The wolf of Perdana Putra (aka “Malaysian Official 1”)

July 21, 2016

Perdana Putra

Office of The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Main Block, Perdana Putra Building, Federal Government Administrative Centre, 62502 Putrajaya, MALAYSIA

1MDB rolls on and it is probably getting quite warm in Perdana Putra. But whether Najib Razak is feeling the heat is not so certain.

Wall Street JournalU.S. prosecutors have linked the prime minister of Malaysia, a key American ally in Asia, to hundreds of millions of dollars allegedly siphoned from one of the country’s economic development funds, according to a civil lawsuit seeking the seizure of more than $1 billion of assets from other people connected to him.

The Justice Department filed lawsuits Wednesday to seize assets that it said were the result of $3.5 billion that was misappropriated from 1Malaysia Development Bhd., or 1MDB, a fund set up by Prime Minister Najib Razak in 2009 to boost the Malaysian economy. …. Among the Justice Department’s assertions: That some $1 billion originating with 1MDB was plowed into hotels; luxury real estate in Manhattan, Beverly Hills and London; fine art; a private jet and the 2013 film “The Wolf of Wall Street.” Among those behind the spending, the lawsuit alleges, was Riza Aziz, stepson of Mr. Najib.

BBC: Malaysian PM Najib Razak is facing pressure internationally and at home amid US allegations of massive fraud at state investment fund 1MDB. The fund was set up by Mr Najib in 2009 with the stated aim of boosting the Malaysian economy.

But US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said evidence showed it had defrauded Malaysians “on an enormous scale”. On Wednesday, US authorities moved to seize more than $1bn (£761m) in assets related to the fund. Mr Najib is not named in the papers and has consistently denied wrongdoing.

But he is identifiable as “Malaysian Official 1”, whose account allegedly received millions in funds originating from 1MDB. The $1bn the US hopes to seize would make up only a proportion of the more than $3.5bn (£2.6bn) allegedly diverted.

I haven’t heard – yet – that Leonardo DiCaprio is being investigated.


 

Philippines President rejects Paris agreement as “stupid” and “absurd”

July 20, 2016

The Paris climate agreement is absurd.

It is politically correct but has meaningless objectives based on ineffective (if not irrelevant) parameters. Its promises are non-binding. However the global warming religion is like a runaway train with people scrambling to get on because they mistakenly believe the train is headed for safety. It is only a matter of time – though it may take a decade or two of global cooling – before the arrogance and absurdity of the climate movement is eventually exposed.

In the meantime, it is only mavericks and heretics who have the nerve to reject the orthodoxy. The new President Duterte of the Philippines is one such:

Philippine Daily Inquirer:

PRESIDENT Duterte on Monday said his administration would not honor the historic Paris Agreement on climate change that the Philippines adopted along with about 200 countries in December 2015, saying the covenant was “stupid” and “absurd.”

The tough-talking President said the international treaty, signed by countries that participated in the 21st Conference of Parties in France, would only limit the country’s industrial growth. Speaking at sendoff ceremonies in Malacañang for Filipino athletes bound for the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the President said a foreign ambassador recently reminded him of the country’s commitment to limit its carbon emissions.

He said he was angry with the ambassador and “wanted to kick him” when the diplomat, whom he did not identify, asked him if the Philippines could maintain the level of its carbon footprints. “I said, ‘No. I cannot tell … You don’t do it that way, Mr. Ambassador. [Your country] has reached the apex [of industrialization] and along the way put a lot of contaminants and emissions, and went ahead in destroying the climate,’” the President recalled as telling the ambassador.

“We have not reached the age of industrialization. We’re now going into it. But you are trying to stymie [our growth] with an agreement that says you can only go up to here,” he added. “That’s stupid. I will not honor that.”

When the ambassador told him that the Philippines was a signatory to the agreement, Mr. Duterte replied: “That was not my signature. It’s not mine … I will not follow.”  The President also said the climate change agreement was forged just when the Philippines was on its way to develop its own industries. “Now that we’re developing, you will impose a limit?” he said. “That’s absurd.”

“That’s how very competitive and constricted our lives now. It’s being controlled by the world, it’s being imposed upon us by the industrialized countries. They think that they can dictate the destiny of the rest of the [world],” he added.

The mavericks of this world have a role in keeping the world honest and have their uses. The man-made emissions / global warming lie has lived for almost 4 decades. Eventually the lie will die as its doomsday projections are continuously pushed into never-never-land.


 

Trump nominated, as the clown trounces the media

July 20, 2016

I never thought he would actually get this far. I took him for a clown to begin with. Later, I remembered that clowns can have hidden depths. There are times in any show when it is time for the clown to come on, and when only a clown will do. He reminded me, from my own experiences, of my first impressions of Laloo Prasad Yadav and my later realisation of the shrewdness and native cunning that Laloo had (still has I suppose). I remembered that Trump was born rich but had indeed made himself much richer. Donald Trump hit a nerve and was perfectly placed – but not I think by design –  to catch and ride an anti-establishment wave. The wave is turning out to be a global phenomenon and may turn into a tsunami.

For 12 months now, he has faced the massed opposition and vilification of the media not only in the US, but globally. The media have been scathing and openly slanderous about Trump. The liberal-left media have been frothing at the mouth in their indignation and have been hard put to find the words to describe their revulsion and disgust (Washington Post, Boston Globe, Huff Post, The Guardian, Der Spiegel …..). The New York Times has been openly hostile but has tried to keep one foot on the fence. Some of the right-wing media have been vitriolic in their opposition (Fox, Red State) while others have pointedly refrained from total opposition and remained neutral (Drudge, Washington Times). Every TV channel in the US has been opposed to Trump.

media vs trump

And yet, Donald Trump is now the official Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US. He was expected to be the first hopeful to drop out. Instead the rivals he has trounced (Bush, Kasich, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, ….) were the cream of the establishment, Republican, heavyweights. Two years ago I though it would be a Clinton-Bush fight. But Jeb Bush was pulverised early on in the competition (and the Bush family are still sulking). It has been a remarkable triumph for Trump considering the unprecedented level of opposition from the media and the political establishment (including the Republican establishment). I have never in my lifetime seen the media so united in their opposition to a candidate. And yet, they have all failed, and failed quite miserably, in their objective to “stop Trump”. The dismal failure of the media is all the more pronounced considering their almost unanimous opposition. Trump has reached and touched and ridden something above and beyond the control of the media. perhaps even beyond their understanding. He has connected with support which actually feeds and grows on the media opposition to him. Every time an establishment figure has castigated Trump, his support has grown. He backtracks on previous statements but never apologises. He makes gaffes which are quickly forgotten. He makes outrageous statements about ridiculous policies and his support does not desert him. It is mood – not issues – that seems to be controlling.

Those who have been particularly outspoken against him are now realising that it might not be such a good idea to completely alienate somebody who could be President in November. President Trump? It still sounds like a fantasy.

The wrong person? Or another Reagan? A catastrophe? Or an inspired choice? But, in the unfolding drama that is the US, it does begin to look like he could be the right clown with the right mood, for the right audience, in the right place, at the right time.

Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.

 

 

So, why is brainwashing of children perfectly acceptable?

July 19, 2016

Yesterday a radicalised, 17 year old, Afghan refugee, armed with an axe and knives, shouting “Allahu Akbar”, went on a rampage on a train in Würzburg, Germany. He wounded 4 seriously and injured many others and was shot dead.

It seems that “freedom of religion” includes the fundamental right to brainwash children. It is not only allowed but is encouraged. Is it then surprising that a radicalisation epidemic is now raging? There is very little “freedom” here.

children - catholic Erbil image catholicnewsagency

catholic refugee children in Erbil image catholicnewsagency

children - islamic kidergarden Austria - Getty images

children – islamic kindergarden Austria – Getty images

children - hindu image The Hindu

children – hindu image The Hindu

children -buddhist school Thailand image -The Guardian

children -buddhist school Thailand image -The Guardian

Most people are not prone to radicalisation. But having been brainwashed as a child does make for good preparation.

Belief, and religions, only exist in the “Space of Ignorance”. Any true belief ought to be the result of a cognitive-emotional process followed by every individual. It is hardly true belief when it is force-fed to children long before they have reached emotional or cognitive maturity.

What is not knowledge is ignorance. Religions only exist in the Space of Ignorance


 

If “law and order” becomes the dominating issue, Clinton could easily lose

July 18, 2016

Hillary Clinton appears to have a substantial lead over Donald Trump in many polls (though there are some polls which puts them quite close). His uninspiring choice of running mate does not bode well either (for him). But, paradoxically, it is “black lives matter” and the mood it inculcates of it being “open season” on the police, which might give Trump an unbeatable edge.

It is not just in Dallas, or now in Baton Rouge, that policemen (some of them black) are being killed by murderous black men. The LA Times (which is virulently anti-Trump), reports:

When five police officers were killed and nine wounded in an attack during a protest march in Dallas on July 7, it rattled the nation. Ten days later, three officers were killed and three injured in Baton Rouge, La., as they were responding to a call about a suspicious person with an assault rifle.

Between the two attacks, law enforcement officers from Georgia to Michigan were shot in incidents that drew far less attention but have added to the growing sense that it’s a dangerous time to be a cop. With the Dallas shootings, 31 law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty so far this year, compared with 18 officers who had died at this point in 2015, according the statistics from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund

…… “As we see increases, it becomes very concerning, particularly when you see increases in the cases of the nature of Dallas,” Breul said. “Certainly there is a climate now — and the Dallas case indicates that there is a climate now — that certainly should have police on guard,” he added. 

Supporters of “black lives matter” were not slow in celebration of the deaths and in commending the police killers both after Dallas and after Baton Rouge. (Not unlike the Islamic teenagers celebrating after the terrorist truck attack in Nice). Donald Trump responded immediately and was quick to draw a picture of the break-down of law and order and the lack of leadership. Hillary Clinton, however, took almost 8 hours to respond very cautiously to the Baton Rouge killings. Sarcastic comments suggested she was waiting for her focus group to tell her what to say.

“Immigration” is the issue that has probably helped most – so far – to fuel Trump’s support among those who feel it has gotten out of control. However there is a significant amount of support for the pro-immigration position as well, which accrues – by default – to Hillary Clinton.  “Law and Order” as an issue is different to “immigration”. There is only a “pro” position here. It is not possible to be “against” law and order. If “law and order” becomes a key issue then it becomes the candidates’ credibility to promote “law and order” that count.

And here, I think, Hillary Clinton could lose very heavily. There is no conceivable way she can present herself as being in favour of, or of being able to restore, or even manage “law and order”. It is not so much that Trump will have any more in the way of solutions than blank support of the security forces, but Clinton does not even understand the problem. Her perceived pandering to “black lives matter” means not just zero credibility regarding “law and order”, but actually a huge negative that she must first overcome. Clinton would lose rather than that Trump would win.

Trump’s best chance now to win against Clinton probably depends upon “immigration” and “law and order” becoming the key issues in November. If “law and order” becomes the dominating issue then Clinton will self-destruct.


 

Something fishy with the “attempted coup” in Turkey

July 17, 2016

The attempted coup was pretty inept and not at all representative of the skills and organising abilities of the Turkish army. It could have been that it was just a small group involved. But the purge that Erdogan is now carrying out against Hizmet and supporters of Fethullah Gülen (3000 military and 2500 judges detained so far) begins to give weight to the theory that the failed, inept, coup was stage-managed by Erdogan, just to have an excuse to move against Hizmet.

Fethullah Gülen (image Reuters/ BBC)

Just another conspiracy theory. Perhaps. But as conspiracy theories go, this is a rather simple intrigue by the standards of intricate, Byzantine plots. It could be that Erdogan is just being an opportunist and is using  a “genuine” coup attempt to now crack-down on Gülen supporters. But, I would not be at all surprised if it had all been orchestrated by Erdogan.

Reuters: 

U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen, whose followers Turkey blames for a failed coup, said on Saturday the attempted overthrow may have been staged, and he urged the Turkish people not to view military intervention in a positive light.

“There is a slight chance, there is a possibility that it could be a staged coup,” Gulen told reporters through a translator in Pennsylvania, where he resides. “It could be meant for court accusations and associations.”

Gulen said democracy cannot be achieved through military action. He criticized the President Tayyip Erdogan’s government. “It appears that they have no tolerance for any movement, any group, any organization that is not under their total control,” he said.

Whether staged or not, Erdogan wins. He is obsessed with Fethullah Gülen and his supporters and what he calls their “parallel state”. It is not a coincidence that Gülen’s supporters tend to be much better educated than the mass support that Erdogan so successfully mobilises.


 

Murderous terrorism must be treated as disease to be eradicated

July 16, 2016
fertile crescent NASA

fertile crescent NASA

It has been a surreal few days with the massacre in Nice and the apparently failed coup in Turkey. Whether the massacre in Nice was directed by ISIS or just inspired by ISIS, the virus came out of the fertile crescent which some 10,000 years ago was the cradle of civilisation. As Erdogan cracks down a period of blood-letting in Turkey is likely to follow. (The coup attempt, even in its failure, is likely to delay any possibility of EU membership by at least a decade).

George W. Bush first used the term “War on Terror” in 2001. But in the subsequent 15 years the use of indiscriminate and murderous attacks on innocent bystanders has only increased. As a conventional “war”, it is being lost. The “war on terror” is being prosecuted as if it were between nations, albeit that the “nation of terror” is something diffuse and difficult to define. This “war”, I think, is conceptually wrong. It strikes me that the concepts used in containing, eradicating and eliminating diseases may be more apposite. It could be far more effective to consider the “murderousness virus” and then to apply the methods of disease control. Here I consider Islamic terrorism or right-wing terrorism or Hindu nationalist terrorism or Burmese Buddhist murderousness or even State-sponsored barbarity, all as being caused by different strains of the murderousness virus.  As with any disease the fight would then entail:

  1. localising the sources of the virus,
  2. containing the areas where the virus is nurtured
  3. isolating the sources, and
  4. then eliminating them,
  5. identifying those individuals either suffering from an outbreak of the disease and those merely carrying the virus,
  6. treating the afflicted (where possible)

The sources of the virus are then those teachings or ideologies which justify and promote the use of barbarism and murder and mayhem. It would apply equally well to the twisted ideologies which inspired IRA murderers or Anders Behring Breivik or to those Wahhabi preachings which currently inspire what is manifested as Islamic terrorism. There are virus sources in other parts of the world as well but the most virulent strain right now is that emanating from Saudi Arabia.

The conventional “war on terror” has really only addressed individuals already infected and showing visible signs of the disease. There has been no coordinated effort to localise and isolate the real sources of the virus. Or more than half-hearted attempts to identify the carriers of the virus who themselves never carry out the murderous acts. (In the guise of freedom of speech many of the virus carriers are freely allowed to roam within the EU infecting vulnerable youngsters).

Certain principles apply when eradicating or eliminating disease. It is striking how apt this is when applied to murderous behaviour:

Eradication means zero disease globally as a result of deliberate efforts and control measures no longer needed

Elimination means zero disease in a defined geographic area as a result of deliberate efforts. Control measures are needed to prevent reestablishment of transmission.

Several key principles are inherent in an eradication or elimination campaign:

  1. the need to intervene everywhere the disease occurs, no matter how remotely located or difficult to access occurrences of disease are or how minor the perceived problem is in an individual country or area;
  2. the importance of monitoring the target disease and the extent of interventions closely;
  3. the need for flexibility and urgency in response to ongoing monitoring and operational research; and
  4. the need for an intense focus on the goal of stopping transmission of the targeted disease, even when the costs per case rise sharply as the number of cases declines.

Common difficulties faced by such campaigns include sporadic or widespread political insecurity in areas where the disease is endemic, inadequate or delayed funding, and the challenges of motivating officials, health workers, and affected populations.

Our propensity for murderous behaviour is partly genetic and partly by upbringing. But I have no doubt that it is finally a manipulation of the mind which then results in murderous behaviour or the further transmission of such manipulation. And that is perhaps best treated as a disease to be eliminated and eradicated.


 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologises to Trump

July 14, 2016

It is untenable for a Supreme Court Justice to support the independence of the judiciary while involving herself in a political, election campaign. I thought she was being exceedingly stupid in coming out with anti-Trump statements but was somewhat amused at the intellectual contortions of the loony-left media (Huffington Post) in trying to justify her outbursts. She was providing the political establishment a perfect excuse for interfering with the judiciary.

But she has finally seen some sense (or has had it pointed out to her) and has apologised (sort of) to Trump:

Reuters: Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg ‘regrets’ Trump criticisms

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Thursday said she regrets making critical comments about Republican presidential contender Donald Trump.

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” she said in a statement issued by the court.

Ginsburg, the 83-year-old senior liberal member of the high court, inserted herself into the U.S. presidential election in recent days by making negative remarks about Trump in a series of media interviews. Her earlier remarks prompted criticism from Trump, who said she should resign. In one of a series of Twitter posts, he also said Ginsburg’s “mind is shot.”……..

Legal ethics scholars also questioned Ginsburg’s actions, saying Supreme Court justices should stay out the political fray in order to maintain their judicial integrity. The New York Times and the Washington Post chided Ginsburg in editorial articles.

“Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect,” Ginsburg said.

In a CNN interview posted on Tuesday, Ginsburg called the presumptive Republican nominee “a faker.”

In a separate interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg joked about moving to New Zealand if Trump wins the White House.

Under a code of conduct that federal judges – but not Supreme Court justices – are required to follow, judges are forbidden from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.


 

Why Boris Johnson does not need to apologise for his past statements

July 14, 2016

Theresa May pulled a surprise by appointing Boris Johnson as her foreign secretary and the media and commentators today have been full of his previous “gaffes” and outrageous statements and how he is going to have to apologise. Everybody seems certain he is carrying baggage. The French foreign minister has been scathing about the appointment.

But I think they are all wrong. What the media is considering Boris Johnson’s baggage is actually ammunition that he can use.

Boris Johnson does not need to apologise for anything he may have said in the past. It is those who have to deal with him, in his new appointment, who have to come to terms with his previous statements. In fact, if they start their interaction with the new UK Foreign Secretary by referring to the statements he may have made in his previous avatars, they are going to hand the high ground to him.

Especially in a Europe after the Brexit vote, other Foreign Ministers cannot be seen either to be bullying the UK or to be “punishing” Boris Johnson (Joris Bonsson sounds so much better). He starts the negotiating game with a good lead and a proven, popular mandate which none of the EU bureaucrats or other foreign ministers have. He has “democracy” on his side. Jean-Claude Juncker must dread the prospect of negotiating against Boris Johnson. Looking at his so called “gaffes” only convinces me that he has no need to actually apologise for anything. At any rate, he can use an apology – if ever necessary – as a negotiating tool to be used at a time of his choosing.

I think Theresa May’s appointment of Boris Johnson could well be an even more inspired move than she has calculated for. It will quieten down the Brexiteers and the right wing as she no doubt calculates, but I believe that Johnson’s past indiscretions are actually a strength in his future bilateral discussions outside the EU and a trump card within the EU.

He is the natural “bad cop” and if David Davis can play the “good” and very correct cop, they could run rings around the EU bureaucrats. What they are all forgetting is that when the rules do not allow expulsion, the EU bureaucrats are still bound by the rules and the difficult consensus among 27 countries, whereas the UK now has the freedom to interpret EU rules in any which way it pleases.


 

 

Indian monsoon moves to excess rainfall

July 14, 2016

This year the onset of the monsoon was about a week late but the geographical coverage has spread across the entire country about 2 days ahead of the long term “normal”.

At the end of June, cumulative rainfall was running about 15% short of the long term “normal”, but has now just moved into excess (+4%).

The probability (and hope) of a “good” monsoon in 2016 (about +10-15% cumulative rainfall) is quite high. Which will no doubt cheer the government and the markets.

Figures below are from IMD for 13th July 2016.

Geographical spread of 2016 Monsoon (IMD)

Geographical spread of 2016 Monsoon (IMD)

Cumulative rainfall till 13th July 2016 (IMD)

Cumulative rainfall till 13th July 2016 (IMD)