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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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…

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. 

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 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.

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.”

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.”

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? 

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).

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.”

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

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

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.

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.

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.