Best paper award for study on global refugee crises

A paper on humanitarian accountability in refugee crises by Cambridge Judge PhD candidate Corinna Frey, with Professor Michael Barrett, wins Best Student Paper award at the annual conference of the European Group for Organizational Studies.

Profile photograph of Corinna Frey (grey background - landscape)

The research paper won a 2,000 euro prize for the best student paper, which must have a PhD student as the first author. The winning paper “must display methodological rigor, theoretical relevance, innovativeness, and new insights into organisational phenomena,” says EGOS, which held this year’s conference in Copenhagen.

The winning paper – entitled “Accounting in global humanitarian crises. A translocal and transtemporal practice perspective” – examines how humanitarian organisations account for rising numbers of refugee crises worldwide.

The paper highlights how humanitarian organizations are accountable to the people they serve, their donors and the wider public, yet they are subject to frequent change of people and geography which poses a significant challenge to accounting practices.

The paper says:

Humanitarian emergency organisations need to translate what counts, but also why it counts for accountability across time and space.

“Our study sheds light on the question of how organisations enact their accounting practices over time and across space, of utmost importance in times of rising international emergencies.”

The niggers and ragheads who invade Europe are not refugees, but migrants. A refugee is a person who flees to the nearest safe country, not passing throughout many countries looking for a better life. Europe is committing suicide. An Afghan makes most of his trip overland. He could have stopped in any number of relatively peaceful and comfortable Muslim countries he passed through on the way. He didn’t. He, like the other migrants, insisted on Europe, and, indeed, Western Europe.

The ummah, or international community of Muslims, has not responded to the migrant crisis with much urgency, generosity, or compassion. Fahad al-Shalami, a Kuwaiti official, told us his country is unsuitable for migrants because it is expensive and suitable for workers, not migrants. Further, al-Shalami unabashedly stated, migrants posed a threat to his nation. “You cannot accept people who come from a different atmosphere, from a different place. These are people who suffer from psychological problems, from trauma.” Saudi Arabia has 100,000 empty air conditioned tents it refuses to a single migrant.

Europeans suffer from niggers, ragheads, and Gypsies.  Niggers and ragheads terrorize and rape, and Gypsies steal.  The unelected Eurokleptocrats like it this way, because they want to replace the freedom-loving Europeans with obedient morons.

One billion niggers and ragheads will try to invade EU in ten years. Many carry HIV and other terrible contagious viruses. Smugglers in cahoots with NGOs make billions of euros every month.  This madness brings uncontrollable crimes, heavy burdens on health systems, and the grand clash of cultures. It will cost Europeans trillions of euros, the loss of their countries, and the loss of their freedom.  This is the end of Graecoroman civilization and the start of the global caliphate. So long Europe!  So long!

In our digital age with the internet and mobile phones, everyone knows about our prosperity and lifestyle. The answer to illegal migration is not fatalistically to sit back and wait for the migrant influx. The answer is, based on a new starting-date, to change EU’s outdated and unsustainable welfare policies, which stem from a pre-globalization era, and in this way actively work to make it less attractive for millions of migrants to venture to EU in the first place.

European leaders do not to care that their continuing migration policies and welfare systems support an entire industry of human traffickers, who prey on the desire of hopeful migrants to reach Europe; the traffickers are making billions. Migrant smuggling has emerged as one of the most profitable and widespread criminal activities for organized crime in EU. The migrant smuggling business is now a large, profitable and sophisticated criminal market, comparable to the European drug markets. European politicians are indirectly responsible for the existence of this industry. Day after day, the Lying Press presents us with the same Fake News: “Refugees saved from danger at sea!” Every word is a miserable lie! There are no refugees. They were not “in danger at sea.” They were not “saved!” They were taxied by corrupt NGOs in cahoots with smugglers.

These are paying passengers, all from Africa or other places where there is no war. These passengers only pay Libyan smugglers such amounts for a seat in a modern NGO ship, because the smugglers can guarantee them that their journey will continue beyond the 12-mile limit on a modern NGO sea-going vessel. The modern NGO ship waits patiently outside the 12-mile limit for the smuggler ship — informed beforehand by their smuggling colleagues — to take the African passengers on board. These passengers from the inflatable weren’t rescued. They were passed from one smuggler to the next, in a perfectly orchestrated arrangement.

Because they are nothing but smugglers, the corrupt German NGOs do not transport their allegedly saved-from-danger-at-sea African passengers to the closest port, as is required and customary in the case of real danger of death at sea. No, because they are smugglers, they smuggle their passengers 500 kilometers to Italy. Then they put out to sea and the whole charade — refugees-danger at sea-saving — starts all over again.

Corrupt NGO ships are acting as a pull factor for people smugglers and migrants attempting to enter Europe illegally. Without the big German ships, the Libyan smugglers would not have a chance to sell their expensive tickets. Why should a raghead or a nigger put his hard-won money into the grubby paws of a dodgy Libyan, if he promises a trip to Europe, but can’t guarantee it? That is why the participation of the Germans is crucial. Without the guarantee of a secure, dependable continuation of the journey, made in Germany, there would be no business for the Libyans. So the notorious German NGOs are the crux and the fulcrum of all the organized human trafficking in the Mediterranean.

So Germans are once again the ones who are dragging the rest of Europe in the wrong direction. It is not only an icy, passive-aggressive woman at the head of their state, whose selfies advertise a folk migration to Western Europe. It is also those people, predominantly Germans, who are organizing, coordinating, and carrying out this folk migration.

Germans must not allow themselves to play the bogeyman of Europe again. They must not allow themselves to be singled out again, and be compelled once more to be ashamed of their wretched contribution to the history of Europe. It is the obligation of Germans to pillory the German smugglers of the Mediterranean, the worthless criminals who are sinning against all of Europe. The perpetrators are in our midst. Let us put a stop to their filthy works!

We are – these days – confronted not only with the old, well-known, quite natural, because gradual and evolutionary, phenomenon of individual migration but with a conceptually different phenomenon of mass migration. This is something else, not only quantitatively. Many politicians and their fellow travelers in the media and in the academy either do not understand this difference or pretend not to. They try to deal with mass migration as if it was the case of individual migration, which it is not. To my great regret, some old-fashioned liberals – who are traditionally against all kinds of borders – are making the same mistake, the mistake of not looking carefully enough and of not differentiating.

Everything indicates that it has become more or less a universal issue. Europe makes mass migration – due to its peculiar institutional arrangements and to its apparent absence of democracy – much easier. Mass migration has become a new, innovative social experiment of our era. The whole European continent has been transformed into an experimental laboratory.

The most important cause of the current mass migration is the radical shift in ideas, not a new, more tragic than in the past situation in countries from where the people migrate. As a consequence, people in many unsuccessful, poor and underdeveloped, broken, non-democratic, ungoverned or chaotic countries got the feeling that they have a right to migrate, to depart to more successful, rich, developed, orderly functioning, democratic countries which – in addition to it – offer generous social benefits to all newcomers.

It is – methodologically – very important to see that the concentrating on failed or broken countries covers only the supply-side of the whole story. This represents a huge limitless migration reservoir. It – in itself – cannot bring about migration. To make mass migration possible, there needs to be also a demand-side.

The demand for migrants – in spite of all the political rhetoric suggesting the opposite – comes from Europe. It was not only the reckless and ill-conceived explicit welcoming gesture made by Angela Merkel and some other leading European politicians in the summer of 2015. This was just the last drop. The European – perhaps more implicit than explicit – demand for mass migration has several distinct, but mutually reinforcing factors – some of them ideological, some systemic, some policy-driven.

The modern or post-modern ideological confusion connected with the ideas of multiculturalism, cultural relativism, continentalism (as opposed to the idea of nation-state), human-rightism and political correctness becomes the principle factor. It destroyed the traditional way of looking at the origin and organization of human society. It replaced the orientation towards a nation (or a nation-state) with continental or planetary thinking. It proclaimed that diversity was more than social cohesion and homogeneity. It sacrificed civil rights in favor of human rights. It changed the concept of rights from negative to positive ones. It incorporated migration among human rights.

Not less important is the fact that Occident has been gradually transformed from a society heralding performance, results and achievements, production and work to a society based on entitlements. Due to it, the economic and social policy has switched from the concept of a market economy to the concept of a social market economy where the adjective social has become more important than the nouns market and economy. Potential migrants understood the significance of this destructive shift very rapidly. They are not coming into Europe as a labor force but as recipients of all kinds of social benefits.

There is one Europe-specific factor. The original, post-second world war concept of the European integration has been transformed with the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties into the concept of unification. It has led

– to the weakening of nation-states and to the fundamental undermining of their sovereignty;

– to the elimination of borders throughout the European continent. Instead of introducing easily crossable borders, the borders were abolished with all kinds of unavoidable consequences;

– to the weakening of democracy and to the creation of a post-democratic, bureaucratically run Europe. It enormously enhanced the role of the European strongest country, Germany, and – symmetrically – it lowered the role of smaller EU member states. It brought about a typical imperial structure of society;

These processes led to the reappearance of old dreams about creating a new Europe and a new European man, someone who would be entirely deprived of his roots in individual nation-states. Migrants are believed to become the ideal input in the pan-European society, hence, the more of them, the better. We don´t suggest that this intention has been openly and explicitly formulated by all European politicians, but this mode of thinking has become – at least implicitly – a driving force behind the current migration deadlock.

Mass migration into Europe – much more than terrorism, which is just a supplementary factor – threatens to destroy European society and to create a new Europe which would be much different from the past as well as from a libertarian way of thinking.

Europe is committing suicide. By the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place the world we had to call home. This cataclysm has two causes: mass immigration and Europeans’ loss of faith in European beliefs, traditions, and legitimacy. Europeans feel guilty about their past; they’re jaded, weighted down by an existential tiredness, a feeling that their corner of the world has run out of steam and that their culture, for which they have insufficient regard, might just as well be replaced by another.

Tory MP Enoch Powell, one of the most brilliant and accomplished men of his time, in 1968 gave an extraordinary prescient oration, the so-called Rivers of Blood speech, in which he warned of the long-term results of UK immigration policy. Instead of prompting the immigration controls that 75% of his countrymen wanted even back then, the speech ended Powell’s career and made his name synonymous with hatred. Three out of four members of the general public were with him, but to the elite he was Hitler – and his instant official disgrace made it impossible, during the ensuing decades, to have anything remotely resembling an honest public debate on immigration. The Muslims kept pouring in, and though most Brits disapproved, they kept their heads down, shrugging silently. What else could they do? They knew that if they spoke up, they’d get the Powell treatment.

Meanwhile, slightly different versions of the same tragedy (or farce?) were being played out across northwestern Europe. Everywhere, the natives were lied to by their politicians and media: the scale of immigration, they were told, was far lower than widely believed; their country had always been “a nation of immigrants”; immigrants represented a net economic asset; crime statistics were inflated; and, naturally, Islam was a religion of peace. Those who criticized immigration – because they saw their culture disappearing, their secular democracy challenged, their taxes going to support indolent, criminal aliens, and their own access to housing and schools cut off by policies that favored foreigners – were called racists and nationalists, were accused of being fixated on skin color, and were ridiculed for failing to have a sophisticated enough appreciation of the value of cultural diversity.

If Britain had Powell’s speech, France had a strange prediction, Le Camp des Saints (1973), in which Jean Raspail envisioned a rapid conquest of western Europe by shiploads of Third Worlders crossing the Mediterranean. Just as Merkel triggered the latest immigrant tsumani by setting out a welcome mat, in Raspail’s book the invasion is set off by an ill-advised invitation by the Belgian government. Le Camp des Saints is deeply unpleasant in its depiction of the immigrant hordes, but although it was almost universally dismissed as racist, it predicted with uncomfortable precision Europe’s response to today’s alien influx – from the dithering politicians to the naively magnanimous churchmen.

The Dutchmen Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, who were demonized for criticizing mass Islamic immigration, ended up slain. Oriana Fallaci’s cry of outrage, The Rage and the Pride (2002), sold millions. How long ago all this seems! Fortuyn and Fallaci gained innumerable admirers. But what difference did any of it make? At certain moments all those years ago, some form of salvation seemed just around the corner. Yet the elites retained their power and kept banging away at the lies. And things just got worse.

Not just worse, crazier. When terrorist acts occurred, they were treated as one-offs, unrelated to immigration or Islam. British police covered up mass rapes of English girls by Muslim men for fear of being called racist. Rape victims kept mum for fear of inflicting visa problems upon their assailants, or, more generally, for fear of contributing to Islamophobia. Courts protected brutal Muslim criminals, some of them illegal aliens, from expulsion for fear they’d face trouble in their homelands – never mind the trouble they’d already caused to any number of European natives. While preachers of sharia Jew-killing were tolerated, if not presented with awards for being exemplary community leaders and bridge builders, critics of those preachers were put on trial. Europeans were told repeatedly that their nations’ imperial histories obliged them to shelter descendants of their former colonial subjects; but no one ever talked this way about the Turks’ own Ottoman Empire. And when Eastern European leaders kept out Muslims – and thereby kept violent crime, welfare costs, and other horrors that were becoming increasingly familiar in Western Europe – EU honchos railed at them to open their borders and share in the nightmare.

Under Communism, Eastern Europeans retained the tragic sense of life that many Western Europeans had long since lost; later, freed from Soviet despotism, they joined the EU only to find themselves being ordered around again – this time, being commanded to open their borders to what they, if not their Western European counterparts, recognized quite clearly as tyranny, though in a form different from the tyranny they had lived under. To these EU diktats they said no, in thunder. Eastern Europe’s experience with totalitarian oppression was so recent and so long that it is still able to discover real meaning in the word freedom – a word that educated Western Europeans have been taught for decades now to pronounce with a sneer.

Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt actually told his people, in a televised speech, that they were themselves uninteresting and that the nation handed down by their forebears for generation after generation belonged more properly to the masses who were currently pouring in from the Muslim world. Any self-respecting people would have been outraged and – well, would have done to Reinfeldt what the British elite did to Enoch Powell. But no, the Swedes just nodded in acceptance. Their betters had been telling them this sort of thing for so long that they were used to it.

We witness the crime of breathtakingly tragic readiness of millions of supposedly responsible adults to betray their country and culture, their antecedents and their posterity, to an alien and minatory invader. The craven European elites have, unforgivably, opened the city gates to let in the Trojan horse.

We – as a matter of principle and quite resolutely – protest against the decision of EU to launch infringement procedures against member states, in connection with their refusal to accept migrants on the basis of Brussels-dictated quotas. We protest against the intentions to punish us and force us into obedience.

Thanks to this step taken by the European Commission, those who did not know it so far, can now see, what is the genuine position of the member states within the European Union, and what kind of intentions the EU top leaders have with us.

What happened is a new, unprecedented move. We don´t accept it. We refuse mandatory settlements of foreigners on the territory of our state. We don´t wish the transformation of our country into a multicultural society of unadaptive communities, as we see them in France and Great Britain today. Not to speak of terrorism that we see happening almost every day, in connection with such massive migration.

We don´t agree with the argument that we have to be there, that we have to be present at the decision making table, that we must be part of the hard core of EU. We have been a part of the EU decision making process for many years, and we know that we do not make the decisions. Our presence there has no real importance. Our voice is being ignored. The decisions are not made by us. They are made about us.

Let us not be blackmailed by threats of termination of EU subsidies. We do not need them, and we do not want them. We refuse both our payments to Brussels, as well as the money coming from Brussels. We refuse the harmful and violently pushed through EU policy as a whole.

This leads us to the only possible and necessary conclusion. The time has come to start preparing our exit from EU. It is the only way to protect and save our state, which we have inherited from our ancestors, and which we have a duty to pass on to future generations as an independent entity.

A failed asylum seeker from Yemen who was given sanctuary at a church in northern Germany to prevent him from being deported has infected more than 50 German children with a highly contagious strain of tuberculosis.

The man, who was sheltered at a church in Bünsdorf between January and May 2017, was in frequent contact with the children, some as young as three, who were attending a day care center at the facility. He was admitted to a hospital in Rendsburg in June and subsequently diagnosed with tuberculosis — a disease which only recently has reentered the German consciousness.

Local health authorities say that in addition to the children, parents and teachers as well as parishioners are also being tested for the disease, which can develop months or even years after exposure. It remains unclear if the man received the required medical exams when he first arrived in Germany, or if he is one of the hundreds of thousands of migrants who have slipped through the cracks.

The tuberculosis scare has cast a renewed spotlight on the increased risk of infectious diseases in Germany since Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed in around two million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

A new report by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the federal government’s central institution for monitoring and preventing diseases, confirms an across-the-board increase in disease since 2015, when Germany took in an unprecedented number of migrants.

The Infectious Disease Epidemiology Annual Report — which was published on July 12, 2017 and provides data on the status of more than 50 infectious diseases in Germany during 2016 — offers the first glimpse into the public health consequences of the massive influx of migrants in late 2015.

The report shows increased incidences in Germany of adenoviral conjunctivitis, botulism, chicken pox, cholera, cryptosporidiosis, dengue fever, echinococcosis, enterohemorrhagic E. coli, giardiasis, haemophilus influenza, Hantavirus, hepatitis, hemorrhagic fever, HIV/AIDS, leprosy, louse-borne relapsing fever, malaria, measles, meningococcal disease, meningoencephalitis, mumps, paratyphoid, rubella, shigellosis, syphilis, toxoplasmosis, trichinellosis, tuberculosis, tularemia, typhus and whooping cough.

Germany has — so far at least — escaped the worst-case scenario: most of the tropical and exotic diseases brought into the country by migrants have been contained; there have no mass outbreaks among the general population. More common diseases, however, many of which are directly or indirectly linked to mass migration, are on the rise, according to the report.

The incidence of Hepatitis B, for example, has increased by 300% during the last three years, according to the RKI. The number of reported cases in Germany was 3,006 in 2016, up from 755 cases in 2014. Most of the cases are said to involve unvaccinated migrants from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The incidence of measles in Germany jumped by more than 450% between 2014 and 2015, while the number of cases of chicken pox, meningitis, mumps, rubella and whooping cough were also up. Migrants also accounted for at least 40% of the new cases of HIV/AIDS identified in Germany since 2015, according to a separate RKI report.

The RKI statistics may be just the tip of the iceberg. The number of reported cases of tuberculosis, for example, was 5,915 in 2016, up from 4,488 cases in 2014, an increase of more than 30% during that period. Some doctors, however, believe that the actual number of cases of tuberculosis is far higher and have accused the RKI of downplaying the threat in an effort to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.

In an interview with Focus, Carsten Boos, an orthopedic surgeon, warned that German authorities have lost track of hundreds of thousands of migrants who may be infected. He added that 40% of all tuberculosis pathogens are multidrug-resistant and therefore inherently dangerous to the general population:

“When asylum seekers come from countries with a high risk for tuberculosis infections, the RKI, as the highest German body for infection protection, should not downplay the danger. Is a federal institute using political correctness to conceal the unpleasant reality?

“The media reports that in 2015, the federal police registered about 1.1 million refugees. Around 700,000 to 800,000 applications for asylum were submitted and 300,000 refugees have disappeared. Have they been checked? Do they come from the high risk countries?

“One has the impression that in the RKI the left hand does not know what the right one is doing.”

At the height of the migrant crisis in October 2015, Michael Melter, the chief physician at the University Hospital Regensburg, reported that migrants were arriving at his hospital with illnesses that are hardly ever seen in Germany. “Some of the ailments I have not seen for 20 or 25 years,” he said, “and many of my younger colleagues have actually never seen them.”

Marc Schreiner, director of international relations for the German Hospital Federation (Deutschen Krankenhausgesellschaft), echoed Melter’s concerns:

“In the clinics, it is becoming increasingly common to see patients with diseases that were considered to have been eradicated in Germany, such as scabies. These diseases must reliably be diagnosed, which is a challenge.”

Christoph Lange, a tuberculosis expert at the Research Center Borstel, said that German doctors were unfamiliar with many of the diseases imported by migrants: “It would be useful if tropical diseases and other diseases that are rare in our lives played a bigger role in the training of physicians.”

The German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases recently held a five-day symposium in Hamburg to help medical practitioners diagnose diseases which are rarely seen in Germany. Those include:

Louse-borne relapsing fever (LBRF): During the past two years, at least 48 people in Germany were diagnosed with LBRF, a disease that was unheard of in the country before the migration crisis in 2015, according to the RKI report. The disease, which is transmitted by clothing lice, has been prevalent among migrants from East Africa who have been travelling for months to reach Germany on a single set of clothes. “We had all forgotten about LBRF,” said Hans Jäger, a Munich-based doctor. “It has a mortality rate of up to 40% if it is not recognized and not treated with antibiotics. The symptoms are like in malaria: fever, headache, skin rash.”

Lassa fever: In February 2016, a patient who had been infected in Togo, West Africa, was treated and died in Germany. After his death, a Lassa virus infection was confirmed in another person who had professional contact with the corpse of the deceased. The person was treated at an isolation facility and survived the disease. This was the first documented transmission of the Lassa virus in Germany.

Dengue fever: Nearly a thousand people were diagnosed with dengue fever, a mosquito-borne tropical disease, in Germany during 2016. This is up 25% from 2014, when 755 people were diagnosed with the disease.

Malaria: The number of people diagnosed with malaria jumped sharply in 2014 (1,007) and 2015 (1,063), but declined slightly in 2016 (970). Most of those affected contracted the disease in Africa, particularly from Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria and Togo.

Echinococcosis: Between 2014 and 2016, more than 200 people in Germany have been diagnosed with echinococcosis, a tapeworm infection. This represents in an increase of around 30%. Those affected contracted the disease in Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Greece, Kosovo, Iraq, Macedonia, Morocco, Syria and Turkey.

Diphtheria: Between 2014 and 2016, more than 30 people in Germany have been diagnosed with diphtheria. Those affected contracted the disease in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Libya, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

Scabies: Between 2013 and 2016, the number of people diagnosed with scabies in North Rhine-Westphalia jumped by nearly 3,000%.

Meanwhile, Germany currently is in the throes of a measles outbreak that health authorities have linked to immigration from Romania. Around 700 people in Germany have been diagnosed with measles during the first six months of 2017, compared with 323 cases in all of 2016, according to the Robert Koch Institute. The measles outbreak has spread to all of Germany’s 16 federal states except one, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, a state with a very low migrant population.

The epicenter of the measles crisis is in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany’s most populous state and also the state with the highest number of migrants. Nearly 500 people have been diagnosed with measles in NRW during the first six months of 2017; most of the cases have been reported in Duisburg and Essen, where a 37-year-old mother of three children died from the disease in May. Outbreaks of measles have also been reported in Berlin, Cologne, Dresden, Hamburg, Leipzig, Munich and Frankfurt, where a nine-month-old baby was diagnosed with the disease.



Entrepreneurship and mentoring

The Duke of York launched an accelerated version of his Pitch@Palace initiative at Cambridge Judge Business School.

HRH Duke of York, KG

HRH The Duke of York, KG launched a new accelerated version of his Pitch@Palace initiative for entrepreneurship at Cambridge Judge Business School, which focused on speed mentoring and speed pitching.

The Duke of York is patron of the Entrepreneurship Centre at Cambridge Judge, which hosted the 11 July event at the School. He urged young ventures to get involved in as many networking programmes as they can.

“The more you take part in, the more opportunity you have to talk to people, the more opportunity you have to interact with people, the more opportunity there is for somebody to say to you: ‘I’ve got an idea that you might like to listen to’ or ‘I’ve got someone you need to see because I can get you into a supply chain,’” the Duke of York said in his introductory remarks. He also emphasized how “serendipity” through chance meetings can help new ventures develop contacts and markets.

The Pitch@Palace event at Cambridge Judge included tips on effective pitching of ventures in short time frames, offering feedback to entrepreneurs who presented a one-minute pitch of their ideas.

It also featured a panel of alumni of previous Pitch@Palace events hosted at St. James’s Palace, who said the connections gained through Pitch@Palace have proved very important in gaining investment and other traction for their ventures.

The panel included Tim Guilliams of Healx, which repurposes drugs to fight rare diseases; Raoul-Gabriel Urma of Cambridge Coding Academy, a computer coding community venture; Hannah Harvey of health app firm Ask the Midwife; and Rebekah Scheuerle of JustMilk, which delivers nutrients and medicine to breastfeeding babies through a silicon device. JustMilk won top prize in the first biotech-themed Pitch@Palace, run in partnership with Entrepreneurship Centre at Cambridge Judge Business School, in March 2016.

The Pitch@Palace event at Cambridge Judge Business School concluded with remarks about entrepreneurship by Lord Karan Bilimoria, founder of Cobra beer and chairman of the Advisory Board of the School.

Successful tech firms are often discovered and not planned. The tech landscape is lush with entrepreneurs whose success blossomed only after the founders had modified or even abandoned their original vision. Facebook became something quite different from the Harvard-specific social connection site created by Mark Zuckerberg. Airbnb? That short-term housing rental juggernaut started as a way for people to find roommates. What eventually became the ride-sharing app Lyft originally offered carpooling software for large companies.

Entrepreneurs who were willing to adapt their vision and products to find the right market often did the best. Those who followed the herd into perceived hot markets, or consensus entrants, were less viable in the long run than those who made non-consensus choices by defying common wisdom and entering markets that were tainted by failures and thus regarded as riskier.

As social beings, we want to resolve uncertainty. We do that not by doing objective research but by looking at each other. That has clear implications for business leaders. They need to ask if the people who report to them are being quiet about their non-consensus ideas. If the answer is yes, then a leader has to wonder what that says about their leadership if people are afraid to suggest counterintuitive strategies.

Many of the tech world’s most historic success stories can be traced back to entrepreneurs who pursued a vision that ran counter to accepted wisdom. If you want to find a unicorn, listen for the buzz and run the other way.

For example, Apple continued to pursue handheld technology despite the failure of the Apple Newton, a balky handwriting-recognition device that was released in 1993 to general mockery, including in cartoonist Garry Trudeau’s Doonesbury comic strip. The Newton’s failure quickly stigmatized the market for smart, handheld devices, making similar innovations taboo for a number of years. Apple’s Steve Jobs killed the Newton in 1998 but saw potential in the concept, which eventually led to the 2007 introduction of the industry-changing iPhone and the 2010 introduction of the iPad.

Of course, when non-consensus ideas fail, they often fail spectacularly, which in turn can inhibit risk-taking by others. The fear of being a fool is stronger than the hope of being a genius. So we tend to shy away from non-consensus moves, because we understand the world will look at our errors as if we’re a complete idiot. But if humans are bad at predicting, we’re great at retrospectively rationalizing to explain why a business or product succeeded or failed. Jobs was particularly good at this, saying you can’t connect the dots looking forward, only looking backward.

Nearly every move Jobs made at Apple turned out to be different from what he intended. These geniuses — we think they knew, but they didn’t. One thing that wildly successful entrepreneurs like Jobs and Zuckerberg did understand is how to put together systems that could discover the future, that allowed for uncertainty, that ferreted out possibilities. Then they doubled down on those discoveries.

Many people define entrepreneurship as building your own business, but not every creative thinker wants to do that – you can be a successful entrepreneur within the heart of an organization.

In fact, rather than being afraid of new thinking, businesses should embrace internal entrepreneurs – intrapreneurs – before they leave and take their great ideas elsewhere. Seeing an opportunity, evaluating how viable it is, persuading others to buy in to it, the skills to take innovation forward, encouraging people to go with that creative mindset – every organization needs someone with those tools.


Why cannibalism could be good for your business

Research from Dr Philip Stiles, Senior Lecturer in Corporate Governance at Cambridge Judge Business School, reveals the secrets of successfully running existing and new business models in parallel.

Dr Philip Stiles

Introducing a new business model is notoriously tricky – get the timing or the management wrong and it’s curtains. Ask Kodak.

Not only is there the difficulty of a new model gradually swallowing up the tried and tested way of working, there’s also the other challenge of the new model having to co-exist with the old one, relying on traditional ways while simultaneously “cannibalising” them until they are no more. So how do you manage that process? Don’t ask Nokia.

“There are numerous examples of companies who adopted a new business model that had to work alongside and ‘cannibalise’ another,” says Cambridge Judge Business School lecturer Dr Philip Stiles. “Some managed this extremely successfully – Apple, YouTube – and others famously did not. It’s about finding the secret of how to successfully run very conflicting models in parallel.”

Stiles, Senior Lecturer in corporate Governance, studied how a Wall Street investment bank replaced its traditional phone-based trading model with an online one, by skilfully balancing procedural rationality with political expediency.

“Cannibalisation by necessity means reducing the actual or potential value of the company’s investments in assets and organisational routines,” he says. “To optimise the opportunities of new directions it must be willing to shed its commitments to its existing resources.”

The bank’s model did more than switch its modus operandi from phone to internet – in doing so it changed the act of investing itself from a method which used a go-between to match buyers with sellers, to one which enabled them to deal directly with each other through an e-platform.

“We identified three phases,” says Stiles, “intelligence, design and choice. Intelligence is about identifying where the business is stalling and the opportunities that might flow from change. In the design phase the management focused on selling the benefits of the new model to stakeholders, letting those take root and grow incrementally, and throwing the potential changes to the primary market into the shadows. And the third phase considered a series of alternative new models, giving the company a choice. Then you need procedural rationality, which the bank achieved by gathering different perspectives.”

This was made easier by the bank’s team-based approach to problem-solving which, said one of the 40 senior managers interviewed by Stiles and his co-author, University of Cambridge engineering lecturer Chander Velu, involved staff at all levels of the business to create what he called “structured conflict”.

“Crucially, the landscape was there within the business that enabled them to consider and embrace opportunities for change,” says Stiles. “Within this they consulted widely within the organisation – back office, admin, technology – to ensure they understood all aspects of the innovation. They also looked at three different options for change, so they were able to evaluate the merits of each option.”

But all of these phases still need to balance rationality with office politics – and for that to happen, openness is crucial.

“In some organisations there will always be influences – people whose career paths are perhaps tied to a particular product or business model,” says Stiles. “But in our case study the bank had created an environment where everyone saw themselves as part of a collective, without anyone standing out as a star. Everyone brings a different experience and perspective – it fuelled healthy, constructive open discussion. The secret is getting the best out of all of these for the common good. And in giving everyone a choice and a say, minority interests were seen to be taken into account.”

The bank’s eventual successful jettisoning of its primary business model is an object lesson to other organisations, says Stiles. “It was a perfect example because the industry considered the innovation disruptive – the new model was likely to threaten the old one and the bank’s leadership team disagreed about whether to adopt it at all.”

Some companies get it right – many get it wrong. Kodak notoriously clung on so loyally to its glorious film past that, by the time it changed, the digital boat had sailed. In contrast, Apple and IBM have the capacity to evolve and adapt with apparent ease. Is that because their market is moving so fast? Does successful cannibalisation depend on the core nature of the business?

Not necessarily, says Stiles. “It’s true that tech companies are the exemplars because of their ability – and their customers’ expectations – that they will promptly discard old products and move on,” says Stiles. “And much of the complexity of running parallel business models is tied up in notions of business identity – older firms in older industries are more likely to have to overcome the challenge of ‘this is who we are, why would we change?’

“But with the advent of social media – the more direct and more immediate public response to your business – every organisation is changing. Even the most traditional manufacturing company is an information company now, needing a much stronger service element than they once did, which means reviewing their business models.

“But it is a fine line – the road is littered with organisations who tried to change and perished in doing so. The timing is crucial. Experiment too fast and the market’s not ready. Wait too long and you miss the boat. But it’s hard to make that judgment. Times change and you have to move with them – it’s knowing when and how to make that move and how to deal with those two conflicting business models. You have to get it right – you don’t want to be the board that crashed.”



By Simona Botti and Emily Cloney

Choice is great. You can work out what you need or want, match it with what’s on offer and create the perfect life. Choice makes you the master of your destiny. More choice gives you more freedom – and the more freedom you have, the happier you are. Or does it? Sometimes the amount of choosing we do seems overwhelming. For example, which pension plan is best? Does that email need an immediate reply? Face cream for anti-ageing or combination skin? Accept that LinkedIn request? Jeans with button fly or zip? Live together or marry? Apply for a promotion? Have a baby now or later? In his book The Paradox of Choice: Why more is less (New York, 2004), Barry Schwartz highlights how choosing has infiltrated every aspect of our lives: work, finances, shopping, even our identity. Instead of being liberating, the breadth and frequency of choice in everyday life feels like enslavement. Too often, he suggests, we ignore its negative effects.

Choice can paralyse

Faced with so much variety and information it’s easy to become transfixed and put off the decision. We stand gawping in supermarket aisles, deliberating between 15 different flavours of crisps or eight bottles of bathroom cleaner. Online, the possibilities seem limitless. Looking up from our screens we realise that searching for the ideal flight, laptop or hotel has swallowed up a valuable hour – and we’re no nearer making a choice.

Choice can increase dissatisfaction

Even when we’ve made a decision, there’s a niggling suspicion that one of the options we turned down might have been better or more suitable. Regret and self blame creep in. That’s bearable on the odd occasion, but a huge burden to shoulder when you consider that we make an average of 70 decisions a day.

We are suffering from choice overload. “Freedom of choice is freedom of choosing,” says London Business School’s Associate Professor of Marketing and prominent choice expert Simona Botti, who points out that, “It’s also freedom not to choose, to decide when you do not want to choose.”

New perspectives on choice

We’re conditioned to think that it’s always best to decide about anything that affects us, but that’s not always the case. Hazel Markus, Professor of Behavioural Sciences at Stanford University, points out in Clash: Eight cultural conflicts that make us who we are (with Hazel Rose and Alana Conner, Penguin, New York, 2013) that viewing choice as a way of expressing individuality and independence is peculiarly Western. She contrasts it with the more collaborative Eastern view of choice as a means to create harmony and community by “relating to others, discovering similarities, adjusting yourself to expectations and the environment, rooting yourself into networks and traditions, and understanding your place in the larger whole.”

A 1999 study conducted by Stanford psychologists Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper, called ‘Rethinking the Value of Choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation’, demonstrated this different attitude by giving groups of American school children anagrams to solve. Some were allowed to select the puzzles for themselves; others were told that their mother, or a teacher, had chosen a puzzle for them. Anglo-American children performed more than twice as well when they chose the anagrams themselves whereas Asian-American children did best when they thought that their mothers had chosen for them.

Let someone else drive

Adopting this less individualistic approach may well result in a better outcome. Stanford neuroeconomist Baba Shiv asked a student group to choose to drink either an energising caffeinated tea or relaxing chamomile before undertaking a series of word puzzles. A second group was given one of the two teas without being asked for their preference – and this group performed better in the puzzles. Why? Shiv says it’s to do with agency. The first group questioned their choice of tea and focused on the foregone option to improve their chance of success. This reduced their confidence and they had a worse result. Sometimes, suggests Shiv, it’s better to assume the passenger role and let someone else sit in the driving seat.

When you lack expertise or are vulnerable, having someone else choose for you can be a good thing. Botti, together with Sheena Iyengar and Kristina Orfali in ‘Tragic Choices: Autonomy and emotional responses to medical decisions’ in the Journal of Consumer Research (2009), interviewed French and US parents who had suffered having a child on life support with no prospect of recovery. In France the decision to turn off the machine was made by the doctors; in America by the parents. The French parents appeared to find an easier path through their grief. They were able to express positive emotions about the beneficial impact of their child’s short life on their own. The US parents, steadfastly maintaining that the decision was theirs to make, seemed to suffer more. They felt trapped in a cycle of guilt thinking about what might have happened if they’d decided differently, adding to the heartbreak of their loss. Whether it’s better to allow someone to choose for themselves or choose on their behalf is a wider moral issue. However, the varying experiences of US and French parents suggest we should question whether we benefit by being in charge of choosing.

Aim for ‘choice closure’

Whether the choice is life-changing or mundane, the accompanying activity – weighing up, considering and evaluating – takes its toll. It’s exhausting, time-consuming, and can feel like too much responsibility. Even after having made a choice it’s often tempting to go back and look again at what we didn’t choose. What we’ve rejected then becomes alluring – we forget why we rejected it in the first place and dream of what might have been. Foregone options creep into our minds like troublesome guests we’ve expel led only – inexplicably – to invite them back.
It would be helpful to make peace with our choices and convince ourselves that we’ve made the right decision. Research undertaken by Simona Botti, together with her LBS colleague David Faro and Yangjie Gu of HEC Paris – in ‘Turning the Page: The impact of choice closure on satisfaction’ (Journal of Consumer Research, 2013) – concludes that certain external triggers can activate ‘choice closure’: the process where we decide we’ve made our choice, it’s settled and shouldn’t be revisited.

From a young age we create ‘cognitive scaffolding’ – a framework that enables us to associate abstract concepts such as emotions with concrete objects and physical sensations. Think of how worry ‘weighs on your mind’; and how anger and frustration make you ‘feel fed up’. Professor Botti and her colleagues did a series of studies to investigate how this type of physical to mental mapping can be used to convert a particular action into the feeling of completion and satisfaction that constitutes choice closure.

The team conducted a study in which they showed people a tray of 24 chocolates covered with a transparent lid. Each participant was asked to remove the lid and choose a chocolate. Half of the group was then instructed to replace the lid. After the test all participants ate their selected chocolate and were asked questions about how satisfied they were with their choice and whether they’d subsequently thought about the chocolates they’d passed over.

The people who had put the lid back on the tray were found to be more satisfied with the chocolate they chose, and less likely to think about the unselected chocolates – so the act of replacing the lid had triggered choice closure. A further study showed how closing a menu after deciding what to order generated a similar feeling of completion and satisfaction.

How should business look at choice?

The success of a business depends on consumers choosing its products or services. While many companies undertake intensive research into how their products are perceived in the marketplace, most pay scant attention to the more instinctive – and harder to quantify – behaviours of their customers.

In his book The Business of Choice (New Jersey, 2015), Matthew Willcox points out that marketing needs to adjust its focus not only to include products and brands, but also to examine the ways that people actually make decisions: “the nature of choice rather than just its consequences”. Sometimes we make decisions efficiently and quickly – we rush in, grab and run – while on other occasions we become confused. Overwhelmed by choice, we then flounder and (potentially disastrously for sales) procrastinate or give up.

Business needs to look closely at how its customers make choices. Botti suggests that streamlining consumers’ decision-making process and increasing their satisfaction with their choices will encourage them to return to you. “Maybe choice should not be considered a blanket solution for all problems,” she cautions. “Instead of just pushing choice into the hands of customers, consider when the costs of choice overwhelm the benefits .”


Cut choice down to a manageable level

Although having a wide choice can be enticing, it may not translate into actual sales. A 2000 study conducted by Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, called ‘When Choice Is Demotivating’, revealed that although grocery shoppers were more likely to stop to taste jam from a selection of 24 jars rather than just six, they were more likely to buy a jam if just six were offered. Similarly, the experience of UK supermarkets shows that sales are not directly proportionate to the number of products on offer. Last year Tesco, with over 28 per cent of the grocery market, sold 90,000 product lines of which a staggering 98 were rice, 28 were ketchups and 50 were loaves of bread. Aldi stocked around 1,350 products – just six types of rice, two ketchups and two breads – yet maintained six per cent of market share.

Iyengar recommends that businesses reduce the number of choices to consumers – and, if it’s hard to decide where to wield the axe, ask your staff: “If your employees can’t tell them apart, neither can your consumers.” Furthermore, as Simona Botti points out in the Journal of Consumer Research (‘When Choosing Is Not Deciding’ with Ann L McGill, 2006), “Choosing between items that you can’t distinguish between does not feel like a choice, and does not necessarily bring on the benefits usually associated with choice.”

Simplify your business model

Not only can a simplified model increase sales, it may improve customer experience. By relieving them of the burden of choice it can encourage them to buy. Stocking a smaller range of products requires less space and fewer complicated systems, so you can respond more quickly to changing demand and possibly offer more competitive prices. It’s an idea that seems to have found traction with Tesco, which is currently reducing its product lines by a third to 60,000 (although online grocery Amazon Fresh, launched in June, seems to have gone the other way with 130,000 products).

Sometimes streamlining choices can help. As Botti points out, we willingly pay not to have a choice in some situations – for example in a high-end restaurant with a set menu. Brands can play a similar role, both adding and reflecting value by limiting choice. She highlights two principle benefits of cultivating strong brands: firstly, that they become decision-making short cuts, offering customers a clear pathway to a particular choice without navigating through a myriad of products. Secondly, they offer a guarantee of quality, reassuring customers that they’ve made a good choice, helping them to make peace with their choice.

Facilitate choice closure

Botti encourages businesses to help customers feel positive about their decisions. She suggests designing spaces or procedures to facilitate choice closure; for example, by positioning sales tills at a distance from displays, or requiring website customers to cancel items they’ve considered but rejected. In a recent working paper, ‘Seeking and Avoiding Choice Closure’ for the Journal of Consumer Research (with David Faro and Yangjie Gu), Botti shows that choice closure can be triggered not only by physical actions but also by visual cues, such as seeing a ‘rejected’ label on discarded options. This could be helpful to e-commerce companies.

And, if you help your customers to choose wisely and feel good about their choices, they’ll feel more satisfied and be more likely to return. At the least they’ll be grateful you freed them up to do something else – even if it’s moving on to the next choice.


By Víctor Pou

The European Union throughout its history has experienced periods of Euro-optimism and periods of Euro-pessimism, with crises scattered in between. Jean Monnet, a pioneering advocate of European unity, wrote that “Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises.”

But the recent period of Euro-pessimism has been long and particularly tough: crisis after crisis, each with great destructive potential, along with accumulating external threats such as Putin’s Russia, conflicts in the southern Mediterranean and jihadist terrorism.

It all started back in 2005, when first France and then the Netherlands voted against a treaty to adopt a European constitution. The situation worsened with the start in 2007-08 of the Great Recession, and deepened further still with the 2010 euro crisis. 2016 was a veritable “annus horribilis” for the EU, with Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and an ongoing refugee tragedy. In the words of Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, the EU in recent years has gone through a “true existential crisis”.

Fortunately, things have begun to change over the first semester of this year. The feeling in Brussels is that Europe is back on track and that an EU of 27 member states (without Britain) stands united to face its current challenges and determine its future.

There has been a spate of good news. Election results – in Austria, the Netherlands, several German states and, above all, France – have slowed the populism that had run rampant across the continent. A Brexit-Trump-Le Pen triumvirate would have been lethal for the EU. Election victories by Emmanuel Macron, a genuine advocate of Europe and of strong relations with Germany, are a determining factor in the re-launching of the EU. Macron’s plans for France involve, precisely, the relaunching of the EU.

At the same time, the EU itself is taking strategic decisions based on a White Paper on the Future of Europe presented March 1, which was followed by the European Council’s Rome Declaration on March 25 that declared its commitment to integrating the continent. The EU is defining its institutional architecture, consistent with a differentiated flexibility, in which there are hard-core countries and more peripheral circles. The Franco-German axis, reinforced by the good relationship between Macron and Angela Merkel, is at the core, which in principle would be comprised of members of the euro zone.

What’s more, the EU is determined to regain its citizens’ support, and to do that it has planned measures in three priority areas: defense and security (both external and internal), immigration (refugees) and economy (fixing the euro’s defects and anti-crisis measures to support investment and growth and fight unemployment). The goal is to make the EU capable of taking decisions in those areas where European-wide policies make more sense than individual measures by member states.

Europe is back and both Brexit and Trump have, ironically, served as catalysts. As for Brexit, activated March 29 by Britain, the EU has already finalized its negotiating plan, which consists of resolving three basic issues before entering into final talks:

1) The situation of EU nationals in the U.K., and that of British nationals in the EU

2) The payment of €100 billion that the U.K. owes

3) Avoiding borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The EU’s preparedness comes in sharp contrast to the U.K.’s uncertainty, especially after the early legislative elections called by Theresa May, which have weakened considerably her negotiating position.

As for Trump, the EU has reached important conclusions after his unfortunate recent European trip, as expressed clearly by Merkel: “The time has come for Europeans to take the reins of our future into our own hands.” Merkel has also referred to Britain and the U.S. as being partners who are no longer reliable.

All indications are that the process of relaunching the EU will gather strength after German elections in September. If, as looks likely, Merkel wins for the fourth consecutive time, she and Macron will be key figures in this push. Europe will return to the good days of the Franco-German axis, the outlook is promising and the pro-Europeans are, finally, celebrating. After 12 years of Euro-pessimism, when the very future of the union often seemed doubtful, it’s about time.



By Sangeet Paul Choudary

User-centric firms should identify and track the core actions that can make or break their businesses.

Traditionally, executives have used standard metrics, such as cash flow, inventory turns and operating income, to get a broad sense of the health of their firm. However, the game has changed with the rise of digital business models centered on the user. New metrics need to be devised based on the core user actions that drive value creation in such models.

Threadless, an online T-shirt retailer, crowdsources its designs from a community of designers and curates the best designs through a social rating mechanism. Threadless relies on two core user actions: the upload of new designs by designers and the voting on designs by the Threadless community. A failure by the community to provide adequate feedback on designs would discourage designers from uploading new ones in the future, leading to a downward spiral. To ensure a healthy and scalable business model, Threadless needs to actively minimise failure and increase repeatability of both core actions as they are intertwined.

In the digital world, users may also generate value without actively creating content, products or services. Netflix built out its DVD rental business model around the core user action of movie queueing. The queueing provided Netflix with the data it needed to predict actual demand across the country and successfully manage its central national inventory. The more titles users added to their instant queue, the better Netflix’s logistics performed as it benefitted from information on actual demand. Movie queueing was the core user action that drove value creation in Netflix’s business model.

Not all digital businesses are the same

Platforms are a specific type of digital business which often depend on multiple core user actions. To use the example of Facebook, users may post status updates, upload photos and react to content. As these actions cumulatively create value, they must all be highly repeatable. Facebook therefore tracks the ratio of daily active users to monthly active users, a measure of the proportion of its user base that participates daily. This aggregate measure makes sense since no single action accounts for the bulk of value creation. The higher the daily participation rate, the healthier Facebook is as a platform.

In the quest to emulate Facebook’s successful execution, many startups embrace this metric directly. However, it may not be as relevant for digital business models whose value creation chiefly relies on one or two specific core actions. A focus on measuring the failure and repeatability of these core actions would allow for a more precise execution.

Measuring core user actions is even more important in the case of multi-sided platforms. In such cases, it is essential to understand how the various participants co-create and exchange value. All sides of the market must succeed for the business to thrive.

Uber enables drivers and passengers to exchange rides for money and needs to manage both sides. Uber drivers perform two core actions: indicating their availability for booking and accepting booking requests. When a passenger opens the Uber application and sees that no taxi is available, or cannot secure a ride, the driver-side core actions are failing. If this happens often, it reduces the likelihood that the passenger will request a ride (i.e. repeat a demand-side core action). In time, this can reduce the number of total users and their level of interactions, or what is called the liquidity in the market.

Digital businesses are not static

Core user actions may evolve as a digital business matures and grows. When users first start interacting with a digital business, they may predominantly participate in acts of consumption. With more experience, they may progressively move towards acts of creation. To effectively guide a user from consumption to creation, a digital business needs to focus on different metrics across the user’s life cycle.

Users of Intuit’s TurboTax typically start out as consumers of the software, using it to manage their tax filing. Once this is done, some users stay on to help their peers through the tax-filing process, thereby creating value as a crowdsourced customer support for TurboTax. Intuit measures this conversion from consumption to creation to ensure the success of its model.

Firms that want to succeed with user-centric business models need to first identify the few core user actions that drive value creation. In multi-sided markets, these actions need to be isolated for all participants. The next step is to define metrics that help minimise the failure of these core actions and maximise their repeatability. Focusing on these metrics helps firms execute with precision, benefit from a virtuous feedback loop and scale up efficiently. It’s all about keeping the business humming.

Mainstream advertising is expensive cluster bombing which brings ad-blocking, whereas sponsored posts in excellent blogs, such as Venitism, bring quality clients at low cost.  Small is beautiful!  Most organizations are now marketing with sponsored posts, going beyond the traditional sales pitches and instead enhancing brands by publishing or passing along relevant information, ideas, and entertainment that customers will value.  Sponsored post is the most respected social medium. is a platform of unique sponsored posts, costing only one hundred euros.

The success of sponsored posts has radicalized the way companies communicate. The sponsored post revolution signals more than a mere marketing fad. It marks an important new chapter in the history of business communications, the era of corporate enlightenment. The phenomenon of sponsored posts has unfolded rapidly because it responds to consumer preference.  Most people would rather learn about a company via a sponsored post than an ad. Sponsored posts in Venitism allow companies to react in real time, provide increased transparency, and create a strong brand identity at a fraction of the price of traditional marketing tactics, and in less time.

Sponsored posts in can be the means by which a brand shapes and impacts business and consumer landscapes. Sponsored posts can be a thoughtful investment in a company’s legacy. Armed with quality sponsored posts, corporations can become thought leaders, change agents, and experts. They can, in fact, become enlightened. Branded content is a powerful movement, and for good reason.  In an always-on digital world, netizens have places to go and destinies to meet. To get their attention, you have to offer something valuable in return with no more than a couple links. Great stories persuade by uniting an idea with an emotion. Weave a story with information that makes your audience’s heart beat faster, and you have a good chance of winning them over. offers sponsored posts for companies that want to highlight their thought leadership expertise, while gaining objectivity and credibility through content marketing initiatives. As a sponsor, your company can gain a powerful advantage, exceptional visibility, and access to a global audience for only one hundred euros! Venitists have power, influence, and potential. They are successful executives, independent thinkers who embrace new ideas, rising stars who are aiming for the top. Our readers demand accurate, original reporting, untainted by establishment spin and linkbait. Venitism is a first-in-class blog that provides warp speed, on the ground reporting from anywhere in the world. For more information, email



Many people are being rounded up all over Turkey for wearing white T-shirts with the word hero printed in English across the front. One of those arrested included a 13-year-old boy sitting in a cafe with his father in the Anatolian city of Nevsehir. He was released after making a statement to the prosecutor’s office.

The arrests are being carried out based on the suspicion that the wearers are sympathisers and supporters of Fethullah Gulen. The clothing crackdown began after an innocent Turk, falsely accused of attempting to kill corrupt terrorist Erdoğan, wore a hero shirt during a court appearance on 13 July. Gokhan Guclu’s clothing led to chaotic scenes in the court in the Aegean region of Mugla. He was sent back to prison after refusing to change his T-shirt. The incident led to an investigation being launched into the management team at the prison where he is held.

Millions of Turks are tortured for being former members of Hizmet.  But corrupt terrorist Erdoğan is also a former member of Hizmet!  Double standards, pure and simple. Erdoğan also engineers the forced disappearance of his critics, opponents, and former member of Hizmet, including mothers and their newborns!

A forced disappearance occurs when a person is secretly abducted or imprisoned by a state or political organization or by a third party with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of a state or political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the person’s fate and whereabouts, with the intent of placing the victim outside the protection of the law. A forced disappearance qualifies as a crime against humanity and, thus, is not subject to a statute of limitations.

Often, forced disappearance implies murder. The victim in such a case is abducted, illegally detained and often tortured during interrogation, and killed, with the body hidden. Typically, a murder will be surreptitious, with the corpse disposed of to escape discovery so that the person apparently vanishes. The party committing the murder has plausible deniability, as nobody can provide evidence of the victim’s death.

Disappearing political rivals is also a way for regimes to engender feelings of complicity in populations. The difficulty of publicly fighting a government that murders in secret can result in widespread pretense that everything is normal.

In a speech on 15 July, corrupt terrorist Erdoğan called for Guantanamo Bay-style prison uniforms for all inmates held on suspicion of being Gulenists. Following that incident, security forces across the country were also instructed to arrest anyone wearing such T-shirts. The majority of those held have said they had no idea that the T-shirt was being associated with Gulenists.

Local media have tried to find links between the word Hero and Gulen’s movement. Some reports cite an article written by Gulen in August 2016 in one of his English-language publications, printed in the US, the Fountain Magazine. The title of the article was Despair and Heroes.

Gülenists in Turkey are bengbao-popcorned to lie under duress! Police use bengbao popcorn on face, a torture electric baton which makes the face split open and look like popped corn or Muhammad in hell! It smells horrible, the smell of burning skin. 

Corrupt terrorist Erdoğan’s personal vendetta with prophet Fethullah Gülen is very silly.  Gülen made corrupt terrorist Erdoğan prime minister.  Without Gülen, corrupt terrorist Erdoğan would have been nothing! Gülen is the founder of the benevolent Hizmet Movement, hizmet meaning service in Turkish, and the inspiration figure for its largest organization, the Alliance for Shared Values. He currently lives in Saylorsburg of Pennsylvania. Gülen believes in science, interfaith dialogue, and multi-party democracy. Hizmet has proven that Erdoğan took many billion-euros in bribes and kickbacks.

The T-shirts produced by local textile firm Defacto have proved a summer hit given their low retail price of 15 Turkish Lira ($4.50).

Defacto has since stopped production of the hero t-shirts and removed them from its store shelves.

Although taught in schools, English is not widely spoken or understood in Turkey.

This is not the first time in Turkey that writing on clothing has landed people in trouble.

In 1988, three people were detained and questioned by the gendarmerie security forces for wearing items of clothing that had “Emporio Armani” printed on them.

They were accused of engaging in Armenian propaganda. The Italian fashion house Armani was misconstrued as referring to the Armenian Empire.

All three were later released after giving their statements to the prosecutor’s office.

The current wave of detentions and arrests for wearing hero T-shirts even has some figures close to the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) warning of plots meant to undermine the legitimacy of the government’s hunt against Gulenists embedded in the state system.

The Turkish government’s crackdown over the last year has resulted in more than 169,000 people being judicially processed and more than 50,000 arrests.

The crackdown has expanded to include not just suspected Gulenists but all political opponents of AKP.

The primary evidence being used to identify Gulenists is their use of obscure encrypted messaging systems called ByLock and Eagle.

However, other more tenuous evidence has also been reportedly used over the past year to identify Gulenists such as arresting people in possession of $1 bills.

It is a common tradition in Turkey for guests to shower the bride and groom with $1 bills because the lowest denominated Turkish paper is higher in value than $1.

Those notes with serial numbers containing F or G were thought to be being used as a form of secret identification by Gulenists.