The strikes, which were a response to shots fired across the de facto border through the disputed Himalayan territory, could lead to a military escalation between the two nuclear-armed neighbours – risking a ceasefire agreed in 2003.

Tensions have been heightened since an attack on an Indian military base in Kashmir earlier this month, which left 18 soldiers dead. Both countries claim Kashmir in full, but rule separate parts – and have fought three wars over Kashmir since gaining independence from Britain in 1947.

Responding to India’s latest strikes, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said: “We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us. Pakistan army is fully prepared to answer any misadventure of India. We have not made atomic device to display in a showcase. If a such a situation arises we will use it and eliminate India.”

It is true, of course, that City-based institutions are worried that the EU could end up trying to erect protectionist barriers after Brexit, making it harder for them to sell their wares to the EU. I think there are ways around this, luckily, but this misses the real point. Paradoxically, it is Frankfurt, not the City, that faces the greatest, existential threat to its future.

Its two largest lenders – Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank – are in what can only be described as severe difficulties. The two firms apparently considered merging a little while ago; they may yet, in time, be forced to reconsider falling into each other’s arms. Commerzbank has just announced another 9,600 job cuts, a €700 million (£606 million) write-off and a zero dividend; as to Deutsche, it and the German government have both had to deny persistent rumours that a bail-out was under preparation.

Imagine if you’d bought shares in Deutsche Bank for €98 in 2007, when they were at their height, inflated by a global delusion about the state of the economy and the financial sector. They are trading at under €11 today: it’s a complete disaster.

On top of the numerous imperial wars in the Middle East and North Africa that the Anglo-American establishment has spearheaded, the true nature of these two powers is further confirmed by the fact that Britain is now officially the second biggest arms dealer on the planet, second only to the US.

On average over the last decade, Britain has sold more weapons than Russia, China and France, according to the UK Trade and Investment department. Two-thirds of the weapons have been sold to Middle Eastern countries since 2010, fuelling many of the deadly conflicts in the region. Recipients of British weapons include 22 of the 30 countries on the UK government’s own human rights watch list, further illustrating the complete hypocrisy of British politicians.

Britain has supplied an array of deplorable powers with military hardware, many of which are involved in committed atrocities with those weapons: including illegally supplying Saudi Arabia with Eurofighter Typhoon jets and missiles that have been used in the abhorrent war on Yemen; supplying Israel with arms that have been used in the IDF’s frequent massacres of Palestinians; in addition to selling shotguns, stun grenades and teargas, to the regime in Bahrain – which have been used to suppress protests in the country.

When the US and Britain are not busy killing Syrian soldiers who are fighting against ISIS, they are flooding the most war-torn region on earth (thanks to Western wars) with weapons. The likes of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and BAE Systems, have been making a killing off the perennial wars we have seen in the 21st century. The new Western-manufactured Cold War 2.0 has also proved to be beneficial for the war giants, as this is used to justify exorbitant defense/war budgets.

Western aggression is, and will continue to be, the most destructive force on earth. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, have brought nothing but misery and devastation to these countries. The West’s proxy war in Syria brought further destabilization and chaos to the region, as well as causing the refugee and migrant crisis that has gripped Europe. The 2013-14 colour revolution in Ukraine and the subsequent war in the country serves as yet another example of the pernicious fruits of Western imperialism.

If we add on top of all this carnage, the US-led drone wars and the Anglo-American dominated arms industry, there is no question that the Anglo-American war machine is the greatest impediment to global stability today.

Clinton has repeatedly denied these claims, including during multiple statements while under oath in front of the United States Senate. WikiLeaks is about to prove Hillary Clinton deserves to be arrested: The Reagan administration officials hoped to secure the release of several US hostages, and then take proceeds from the arms sales to Iran, to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Sounds familiar?

In Obama’s second term, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton authorized the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood, and friendly to the Libyan rebels, in an effort to topple the Libyan/Gaddafi government, and then ship those arms to Syria in order to fund Al Qaeda, and topple Assad in Syria.

Clinton took the lead role in organizing the so-called “Friends of Syria” (aka Al Qaeda/ISIS) to back the CIA-led insurgency for regime change in Syria. Under oath Hillary Clinton denied she knew about the weapons shipments during public testimony in early 2013 after the Benghazi terrorist attack.

In an interview with Democracy Now, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is now stating that 1,700 emails contained in the Clinton cache directly connect Hillary to Libya to Syria, and directly to Al Qaeda and ISIS. It appears that Hillary Clinton committed perjury, just like her husband was caught doing as President.

While many definitions for globalism exist, a wide chasm separates 1) necessary global exchanges in an increasingly interconnected world, like trade, legal immigration, and the cooperation and sharing of ideas across borders, and 2) globalism as a secular humanistic religion of sorts that envisons a one-world government.

For the second definition of globalism, such views are antithetical to a Christian worldview, according to some, even as the Church itself is global and the Kingdom of God is not constrained by national borders. “A major objection to globalism from a spiritual and biblical point of view is that many of the globalists are pushing for a global value system,” said Wallace Henley, senior associate pastor of 2nd Baptist Church in Houston, Texas in a Tuesday phone interview with The Christian Post.

Henley, who has written recently on CP about national borders further explained that there is an anti-Christ spirit at work in the world that opposes the Kingdom of Christ, which is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

“The Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ is the highest form of civilization. The anti-civilization represented by anti-Christ is the opposite of that. So if the kingdom of Christ is righteousness, the anti-civilization is evil and injustice. If the kingdom of Christ is peace, the kingdom of anti-Christ is conflict. If the kingdom of Christ is joy in the Holy Spirit, anti-civilization is misery.”

“Globalism is far more than ‘geographical’ or ‘eliminating national borders and boundaries,'” Garlow wrote. “It is spiritual and demonic at its core. Few — very few — understand this. This is quite likely one of the main reasons why Trump is hated. Do your homework on this one. Think ‘principalities and powers.'”

He was happy to talk about asset valuations and the impact on deposit taking institutions. And he was only too pleased to wax lyrical on low interest rates causing serious issues for pensions. But discuss the ails of his former employer he did not. Whether by remiss or by Jain’s request, his questioner chose to steer clear of a subject the man who spent 20 years of his career rising up the corporate ladder of Germany’s largest bank would surely have had lots to say on.

For the question of whether or not Deutsche Bank can survive without a bail-out by the German government is the only topic most other European bankers want to converse upon. The thorny issue of whether the mooted $14 billion (£10.7 billion) fine from American regulators for miss-selling US mortgages will bring the German lender to its knees is, unsurprisingly, a hot topic right now.

Not only does it not make any sense for a bank executive to admit that it is in negotiations with its government to bail it out – for fear of a run on deposits and its shares – it also is an admission of failure, and as such, not going to happen until it happens. It may be that Deutsche can limp through this particular crisis, but this is a bank that is deeply troubled, and the words of its executives, as so many before them, belie its balance sheet.

He gave a scathing prediction for the future of the EU in an interview with The Spectator magazine, saying its “architecture is beginning to peel away”. He blasted: “The EU is going to sacrifice at least one generation of young Europeans on the altar of the single currency, and you can only rip out the social fabric from so much of Europe before it starts imploding.”

Dr Fox said Brexit has severely weakened the Union’s economic stability and Germany should be quaking in its boots at the prospect of being the concrete that attempts to glue to the EU’s crumbling foundations together. He said: “With Britain out of it, they’re still going to have to confront exactly the same problems. I guess Germany worries, because we were their main allies in bringing some economic rigour to the system. If I were a German politician I would be worried that, without Britain, Germany has the potential to become the greatest ATM in global history.”

It was a Faustian bargain — and it certainly made editors at National Public Radio (NPR), squirm. The deal was this: NPR, along with a select group of media outlets, would get a briefing about an upcoming announcement by the US Food and Drug Administration a day before anyone else. But in exchange for the scoop, NPR would have to abandon its reportorial independence. The FDA would dictate whom NPR’s reporter could and couldn’t interview.

“My editors are uncomfortable with the condition that we cannot seek reaction,” NPR reporter Rob Stein wrote back to the government officials offering the deal. Stein asked for a little bit of leeway to do some independent reporting but was turned down flat. Take the deal or leave it. NPR took the deal. “I’ll be at the briefing,” Stein wrote.

Later that day in April 2014, Stein — along with reporters from more than a dozen other top-tier media organizations, including CBS, NBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times — showed up at a federal building to get his reward. Every single journalist present had agreed not to ask any questions of sources not approved by the government until given the go-ahead.

Democrats in large numbers joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable rebuke to the president. The 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and the 348-to-77 vote in the House displayed the enduring power of the September 11 families in Washington and the diminishing influence here of the Saudi government.

The new law, enacted over the fierce objections of the White House, immediately alters the legal landscape. American courts could seize Saudi assets to pay for any judgment obtained by the September 11 families, while Saudi officials have warned they might need to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars in holdings in the United States to avoid such an outcome.

The override comes at an already freighted moment in America’s relations with the kingdom. The Saudi government has vigorously denied that it had any part in the September 11 attacks, and the commission investigating the plot found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” Al Qaeda, the terror group that carried out the attacks. But the commission left open the possibility that some Saudi officials may have played roles.

Mr Obama angrily denounced the outcome, saying lawmakers had been swayed to cast a political vote for legislation that set a “dangerous precedent” with implications they did not understand and never debated.

There were swift complications. Within hours of their vote, nearly 30 senators signed a letter expressing some reservations about the potential consequences of the law, including the prospect that the United States could face lawsuits in foreign courts “as a result of important military or intelligence activities.”

It is unclear whether the Saudis will make good on warnings that the kingdom could unload hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets inside the United States, and some economists have said that such a sell-off would do far more damage to Saudi Arabia’s economy than America’s. But legal experts say there is cause for concern in Riyadh.