Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog, A productive national Strategy would systemically decentralize power and capital rather than concentrate both in the hands of a self-serving elite. If you ask America's well-paid punditry to define America's National Strategy, you'll most likely get the UNESCO version: America's national strategy is to support a Liberal Global Order (LGO) of global cooperation on the environment, trade, etc. and the encouragement of democracy, a liberal order that benefits all by providing global security and avenues for cooperation. This sounds good, but it overlooks the Endless Wars (tm) and global meddling that characterize America's realpolitik dependence on force, which it applies with a ruthlessness born of America's peculiar marriage of exceptionalism and naivete. The happy UNESCO story also overlooks the rapacious incoherence of America's political system which is ultimately nothing but the Corporatocracy's advocacy of self-interest. This sytem is based on the bizarre notion that private-sector corporations with revolving-doors to central state agencies lobbying for state protection of their monopolies will magically benefit the entire populace. This absurd idea that the single-minded pursuit of maximizing private gain by any means available will magically benefit society is the essence of neofeudalism: the financial and political nobility maximize their take and justify this exploitation with airy assurances to the politically impotent debt-serfs that this systemic predation magically offers up the best possible outcome for the peasantry. Uh, not to put too fine a point on it, but if this is the best possible world for America's peasantry, let's switch places, Mr. Financial Noble: you take my student loan debt and $30,000 a year job and I'll take your $100 million private-wealth managed accounts in tax havens around the world, your private access to politicos and the Gulfstream on the tarmac. The no-holds-barred pursuit of self-enrichment by the Nobility is America's real-world national strategy: a system of institutionalized greed lacking any actual strategy. America's citizenry deserves better, and the place to start is to discuss a real strategy rather than justify self-serving elites' parasitic predation as "good for everyone" via PR magic. Let's start by distinguishing force and power. This is a key discussion in my new book Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic. It’s instructive to recall Edward Luttwak’s distinction between force and power in his book The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century CE to the Third where he defines force as a mechanical input (expense) that doesn't scale; it takes a lot of people, effort and treasure to force others to comply with authoritarian edicts. Power, on the other hand, reflects the total output of the nation-state: its productive capacity, resources, human and financial capital, social mobility and cohesiveness, shared purpose--everything. Technocrats take their authority to force compliance as power, but real power attracts cooperation; it has little need for force. Brute-force diktats to maintain a surface stability of order only increase the brittleness and fragility of the system. This is the false promise of authority: we can force stability by forcing compliance. But sustainable stability is the output of adaptability, i.e. productive disorder, not force. A national strategy that truly benefits all the citizenry starts with a simple principle: offer a secure level playing field for innovators, innovation and capital, and let that power attract opt-in cooperation of the most productive elements on the planet. Simple principle #2: relinquish force and seek power, as defined above. In plain language: stop trying to run the world. Lead by example: there is no way authoritarian regimes can match the output of productive people and capital who are offered a low-cost entry to a secure level playing field free of parasitic predatory elites. Simple principle #3: define American exceptionalism as the systemic elimination of the neofeudal dominance of financial and political elites (the New Nobility). The structure to do this is simple: A productive National Strategy would systemically decentralize power and capital rather than concentrate both in the hands of a self-serving elite. * * * My new book on these topics is available at a 28% discount for the ebook and 23% discount for the print edition through November 30 ($4.95 ebook, $9.95 print). Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF). My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new book Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic is 23% off ($4.95 ebook, $9.95 print): Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Investors given assurances amid concerns halting of project was politically motivated
The Associated Press has uncalled the race, as state authorities examine allegations against Republican Mark Harris' campaign.
(Don Boudreaux) Tweet… is from page 1 of the 2008 Third Edition of the late Vincent Ostrom’s 1973 book, The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration: Technical capabilities now exist for human beings to choose a fate marking the end of modern civilization as we know it. Today, the choice to destroy much of mankind can be […]
Boeing (BA) will offer production engineering support to upgrade F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.
We don't expect the West to denounce xenophobia and prejudice on this one: officials in Kiev have announced that Russian men will be barred from the country following the imposition of martial law this week. The ruling targets men aged 16-60, who will no longer be able to enter the country, with the only exceptions being for "humanitarian cases" like funerals or an emergency. Martial law is in effect in 10 Ukrainian regions until December 26 following the Russian Navy seizing three Ukrainian ships and 24 sailors in the Black Sea last Sunday as the crew stands accused of “dangerous maneuvers” in Russian territorial water. Ukrainian-Russian border near Hoptivka, Kharkiv region, eastern Ukraine, via the APThe new restrictions connected to the martial law decree from early this week were announced following a meeting between President Petro Poroshenko and the country's top security officials and border guard chiefs in Kiev. The president said in a public statement that the policy aimed to prevent the further formation of "private armies" in Ukraine — a reference to pro-Russian militia groups and separatist organizations Kiev has fought since 2014. A sizable amount of the Ukrainian population has relatives living just across the Russian border and vice versa. These families will be most impacted by the travel ban especially over the holidays. Currently direct flights between the two countries have been suspended by Kiev authorities, which along with the Russian travel ban will have a huge impact, given that 1.5 million Russian nationals visited Ukraine last year alone, according to official statistics published by Unian news agency, cited in the BBC. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova reacted to the ban by assuring that Moscow had no plans to "mirror" the measure as this "could result in full madness". Україна ввела обмеження щодо в'їзду громадян РФ чоловічої статі віком від 16 до 60, щоб РФ не формувала в Україні загони "приватних" армій, які насправді є представниками Збройних Сил РФ. Щоб не дати росіянам здійснити в Україні ті операції, які вони планували ще у 2014 році. pic.twitter.com/upJyp1JLrO — Петро Порошенко (@poroshenko) November 30, 2018 The ban will apply to all entry points to Ukraine, especially along the 1200+ miles of the Ukrainian-Russian land border, which is enforced by a system of Ukrainian border fortifications — through the ambitious project akin to a "border wall" is still in development and unfinished. Further details of how security officials plan to enforce the ban have yet to be revealed. In mid-September, one Ukrainian province in the western part of the country issued an official ban on all Russian-language books, films, broadcasts and songs. A regional council had voted to “impose a moratorium on the public broadcast and use of Russian-language content” until Russian forces "withdraw" from Ukraine, however unlikely it is to actually enforce. Early this week in a televised interview Poroshenko condemned what he described as a rapidly increased Russian military presence on the border with Ukraine, saying, "The number of [Russian] tanks at bases located along our border has tripled," according to the AFP. The Ukrainian president added that "the number of units that have been deployed along our border – what's more, along its full length – has grown dramatically." He ultimately concluded that the military buildup meant that the country is "under threat of full-scale war with Russia." But Kiev's latest anti-Russian travel ban is sure to only stoke tensions dramatically, especially as it takes the conflict far beyond the mere political domain, targeting language and identity in a Balkanized sense, and dividing families in the process.
More police on the ground and extra vigilance - that’s how Kharkiv, the second-largest city in Ukraine, has changed since the martial law is in place in the wake of the country’s conflict with Russia over Crimea. However, local officials have assured people that the moves which will restrict their constitutional rights will only be brought into effect if Russia starts an open act of aggression. Al Jazeera's Andrew Simmons reports from Kharkiv. - Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe - Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish - Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera - Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/ #AlJazeeraEnglish #Russia-Ukraine tensions
Authored by Paul Craig Roberts, Julian Assange is not guilty of any crime. But Washington is going to convict him anyway. Documents are being fabricated to show that Assange met inside the Ecuadoran Embassy in London with Paul Manafort and some Russians. The logs of all visits to the Embassy have been released and show no such meetings. This latest fabrication was dumped on the public by the Guardian, formerly a leftwing newspaper but today a MI6 asset. Luke Harding who was leaked the fake documents is either extremely gullible or himself a MI6 asset. The purpose of the leak is to create in the public’s mind that Assange was involved in “Russiagate” along with Trump and Putin. The fact that no evidence has been found that Russiagate exists except as a made-up allegation to justify a special prosecutor to investigate President Trump has not stopped the continued use of this canard. Washington and London are relying on the public’s insouciance to shield their shamelessness. Julian Assange’s life has been ruined because he was a professional journalist who told the truth instead of serving as a shill for the ruling elite. Now the intention is to give him a show trial and to convict him without evidence, relying on presstitutes to spread fake evidence that a meeting that did not occur occurred and with no explanation of how such a meeting if it had actuallly occurred would constitute espionage. Former British ambassador Craig Murry explains the shameful use of government power against an innocent person that has been unfolding under our eyes for the last six years. What is being done to Assange is as bad as any of Stalin’s show trials and is worse because it is happening in full view in front of Western Democracy. Here is Ambassador Murray: November 27, 2018 Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies By Craig Murray The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6 mouthpiece Luke Harding of the Guardian. Amazingly, more Ecuadorean Government documents have just been discovered for the Guardian, this time spy agency reports detailing visits of Paul Manafort and unspecified “Russians” to the Embassy. By a wonderful coincidence of timing, this is the day after Mueller announced that Manafort’s plea deal was over. The problem with this latest fabrication is that Moreno had already released the visitor logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these “Russians” are in the visitor logs. This is impossible. The visitor logs were not kept by Wikileaks, but by the very strict Ecuadorean security. Nobody was ever admitted without being entered in the logs. The procedure was very thorough. To go in, you had to submit your passport (no other type of document was accepted). A copy of your passport was taken and the passport details entered into the log. Your passport, along with your mobile phone and any other electronic equipment, was retained until you left, along with your bag and coat. I feature in the logs every time I visited. There were no exceptions. For an exception to be made for Manafort and the “Russians” would have had to be a decision of the Government of Ecuador, not of Wikileaks, and that would be so exceptional the reason for it would surely have been noted in the now leaked supposed Ecuadorean “intelligence report” of the visits. What possible motive would the Ecuadorean government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security – would not know the identity of these alleged “Russians”. Previously Harding and the Guardian have published documents faked by the Moreno government regarding a diplomatic appointment to Russia for Assange of which he had no knowledge. Now they follow this up with more documents aimed to provide fictitious evidence to bolster Mueller’s pathetically failed attempt to substantiate the story that Russia deprived Hillary of the Presidency. My friend William Binney, probably the world’s greatest expert on electronic surveillance, former Technical Director of the NSA, has stated that it is impossible the DNC servers were hacked, the technical evidence shows it was a download to a directly connected memory stick. I knew the US security services were conducting a fake investigation the moment it became clear that the FBI did not even themselves look at the DNC servers, instead accepting a report from the Clinton linked DNC “security consultants” Crowdstrike. I would love to believe that the fact Julian has never met Manafort is bound to be established. But I fear that state control of propaganda may be such that this massive “Big Lie” will come to enter public consciousness in the same way as the non-existent Russian hack of the DNC servers. Assange never met Manafort. The DNC emails were downloaded by an insider. Assange never even considered fleeing to Russia. Those are the facts, and I am in a position to give you a personal assurance of them. I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services. I am not a fan of Donald Trump. But to see the partisans of the defeated candidate (and a particularly obnoxious defeated candidate) manipulate the security services and the media to create an entirely false public perception, in order to attempt to overturn the result of the US Presidential election, is the most astonishing thing I have witnessed in my lifetime. Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange’s support prior to expelling him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of espionage. Assange is not a whistleblower or a spy – he is the greatest publisher of his age, and has done more to bring the crimes of governments to light than the mainstream media will ever be motivated to achieve. That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the “liberal media” no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of the people, they are an instrument of elite control. * * * Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute, "The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."- Justice William J. Brennan, City of Houston v. Hill What the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line. What the First Amendment protects - and a healthy constitutional republic requires - are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power. It’s not an easy undertaking. Weaponized by police, prosecutors, courts and legislatures, “disorderly conduct” charges have become a convenient means by which to punish those individuals who refuse to be muzzled. Deyshia Hargrave, a language arts teacher in Louisiana, was thrown to the ground, handcuffed and arrested for speaking out during a public comment period at a school board meeting. Fane Lozman was arrested for alluding to government corruption during open comment time at a City Council meeting in Palm Beach County, Fla. Dan Heyman, a reporter for the Public News Service, was arrested for “aggressively” questioning Tom Price, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during an encounter in the West Virginia State Capitol. College professor Ersula Ore was slammed to the ground and arrested after she objected to the “disrespectful manner” shown by a campus cop who stopped her in the middle of the street and demanded that she show her ID. Philadelphia lawyer Rebecca Musarra was arrested for exercising her right to remain silent and refusing to answer questions posed by a police officer during a routine traffic stop. (Note: she cooperated in every other way by providing license and registration, etc.) Robert Bartlett was arrested during an Arctic Man festival in Alaska, allegedly in retaliation for refusing to be interrogated by police and intervening when police attempted to question other people. His case is before the U.S. Supreme Court. Cases like these have become all too common, typical of the bipolar nature of life in the American police state today: you may have distinct, protected rights on paper, but dare to exercise those rights and you put yourself at risk for fines, arrests, injuries and even death. This is the unfortunate price of freedom. Yet these are not new developments. We have been circling this particular drain hole for some time now. Almost 50 years ago, in fact, Lewis Colten was arrested outside Lexington, Kentucky, for questioning police and offering advice to his friend during a traffic stop. Colten was one of 20 or so college students who had driven to the Blue Grass Airport to demonstrate against then-First Lady Pat Nixon. Upon leaving the airport, police stopped one of the cars in Colten’s motorcade because it bore an expired, out-of-state license plate. Colten and the other drivers also pulled over to the side of the road. Fearing violence on the part of the police, Colten exited his vehicle and stood nearby while police issued his friend, Mendez, a ticket and arranged to tow his car. Police repeatedly asked Colten to leave. At one point, a state trooper declared, “This is none of your affair . . . get back in your car and please move on and clear the road.” Insisting that he wanted to make a transportation arrangement for his friend Mendez and the occupants of the Mendez car, Colten failed to move away and was arrested for violating Kentucky’s disorderly conduct statute. Colten subsequently challenged his arrest as a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sided with the police. Although the Court acknowledged that Colten was not trespassing or disobeying any traffic regulation himself, the majority affirmed that Colten “had no constitutional right to observe the issuance of a traffic ticket or to engage the issuing officer in conversation at that time.” The Supreme Court’s bottom line: protecting police from inconvenience, annoyance or alarm is more important than protecting speech that, in the government’s estimation, has “no social value.” While the ruling itself was unsurprising for a judiciary that tends to march in lockstep with the police, the dissent by Justice William O. Douglas is a powerful reminder that the government exists to serve the people and not the other way around. Stressing that Colten’s speech was quiet, not boisterous, devoid of “fighting words,” and involved no overt acts, fisticuffs, or disorderly conduct in the normal meaning of the words, Douglas took issue with the idea that merely by speaking to a government representative, in this case the police—a right enshrined in the First Amendment, by the way—Colten was perceived as inconveniencing and annoying the police. In a passionate defense of free speech, Douglas declared: Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet. The situation might have indicated that Colten's techniques were ill-suited to the mission he was on, that diplomacy would have been more effective. But at the constitutional level speech need not be a sedative; it can be disruptive. It's a power-packed paragraph full of important truths that the powers-that-be would prefer we quickly forget: We the people are the sovereigns. We have the final word. We can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy. We need not stay docile and quiet. Our speech can be disruptive. It can invite dispute. It can be provocative and challenging. We do not have to bow submissively to authority or speak with reverence to government officials. Now in theory, “we the people” have a constitutional right to talk back to the government. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded as much in City of Houston v. Hill when it struck down a city ordinance prohibiting verbal abuse of police officers as unconstitutionally overbroad and a criminalization of protected speech. In practice, however, talking back—especially when the police are involved—can get you killed. The danger is real. We live in an age in which “we the people” are at the mercy of militarized, weaponized, immunized cops who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.” While violent crime in America remains at an all-time low, the death toll as a result of police-sponsored violence continues to rise. In fact, more than 1,000 people are killed every year by police in America, more than any other country in the world. What we are dealing with is a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out against individuals posing little or no real threat. I’m not talking about the number of individuals—especially young people—who are being shot and killed by police for having a look-alike gun in their possession, such as a BB gun. I’m not even talking about people who have been shot for brandishing weapons at police, such as scissors. I’m talking about the growing numbers of unarmed people are who being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or looking a certain way, or moving a certain way, or not moving fast enough, or asking a question, or not answering a question, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety. This is not what life should be like in a so-called “free” country. Police encounters have deteriorated so far that anything short of compliance—including behavior the police perceive as disrespectful or “insufficiently deferential to their authority,” “threatening” or resistant—could get you arrested, jailed or killed. The problem, of course, is that compliance is rarely enough to guarantee one’s safety. Case in point: Miami-Dade police slammed a 14-year-old boy to the ground, putting him in a chokehold and handcuffing him after he allegedly gave them “dehumanizing stares” and walked away from them, which the officers found unacceptable. According to Miami-Dade Police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta, “His body language was that he was stiffening up and pulling away… When you have somebody resistant to them and pulling away and somebody clenching their fists and flailing their arms, that’s a threat. Of course we have to neutralize the threat.” This mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be “neutralized” is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets the police beyond the reach of the First and Fourth Amendments. When police officers are allowed to operate under the assumption that their word is law and that there is no room for any form of disagreement or even question, that serves to destroy the First Amendment’s assurances of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Then again, this is what happens when you take a police recruit, hype him (or her) up on the power of the gun in his holster and the superiority of his uniform, render him woefully ignorant of how to handle a situation without resorting to violence, drill him in military tactics but keep him in the dark about the Constitution, and never stress to him that he is to be a peacemaker and a peacekeeper, respectful of and subservient to the taxpayers, who are in fact his masters and employers. The problem, as one reporter rightly concluded, is “not that life has gotten that much more dangerous, it’s that authorities have chosen to respond to even innocent situations as if they were in a warzone.” What we’re dealing with today is a skewed shoot-to-kill mindset in which police, trained to view themselves as warriors or soldiers in a war, whether against drugs, or terror, or crime, must “get” the bad guys—i.e., anyone who is a potential target—before the bad guys get them. Never mind that the fatality rate of on-duty police officers is reportedly far lower than many other professions, including construction, logging, fishing, truck driving, and even trash collection. The result of this battlefield approach to domestic peacekeeping is a society in which police shoot first and ask questions later. The message being drummed into our heads with every police shooting of an unarmed citizen is this: if you don’t want to get probed, poked, pinched, tasered, tackled, searched, seized, stripped, manhandled, arrested, shot, or killed, don’t say, do or even suggest anything that even hints of noncompliance. This is the “thin blue line” over which you must not cross in interactions with police if you want to walk away with your life and freedoms intact. If ever there were a time to scale back on the mindset adopted by cops that they are the law and should be revered, feared and obeyed, it’s now. It doesn’t matter where you live—big city or small town—it’s the same scenario being played out over and over again in which government agents, hyped up on their own authority and the power of their uniform, ride roughshod over the rights of the citizenry. Americans as young as 4 years old are being leg shackled, handcuffed, tasered and held at gun point for not being quiet, not being orderly and just being childlike—i.e., not being compliant enough. Americans as old as 95 are being beaten, shot and killed for questioning an order, hesitating in the face of a directive, and mistaking a policeman crashing through their door for a criminal breaking into their home—i.e., not being submissive enough. And Americans of every age and skin color are being taught the painful lesson that the only truly compliant, submissive and obedient citizen in a police state is a dead one. As a result, Americans are being brainwashed into believing that anyone who wears a government uniform—soldier, police officer, prison guard—must be obeyed without question. Of course, the Constitution takes a far different position, but does anyone in the government even read, let alone abide by, the Constitution anymore? If we just cower before government agents and meekly obey, we may find ourselves following in the footsteps of those nations that eventually fell to tyranny. The alternative involves standing up and speaking truth to power. Jesus Christ walked that road. So did Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and countless other freedom fighters whose actions changed the course of history. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the American dream was built on the idea that no one is above the law, that our rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, and that our government and its appointed agents exist to serve us. It may be that things are too far gone to save, but still we must try.
Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina said he would not support the nomination of Thomas Farr, one of Trump’s judicial nominees, assuring that he will not be confirmed.
Jamie Reagan and Eddie Janko start wedding planning with the rest of the Reagan family's help on 'Blue Bloods.' Where will they have their wedding?
PPG Industries' (PPG) coating offers OAP technology, which enables detection of non-destructive UV light.
ENGLISH RULES ARE “TOO BIG A RISK”: Employers can be held responsible for their employees’ misbehavior in all sorts of ways. They can be sued for sexual harassment. They can lose customers if their employees are viewed as rude. The best way to manage these risks varies from workplace to workplace. But sometimes English-speaking supervisors […]
Zacks.com highlights: Asbury Automotive, OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, aTyr Pharma, Avinger and Sunesis Pharmaceuticals
Zacks.com highlights: Asbury Automotive, OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, aTyr Pharma, Avinger and Sunesis Pharmaceuticals
Uncaring mediocrity, in which employees have given up trying to make things better Focused mediocrity, in which the organization is intentionally average Accidental mediocrity, in which people don’t even realize that they’re not delivering excellence Uncaring mediocrity is the most common form, and it often accompanies scale. It’s the accidental outcome that comes from trying to […]
Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review, Reuters released a scandalous report alleging that members of the Saudi monarchy are conspiring against Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. The outlet cited unnamed sources that supposedly revealed a plot to replace MbS with his uncle Prince Ahmed, emphasizing that the King’s will doesn’t necessarily have to be respected after his retirement or passing if the so-called “Allegiance Council” doesn’t approve of his successor. The storyline presented in the text is that MbS’ controversial anti-corruption campaign last November and his progressively modernizing socio-economic policies have “destroyed the institutional pillars of nearly a century of Al Saud rule: the family, the clerics, the tribes and the merchant families”, which is why so many influential figures inside the country apparently want to see him deposed. Reuters quoted an unattributed Saudi source as saying that Prince Ahmed would have the backing of the security apparatus and Western powers if he replaced MbS, but while it’s obvious that many European countries and part of the US’ “deep state” would probably back this regime change scenario, there are serious doubts about whether the Kingdom’s military and intelligence services would also support it. After all, they were integral to the success of MbS’ anti-corruption sweep, since without their loyalty, the entire operation would have fallen apart and many of the high-profile targets could have been tipped off well in advance. The reason why this didn’t happen, however, is because these pivotal forces understand that MbS’ ambitious “Vision 2030” socio-economic reform strategy is the only realistic possibility of preventing the majority-youthful Kingdom’s impending collapse in a post-oil future, hence why they went along with what critics have decried as this so-called “deep state” coup in order to facilitate the successful implementation of this plan. Saudi king Salman Although Reuters claims that Prince Ahmed would continue MbS’ policy trajectory, this can’t by any means be assured because the Crown Prince’s multipolar outreaches to Russia & China and his Vision 2030 agenda are the very reasons why some of the Saudi elite and their Western allies want to replace him in the first place. The outlet even specifically mentioned that his country’s planned purchase of Russia’s S-400 anti-air defense systems has “rankled” some US officials, which could in turn provide them with a strategic reason to engineer his downfall after manipulating the outcome of the Khashoggi case that the CIA suspiciously blames on MBS himself. With the benefit of hindsight in light of this scandalous report’s publication, one would do well to wonder whether the dissident journalist’s killing was meant to set MBS up for regime change.
The report, published by Conflict Armament Research, shows how the South Sudanese government arranged for Uganda to provide the “end-user assurances” needed by munitions firms in Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia to legally sell their wares.
There Is No Case Against Julian Assange So Lies Take the Place of Evidence Paul Craig Roberts Julian Assange is not guilty of any crime. But Washington is going to convict him anyway. Documents are being fabricated to show that Assange met inside the Ecuadoran Embassy in London with Paul Manafort and some Russians. The… The post There Is No Case Against Julian Assange So Lies Take the Place of Evidence appeared first on PaulCraigRoberts.org.