once called the “genius of the banking world,” was considered one of the twenty richest men in the world. Safra was very well connected with Western politicians. His friends included Henry Kissinger, who was U.S. Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977. Several of his banks had been repeatedly involved in dubious deals in the 1990s. Safra’s banks allegedly engaged in money laundering for the Shakarchi Trading Company. Hans W. Kopp, the husband of the first Swiss Federal Councillor Elisabeth Kopp, was also a member of the company’s board of directors at the time, which later proved to be the latter’s undoing.
According to a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigative report, Mahmouds Shakarchi’s “suspected drug laundering activities” ran through Safra’s Republic National Bank of New York, among other channels.
Edmond Safra had founded the Trade Development Bank in Calvin City in 1956. In the 1960s, the bank expanded and opened numerous branches around the world. In 1966, Safra also founded a branch in the U.S., the Republic National Bank of New York. In 1999, HSBC bought up parts of the Safra empire – including the Safra Republic Corporation and the Republic New York Corporation, the holding company of the Republic National Bank of New York. It was a purchase that HSBC would later come to regret. Some of the money HSBC took over from the Safra banks was of criminal origin, as financial journalist Gian Trepp noted. In the course of the Swissleaks revelations, journalists revealed that HSBC clients in Geneva had been involved in arms, drug trafficking and terrorist financing.
Edmond Safra also initially conducted good business with Browder in Russia. The Republic National Bank of New York sold billions of U.S. dollar notes to dozens of corrupt Russian banks in the 1990s. However, many of these banks were fronts and actually served organized crime in Russia. This was revealed by journalist Robert Friedman in 1996. In a 1994 CIA report, ten of the largest Russian banks were described as straw men.
To this day, the Safra clan is among the richest of the rich. Among the 300 richest people in Switzerland, the Safra family ranked fourth in 2018 with an estimated fortune of 19 to 20 billion Swiss francs.
Just like Safra, Beny Steinmetz, Browder’s second important business partner in Russia, repeatedly moved in illegality. Steinmetz, whom we will discuss only briefly here, also belongs to the super-rich class. His fortune is estimated at a billion dollars. The Israeli-French commodities and diamond trader owns Beny Steinmetz Group Resources (BSGR), a company active in mining mineral resources in African countries such as Guinea and Sierra Leone, as well as in real estate trading. A Geneva appeals court found Steinmetz guilty of bribing foreign officials in April 2023. Steinmetz was sentenced to three years in prison, of which he must serve 18 months. According to the court, the billionaire bribed politicians in Guinea. He paid Mamadie Touré, the fourth wife of the late Guinean President Lansana Conté, $8.5 million. This gave him mining rights in the Simandou region, according to the court ruling.
The Magnitski Story: The Contradictions
Back to Browder: The Russian authorities increasingly disliked Browder’s activities from the early 2000s onward. Browder’s companies were targeted by the judicial authorities. In 2004, they investigated Browder’s fund company on suspicion of tax evasion. In 2005, Browder was forced to leave the country. His visa was revoked at that time.
The story became interesting in 2009 at the latest, after Magnitski’s death. Now Browder pulled out all the stops and exerted his influence on media and politics in the West. He lobbied for sanctions against Russia – a state that for Browder now embodied all the evil in the world.
In 2012, he celebrated his first successes. That year, then-U.S. President Barack Obama passed the so-called Magnitsky Act. The law sanctioned Russian citizens who were held responsible for the death of Magnitsky. Later, the law was to be tightened several times and implemented in other Western countries.
U.S. policy was based on a report by the Russian Human Rights Council. It concluded that eight prison guards beat Magnitsky with rubber sticks on the day he died. As a result, emergency doctors were not allowed to enter his cell for an hour and 18 minutes until he was already dead. The Human Rights Council cited only the U.S. investor as a source for its report.
The problem is that Browder cannot substantiate many of his statements. This was also revealed by “Der Spiegel” in an investigation – and this news magazine, of all places, is certainly not known for its particularly Russia-friendly reporting. It is true that Browders cannot prove his claim that Magnitsky was murdered. But that didn’t stop him from telling the world this story non-stop over the past few years – including before the Canadian parliament.
As evidence for his statements, Browder referred to the report of the investigative commission to the German news portal. “Der Spiegel” wrote about it in 2019: “On his website, he also attributes the report of the commission of inquiry as proof that the same officials who incriminated Magnitski ‘deliberately tortured and finally murdered him’. But the document itself lacks any reference to a premeditated killing. The two police officers Karpov and Kuznetsov – alleged masterminds of the murder – do not appear in the Russian original of the commission report. Kuznetsov is mentioned only in an English translation on Browder’s website.”
Karpov later sued Browder in a London court for defamation. The responsible judge, Justice Simon, formally declared that the British judiciary was not responsible. However, the written reasons for his decision contain some damning sentences for the U.S. investor: Browder was a “storyteller.” He was “not even close to backing up his accusations with facts.”
“Der Spiegel” also found out in its research that – contrary to what Browder claims – Magnitski did not incriminate the mentioned officials at all. The news site writes about the protocol of the Russian commission report: “Magnitski indeed attributes the names of the two investigators almost 30 times and describes their role in a search. However, at no point does he make a specific accusation against them personally. In a second transcript of a statement made on October 7, Karpov and Kuznetsov are not mentioned at all. Moreover, it is clear from the form of the first document that Magnitsky did not make the statements entirely of his own free will, but as a witness in a trial.”
Magnitski was a “witness in a case” because the Russian authorities – as already mentioned – were investigating Browder’s fund company on suspicion of tax evasion. Magnitski was not Browder’s “lawyer”, but had been working for him for years as an accountant.
Andrei Nekrasov also drew attention to these facts and the contradictory statements of Browder. The director had made the film “The Magnitski Act – Behind The Scenes” in 2017. Nekrasov is a Putin critic who had initially believed Browder. But he noticed: the Browder story has numerous gaps and contradictions. The director, who has studied the original documents from Russian, says, “The investigators questioned Magnitsky because he was Browder’s accountant.” Nekrasov likewise stresses that Magnitsky did not accuse the police officers. The problem with the Browder story against this background is simply that “Magnitski’s accusation against Karpov forms the basis for the Browder story,” Nekrasov says. But this accusation is based on a fiction of Browder. Without it, the house of cards would collapse.
In his film, Nekrasov also spoke with Magnitsky’s mother. She doubts – unlike Browder – that her son was deliberately killed. “Were they trying to kill him? I don’t know.” She criticized the deplorable prison conditions. These would certainly have led to the death of her son. She also explains the harsh conditions with the proceedings that were going on against Browder’s companies at the time: “They were trying to get him (Magnitski, editor’s note) to plead guilty or incriminate Bill (Browder, editor’s note).”
Despite obvious contradictions and gaps in Browder’s narrative, the U.S. investor has succeeded in convincing large sections of Western politicians of his fight for “justice”. Browder also won over the Council of Europe with his “story.” Former Council of Europe member Andreas Gross relied mainly on Browder’s sources in his widely acclaimed report on the Magnitski affair. The former Swiss Social Democratic National Councilor wrote the report in June 2013 on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. “The documents we have are all from Browder’s sources. We always had to use translations from Browder’s office because I don’t read Russian myself,” Gross explained in an interview with Nekrasov. Later, in a letter to the editor for the FAZ, Gross rejected the accusation of one-sidedness. However, he could not provide any evidence for his statement. The FAZ, in turn, refused to print a rebuttal by Nekrasov.
In recent years, politicians and media representatives have repeatedly referred to the report. In each case, they conveyed the image of Browder as a brave “human rights activist” fighting against the corrupt Russian regime.
U.S. Judge William H. Pauley concluded that the Gross report suffered from a “lack of trustworthiness.” It was “full of witness statements that (…) sympathized with Magnitski and Browder.” Some of them, according to the judge, were paid by Hermitage.
In addition to the Swiss banks mentioned above, Browder also accused other companies in other countries of stealing part of the $230 million. Among them was the company Prevezon. The owner of the company defended himself against Browder in court. In the course of the trial, Judge Pauley had made the above statements. Browder also admitted to Prevezon lawyer Mark Cymrot that Magnitski was not a lawyer at all and did not have a law degree.
What is striking is that Browder has repeatedly found it difficult to convince judges of his arguments in the courts. The companies Glendora and Kone Holdings Ltd, subsidiaries of Browder’s Hermitage, sued in Russia, among other places, in connection with the tax scandal. Unsuccessfully. The court rejected the application of Glendora and Kone Holdings Ltd.
The reasoning was that Browder’s companies had never legally sued for the alleged theft. This view is shared by Nekrasov. According to the director, Glendora and Kone Holdings Ltd. only objected to the fact that Browder’s companies’ power of attorney transfers did not include certification information. The corporate overwrites themselves did not challenge Browder’s companies. Nor had any complaints been made about forgeries. This again contradicts Browder’s public statements. He had consistently claimed that corrupt Russian officials had signed his companies over to new owners through forged documents and then stole money. (For the full story, see also the swissinfo report. Red.)
It is also important to know that in December 2015, the Russian Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika publicly accused Browder. He accused him of having committed the denounced fraud of 230 million US dollars himself. Chaika also accused Browder of being responsible for the deaths of Octai Gasanov, Valery Kurochkin and Sergei Korobeinikov. All three of these individuals were Russian citizens who had been suspects in the Magnitsky affair. They all died between 2007 and 2008, and since then Russian authorities have repeatedly investigated the matter.
According to the Prosecutor General’s Office (this link is blocked in some countries, ed.) in Russia, Browder is the main suspect in the above deaths. According to investigators, there is a “high probability” that the named individuals, as well as Magnitsky, were poisoned. Russian prosecutors believe that all four were killed with a rare water-soluble aluminum compound. A senior official in the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office said it was “very likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give incriminating testimony against Browder” (see also here).
Russian President Vladimir Putin called Browder a “serial killer.” According to Putin, Browder also used the assets he looted in Russia to make large campaign donations to Hillary Clinton, among other things. In 2017, a Russian court sentenced Browder to nine years in prison for tax evasion.
Russian authorities repeatedly tried to have Browder extradited. They fail, however, because Browder can count on powerful supporters in the West. Several times they demanded Browder’s arrest through Interpol. On May 30, 2018, Browder was arrested in Spain at Russia’s request, but was released shortly thereafter.
Journalists embraced Browder story
Major media have hardly picked up on the numerous inconsistencies in the Browder narrative. Journalists have also hardly addressed Browder’s rise and his numerous acquaintances with highly questionable personalities from the world of “big business”. The aforementioned major Swiss media are no exception. Internationally influential journalists also let themselves be sucked in by Browder.
The U.S. investor can count on a whole armada of journalists and politicians who willingly convey his story to the inclined public. Influential journalists like Bill Alpert and Roman Anin worked hand in hand with Browder and adopted his view of things. Both published lengthy reports on the Magnitsky story – Alpert in the Barrons newspaper, Anin in Novaya Gazeta. “They worked with our team,” Browder told Attorney Mark Cymrot, who defended Prevezon in the case against Browder.
New York Times journalists won the Pulitzer Prize for their justice reporting from Russia – including on Magnitsky. The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) also worked with Browder. In 2015, the OCCRP even received the first-ever “Sergei Magnitsky Human Rights Award” for “outstanding investigative journalism.” The award was given for an article entitled “Following the Magnitsky Money.” The authors of the text were Mihai Munteanu of the OCCRP and the two journalists mentioned above, Bill Alpert and Roman Anin. They all based their research exclusively on Browder’s sources.
The OCCRP is supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of State, the Soros Open Society Foundations (OSF), the Rockefeller Brothers Trust, the Skoll Foundation, and the German Marshall Fund, among others.
In Europe, Browder is supported by anti-Russian publicist Marieluise Beck, among others. Beck, a former member of the Green Party’s Bundestag, co-founded the Center for Liberal Modernity (LibMod) with her husband Ralf Fücks. The think tank is known for its anti-Russian positions. In June 2023, Fücks argued for regime change in Moscow in an article for Der Spiegel.
Browder is less squeamish about media professionals who think for themselves. The U.S. investor fights them. For example, Browder pulled out all the stops to censor the aforementioned film by Nekrasov. A planned screening before the European Parliament was canceled at the last minute after Browder’s lawyers threatened legal action.
More to come…
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 22:00 - Robo-Takeover: Amazon Tests Humanoid Robot In Fulfillment Center
Robo-Takeover: Amazon Tests Humanoid Robot In Fulfillment Center
Amazon has introduced two new robots to speed up deliveries, raising concerns among fulfillment center workers that the e-commerce giant might eventually reduce its workforce.
In a blog post on Wednesday, Amazon said its robotics team will begin testing a bipedal robot named “Digit” at a site just south of Seattle.
“Digit can move, grasp, and handle items in spaces and corners of warehouses in novel ways. Its size and shape are well suited for buildings that are designed for humans, and we believe that there is a big opportunity to scale a mobile manipulator solution, such as Digit, which can work collaboratively with employees,” Amazon said.
Amazon explained Digit will “help employees with tote recycling, a highly repetitive process of picking up and moving empty totes once inventory has been completely picked out of them.”
In addition to Digit, Amazon revealed Sequoia, a new robotic system to help fulfill customer orders faster, already operational at a Texas fulfillment center.
“Sequoia will help us delight customers with greater speed and increased accuracy for delivery estimates, while also improving employee safety at our facilities,” Amazon said, adding it will “identify and store inventory we receive at our fulfillment centers up to 75% faster than we can today.”
It also “reduces the time it takes to process an order through a fulfillment center by up to 25%, which improves our shipping predictability and increases the number of goods we can offer for Same-Day or Next-Day shipping,” the e-commerce giant added.
Amazon said it has more than “750,000 robots working collaboratively with our employees, taking on highly repetitive tasks and freeing employees up to better deliver for our customers.”
At some point, Amazon will realize its robot workforce can do a better job fulfilling orders than humans because robots don’t get sick, take breaks, complain, strike, or waste time watching TikTok videos on their smartphones.
We’ve penned plenty of notes over the years, informing readers about the coming massive layoff wave corporations will have to unleash due to AI. Godman’s Jan Hatzius suggested in a note earlier this year, “Using data on occupational tasks in both the US and Europe, we find that roughly two-thirds of current jobs are exposed to some degree of AI automation, and that generative AI could substitute up to one-fourth of current work. Extrapolating our estimates globally suggests that generative AI could expose the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs to automation” as up to “two thirds of occupations could be partially automated by AI.”
… and more recently, younger folk in the labor market are beginning to realize their days are numbered as AI takes their jobs.
For more insight into the rapidly evolving job landscape, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu and Sabrina Lam – using data from MSCI – have ranked the industries where AI-driven automation will displace the most workers.
Now’s the time to evaluate your job and see how automation will impact your industry.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 21:40 - US Ally Qatar Shielding Hamas Terrorists After Israel Attack: Expert
US Ally Qatar Shielding Hamas Terrorists After Israel Attack: Expert
Authored by Andrew Thornebrooke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
A key U.S. ally in the Middle East is also one of the top financial and political backers of the Hamas terrorist organization. That relationship could now undermine the U.S.-Israel alliance and peace in the Middle East more broadly, according to one expert.
Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani (R) and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken attend a meeting in Doha on Oct. 13, 2023. Mr. Blinken began on Oct. 12 a tour of Arab capitals as he seeks to build pressure on Hamas while Israel readies a likely massive offensive on the Gaza Strip following the militants’ attacks. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images) Qatar provides financial and diplomatic support to numerous terrorist groups and state sponsors of terror, including Hamas and Iran.
Now, the authoritarian nation is assisting the Hamas terrorist organization to maintain its control over the Gaza Strip, according to Asher Fredman, director for Israel at the Abraham Accords Peace Institute think tank.
“Qatar is a key supporter of Hamas, housing Hamas offices and senior leaders in Doha, and providing Hamas with funds that enable it to maintain its control over Gaza,” Mr. Asher told The Epoch Times.
Mr. Asher added that while Iran is Hamas’s primary patron for military support and training, Qatar is its go-to for spreading anti-Israel propaganda. This work, he said, is primarily done through Al Jazeera, a media network funded by the Qatari government.
“Through the Al Jazeera network, Qatar spreads narratives that demonize and delegitimize Israel, and justify terrorism, thereby supporting Hamas in its efforts,” Mr. Asher said.
Qatar Shielding Terrorists
Qatar has shielded numerous key leaders of the Hamas over the decades.
Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s top political leader, currently lives a life of relative luxury in the Qatari capital of Doha. From there, he and several other members of Hamas reportedly publicly celebrated the mass murder, torture, and rape of Israeli civilians on Oct. 7.
Qatar’s authoritarian government has consistently refused to arrest or hold Hamas leadership accountable for its crimes.
Instead, in the aftermath of Hamas’s assault on Israel this month, Qatar offered to mediate between Israel and the terrorist organization.
Mr. Asher said the United States should, therefore, use its clout with Qatar to bring about the unconditional release of hostages taken by Hamas and bring the organization’s leadership to justice.
“No Hamas leader anywhere should be immune from Israel’s response,” Mr. Asher said.
“The U.S. should demand that Qatar use this leverage to bring about the unconditional release of the hostages, in line with international law. If Qatar refuses, the U.S. should absolutely reevaluate its alliance and the preferred status it gives to Qatar.”
Pulling Back From Qatar No Easy Task
Reevaluating its relationship with Qatar is no easy task for the United States.
The country is home to the United States’ largest military base in the Middle East and has long been a centerpiece in the nation’s regional strategy.
Moreover, the Biden administration has done more than previous governments to foster that relationship.
The Biden administration formally designated Qatar as a major non-NATO ally last year, for what President Joe Biden described as Qatari assistance during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and “maintaining stability in Gaza.”
“Qatar is a good friend and reliable and capable partner,” President Joe Biden said at the time.
Despite its efforts to prop up terrorist groups throughout the region, Mr. Asher said, Qatar’s influence is broadly understood for what it is throughout the Middle East.
As such, other regional powers were unlikely to grow warmer with either Qatar or the terrorist organizations it shelters.
“Arab leaders understand that Hamas, a radical ISIS-like terror group sponsored by Iran, is a threat to their vision of a peaceful and prosperous Middle East and an obstacle to Israel-Palestinian peace. Eliminating Hamas, therefore, is ultimately in their interest,” Mr. Asher said.
“The U.S. and all enlightened countries must put massive pressure on countries with leverage over Hamas—such as Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt—to demand that Hamas release its hostages immediately.”
The State Department declined to clarify the scope of the United States’ cooperation with Qatar during the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.
A State Department official instead referred The Epoch Times to a readout of the Oct. 7 meeting between Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Qatar’s prime minister and foreign minister. That readout said, “The two agreed to remain closely coordinated.”
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 21:20 - NYC Democrat Sponsors Bill Requiring Background Checks For 3D Printers
NYC Democrat Sponsors Bill Requiring Background Checks For 3D Printers
A Democratic lawmaker in New York City has submitted a bill to the New York State Assembly requiring anyone to undergo a criminal history background check with the government before purchasing a 3D printer.
Sponsored by Democratic Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar, representing Queens neighborhoods of Glendale, Ozone Park, Richmond Hill, Ridgewood, and Woodhaven, bill A8132 would expand background checks for any “three-dimensional printer sold in this state, which is capable of printing a firearm or any components of a firearm.” This means any store selling 3D printers must conduct a background check on customers.
According to the bill’s text, the commissioner of criminal justice services will ensure the customer does not have a felony or serious offense or outstanding warrant of arrest that would force state officials to deny the purchase of the 3D printer. The vetting process could take upwards of 15 days.
The bill is designed by Democrats who continue to wage war on the Second Amendment and say the proliferation of violent crime across major metro areas, such as NYC, is directly linked to guns. But these ignorant lawmakers fail to mention the latest surge in violent crime is due to failed progressive policies, such as ‘defunding the police’ and open southern borders.
“In their craze to eliminate the Second Amendment, there appears to be no limit to what gun control—or in this case 3D printer control—New York state politicians will consider. The New York state legislature just needs to accept that the Bill of Rights protects the right to keep and bear arms from the tyranny they so badly want to enact,” Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs, Gun Owners of America, told us.
Bill A8132 remains in the committee stage and may not even reach a floor vote, much less be enacted into law. However, if passed, the days of walking into a Midtown Manhattan Best Buy and purchasing a 3D printer in minutes would be over.
Yet this is more incompetence from Democrats who have no limit to what gun control is and will stop at nothing to ban firearms from law-abiding citizens. Remember, last month, the New Mexico governor tried to suspend the right to carry guns in public under an emergency health order.
Furthermore, progressives have transformed NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, Baltimore, Detroit, and many other metro areas into crime-ridden hellholes. Still, these rogue politicians that cater to a ‘fringe’ minority instead of the majority wage war on law-abiding citizens while only emboldening criminals.
Why is this?
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 21:00 - World War III Began With The Demise Of The Gold Standard
World War III Began With The Demise Of The Gold Standard
Authored by Mark Jeftovic via DollarCollapse.com,
Sound Money Makes For Short Wars
One of the longest and most stable monetary regimes from the Early Modern Era onward was the British Pound on the classical gold standard. It lasted about 250 years, from mid-17th century up until the outbreak of WWI. According to the late Ferdinand Lips, in his seminal work Gold Wars, if you index the purchasing power of the British pound vs gold starting at a value of 100 in 1664 , the reading would have been 92 by 1914. (There was one period, during the Napoleonic Wars when the Bank of England suspended convertibility, and that index would have blown out to 180, and then reverted after the BoE went back onto the gold standard in 1821).
In other words, over 250 years, the purchasing power of the British pound was not only stable, it had actually increased a little on the eve of The Great War.
The Classical Gold Standard Lasted 250 Years. So what happened?
Lips goes on to note:
By 1900, approximately fifty countries were on a gold standard. including all industrialized nations. The interesting fact is that the modern gold standard was not planned at an international conference, nor was it invented by some genius. It came by itself, naturally and based on experience. The United Kingdom went on a gold standard against the intention of its government. Only much later did laws turn an operative gold standard into an officially sanctioned gold standard.
We would do well to remember this, whenever pundits and the financial clerisy deigns to inform us that monetary systems must be dictated from above and governed from the center. Not so, in fact when that happens, society puts itself at the mercy of a technocratic central planners who are largely detached reality and insulated from the consequences of their actions.
“In 1914, at the beginning of World War 1, the gold standard was thrown overboard within a few weekends. In order to finance wars, the world resorted to deficit spending and paper money. Had the gold standard not been given up, the war would not have lasted more than a few months. Instead, it lasted more than four years and ruined most of the major economies in the world and left millions dead in its wake.”
Aside from making the case for sound money which I’m sure many of us reading have already internalized, Gold Wars lays out, era by era, the machinations of central banks, governments, even bullion banks and forward selling miners who were waging open, and covert war against sound money.
However it would be a mistake to assume that the Gold Wars were confined to monetary matters.
The Gold Wars, were everything.
Not Three World Wars: Just One Forever War
We all know the conspiracy theory around Albert Pike and his coven of Freemasons who meticulously plotted and planned Three World Wars that would ravage humanity throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries before culminating in a one world government of Luciferian Marxism (except that it probably isn’t really true).
Since the Russian invasion of the Ukraine in early 2022, it’s been speculated that future historians may look back on that event as the beginning of WWIII.
I have privately wondered (wrote it up in the latest Bitcoin Capitalist), whether the cascading military coups throughout the Central African Franc nations were the slow opening of a second front in what is becoming a global conflict. As the ruling, French-aligned governments are being deposed, in Niger, Ghana, Central African Republic and Burkina Faso (eight coups in the past two years, so far), Russian military advisors are appearing on scene, coaching the generals. Meanwhile China is ready with infrastructure incentives and loans.
That front isn’t hot – yet – but it’s, “War By Other Means”, to quote the Robert Blackwell & Jennifer Harris book by that title…
“Today, nations increasingly carry out geopolitical combat through economic means. Policies governing everything from trade and investment to energy and exchange rates are wielded as tools to win diplomatic allies, punish adversaries, and coerce those in between.”
Now with this mess in the Middle East, it feels like we’re at that point where this could escalate, draw in the great powers and then we will unambiguously be embroiled in another global conflict.
David Stockman once told me that he viewed World War 1 and World War 2 as the same contiguous war. Could this be seen as a continuation? (At the time, some realized that the Treaty of Versailles had baked in “another war within 20 years”, and William Guy Carr’s channeling of the ole Pike “Three World Wars” conspiracy theory may have been a simple realization that putting Israel where they did would invariably lead to problems).
The common thread from a sound money perspective is that none of it would be possible without the ability to print value ex nihilo. Fiat currency is a monumental fiction, one that can asset strip the productive segments of the economy, hollow out the middle class, while enriching the Cantillionaire class, the military-industrial complex and the Deep State.
Reading Gold Wars provides clarity around the role of sound money: in rational governance and in providing the basis for harmonious relations among humanity.
Where sound money makes for short wars, fiat money makes for a Forever War, which Lips calls, “The Gold War”.
That war, until now, has been a most effective and ruthless manner of enslaving whole populations while enriching the elite. If there is a far-reaching, multi-generational global conspiracy – it is one that brainwashes the masses into trading their time, wealth and property for meaningless chits backed by nothing. Who needs global Communism?
Lips cites, anonymously, “a former Private Banker, Security Analyst, Director of Gold Mining Companies” (Lips was rumoured to be the cryptic gold commentor “Friend of Another”, and here he may be citing the equally mysterious “Another” – somewhat presaging the anonymity of Satoshi Nakamoto in the coming era)
“The Gold War is nothing else than a Third World War. It is not only a most unnecessary but the most destructive of all wars.
World War III may have begun with the demise of the classic gold standard of the 19th century.
I contend that WWI lasted as long as it did because the gold standard was abandoned. Deficit financing made it possible for it to last over four years, destroying capital wealth, a rich cultural heritage and unnecessarily killing millions of young soldiers and innocent people.
It goes beyond unnecessary carnage and destruction in The Great War:
If WWI had lasted only six months, currencies would not have been destroyed. There would have been no Versailles Treaty and no German hyperinflation. The little understood Genoa Convention of 1922 was largely responsible for the boom of the 1920s and the crash of 1929 leading to the crisis of the 1930s.
Without the mishandling of gold, there would never have been a Hitler. Neither would there have been a Bolshevik take-over by the likes of a Lenin, nor would Russia have had to endure a Stalin with even more millions of innocents killed. There would never have been a WWII.
Whoever this guy is, he continued to connect the dots from abandoning the gold standard in 1914, to the inflationary 70’s the oil crisis that happened at the same time and into the future:
“[The] approaching oil and energy crises of the twenty-first century, and the future derivatives crisis..are all primarily monetary crises… because the world disregarded gold money”
In the Epilogue to Gold Wars, Lips takes stock, remarking that despite all the misery the fiat system and the unrestrained expansion of paper money wrought, there would be a generational opportunity to amass near-dynastic wealth when the world – much like Great Britain in the seventeenth century, reverts to a sound-money system over the objections of the world’s governments.
“It has happened any number of times in history that the gold price took off: never ever to come down to the level it has started from.”
Gold was trading at $270/oz when Gold Wars was published. It has since posted an all-time-high near 10X that amount, and people still look upon it with derision.
One thing is for certain: if we were on a gold (or Bitcoin) standard today, or in the future: we would not be able to go on funding a hot wars on open-ended terms, and we wouldn’t be in such a rush to ignite a few more flashpoints around the world.
* * *
Sign up to the DollarCollapse mailing list and get the bestselling investment book Nobody Knows Anything, free (a $25 value). Follow us on Twitter here, or like us on Facebook here.
You can pick up a copy of Gold Wars on Amazon (affiliate link).
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 20:40 - HSBC Restricts Employee Texting On Work Phones As Private Messaging Probe Escalates
HSBC Restricts Employee Texting On Work Phones As Private Messaging Probe Escalates
HSBC Holdings Plc has restricted employees from sending text messages on their company-issued smartphones, a move stemming from regulatory probes into the financial industry’s use of unofficial communications like WhatsApp, personal texts, or email to conduct business. This comes five months after HSBC paid tens of millions of dollars to settle a Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission probe over unauthorized WhatsApp use among employees.
Bloomberg spoke with people in the know who said HSBC is disabling the texting function on work phones for all employees. They said employees have already been barred from using WhatsApp.
“Banks use a wide range of approved channels to communicate in compliance with regulatory obligations,” a spokesperson for the bank said.
The spokesperson continued, “HSBC, like many other banks, reviews and adjusts functionality on its corporate devices as needed.”
However, according to another person, not all employees will be banned from texting on work phones. They said a small pool of workers in regulated roles will still be able to text where activity is archived.
In mid-May, HSBC paid CFTC $30 million and the SEC another $15 million over its failure to monitor employees’ communications on unauthorized messaging apps.
Data from Bloomberg shows Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Barclays, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, and 18 other banks have shelled out $2.5 billion to the SEC and CFTC for violating recordkeeping rules
In recent months, the SEC fined Wells Fargo, BNP Paribas, Societe General, and Mizuho for “widespread and longstanding failures by the firms and their employees to maintain and preserve electronic communications.”
Reuters said in a separate report that the latest probe into Wall Street’s private messages is focused on a dozen investment companies:
The firms include Carlyle Group, Apollo Global Management, KKR & Co., TPG, and Blackstone, according to three people with direct knowledge of the matter, as well as some hedge funds, including Citadel, said a different person with direct knowledge.
The executives gave their personal phones and other devices to their employers or lawyers to be copied, and messages discussing business have been handed to the SEC, three people said.
That is in contrast to the broker-dealer probes. In those cases, the SEC asked companies to review staff messages and report to the agency how many discussed work. SEC staff reviewed only a sample of messages themselves, according to three sources with knowledge of the previous investigations.
The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because SEC investigations are confidential.
At least 16 firms including Carlyle, Apollo, KKR, TPG, and Blackstone, have disclosed that the SEC is probing their communications. The firms did not provide further details and did not comment for this story. A spokesperson for Citadel declined to comment.
Monitoring employee communications has been challenging for Wall Street’s compliance departments for years because of the proliferation of mobile-messaging apps and remote work.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 20:20 - FDA Finds 'Signal' For Seizures Among COVID-19 Vaccinated Toddlers
FDA Finds ‘Signal’ For Seizures Among COVID-19 Vaccinated Toddlers
Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
A safety signal of seizures for young children following COVID-19 vaccination has been detected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in White Oak, Md., on June 5, 2023. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times) Seizures/convulsions “met the statistical threshold for a signal” in children aged 2 to 4 following receipt of a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and children aged 2 to 5 following receipt of a Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, researchers with the FDA and three large healthcare companies said in a new preprint study.
A safety signal is a sign that a health condition may be caused by vaccination, but further research is required to verify a link.
The data came from three health claims databases run by Optum, Carelon Research, and CVS Health, supplemented with vaccination information from state and local systems. The health claims databases are part of the FDA’s Biologics Effectiveness and Safety System, a drug safety monitoring system.
Researchers looked at 15 health conditions following vaccination entered in the commercial databases and compared rates among children aged 6 months old to 17 years old to background rates from 2019, 2020, or both.
Overall, 72 cases of seizures/convulsions were recorded within seven days of a shot among toddlers and other young children. Most happened within three days of a shot.
When stratifying the data by dose, the researchers found signals for dose one and dose two for Pfizer’s shot in two of the three databases in children aged 2 to 4. They also found a signal following dose two of Moderna’s shot in children aged two to five.
The signal for seizures/convulsions for the young children “has not been previously reported for this age group in active surveillance studies of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” the researchers said, referring to the Pfizer and Moderna shots.
There are reports of seizures and convulsions after COVID-19 vaccination among children in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, the researchers noted. Though anybody can lodge reports with the system, most are made by health care professionals.
Another five convulsions were reported after Pfizer vaccination in Pfizer’s clinical trial.
The research did not cover the bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, which were introduced for some populations in 2022 and completely replaced the old vaccines in April, or the newest versions of the vaccines that were rolled out in September. It’s not clear when the signal was first detected. The FDA and Patricia Lloyd, an FDA statistician who is the study’s corresponding author, did not respond to requests for comment. Pfizer and Moderna did not return inquiries.
Caution Warranted: Researchers
The researchers said the signal “should be interpreted with caution and further investigated in a more robust epidemiological study.”
That’s partly because the signal disappeared when changing background rate years.
The signal was detected when comparing rates with background rates from 2020. But when using background rates from 2022, which were about 2.3 times higher, a signal was not detected.
The higher number of cases in 2022 may stem from an increased incidence of respiratory infections such as influenza, the researchers posited.
The case count may have also included seizures “unrelated to vaccination,” the researchers said.
Similar to previously analyzed data from the same system, the researchers also detected a signal for heart inflammation and a related condition, or myocarditis and pericarditis, for children aged 12 to 17. Because that signal has been known since 2021, researchers did not attempt to further explore it.
No other signals were detected.
Strengths of the study include the population covered by the databases being large and geographically diverse. Limitations include a lack of control of confounding factors.
Stroke Risk in Elderly
The FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in January announced they detected a signal for ischemic stroke for people aged 65 or older following receipt of Pfizer’s bivalent vaccine. Ischemic stroke is a type of stroke caused by blood clotting.
In another preprint paper published on Oct. 15, FDA researchers said they analyzed Medicare data to estimate the risk of stroke after bivalent vaccination.
They included Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older who received a bivalent shot or an influenza vaccine and suffered stroke, except for stroke cases deemed to have been caused by something other than a COVID-19 shot.
The primary analysis did not identify an increased risk of stroke, but stratifying the population by age showed an increased risk after Pfizer vaccination for people aged 85 or older of non-hemorrhagic stroke and for non-hemorrhagic stroke/transient ischemic attack. An increased risk was also found for Moderna recipients aged 65 to 74 for non-hemorrhagic stroke/transient ischemic attack.
No increased risk was found for hemorrhagic stroke.
For people who received a Pfizer jab with an influenza shot, an elevated risk of non-hemorrhagic stroke was detected. For people who received a Moderna jab with an influenza shot, an elevated risk of transient ischemic attack was detected.
A separate analysis of only influenza vaccination detected an increased risk of non-hemorrhagic stroke following receipt of a high-dose/adjuvanted influenza shot, and signals for different ages upon stratification.
“Our study did identify an elevated risk of stroke when the COVID-19 bivalent vaccines were administered with a concomitant high-dose/adjuvanted influenza vaccine. However, the observed effects were not consistent,” the researchers, with the FDA and Acumen, said.
A similar finding was detected in a study of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Safety Datalink system.
The researchers said that the study’s findings suggest the elevated risk of stroke in the group that received influenza and COVID-19 vaccines together “was likely driven by influenza vaccination alone rather than concomitant administration.”
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 20:00 - Putin, Xi In Beijing Pitch For 'Alternative World Order' As Biden Departs A Burning Middle East
Putin, Xi In Beijing Pitch For ‘Alternative World Order’ As Biden Departs A Burning Middle East
As a Rabobank note has highlighted, the main theme on display during Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin’s Wednesday talks in Beijing was one of “common threats” bringing the two “dear friends” closer, according to a press readout. Observed Rabobank earlier in the day, “Meanwhile, as the Middle East rages and the West recoils, Xi Jinping welcomes Russia’s Putin and a host of Global South leaders, ex-India, to his Beijing Belt and Road Forum to talk about what an alternative world order might look like. The ‘global’ Western press mostly failed to even cover it.”
Putin said at a media briefing following the meeting with his Chinese counterpart, “We discussed in detail the situation in the Middle East.” He added: “I informed Chairman (Xi) about the situation that is developing on the Ukrainian track, also quite in detail.” The Russian leader then emphasized:
“All these external factors are common threats, and they strengthen Russian-Chinese interaction.”
AFP/Getty Images CNN subsequently called it a “pitch for a new world order” at a moment crisis has gripped the Middle East.
Yet, almost simultaneously, Bloomberg reported that Biden is overseeing a fast unfolding disaster in the Middle East:
President Joe Biden’s 7.5-hour trip to Tel Aviv signaled full US backing for Israel but fell short on another key goal: winning over Arab leaders.
Amid growing signs the conflict may be spinning out of control, Biden made plain that the US will protect its ally, sending a clear message to rivals in the region like Iran to stay out of the fight. With one US aircraft carrier in the area and another on the way, Biden promised a new package of “unprecedented support.”
The Bloomberg headline aptly reads, “Biden’s Whirlwind Israel Trip Fails to Calm Fears of Wider Middle East Conflict.” At this time, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt are on edge – with Western and Saudi embassies reducing staff and issuing travel advisories.
Meanwhile, related to Xi’s Belt and Road (the purpose of the gathering in Beijing), Putin praised the potential for it to usher in a “fairer, multi-polar world” as Moscow and Beijing grow closer based on “deep friendship”:
In his speech at the opening ceremony, Putin hailed Xi’s flagship foreign policy Belt and Road Initiative as “aiming to form a fairer, multi-polar world,” while touting his country’s deep alignment with China.
Russia and China share an “aspiration for equal and mutually beneficial cooperation,” which includes “respecting civilization diversity and the right of every state for their own development model” – he added, in an apparent push back against calls for authoritarian leaders to promote human rights and political freedoms at home.
Rather ominously, state media showed footage of Putin followed by officials carrying the Russian nuclear football around Beijing today.
“There are certain suitcases without which no trip of Putin’s is complete,” Ria Novosti said https://t.co/B22AJQzRZ5 pic.twitter.com/IOX43drDFh
— max seddon (@maxseddon) October 18, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
This is at a moment Putin is “wanted” by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and shunned and sanctioned by the West, while at the same time Global South countries are expressing growing anger at Israel’s unrelenting bombing of the Gaza Strip, as the Palestinian death toll soars into the thousands.
Directly related to this, a Thursday UN Security Council resolution brought by Brazil and seeking a ceasefire in Gaza was shot down, given the US was the only “no” vote.
Also missed by the mainstream media was the following pro-China sentiment expressed by a top Palestinian official over a week ago:
China will soon lead the world, and it supports the “Palestinian position, whatever it may be,” according to Fatah’s Central Committee member Abbas Zaki.
In a public address that aired on Palestine TV on Sept. 29, Abbas Zaki called on the United States to “reconsider its stance” with regard to Israel or risk becoming irrelevant. The Israelis, he said, were “sons of bitches,” “murderers” and agents of instability, while the Palestinians are “messengers of peace.”
“I know that there is serious change in Europe and even in the United States,” said Zaki.
But, he added, “do not forget the emerging camp, which is on your side—the Chinese camp. China is going to lead the world, and it proclaims: ‘There can be no stability and progress without the liberation of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital.’”
While Putin is in China, Lavrov has arrived in North Korea.
Very telling visits and partnerships. pic.twitter.com/mT8l8DyD8Z
— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) October 18, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Putin too, has expressed more sympathies with the Palestinian side, days ago warning Israel of the “catastrophic” death toll its attacks on Gaza will result in. He has also held calls with Arab leaders, seeking to mediate peace and a possible two-state solution.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 19:40 - Our Public Schools Are A National Disaster
Our Public Schools Are A National Disaster
Commentary by Stephen Moore via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Perhaps what’s most distressing about the latest collapse in high school test scores is that no one seems to be very distressed.
(Free-Photos/Pixabay) You’ve probably heard the news that ACT scores have fallen for the sixth straight year. Our high school kids are less equipped for a job or college than at any time in three decades.
Why isn’t anyone in Washington or anyone in our $800 billion education bureaucracy sounding the alarm and declaring this a national emergency? It certainly puts our national security, our technological superiority, and our economic prosperity in grave danger.
Instead of outrage, it is almost as if Americans have become anesthetized to bad news about our kids.
One theory is that Americans feel about their local schools as they do toward Congress: They love their own representative but think the rest of the members are corrupt and incompetent.
Yes, there are some excellent public schools, and yes, there are thousands of great teachers. But I live in Montgomery County, Maryland, which is one of the wealthiest counties in the country, and we had to pull our kids out of the public schools because they were so bad—and because they shut down during COVID-19.
I shudder to think what’s going on in the Baltimore schools down the road.
Exactly 40 years ago, the National Commission on Excellence in Education issued its findings on the state of the schools in its 1983 report entitled “A Nation at Risk.” Here was the grim conclusion: “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”
The nation never paid attention. If you think I’m blowing one bad report out of proportion, the National Assessment of Educational Progress report that came out earlier this year found similarly dismal student performance in the public schools. Reading and math proficiency collapsed over the past four years in part because of the teachers unions’ insistence that public schools stay closed during COVID—a national act of child abuse.
The left obsesses about income inequality and the gap between rich and poor. Yet they are so captive to the teachers unions that they do nothing about what is arguably the most regressive policy in the United States: our failing public school system. The decline in test scores is only half the story. The other part of the story is that the biggest declines in learning and achievement are among the poorer families.
I’m the furthest thing from an education expert, but I have had five kids. It’s pretty clear that three essential components to an enriching education are discipline in the classroom, high expectations, and a classical curriculum. This isn’t that complicated. It’s not like solving a Rubik’s Cube.
Today, most public schools fail all three of these standards.
California recently announced it is going to make climate change a standard part of the school curriculum. Really? They are going to scare the bejesus out of kids with a propaganda campaign telling them the world is coming to an end. Why don’t they just try phonics so kids can read?
The school blob’s pitiful response to this abject failure to teach is to call for more money. We’ve tried that for 40 years. Spending per student in the public schools after adjusting for inflation is up 50 percent in 30 years, which almost entirely inversely correlates with the continual test score slide.
The one glimmer of hope is the burgeoning school choice movement in the United States, which allows the dollars to follow the students and parents to choose the best schools for their kids—public, private, Christian, Jewish, or whatever works. Ten states this year have expanded school choice.
Meanwhile, the teachers unions argue with a straight face that school vouchers would hurt the public schools. Have they seen the test scores? How could they possibly get worse?
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 19:20 - TSLA Tumbles After Musk Warns Of "Enormous Challenges" Reaching Cybertruck Volume Production
TSLA Tumbles After Musk Warns Of “Enormous Challenges” Reaching Cybertruck Volume Production
Update (1800ET): TSLA shares were holding up, higher from the close, until CEO Elon Musk showed some uncertainty about the cybertruck’s launch (which had been picked up optimistically from the press release).
“It’s an amazing product but I do want to emphasize that there will be enormous challenges in reaching volume production with the Cybertruck and then in making the Cybertruck cash flow positive,” Musk said during Tesla’s earnings call on Wednesday.
“While I think this is potentially our best product ever — I think it is our best product ever — it is going to require immense work to reach high-volume production and be cash flow positive at a price that people can afford.”
This sent TSLA shares back to the lows of the day, down aropund 9% on the day (around 4% lower tahn the cash close)…
Musk claims demand for the Cybertruck is “off the charts” with more than 1 million potential buyers putting down $100 to reserve one.
* * *
Tesla disappointed investors with its Q3 earnings report, missing on top-line, bottom-line, and margins as the company’s focus on reducing cost (and price) per vehicle impacted the numbers:
-
Tesla 3Q Adj EPS 66c, Est. 74c
-
Tesla 3Q Rev. $23.4B (Up 9% Y/Y), Est. $24.06B
-
Tesla 3Q Gross Margin 17.9%, Est. 18%
Though arguably, maintaining margins amid this massive price war is noteworthy (though it was down from 25.1% a year ago).
“We continue to believe that an industry leader needs to be a cost leader,” the company said.
“During a high interest rate environment, we believe focusing on investments in R&D and capital expenditures for future growth, while maintaining positive free cash flow, is the right approach.”
As the RHS chart below shows, Tesla still has considerable edge over the industry with regard to margins.
Revenue was impacted by the following items:
+ growth in vehicle deliveries
+ growth in other parts of the business
– reduced average selling price (ASP) YoY (excluding FX impact)
– negative FX impact of $0.4BFree cash flow disappointed at $848 million, well below the estimate of $2.59 billion.
And Tesla still sees production 1.8 million vehicles this year (in line with the estimate of 1.82 million).
Tesla’s automotive gross margins ex-regulatory credits for the quarter was 16.3% (below expectations of 17.7%) and that was helped by a boost in regulatory credits…
Tesla noted that while deliveries rose YoY, they declined sequentially…
The electric vehicle manufacturer says its sequential decline in volume was caused by planned downtimes for factory upgrades.
BUT, a positive spin was offered as Tesla said they had more than doubled the size of their AI-training compute.
We have more than doubled the size of our AI training compute to accommodate for our growing dataset as well as our Optimus robot project. Our humanoid robot is currently being trained for simple tasks through AI rather than hard-coded software, and its hardware is being further upgraded.
We have commissioned one of the world’s largest supercomputers to accelerate the pace of our AI development, with compute capacity more than doubling compared to Q2.
Our large installed base of vehicles continues to generate anonymized video and other data used to develop our FSD Capability features.
And an additional highlight is that Tesla says that “Cybertruck deliveries begin in November 2023” but without a lot of context as to what kind of volume we are talking about here.
Tesla is now tweeting that:
“Cybertruck production remains on track for later this year, with first deliveries scheduled for November 30th at Giga Texas.”
TSLA shares initially puked on the miss, but bounced back above the close…
Though TSLA was down around 5% on the day amid an ugly market.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 19:15 -
- South Korea Kicks Off Weeklong Arms Fair As Global Threat Of Turmoil Increases
South Korea Kicks Off Weeklong Arms Fair As Global Threat Of Turmoil Increases
What better time to hold an arms fair than in the midst of new turmoil in the Middle East and growing tensions in Europe? That’s exactly what South Korea did this week, beginning what will be a week-long international aerospace and defense exhibition as the country looks to position itself as a global exporter of arms.
The country is looking to add a focus on exporting fighter jets, rocket launchers, drones and other weapons, according to a new report from Nikkei.
This year’s event attracted 550 companies from 34 nations and government groups from 57 countries, the report noted. And the timing hasn’t gone unnoticed: the fair is taking place at a time of global tension due to conflicts in Israel, Ukraine, and East Asia.
Executives and officials visited the event near Seoul to see new tech and weapons in the aerospace and defense sectors. The event has been held every two years since 1996. At the opening, President Yoon Suk Yeol showcased various military equipment made by Korean companies.
Yoon said: “Our defense industry is making new history, creating something from nothing. A country which relied on aid and imports now has leaped to a level that makes state-of-the art fighter jets and exports them. The government will create an ecosystem where our defense industry can continuously grow.”
Photo: Nikkei South Korea has built a top-tier arms industry over the years due to threats from North Korea, the report notes, and recently, it has become a big seller of weapons globally. Even Saudi Arabia’s assistant defense minister, Khaled Biyari, showed interest in South Korean weapons during his visit.
He met with executives from Hanwha Aerospace and Hyundai Rotem and the CEO of Hanwha gave him a small model of their rocket launcher. Last year, Hanwha made a deal to sell rocket launchers to Poland, which is close to the conflict in Ukraine.
And what would an arms event be without a presence from the US? Also at the event, South Korea and its U.S. ally showcased their military readiness against potential threats from North Korea. A U.S. Air Force B-52 bomber flew over the venue on the first day, signaling strong military ties between the two nations and sending a clear message to North Korea, Nikkei wrote.
U.S. Forces in Korea stated that the bomber was set to land somewhere on the peninsula during the exhibition. According to South Korea’s Yonhap News, the B-52 landed on Tuesday, marking its first-ever landing in the country.
U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, Philip Goldberg, was also present and spoke on behalf of U.S. arms companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. He said: “Events such as ADEX are a testament to the enduring partnership between the ROK and the U.S., which is sustained thanks in large part to the commitment by everyone gathered in this pavilion.”
Goldberg concluded: “Our militaries operate together every day here on the peninsula deterring threats and exercising for contingencies.”
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 19:00 - These Are America's 10 Most Dangerous Cities
These Are America’s 10 Most Dangerous Cities
Authored by Joe Gomez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Democratic mayors are in charge of almost all of the United States’ 10 most dangerous cities, based on analyses of the latest available national data on violent crimes and the cost of crime.
NeighborhoodScout and MoneyGeek used different methodologies to gauge the most violent and costliest crime cities, although five of the cities ended up on both lists.
NeighborhoodScout’s report is based on the number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents in cities with 25,000 or more people. The data are based on the number of violent crimes reported to the FBI in each city, projections of violent crime rates based on prior years’ data, and the population of each city, according to the company.
MoneyGeek analyzed the most recent crime statistics from the FBI to estimate the societal cost of crime per resident in 263 cities that have populations greater than 100,000.
Demonstrators climb on a destroyed Baltimore police car on a street during violent protests in Baltimore on April 27, 2015. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) 10 Most Dangerous Cities
NeighborhoodScout says it matches crime incident data from “all 18,000+ local law enforcement agencies in the U.S. to the specific local communities the agency covers, and hence in which community the crimes have occurred.”
The organization considers homicide, rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault as violent crimes.
Its most dangerous city is Bessemer, Alabama, with a violent crime rate of 33.1 crimes per 1,000 residents. Bessemer is a suburb of Birmingham, which comes up sixth on this list and second on MoneyGeek’s “cost of crime” top 10 list.
NeighborhoodScout lists Monroe, Louisiana, as its second most dangerous city, with a rate of 26.3 violent crimes per 1,000 residents. Monroe sits halfway between Shreveport, Louisiana, and Jackson, Mississippi.
In third place is Saginaw, Michigan, with a violent crime rate of 25.1 per 1,000 residents. Saginaw is about 100 miles northwest of Detroit.
Rounding out the top 10 are Memphis, Tennessee; Detroit; Birmingham, Alabama; Pine Bluff, Arkansas; Little Rock, Arkansas; Alexandria, Louisiana; and Cleveland.
(The Epoch Times) Several mayoral races in the above cities are run as nonpartisan elections, which means all candidates are in one pool for voters.
However, all but one of the cities are run by mayors who are either Democrats or are affiliated with the Democratic Party. The exception is Monroe, Louisiana, whose mayor, Friday Ellis, is a Republican-turned-independent.
Cost of Crime Top 10
MoneyGeek’s data measure the cost of crime per capita in cities of 100,000 or more. It doesn’t drill down to cities as small as NeighborhoodScout (25,000) but ends up with a very similar list and five exact matches.
“Crime and safety are intertwined with prosperity, income, and economic opportunity. Crime is costly to individual victims, perpetrators, communities, and society at large,” the finance company posted on its website.
Overall, MoneyGeek calculated the cost of crime in 2021 was $1,836 per capita in U.S. cities, up 6 percent, or $100 per capita, since 2020.
The company says it analyzed crime data, including violent crimes such as murder, rape, and aggravated assault and property crimes such as home burglary and motor vehicle theft. MoneyGeek omitted any cities that didn’t report murder and rape.
It calculated the cost of crime based on the “direct economic costs of crime to individuals and society.”
This includes the medical and mental health care costs for victims and the damage to and loss of property, and the costs for police and corrections, MoneyGeek stated in its report.
“Aside from the imminent danger of crime, people living in higher crime areas see depressed home values and pay higher prices for crucial needs, including home insurance, renters insurance, and auto insurance,” the report states.
Ranking No. 1 on MoneyGeek’s list is St. Louis, which has an estimated crime cost per capita of $8,457, according to the finance company. Democrat Tishaura Jones was sworn in as the 47th mayor and the first black female mayor in the city’s history on April 20, 2021. Her predecessor was also a Democrat.
(The Epoch Times) Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 18:40 - Top Republican Threatens To Subpoena DHS Secretary If Friday Deadline Missed
Top Republican Threatens To Subpoena DHS Secretary If Friday Deadline Missed
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas can expect a subpoena from the House Homeland Security Committee if the DHS fails to meet a Friday deadline for producing materials spanning 19 separate categories of documents that may shed light on Mexican drug cartels which compromised the ‘CBP One’ app used by migrants to help them enter the US.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testifies before the House Judicary Committee in Washington on April 28, 2022. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) The app, launched in October 2020 by US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), was designed as a tool for shippers and other legal border traffic to maximize efficiency when scheduling movements into the US. It was quickly seized upon by Mayorkas in early 2021 as a method to increase the flow of immigrants in an orderly manner.
Of note, more than six million migrants have crossed the southern US border since Biden took office in January 2021.
In July, Mayorkas told the House Judiciary Committee that the app enabled migrants to schedule their entrance at a US Port of Entry, which “cuts out the smuggling organizations” and helps DHS identify individuals who shouldn’t enter the country.
Now, the cartels have figured out how to compromise the app to schedule entry appointments for individuals who are early into their journeys north, allowing the Cartel to profit by charging immigrants to assist their entry.
As the Epoch Times further notes; Beginning last summer, Republican investigators led by committee Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) have pressured Mr. Mayorkas to turn over documents indicating that DHS uses the app to facilitate entry into the country of individuals the department is not authorized to allow to cross the border.
“Secretary Mayorkas created a massive security vulnerability. This is unacceptable and too important to ignore, and the American people demand and deserve answers. The committee is simply requesting relevant documents that would provide Congress, a co-equal branch of government, and the American people with vital information about what’s happening at our Southwest border. Given the impact that the CBP One app has had on our border security, the committee will get to the bottom of this, one way or another,” Mr. Green told The Epoch Times.
Repeated requests by the committee to DHS failed to generate production of any of the documents being sought by investigators. So, Mr. Green is now putting the threat of subpoenas on the table with DHS.
Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) speaks during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the U.S.-Afghanistan relationship following the military withdrawal, on Capitol Hill in Washington, on May 18, 2021. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images) “The committee requires the requested documents, communications, and other information to fully evaluate potential legislation to reform the department’s authority to use CBP One to issue an illegal alien advanced travel authorization and grant parole into the United States,” Mr. Green wrote in an Oct. 13 letter to Mr. Mayorkas obtained by The Epoch Times.
“The committee is concerned that the department’s use of CBP One to facilitate parole for large classes of illegal aliens extends beyond the department’s statutory parole authority that allows release of detainable illegal aliens applying for admission ‘on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit …’
“The committee seeks legislative solutions to further clarify limits on the department’s parole authority. If the outstanding requests related to CBP One remain unsatisfied by 5:00 p.m. on October 20, 2023, I will consider utilizing compulsory process. I expect prompt and complete compliance with all the committee’s outstanding requests for documents and other information.”
The reference to “compulsory process” is to the power of the committee to issue subpoenas for the documents to Mr. Mayorkas, members of his legislation relations team, and other DHS employees, both Biden administration political appointees and career civil servants, who may be involved in responding to congressional requests.
Mexican marines escort five alleged Zeta drug cartel traffickers in front of seized items – RPG-7 rocket launcher, hand grenades, firearms, cocaine, and military uniforms – presented to the press on June 9th, 2011. A report states the Mexican government and drug cartels are responsible for more than 150,000 deaths between 2006 and 2015. (YURI CORTEZ/AFP/Getty Images) A knowledgeable congressional source who asked not to be identified told The Epoch Times that “the national security implications are that the cartels are just able to manipulate everything that the Secretary is doing to continue their operations.”
The source added that “the Secretary claimed the CBP One app cut the cartels out by allowing individuals to make their appointments … but now the cartels are involved in making money on that, too, so they haven’t cut the cartels out, the cartels are still in control. It’s become another stream of income for them.”
Investigators are concerned that half of the individuals covered by CBP data are single male adults, many of them of military age, coming in illegally.
“That they are using CBP One doesn’t change the demographics of those coming in … so of course the cartels can exploit CBP One to try to get in whoever they want. Somebody who does have terrorist ties that the U.S. may be aware of … those are the people that are going to be among the ‘gotaways.’ But people that may have terrorist ties we don’t know of, sure, there is no reason the cartels wouldn’t partner with terrorist organizations to exploit entry,” the source continued.
A second knowledgeable congressional source, when asked by The Epoch Times if events in Israel since the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7 add urgency to the committee’s investigation, said, “The answer to that question is yes, but also, the mere fact that this app has been used to facilitate the cartels’ business here is unacceptable to start with. That’s beyond this war, that’s beyond terrorists smuggling across the border. But one of the things the committee’s [document demands] get to is trying to figure out this app’s vulnerabilities because it opens the door so widely.”
A spokesman for Mr. Mayorkas did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/18/2023 – 18:20
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
