Many critics of trade
liberalization, such as Noam
Chomsky, Tariq Ali,
Susan George,
and Naomi Klein, see the Washington
Consensus as a way to open the
labor market of underdeveloped
economies to exploitation by companies from more developed economies. The prescribed reductions in
tariffs and other trade barriers
allow the free movement of goods across borders according to
market forces, but labor
is not permitted to move freely due to the requirements of a
visa or a work permit.
This creates an economic climate where goods are manufactured using cheap labor in underdeveloped
economies and then exported to rich First World economies for sale at what the critics argue are
huge markups, with the balance of the markup said to accrue to large multinational corporations.
The criticism is that workers in the
Third World economy nevertheless
remain poor, as any pay raises they may have received over what they made before trade liberalization
are said to be offset by inflation,
whereas workers in the First World country become unemployed, while the wealthy owners of the multinational
grow even more wealthy.
Anti-globalization
critics further claim that First World countries impose what the critics describe as the consensus's
neoliberal policies on economically
vulnerable countries through organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund and by political pressure and
bribery. They argue that the Washington Consensus has not, in fact, led to any great economic
boom in Latin America, but rather to severe economic crises and the accumulation of crippling
external debts that render
the target country beholden to the First World.
Many of the policy prescriptions (e.g., the privatization of state industries, tax reform, and
deregulation) are criticized as mechanisms for ensuring the development of a small, wealthy, indigenous
elite in the Third World who will rise to political power and also have a vested interest in maintaining
the local status quo of labor exploitation.
Some specific factual premises of the critique as phrased above (especially on the macroeconomic
side) are not accepted by defenders, or indeed all critics, of the Washington Consensus. To take
a few examples,[29]
inflation in many developing countries is now at its lowest levels for many decades (low single figures
for very much of Latin America). Workers in factories created by foreign investment are found typically
to receive higher wages and better working conditions than are standard in their own countries' domestically-owned
workplaces. Economic growth in much of Latin America in the last few years has been at historically
high rates, and debt levels, relative to the size of these economies, are on average significantly
lower than they were several years ago.
Despite these macroeconomic advances, poverty and inequality remain at high levels in Latin America.
About one of every three people - 165 million in total- still live on less than $2 a day. Roughly
a third of the population has no access to electricity or basic sanitation, and an estimated 10 million
children suffer from malnutrition. These problems are not, however, new:
Latin America was the most economically unequal region in the world in 1950, and has continued
to be so ever since, during periods both of state-directed import-substitution and
(subsequently) of market-oriented liberalization.[30]
Some socialist political leaders in Latin America are vocal and well-known critics of the Washington
Consensus, such as Venezuelan
President Hugo Chávez,
Cuban ex-President
Fidel Castro,
Bolivian President
Evo Morales, and
Rafael Correa, President
of Ecuador. In
Argentina, too, the recent
Peronist party government
of Néstor Kirchner undertook
policy measures which represented a repudiation of at least some Consensus policies (see Continuing
Controversy below). However, with the exception of Castro, these leaders have maintained and expanded
some successful policies commonly associated with the Washington Consensus, such as macroeconomic
stability and property rights protection.
Others on the Latin American left take a different approach. Governments led by the Socialist
Party of Chile, by
Alan García in
Peru, by
Tabaré Vázquez in
Uruguay, and by
Luiz Inácio Lula
da Silva in Brazil, have in practice maintained a high degree of continuity with the economic
policies described under the Washington Consensus (debt-paying, protection to foreign investment,
financial reforms, etc.). But governments of this type have simultaneously sought to supplement these
policies by measures directly targeted at improving productivity and helping the poor, such as education
reforms and subsidies to poor families conditioned on their children staying in school.
The ADL, always attuned to any indication that their subjects are getting restless, is
insisting that Tucker Carlson be fired. What brought on their ire was Tucker's use of the word
'replacement' in the context of a discussion of Joe Biden's Open Border policy. Mentioning
replacement in the context of immigration is pretty much in the same category as doubting that
all races have the same potentialities or the official holocaust narrative. Be prepared for
hatred. Tucker, as quoted in The Hill :
"I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally
hysterical if you use the term 'replacement,' if you suggest that the Democratic Party is
trying to replace the current electorate," Carlson said. "But they become hysterical because
that's what's happening actually. Let's just say it. That's true.
Of course it's true, and what's being replaced is the traditional White population of the
country. But Tucker couldn't say that without even more outrage. So he made it all about the
current electorate, which is certainly not just White people.
"I mean, everyone's making a racial issue out of it. Oh, the, you know, white replacement?
No, no, this is a voting rights question," Carlson added later, saying changes to the
population "dilute the political power" of current registered voters.
This is disingenuous but I suppose it's what you have to say to keep your job in the
mainstream media -- and even that might not be enough. Carlson's statement is consistent with
his repeated assertions of color-blindness, and he's careful to restrict his comments to
illegal immigration. His argument is completely color-blind: "every time they import a new
voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter" -- an argument that would apply to any
American citizen no matter what their race. "How dare you think I care particularly about White
voters!" But isn't it obvious that such an argument would also apply to legal immigration?
Of course the ADL immediately labeled his comments as "white supremacy":
Not clear how replacement theory is "anti-Semitic," but I suppose that Greenblatt considers
anything he dislikes as anti-Semitism. After quoting Greenblatt's tweet, The Hill noted that "the ADL head explained that the "Great Replacement" theory
"is a white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites,"
linking to a Daily Beast article saying the whole idea was a "racist lie." But how much of a
"racist lie" is it when the White population is steadily dwindling, probably to around 60
percent, and the left wants to dramatically increase the rate at which it is dwindling?
Greenblatt also
emailed Fox News, writing "Carlson's full-on embrace of the white supremacist replacement
theory on yesterday's show and his repeated allusions to racist themes in past segments are a
bridge too far. Given his long record of race-baiting, we believe it is time for Carlson to
go." This assertion that Carlson is making a "full-on embrace of white supremacist replacement
theory" is a bald-faced lie, but obvious lies seem to be more and more common in high places
these days -- witness
Biden's lie about the new Georgia voting laws as "Jim Crow on steroids." A full-on embrace
of "white supremacist replacement theory" would at least reference a specific concern for White
people losing political clout. Instead, Carlson religiously repeats his mainstream
conservative, color-blind mantras firmly rooted in individualist ideology ("every time they
import a new voter "). Officially, he could care less about White people as White people. One
wonders if Fox would stand by their most popular talking head if he did come out and just say
it. I am pretty sure he believes it.
Officially, Carlson's heart is bleeding for all those Black, Brown, and Asian citizen-voters
whose political clout is being diluted. But of course, that would be wildly inaccurate,
particularly in the age of identity politics where non-Whites are strongly encouraged to
identify with their racial group and do all they can to advance its interests. The collective
power of non-Whites is being increased by immigration and everyone knows it, and White
political power is decreasing in an age when hatred of Whites is becoming increasingly obvious
-- at a time when Critical Race Theory is dominating the educational establishment and
corporate board rooms. CRT is a theory that essentially says it's fine for non-Whites to hate
Whites while at the same time encouraging White guilt about the supposed sins of their
ancestors. One can only imagine the horrors that await a politically powerless White
minority.
And it's not just White political power that is waning. There is clearly a program to
replace Whites as part of the American elite.
Given the voting behavior of non-Whites, it doesn't make much sense to say that America's
non-White voters are being replaced when they are being "replaced" by more non-White voters,
although I suppose one could make the argument that the traditional American Black population
will have less political clout given that the preponderance of immigrants are from Latin
America and Asia. But in any case, they ain't
White , and the ADL and the Democrats are quite well aware that all non-White groups
strongly skew Democrat. In general, the Democrats are in favor of increased legal immigration,
amnesty for illegals, and non-enforcement at the border, all of which are on the table with
Biden in the White House and a Democrat Congress. Putting these ideas into law along with
allowing no-ID voting would give Democrats more or less immediate and permanent hegemony given
that Texas and Florida are the largest destinations of immigrants -- as noted in my comments on
the January 6 "insurrection,"
The Left Will Now Enact Permanent Hegemony. " Their strategy also includes packing
the Supreme Court , in case some of their laws are challenged; Biden is already laying the
groundwork by establishing a commission packed with a
super-majority of liberals .
Biden's immigration plan calls for an increase in "diversity" visas to 80,000 from 55,000
and has an emphasis on family unification -- a code word for chain migration and a bedrock of
Jewish attitudes on immigration since the 1920s and continuing up to the 1965 immigration law (
here, p. 283) and
beyond. What this means is that one lucky visa recipient from, say, Africa, could bring in his
immediate (likely large) family and when they became citizens, they could bring in their
brothers and sisters outside the quota limit, who could in turn bring in their spouses and
children, etc. All these new people would be able to immigrate outside the quota system for
legal immigrants. And all could become citizens.
Tucker Carlson Is a Mass Murdering Terrorist!
Comment on the left has explicitly compared Carlson's mild comments to the manifesto of the
Christchurch and El Paso murderers.
I found the above clip from The Daily Show on Max Boot's
Twitter feed . Boot, former neocon (i.e., a liberal-leftie masquerading as a conservative
active in promoting U.S. fealty to Israel and moving the GOP to the left on social issues). And
now, because of obsessive Trump hate, now is firmly and explicitly ensconced on the left at
The Washington Post. Boot
wrote that Carlson "the top-rated host on Fox "News" Channel, has been attracting attention
for a while with his vile rhetoric against immigrants. Yet now he's reached a new low."
As the left-leaning Media Matters for America
has chronicled , Carlson has a long history of ugly statements. He has called Iraqis "
semiliterate primitive monkeys " and said that Afghanistan is "never going to be a
civilized country because the people aren't civilized." He has complained that an influx of
poor immigrants "
makes our own country poor and dirtier and more divided ." He has repeatedly described
immigration as an "
invasion ," and called the urgent threat posed by white supremacists a "
hoax " and "a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power."
And that new low is that Tucker said something a mass murderer had said, implying, I guess,
that if Hitler said the sky is blue, it would be extremely racist for anyone else to say
it.
The Guardian
noted in 2019 that there were already disturbing parallels between Carlson's rhetoric and
that of white supremacist killers in El Paso, Tex., and Christchurch, New Zealand. For
example, in one of his books, Carlson wrote: "When confronted or pressed for details,
[proponents of diversity] retreat into a familiar platitude, which they repeat like a zen
koan: diversity is our strength. But is diversity our strength? The less we have in common,
the stronger we are? Is that true of families? Is that true in neighborhoods or businesses?
Of course not."
And here is what the fiend who killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques said in his
manifesto: "Why is diversity said to be our greatest strength? Does anyone even ask why? It
is spoken like a mantra and repeated ad infinitum . But no one ever seems to give a reason
why. What gives a nation strength? And how does diversity increase that strength?"
On Thursday night, Carlson moved even closer to white supremacist ideology by
explicitly endorsing the Great Replacement theory, which holds that shadowy elites are
orchestrating a plot to replace native-born White people with immigrants of color. The New
Zealand shooter's
manifesto was literally headlined "The Great Replacement," and the neo-Nazis who marched
in Charlottesville chanted "Jews will not replace us."
In a
previous article I noted that Tucker Carlson's comments on 'replacement' in the context of
immigration had unleashed a torrent of hatred from the ADL and the liberal media. When the ADL
goes after public figures, the usual response is groveling apology in a typically futile effort
to prevent getting ostracized or fired. After all, the ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt had tweeted
that Carlson's comments were "anti-Semitic, racist, and toxic." Accusations of racism -- and
especially anti-Semitism -- are pretty much a death sentence for anyone so accused.
So I was gratified that Carlson didn't back down. Indeed, he doubled down, with a 20-minute
opening monologue elaborating on exactly why the Democrat Party is completely wedded to
importing a new electorate and has been doing so for decades. He also mentioned that Whites
(and Blacks) are being replaced as voters, that the entire project is immoral, and he called
out the hypocrisy of the ADL. As he notes, it's not about compassion as usually advertised, but
about power. And everyone with any brains knows it.
To date, Carlson's monologue is the most powerful and most explicit statement in the
mainstream media that Whites -- as Whites -- have an interest in immigration. Indeed, a vital
interest. In making his argument, he discussed states like California and Virginia that have
become reliably Democrat because of immigration, and he mentions Vermont that is now blue
because of disenchanted New Yorkers who brought their politics with them when they moved there.
He says the same thing is happening to Montana and Idaho as yoga instructors, Google
vice-presidents, and assorted rich White folks leave California for greener pastures. It will
happen to your state. And the result will be permanent hegemony of the left because
the imported electorate are reliable clients of the Democrat Party. 'Client' is the right word
(from the Latin for 'dependent') because these people come to the U.S. for better pay and all
the free stuff -- medical care, welfare if they have children, and the promise of eventual
citizenship and the right to bring in their relatives. This description applies at least to the
Mexicans, Central Americans, and Africans who have flooded our shores (that IQ thing again).
They remain toward the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and dependent on the government.
Hence reliably Democrat. California went from being the envy of the world to having poverty
levels on par with Mississippi. Without explicitly mentioning Whites, he notes that the middle
class is leaving in droves, resulting in the cost of a U-Haul being five times higher for
people leaving the state as for entering. He portrays the middle class as one of the victim
groups of the Great Replacement as America is transformed into a society with a hostile,
ultra-wealthy elite who are politically supported by a dependent mass of Democrat voters.
Tucker also doubled down on his voter-replacement logic, but this time he was explicit about
White people's vote being replaced, noting that Whites went from 90 percent of Californians to
30 percent since 1960, which means that how White people vote matters much less than it used
to. It's shocking to hear someone in the mainstream media claim that Whites and their vital
interests are victims of the immigration tsunami. One can easily imagine a situation where,
even if White Californians woke up (far too many are still drinking the Kool-Aid), they
couldn't win a statewide election. And that's the whole point. Permanent hegemony.
But because the interests of Whites are definitely not supposed to be paramount, he
emphasized that Blacks in California have also been losing political clout rapidly, with very
large declines in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. In my previous article, I noted
that the voter replacement argument doesn't apply so much to Blacks because the people
replacing them have pretty much the same politics. But I stand corrected. Identity politics has
changed everything. Black Californian politicos like Maxine Waters, Willy Brown, and Kamala
Harris may well become a thing of the past. Harris was replaced by Alex Padilla, a Latino,
after being elevated to the vice-presidency, a result that was not
warmly greeted by the Black political establishment.
California progressives had pushed [Gov. Gavin] Newsom to appoint Representative Barbara
Lee [who is Black] or another like-minded Democrat. Mr. Newsom was also under pressure to
appoint a Black woman to take the place of Ms. Harris, the only Black woman in the Senate.
Representative Karen Bass and Ms. Lee were at the top of that list. The Congressional
Hispanic Caucus strongly backed Mr. Padilla. The L.G.B.T.Q. community and Equality California
lobbied for Robert Garcia, the mayor of Long Beach. Black Women United, a co-founder of Black
Lives Matter, and a range of Black elected officials pushed for Ms. Bass or Ms.
Lee.
As Blacks become less of a demographic force, they will also become less of a political
force. There will be less official sympathy for Black issues like BLM, reparations, dealing
with criminals, and centering on Black grievance in the educational system.
Tucker also did some dog-whistling on Jewish involvement by mentioning Michelle Goldberg's
NYTimes op-ed, "
We can replace them, " which celebrates replacing the White electorate by doing a screen
shot of Goldberg's statement: "The potential is there; Georgia is less than 53 percent
non-Hispanic White." He didn't mention Goldberg's ethnicity, but anyone who knows anything
about the media knows she is a strongly identified Jew writing for a Jewish-owned publication
that is the crown jewel of the elite liberal-left media. As Tucker noted, Goldberg is "a
New York Times columnist, not some QAnon blogger."
The left pretends that demographic replacement is an obsession on the right, but in fact,
it's an obsession on the left. "It's the central idea of the modern Democratic Party." So true.
And so refreshing to hear it in the mainstream media.
As always, the left pretends that their plan to replace the White population is a moral
imperative. In 2019 then-Senator Harris condemned Trump's plan to deport illegals on the basis
that Trump was trying to "remake the demographics of the country"; she tweeted that such
actions are "deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values." Of course, the left would
never think of remaking the demographics of the country!
What's immoral -- and obviously so -- is the left's scheme to remake the electorate in
opposition to the legitimate interests of the traditional White majority. Tucker confronted the
issue head-on, turning the tables on the leftist moralizers by framing their actions as
"cheating." This is an important message for Whites to hear. What is happening to the White
population of America is profoundly immoral. It's an important message because we Whites are
uniquely prone to framing our actions in moral terms. As often discussed here, a major weakness
of uniquely individualist culture characteristic of the West is that individualists are highly
prone to forming moral communities rather than
kinship-based communities typical of the rest of the world. It's a very exploitable weakness,
and our hostile elites have taken full advantage by defining the legitimate interests of Whites
as immoral, as Greenblatt and Harris do. Moral communities are fine as long as they serve the
community's interests, and in the long history of the West, they have indeed been a strength.
But the problem now is that the people who define the moral communities of
the West since World War are the hostile elite who have shaped academic and media culture,
i.e., strongly identified Jews and Jewish-owned mainstream media like the New York
Times. So now a substantial proportion of Whites think it's a moral imperative to replace
the White population. No other culture anywhere at any time has ever felt a moral imperative to
replace its founding population.
However, the best part about Tucker's monologue was that he confronted the ADL directly by
highlighting their lack of principle. Confronting any powerful Jewish organization is virtually
unheard of in American media and political culture where groveling, apologies, and firing are
the norm. And he chose a particularly glaring weakness in Jewish rationalizations of the
adversarial culture they have championed in the U.S.: Jewish hypocrisy in claiming the moral
high ground in America by insisting that any opposition to immigration is racist and hence
immoral, while legitimizing Israel's ethnocentric immigration policy because it threatens the
legitimate interests of its Jewish population. In fact, these activist Jews are consummate
ethnic nationalists -- exactly what they condemn in White Americans. White Americans deserve
just what the ADL and the rest of the activist Jewish community want for Jews, a safe homeland
that remains theirs.
Granted, Carlson didn't mention that the ADL was leading the charge against him, but anyone
paying the least bit of attention to this episode knows damn well that the ADL is leading the
campaign against him. Carlson quoted from the ADL website:
With historically high birth rates among Palestinians, and a possible influx of
Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be
a minority in a bi-national state, thus ending any semblance of equal representation and
protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be politically -- and potentially
physically -- vulnerable. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the Jewish population
to expect the state of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and national
identity and become a vulnerable minority in what was once its own territory.
This is another recurrent theme on TOO -- that the traditional White majority will
become a hated and oppressed minority ( 58 articles )
because of the immigration of non-Whites in a culture dominated by an elite with a long history
of hatred toward the White majority of the U.S. We already see a multitude of examples of
hatred toward Whites emanating from the elite media, liberal-left politicians, and just
ordinary non-Whites (like this one from James
Edwards on Twitter), and hate crimes against Whites are ignored or quickly buried. Why would
anyone think this will stop if and when Whites become a minority? It will increase. But the ADL
thinks that Jews, who have been and continue to
be the leading force enacting a multicultural United States, beginning with their
influence in passing the
1965 immigration law , should retain sovereignty in Israel because ceding sovereignty would
be dangerous for Jews. This is massively hypocritical, as Tucker implies, and he invited
Greenblatt on his show to explain why the same principles that he champions for Israel should
not exist in the United States. I rather doubt that will happen.
In fact, Greenblatt repeated his attacks on Carlson in a letter to
Fox News , demanding that he be fired while never mentioning that Carlson had broached the
hypocrisy of the ADL. Pretty clearly he wants to avoid the issue like the plague. Fox News CEO
Lachlan Murdoch responded with a typical mainstream media mantra: "Fox Corporation shares your
values and abhors anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism of any kind." But he rejected the
argument that Carlson had endorsed "anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism," retreating to
Carlson's original voting rights argument. Always a safe move to refuse to avoid issues that
vitally affect White America by presenting them in non-racial terms.
In his letter to Murdoch, Greenblatt claimed that Carlson "did not accidentally echo these
talking points; he knowingly escalated this well-worn racist rhetoric. At a time of intense
polarization, this kind of rhetoric galvanizes extremists and lights the fire of violence."
Intense polarization indeed. That's what happens when there is a powerful attempt to
dispossess the founding population of the country. Ultimately the polarization is a result of
Jewish activism which has been a necessary condition for the immigration and multiculturalism
that is tearing the country apart.
Greenblatt thinks that Tucker's message will galvanize "extremists." Let's hope that it does
indeed galvanize the White population. In any case, it's important for Carlson to not let this
issue drop. It was courageous of him to broach the issue, but it needs to be repeated, just as
the messages of the left on race and multiculturalism are continually repeated on TV, movies,
print media, and throughout the educational system.
Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that
encourages Whites to inhibit expressions of ethnocentrism while encouraging non-Whites to be
ethnocentric. Because the media is dominated by the left and because even the conservative
media is terrified of appearing to advocate White interests, explicit messages that would
encourage Whites to become angry and fearful about their future as a minority are rare [and
when they occur, they are subjected to vicious attacks, as has happened to Carlson]. Indeed,
the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Whites are well on their way to becoming a minority.
And this for good reason: Whites in the United States and in Canada who are given explicit
demographic projections of a time when Whites are no longer a majority tend to feel angry and
fearful. They are also more likely to identify as Whites and have sympathy for other Whites.
[1]
In other words, while I have emphasized the ability of the higher brain centers to inhibit
ethnocentrism, explicit messages indicating that one's racial group is threatened are able to
trigger ethnocentrism. This is especially important because many Whites live far from the
areas of their countries undergoing the demographic shifts. Their day-to-day life of living
in an essentially White environment hasn't changed while the population centers of New York,
California, Toronto, and Vancouver have changed beyond all recognition from what they were 50
years ago. An obvious inference to be made is that pro-White activists should appeal to
Whites' higher brain centers with explicit messages emphasizing these transformations.
White replacement is our most powerful message. Let's hope Tucker continues to repeat it. We
certainly will.
Note
[1] H. Robert Outten, Michael T. Schmitt, and Daniel A. Miller, "Feeling threatened about
the future: Whites' emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes,"
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2011): 14–25.
Go Tucker Go.There is a lot of room to advance on this front. It shouldn't take much more
to expose the complete hypocrisy of their argument,but what has being right got to do with
it? We're talking about trillions upon trillions of "wealth,"not, "debt" and the self
absorbed,egotistical materialists will do everything under the sun to continue ignoring
reality,i.e.humanity.Money is "the GOD"and nobody should get in the way of "the PROPHET$"
that assumed divine authority after the black book was written.Gold, diamonds,private
jets,yachts,islands and lots of "faithful followers" to do all the work. They will
assassinate anything that threatens "THIS"religion,good luck.
Tuck has the moral high ground ..not only are we being replaced ..but Greenblatt's buddies
GLOAT openly about our replacement ..that doesn't really seem like being a light unto the
nations.
For a long time, Tucker has been more than just a political talk show host. He's become a
Man on a Mission; even more so since Biden's enablers stole what was left of our "democracy,"
and fixed November's election. Will Fox fire him due to growing Corporate and Jewish
pressure, or will the Murdoch's continue to have the guts to back him?
No one can know for sure. But Tucker, to a large extent, has Fox News over a barrel. He's
even recently expanded his reach, with his newest show on the subscription based Fox Nation,
where he is able to do long form interviews without commercial interruption. The Murdoch's
must be keenly aware that, if they fire their number one ratings star, they've just flushed
their consistently most watched cable news network down the toilet.
There's another huge issue, never mentioned on TV except with derision, that I'd love to
see Tucker address one day soon: SECESSION! It's the only way forward.
I think ol' Tucker may have bit off more than he can chew on this one. He touched the 3rd
rail pretty strongly on live TV and Big Jew doesn't like that whatsoever. Given that Israel
is supported by both right leaning Neocons and the more liberal Jonathan Greenblatts of the
world his days may truly be numbered now.
Tucker does a good job of poking holes in idiotic liberalism. However, I think it is
interesting that almost no one mentions the elephant in the room, which is that whites went
from a fertility rate of 3.7 to 1.7 in the space of 60 years. Americans in general started
murdering their babies, and swallowed all the jewish lies and "isms" hook, line and sinker.
That is why you have lost your country. The brown tide is a symptom of the problem, not the
cause. The problem is a nation given over to greed, foolishness, and perversion.
Since she first appeared as a talk show host on MSNBC during Obama's first presidential
campaign, Rachel Maddow has been bragging about how Democrats were going to ascend to a
permanent majority in the Congress and permanently control the presidency by virtue of
unhindered "minority" migration into this country. The concept had been floated before by
numerous analysts and even termed the "Reconquista" which Hispanic spokespersons
enthusiastically embraced as the rightful recovery of their stolen patrimony from the
Gringos.
I distinctly recall Maddow gloating about this anticipated outcome night after night while
she demeaned the incipient shrinkage of a "rump Republican Party" to complete irrelevance
when this desired scenario came to pass. She spoke excitedly about recruiting not only the
tidal wave of Hispanic migrants into the Democratic fold to cohabit with the long loyal
blacks, but also assumed that every foreigner, including all Orientals, East Indians, Middle
Easterners and Black Africans should naturally ally with the liberal Dem philosophies:
literally every immigrant but White Europeans (the "Eurotrash") would be a part of the coming
new Democratic Golden Age.
Nobody on the left ever thought of calling her and her bigoted ideas to be "racist," and
she is never called out for being "racist" when she spouts her totally hysterical
over-the-top Russophobia (or is "Russophrenia" a more correct descriptor?). Why doesn't the
ADL pick a bone with her while they are attacking Tucker Carlson who has always been much
less excitable and far more logical that Maddow even when she is sober and not fixing mixed
drinks on air.
A newly formed "America First Caucus" in Congress, supported by a
few far-right Republicans in the House of Representatives, is looking to recruit new
members with an old set of arguments.
These white nationalist tropes found a receptive audience in the American people.
Its platform, now circulating in Washington, is little more than a retread of the white
nationalist screeds of the 1910s and 1920s.
"America is a nation with a border, and a culture, strengthened by a common respect for
uniquely Anglo-Saxon traditions," asserts the section on immigration. "History has shown that
societal trust and political unity are threatened when foreign citizens are imported en-masse
into a country."
A century ago, these same sorts of arguments about the "Anglo-Saxon" character of the United
States and the threat that "foreign" elements would bring to its politics and culture were
quite widespread.
... ... ...
The popular panic over immigration and the pseudo-scientific justifications for nativism and
racism came together in the push for the National Origins Act of 1924, a quota-based measure
that drastically reduced immigration from southeastern Europe and banned all Asians from
immigrating entirely.
Kevin M. Kruse is a professor of history at Princeton University. A specialist in modern
American political, social and urban/suburban history, he is the author and editor of several
books, including "White Flight" (2005), "One Nation Under God" (2015) and "Fault Lines: A
History of the United States since 1974" (2019). He grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, and earned
his bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his master's and
doctoral degrees from Cornell University.
The EUP is cutting its own throat trying to bully China. I see the move was made as soon
as Blinken arrived and began spreading lies about both Russia and China. I know China and
Russia would like these rogue nations to uphold their honor by obeying the UN Charter, but it
seems too many have caught the Outlaw US Empire's disease and now want to return to their
Colonial ways. If the EUP ends up trashing the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI)
with China, many individual European nations are going to be very angry. China won't mind if
that's what the EUP does as is explained here :
"After China announced sanctions on 10 individuals and four entities from the EU as a
countermove to EU's unilateral sanctions against China, some people from the EU reacted
strongly, claiming China's countermeasures were "unacceptable." The European Parliament
canceled a meeting on Tuesday to discuss the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) with
China. Some members of the European Parliament warned that the lifting of Chinese sanctions
should be a condition to promote talks on CAI. Voices that support to block the agreement in
an attempt to punish China have been hyped by some anti-China forces.
"Yet those forces should be told that the CAI between China and the EU is mutually
beneficial, rather than a gift from the EU to China. If the European Parliament wants to
obstruct the deal, taking it as a bargaining chip in interactions with China, it should first
reach a consensus among European countries. If they all agree, let's just take it as
negotiations between China and the EU never took place last year. But don't blackmail China
with the case. China despises such ugly deeds."
China's saying essentially that it will forego the benefits of trade if it isn't properly
respected and doesn't care if the EU's dire economic condition worsens because it can't stand
up for itself in the face of the world's #1 Bully, which is exactly the same line Russia has
taken.
It is not just Jens Quisling, half (or more) of the European political elite are USA
proxies.
Take for example the European green parties.
I am pretty sure that the Dutch green party is at its core a NATO/military intelligence
operation. It was created as a merger of three parties, all of whom had a distinct pacifist
and socialist signature. The new party, GroenLinks ("GreenLeft") has forgotten all of that
and has limited itself to churning out Big Climate slogans. The party leader is an obviously
hollow puppet in the image of Justin Trudeau. His opinions are handed to him by advisors in
the shade.
A few years ago, an MP for GroenLinks, Mariko Peters was enthousiastically
promoting more military missions in Afghanistan. She was also a board member of the
"Atlantische Commissie", the local Dutch chapter of the Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(the USA chapter is the more well-known Atlantic Council). If you study her antics and
associations more closely, it is pretty obvious that there is nothing green or left about
this lady and that she is an obvious atlanticist diplomat/spy type.
Currently, there are no political parties in the Netherlands that are critical of NATO.
This used to be very
different not even a very long time ago.
What the article does not mention is the association, reputedly for a six-figure salary)
of former Grüne luminary Joschka Fisher to the Nabucco pipeline project (competing with
ns2). Fischer is also a member of the council on foreign relations and a founding member even
of the European chapter ECFR.
Contrary to the previous immigrants - who were economic immigrants (not religious
immigrants, as the official history of the USA states) - the post-war immigrants to the USA
are all political immigrants. They're the remnants of South Vietnam, Kuomintang, South Korea,
Mensheviks, Refuseniks, Zionism, Batista's Cuba, Latin American comprador elites. I remember
that once Hugo Chávez or the then president of Ecuador claimed that in Florida alone
were more than 2,000 wanted people (most of them compradores and generals) enjoying political
refugee status.
The only exception to the rule are the Mexican immigrants and some Central American
immigrants (El Salvador, Guatemala in some cases), which had their economies dollarized or
devastated by the advent of NAFTA, and were by chance close to the USA's territory.
Your editorial "The
Semiconductor Shortage" (March 13) is right that government action is not needed to correct
the short-term supply-demand imbalance causing the global chip shortage, but wrong that the
U.S. can "prod" its way to stronger domestic semiconductor production and more secure chip
supply chains in the long term. Global competitors haven't passed the U.S. as a location for
chip manufacturing by prodding. They've done it by funding ambitious government incentives to
lure semiconductor production to their shores.
As a result, only 12% of global manufacturing is now done in the U.S., down from 37% in
1990.
Stakeholders consist of "customers, suppliers, employees, and local communities" in addition
to shareholders. But for Klaus Schwab and the WEF, the framework of stakeholder capitalism must
be globalized. A stakeholder is anyone or any group that stands to benefit or lose from any
corporate behavior -- other than competitors, we may presume. Since the primary pretext for the
Great Reset is global climate change, anyone in the world can be considered a stakeholder in
the corporate governance of any major corporation. And federal partnerships with corporations
that do not "serve" their stakeholders, like the Keystone Pipeline project, for example, must
be abandoned.
...T ake one David Campbell, a British socialist (although non-Marxist) and author of The
Failure of Marxism (1996). After declaring that Marxism had failed, Campbell began advocating
stakeholder capitalism as a means to the same ends. His argument with the British orthodox
Marxist Paddy Ireland represents an internecine squabble over the best means of achieving
socialism, while also providing a looking glass into the minds of socialists determined to try
other, presumably nonviolent tacks.
Campbell castigated Ireland for his rejection of stakeholder capitalism. ... Ireland's
more-radical-than-thou Marxism left Campbell flummoxed. Didn't Ireland realize that his market
determinism was exactly what the defenders of "neoliberalism" asserted as the inevitable and
only sure means for the distribution of social welfare? "Marxism," Campbell rightly noted, "can
be identified with the deriding of 'social reform' as not representing, or even as obstructing,
'the revolution.'" Like so many antireformist Marxists, Ireland failed to recognize that "the
social reforms that [he] derided are the revolution."
Ireland and Campbell agreed that the very idea of stakeholder capitalism derived from
companies having become relatively autonomous from their shareholders. The idea of managerial
independence and thus company or corporate autonomy was first treated by Adolf A. Berle and
Gardiner C. Means in The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932) and after them in James
Burnham's The Managerial Revolution (1962). In "Corporate Governance, Stakeholding, and the
Company: Towards a Less Degenerate Capitalism?," Ireland writes of this putative autonomy:
"[T]he idea of the stakeholding company is rooted in the autonomy of 'the company' from its
shareholders; its claim being that this autonomy can be exploited to ensure that companies do
not operate exclusively with the interests of their shareholders in mind."
This apparent autonomy of the company, Ireland argues, came about not with incorporation or
legal changes to the structure of the corporation, but with the growth of large-scale
industrial capitalism. The growth in the sheer number of shares and with it the advent of the
stock market made for the ready salability of the of the share. Shares became "money capital,"
readily exchangeable titles to a percentage of profit, and not claims on the company's assets.
It was at this point that shares gained apparent autonomy from the company and the company from
its shareholders.
Moreover, with the emergence of this market, shares developed an autonomous value of their
own quite independent of, and often different from, the value of the company's assets.
Emerging as what Marx called fictitious capital, they were redefined in law as an autonomous
form of property independent of the assets of the company. They were no longer conceptualized
as equitable interests in the property of the company but as rights to profit with a value of
their own, rights which could be freely and easily bought and sold in the marketplace .
On gaining their independence from the assets of companies, shares emerged as legal
objects in their own right, seemingly doubling the capital of joint stock companies. The
assets were now owned by the company and by the company alone, either through a corporation
or, in the case of unincorporated companies, through trustees. The intangible share capital
of the company, on the other hand, had become the sole property of the shareholder. They were
now two quite separate forms of property. Moreover, with the legal constitution of the share
as an entirely autonomous form of property, the externalization of the shareholder from the
company had been completed in a way not previously possible.
Thus, according to Ireland, a difference in interests emerged between the holders of the
industrial capital and the holders of the money capital, or between the company and the
shareholder.
Nevertheless, Ireland maintains, the autonomy of the company is limited by the necessity for
industrial capital to produce profit. The value of shares is ultimately determined by the
profitability of the company's assets in use. "The company is, and will always be, the
personification of industrial capital and, as such, subject to the imperatives of profitability
and accumulation. These are not imposed from the outside on an otherwise neutral and
directionless entity, but are, rather, intrinsic to it, lying at the very heart of its
existence." This necessity, Paddy argues, defines the limits of stakeholder capitalism and its
inability to sustain itself. "The nature of the company is such, therefore, as to suggest that
[there] are strict limits to the extent to which its autonomy from shareholders can be
exploited for the benefit of workers or, indeed, other stakeholders."
Here is a point on which the "neoliberal" Milton Friedman and the Marxist Paddy Ireland
would have agreed, despite Ireland's insistence that the extraction of "surplus value" at the
point of production is the cause. And this agreement between Friedman and Ireland is exactly
why Campbell rejected Ireland's argument. Such market determinism is only necessary under
capitalism, Campbell asserted. Predictions about how companies will behave in the context of
markets are only valid under current market conditions...
Despite this insurmountable "neoliberal"/Marxist impasse, the notion of stakeholder
capitalism is at least fifty years old. Debates about the efficacy of stakeholder capitalism
date to the 1980s. They were stirred up by Friedman's rejection of the "soulful corporation,"
which reached its peak with Carl Kaysen's "The Social Significance of the Modern Corporation"
in 1957. Kaysen viewed the corporation as a social institution that must weigh profitability
against a broad and growing array of social responsibilities: "there is no display of greed or
graspingness; there is no attempt to push off onto the workers or the community at large part
of the social costs of the enterprise. The modern corporation is a soulful corporation." Thus,
in Kaysen, we see hints of the later notion of stakeholder capitalism.
Likely, stakeholder capitalism can be traced, although not in an unbroken line of
succession, to the "commercial idealism" of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
when Edward Bellamy and King Camp Gillette, among others, envisioned corporate socialist
utopias via incorporation. For such corporate socialists, the main means for establishing
socialism was through the continuous incorporation of all the factors of production. With
incorporation, a series of mergers and acquisitions would occur until the formation of a
singular global monopoly, in which all "the People" had equal shares, was complete. In his
"World Corporation , " Gillette declared that "the trained mind of business and finance sees no
stopping-place to corporate absorption and growth, except final absorption of all the World's
material assets into one corporate body, under the directing control of one corporate mind."
Such a singular world monopoly would become socialist upon the equal distribution of shares
among the population. Stakeholder capitalism falls short of this equal distribution of shares
but gets around it by distributing value on the basis of social and political pressure.
Interestingly, Campbell ends his argument, rather undogmatically, by stating unequivocally
that if Friedman was right and "if these comparisons [between shareholder and stakeholder
capitalism] tend to show exclusive maximization of shareholder value to be the optimal way of
maximizing welfare," then "one should give up being a socialist." If, after all, the
maximization of human welfare is really the object, and "shareholder capitalism" (or
"neoliberalism") proves to be the best way to achieve it, then socialism itself, including
stakeholder capitalism, must necessarily be abandoned.
Trump is engaging in the declassification of documents, one of which is the 2018
US Strategic
Framework for the Indo-Pacific that's provided at the top of Pepe Escobar's essay,
"Trump's not-so-secret plan for containing China," that was published yesterday:
"These are the Top 5 items – with no euphemistic softening:
•Maintain as sacrosanct US 'primacy,' code for uncontested military power
•Promote the Quad (US, Japan, India, Australia)
•Fully support the (failed) Hong Kong color revolution
•Demonize everything connected to Belt & Road
•Invest in 'the rise of India'
"On the military front, things get way trickier: The imperative is to prevent Beijing, by
all means necessary, from 'dominating the first island chain' – that is, the island
ring from the Japanese archipelago to Taiwan all the way to the northern Philippines and
Borneo. Moreover, 'primacy' should also be maintained in the 'area beyond.'
"So once again this is all about naval containment."
That's followed by an excellent graphic showing the first and second Island Chains. Of
course, China isn't really worried:
"The 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party falls next July 23. The day before
the declassification of Indo-Pacific, President Xi Jinping outlined his – and the CCP's
– vision for the almost three decades culminating in 2049, the hundredth anniversary of
the People's Republic of China.
"Here are Xi's Top Three – in a nutshell:
•Keep calm and carry on, despite the ravaging effects of Covid-19, unrelenting
Western – especially American – hostility, and the trials and tribulations of the
crumbling US Empire
•Focus on domestic development, in all areas
•Focus on China's priorities; then, whatever happens, the world outside will not be able
to interfere.
•Solidify its own 'primacy' in the South China Sea while diversifying trade and
development strategic options all along Belt and Road"
I tried to locate where Xi made this statement Pepe cites, but was unsuccessful, and Pepe
provided no link. The essay closes with an economic forecast for China that Biden won't be
able to do much about. Indeed, this article details how much
damage Trump's Trade War did to the US economy and how it would benefit from Biden's ending
it:
"The multi-year trade war with China under the Trump administration resulted in a peak
loss of 245,000 US jobs, Reuters reported Friday, citing a study commissioned by the US-China
Business Council, a business group representing major US firms with operations in China.
"In an escalated scenario, meaning a significant China-US decoupling, the US GDP could
shrink by $1.6 trillion over the next five years, resulting in up to 732,000 job losses in
the US by 2022 and 320,000 fewer jobs by 2025, according to the study. A gradual scaling back
of tariffs, however, is likely to boost growth, resulting in an additional 145,000 jobs by
2025."
As I wrote when Trump announced his Trade War, the Outlaw US Empire would be much better
off if it joined with China rather than trying to fight it, and now the results are in. Too
bad this report will likely be suppressed. The article looks at Biden's position and
concludes with an infographic detailing trade flows between China and the Outlaw US
Empire.
@84:
As sometimes said: don't sweat the small stuff.
This "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in
the Hong Kong colour revolution play.
Empire's useful idiots were let loose to trash the hapless city, fired up by the Western
propaganda machinery.
Now Beijing is putting the stock on those pompous minions with the National Security Law, and
their foreign masters can't do nuffin' except squeal human rights and apply some nuisance
sanctions.
The West fails because it looks at China through ideological lenses and sees Communists, who
can fall back on 5000 years of statecraft to push back at interlopers.
Beijing's moves can be likened to two classic strategies.
1. Zhuge Liang fools the enemy to fire all their arrows at straw men, which become ammunition
against them.
2. The Empty City strategy. Invaders take over an ostensibly abandoned city, only to be
trapped inside.
Global Times is cantankerous and sometimes risible, but even a broken clock is right, twice a
day.
So when it says that crossing Beijing's red line on the Taiwan issue is not in the island's
best interests, the incoming BiMala administration should take note.
"... The Biden administration, staffed with Obama veterans , may be in effect a third Obama term. Biden may seek a détente with China on some issues. But Democratic foreign policy elites as well as Republicans view China more harshly than they did four years ago. The most likely scenario, then, is an attempt to restore Obama's trilateral strategy of building the biggest possible coalition of allies against China. ..."
"... Democratic foreign policy elites are much more Europhile and Russophobic than their Republican counterparts. ..."
Under Barack Obama, the containment of
China -- the "pivot to Asia" -- took the form of what might be called trilateralism, after
the old Trilateral Commission of the 1970s. According to this strategy, while balancing China
militarily, the United States would create trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic trade blocs with
rules favorable to the United States that China would be forced to beg to join in the future.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was intended as an anti-Chinese, American-dominated Pacific
trade bloc, while the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) sought to create a
NATO for trade from which China would be excluded.
Obama's grand strategy collapsed even before the election of 2016. TTIP died, chiefly
because of hostility from European economic interests. In the United States, the fact that the
TPP treaty was little more than a wish-list of giveaways to U.S. finance and pharma interests
and other special-interest lobbies made it so unpopular that both Hillary Clinton and
Trump
renounced it during the 2016 presidential election season.
Trump, like Obama,
sought to contain China , but by unilateral rather than trilateral measures. The Trump
administration emphasized reshoring strategic supply chains like that of steel in the United
States, unwilling to offshore critical supplies even to allies in Asia and Europe and North
America. This break with prior tradition would have been difficult to pull off even under a
popular president who was a good bureaucratic operator, unlike the
erratic and inconsistent Trump.
The Biden administration,
staffed with Obama veterans , may be in effect a third Obama term. Biden may seek a
détente with China on some issues. But Democratic foreign policy elites as well as
Republicans view China more harshly than they did four years ago. The most likely scenario,
then, is an attempt to restore Obama's trilateral strategy of building the biggest possible
coalition of allies against China.
An emphasis by the Biden administration on alliances may succeed in the case of the
U.S.-Japan-Australia-India "Quad" (Quadrilateral alliance). The UK may support America's East
Asian policy as well. But Germany and France, the dominant powers in Europe, view China as a
vast market, not a threat, so Biden will fail if he seeks to repeat Obama's grand strategy of
trilateral containment of China.
Democratic foreign policy elites are much more Europhile and Russophobic than their
Republican counterparts. In part this is a projection of domestic politics. In the
demonology of the Democratic Party, Putin stands for nationalism, social conservatism, and
everything that elite Democrats despise about the "deplorables" in the United States who live
outside of major metro areas and vote for Republicans. The irrational hostility of America's
Democratic establishment extends beyond Russia to socially-conservative democratic governments
in Poland and Hungary, two countries that Biden has denounced as "totalitarian."
In the Middle East, unlike Eastern Europe, a Biden administration is likely to sacrifice
left-liberal ideology to the project of
maximizing American power and consolidating the U.S. military presence, with the help of
autocracies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Any hint of retrenchment will be denounced by the
bipartisan foreign policy establishment that lined up behind Biden, so do not expect an end to
any of the forever wars under Biden. Quite the contrary.
Michael Lind is Professor of Practice at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of the University of
Texas at Austin and the author of The American Way of Strategy. His most recent book is The New
Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite.
The only way really to understand Brexit is as the outcome of a civil war within
capitalism. There are two dominant forms of capitalism. One you could describe as house
trained capitalism. This is corporations and rich people who are prepared to more or less
go along with democracy, as long as democracy doesn't get out of hand and actually
represent the interests of the people, but as long as it's a sort of thin and narrow form
of democracy, they'll go with it. What they want is stability. They want regulations
which protect their market position from rougher and dirtier companies who would
otherwise wipe them out. They're happy with the administrative state.
And then there's another faction who could be described as capitalism's warlords. These
are people who don't want any constraints in their way at all. They see taxation as
illegitimate, they see regulation as illegitimate. In their unguarded moments, they
reveal that they see democracy as illegitimate. People such as Peter Thiel, the guy who
founded PayPal says actually democracy and market freedom are incompatible. The conflict
should be resolved in favor of this thing he calls the market. Τhe market is an
euphemism for the power of money. And they believe that that power should be unmediated,
that it should be able to do whatever it wants without anyone standing in its way. And
they see as their enemy house trained capitalism. And this is really where the power lies
within.
The whole Brexit debate, is on the one side, the august institutions of capitalism,
like the Confederation of British Industry, saying this is terrible, we don't want this
to happen at all. And on the other side, the oligarchs from the City, very powerful
people who are funding dark money think tanks and other lobby groups, saying we want to
clear it all out of the way. In Steve Bannon's words, " we want the deconstruction of
the administrative state ". And it's a second group, the warlords of money who have
won.
First of all, both capitalist factions in this civil war seek the " deconstruction
of the administrative state. " And actually, the administrative state could be
deconstructed much more efficiently through super-national formations like the European Union.
The European Union institutions have been taken over by powerful banking and corporate lobbies.
And these are taking advantage of the legislative power of those institutions in order to
promote more deregulation and destroy the administrative power of nation-states. As the
Corporate Europe Observatory reported
in 2016: Since Jean-Claude Juncker took office as President of the European Commission in November
2014, there has been an even greater deregulation push, not just on specific rules and laws
which should be scrapped, but on how decisions are made about future laws. Under Juncker,
fundamental changes in policy-making are being introduced which will put major obstacles in the
way of new regulations aimed at protecting the environment or improving social conditions.When David Cameron was renegotiating the terms of the UK's membership of the EU with
European Council President Donald Tusk, a greater European emphasis on deregulation was one of
the four priority areas. To pile on the pressure, Cameron and the UK government spearheaded an
appeal from 18 other member states, demanding quantitative targets, meaning that for every new
regulation put in place, a certain number of other regulations should be removed. [...] As
presented here, Cameron and the European Commission – together with big business - share
a common approach on the deregulation agenda.
That's why the "house trained capitalism", as Monbiot describes it, wants the UK to remain
member of the EU. And, in fact, it's rather contradictory to say that this capitalist faction
is "happy with the administrative state" when at the same time supports a super-national
organization whose ultimate goal is to eliminate the administrative power of the
nation-states.
Monbiot describes the pro-Brexit capitalist faction as " capitalism's warlords ... people
who don't want any constraints in their way at all. They see taxation as illegitimate, they see
regulation as illegitimate. In their unguarded moments, they reveal that they see democracy as
illegitimate. " Yet, these are common characteristics with the "house trained capitalism"
faction. That's because both capitalist factions in previous decades were functioning as a
united force through the complete domination of neoliberalism. A domination which was evident
not only in an economic and a political level, but also in a cultural level, especially in the
Western world. And that's why, as we
wrote recently, both the liberal elites and the far right (as representatives of
the capitalist factions), are seeing the real Left as the primary threat which must be dealt at
all costs, after all.
We need to understand that this civil war between the capitalist factions does not come out of
any substantially different ideological or political approach. Essentially, it's only a tough
bargain. Capitalists just pick sides to negotiate terms and secure their position in the
post-capitalist era, which already looks like a kind of 21st century corporate feudalism. Yet,
we would completely agree with Monbiot's remark that " What happens to us, to the citizens
of the UK, is of very little interest. We're just the grass that gets trampled in this civil
war. "
As we already
pointed out , the level of ruthlessness of this capitalist war can also be
identified in the behavior of the US political class against the American people. It's
astonishing that, inside this terrible situation, where thousands die from the pandemic,
millions lose their jobs and live under extreme insecurity, no one is willing to offer
anything. Both Democrats and Republicans have turned the oncoming election into a political
bargain and they don't even try to hide it.
Inside this ruthless capitalist war, people have become almost irrelevant. What only matters
for the political puppets is to secure the interests of the capitalist faction they represent.
The
rampageous bulls of capitalism are fighting each other in an arena in which
democracy has now turned into dust under their violent clatters. Therefore, we would also
certainly agree with Monbiot's conclusion: We need a political economy which is good for the
people, the people who live today, the people of future generations, good for the rest of the
living world and is actually governed by the people themselves. Not by this kind of capitalism
or that kind of capitalism. These corporations or those oligarchs. A democracy which responds
to people not just once every four or five years, but every day, when we have participation as
well as representation. We need a system that transcends both of these warring factions, and
puts the people in charge.
In fact it is exactly like the last civil war englanders had, the local big fish in a
small pond don't want any outsiders making decisions or competing with them.
In 1642 ancestors of the current englander ruling elite became concerned that James
Stuart, then Charles Stuart were not only encouraging types established in that ever so
provincial Scots Court to compete for valuable contracts, they were taking instruction from
some eyetalian in Rome when there was perfectly good advice available from the Archbishop
of Canterbury. They knew that the archbish would give sound advice because they, the
englander elite had selected & promoted him themselves.
The EU is the stuarts with the pope, and england's established hierarchy realised pretty
soon after entry into the old EC that 'johnny foreigner' who they assumed would bow to the
englander elite's superior insight & worth was doing no such thing. Often, they
believed the rejection was just pure spite done out of envy of england's 'success' lol.
Once it became certain that neither the french or the germans would kowtow, the strategy
to extricate england from the eu was begun. Types like johnson the tele's man in Brussels
filled englander media up with lies & beatups - all horror stories about eurocrats
etc.
Why wouldn't the mugs believe this tosh? They had swallowed some fantastic yarns spread
by the media which kept conservative control of england for decades, eu= evil would be no
different and it wasn't.
There are sound reasons for leaving the eu but this brexit business addresses none of
them, if anything it exacerbates things like sweatshop labour as Poles expect pay and
conditions that people in some commonwealth states will not. Plus they will be easier to
control with no 'schengan nonsense' as they'll all be on temporary work visas and can be
sent home if they are troublemakers supporting organised labour or the like.
Jesus of Nazareth lived in a time of political turmoil. Between the lines of the Gospels,
which are our main source of information about him, this comes through loud and clear. But it
is never brought to the surface. The last thing that the writers of the Gospels wanted was to
drag in politics. They wanted to extract Jesus from his real historical situation and put
across a universal message, which could apply to anybody. Above all, they did not want to tie
Jesus in with the fate of the Jewish people who, at the time of writing, had just been crushed
by the Roman legions after a bitter resistance war.
However, the actual situation in which Jesus lived is plain enough. In 63 BC Palestine was
conquered by a Roman army, led by Pompey, and made part of the Roman province of Syria. Pompey,
accompanied by his military staff, strode into the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem Temple,
which had been defended by its priests after the reigning king had opened the gates of the city
to the invaders. From that moment on, until the final showdown 133 years later in 70 AD, the
history of Palestine is mainly a history of Jewish resistance to Roman rule. It was a hopeless
resistance which took place during a time which fundamentally was one of Roman expansion. Jesus
of Nazareth lived right in the middle of this period and, despite his well-known attachment to
the other-worldly, he could hardly have been blind to what was going on.
Palestine's strategic role
The situation was not an easy one for the Romans. Palestine – Judea, as the
Jewish part of it was called – was one of a chain of small states, stretching from
Armenia down to Egypt, which formed a buffer zone between Rome and the Parthian Empire to the
east, based in Persia. Palestine was a crucial link in the chain because it bordered Egypt,
granary of Rome. Parthia was the second major power of the region and it was never conquered by
Rome. Indeed, it several times inflicted defeats on the Roman legions, routed them and captured
the eagles which were their battle standards. So Palestine was a sensitive area. A Jewish
uprising could count on Parthian support. Indeed, in 40 BC, only about twenty years after
Pompey's invasion and not very long before the birth of Jesus, this was exactly what happened.
The Roman puppet regime was overthrown and a new king installed, with Parthian support. The
Parthians, moreover, unlike the Romans, took care not to desecrate the Temple. Their position
was more or less like that of the Indians in Bangladesh, a foreign power aiding a national
movement for its own purposes.
The Romans reacted quickly. They ditched the old lot of puppets and brought in a new
candidate, Herod, who was about 30 at the time. Herod's father had been the strong man, main
pro-Roman in the old regime. Herod himself had been military governor of Galilee, the northern
part of Palestine. When the Parthians came in he managed to escape to Egypt and eventually got
to Rome. There he was crowned king of Judea. With full Roman backing he returned, taking
Jerusalem with the help of the legions in 37 BC, and promptly executed the rebel leaders. The
anti-Roman king, Antigonus, was crucified, the first of tens of thousands who were to be
executed in this way by the Romans or their puppets. Once on the throne, Herod stuck to it
until his death in 4 BC.
It is not certain exactly when Jesus was born. All we can say is that it was during the
reign of the Emperor Augustus, who died in 14 AD, and that during Jesus' adult life Augustus'
successor Tiberius was on the throne. Jesus may have seen the end of Herod's reign, as an
infant. Certainly the events which followed Herod's death must have impressed him, either as
childhood memories or as stories which were told him as he grew up.
Herod's death
Herod's death produced a crisis. Herod had been servile to the Romans and cruel and
extortionate to his own people. He was loathed and hated. Naturally, when he died there was
general rejoicing and the national movement came to the surface again. There had already been
rumblings shortly before the end of his reign. A student demonstration, more or less led by two
Pharisees, Judas and Matthias, had culminated in the tearing down of the Roman eagle which
Herod had displayed in the Temple to please his masters. The ringleaders were burned alive.
When Herod finally died, there was an uprising in Jerusalem. The procurator, Sabinus, the top
Roman official in Palestine, immediately moved troops into the capital to maintain law and
order and also to seize Herod's treasury. During the festival of Pentecost, fighting broke out
between pilgrims to the Temple and these Roman troops. Sabinus was pinned down in the
garrison.
At the same time, there was another armed uprising in Galilee, led by a partisan leader
called Judas, known as the Galilean, whose father had been executed by Herod for insurgency.
This was a large-scale uprising in which the partisans took Herod's palace in Sepphoris and
seized the arms which were stored there. Sepphoris was only a few miles from Nazareth, where
Jesus spent his childhood. About an hour's walk away, in fact. The Romans had to send two
legions, that is, twelve thousand troops, down from Syria to suppress these revolts and rescue
Sabinus. During the fighting the Temple was badly damaged and Sepphoris was completely
destroyed. When the Romans had restored order they crucified 2,000 rebels.
Twice the size of Northern Ireland
Palestine is a comparatively small country. Herod's kingdom of Judea was not much bigger
than Wales, about twice the size of Northern Ireland. It did not extend so far south as Israel
does today but it covered a fringe of what is now Syria and Jordan. The population, about five
million probably, was not homogenously Jewish. The Jews were concentrated in the Jerusalem area
– Judea proper – and in Galilee, to the north, where they were fairly recent
settlers. In between was Samaria, where the Samaritans lived. The Samaritans had their own
religion which was a variant of Judaism. For example, they did not recognise the Temple, but
had their own holy place on a mountain in Samaria. In the towns there were a number of Greeks
and Hellenized Syrians or Phoenicians, who had first come in the wake of Alexander's armies and
now identified with the Romans. Herod had encouraged further immigration of Greeks and had
built a number of new towns for them, including a new port and capital, Caesarea, which
nationalistic and pious Jews would not live in because it was dominated by irreligious
monuments, such as a theatre and a racetrack.
The divided country, split by national and religious differences, had some of the features
of Northern Ireland or Cyprus. The Jewish national movement took a religious form; it was
religion which bound the nation together. The leader s of the Zealots, as the
guerrilla partisans were known, were often ultra-religious and religion was one of the two main
issues around which opposition to the Roman occupation crystallised. There were riots over the
pagan eagle desecrating the Temple, as described above: later, after the Romans had adopted
direct rule, there were more riots under Pontius Pilate over the same issue. There were
uprisings in the late thirties, only a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus, when Emperor
Caligula wanted to put up a statue of himself in the Temple. Ten years after that there was a
big riot when a Roman soldier on guard on a roof overlooking the Temple made an obscene gesture
to the pilgrims.
Imperialist taxes
The second issue was economic: the Roman tax appropriations. Rome did not tax its own
citizens but relied on wringing what it could out of subject peoples. The system was laid down
officially and then the actual tax-collection was left to private enterprise, on something like
a tender basis. Roman troops backed up the tax-collectors. Naturally tax-collectors were
regarded as collaborators with the Romans and there were frequent attempts to sabotage the
system and boycott it. Quirinius's census in 6 AD was designed by the Romans to help implement
tax-collection and it provoked widespread resistance and armed struggle, which was not subdued
for some time, right during the childhood of Jesus. Once again Galilee was a focus of the
revolt, but this time there was heavy fighting in the south as well, led by a shepherd called
Athronges. Thousands were killed by the Romans during this period.
Direct rule starts
The census was particularly resented because it marked the beginning of direct rule by Rome.
The puppet regime was abandoned by the Romans shortly after Herod's death. His son was exiled
after the Procurator was given full powers, in Judea at least. In Galilee and in South-East
Syria, the Golan Heights area, two other sons of Herod were allowed to stay on as autonomous
rulers. Generally speaking, the Romans changed Procurators quite rapidly. Pontius Pilate, who
lasted nine years, from 27 to 36 AD was an exception to the rule. Pilate was intensely hated
and this loathing shows through all the Jewish source documents which remain. He was both harsh
and corrupt. When he took money from the Temple treasury there were massive demonstrations
against him. He suppressed them by putting troops into the crowd in plain-clothes, and with
concealed weapons, who suddenly leapt into action at a given signal. In the Gospels, there are
references to the killing of Galileans, always troublemakers, and to riots in Jerusalem at the
time of Jesus's death, while the word used to describe the two 'thieves' crucified with Jesus
is the same generally used to describe guerrillas, rather like 'bandits'.
The Pharisees and armed struggle
However, the real struggle built up from the forties onwards, culminating in the full-scale
national uprising in the sixties. At the same time, the national struggle began to cross-cut
with an increasingly overt class struggle. The traditional ruling class in Judea consisted of
an interlocking bloc formed by large landowners and the hereditary high-priestly families who
controlled the Temple. The Sadducees were members of this bloc. They were challenged as
religious authorities by the Pharisees, who were rigourists, organised on a strict entry basis
into cells, led by scribes, graduates in theology, but also including elements from artisan and
even labouring backgrounds. It was the Pharisees who welded the Jewish nation together into a
religious-political force. Many of the Zealot leaders were Pharisees who had decided to move
into a phase of armed struggle.
The mass of Zealots however, came from the people, from small towns and villages. This
period was one of an overall movement in the countryside towards large estates, throwing small
peasants, many of them in debt, off the land. There were a large number of slaves in Judea at
the time and these made up part of the guerrilla armies. There was also an increasing number of
hired hands, who are often mentioned in parables in the Gospel. The surplus of labour meant
that they were usually employed on a casual basis. There was naturally a drift from the country
into the towns and an increasing amount of employment in small craft industries.
Jesus and the apostles came from artisan families; Jesus was a carpenter, working with
lumber imported from Lebanon and many of the apostles were fishermen, owning their own boats.
We know from other sources that the fishing industry was thriving in Galilee at the time and
there was investment in pickles for use in exporting fish. Jesus did not come from the masses,
who were either living off charity – there was an efficient dole system in operation
– or else were day labourers or slaves. Neither, of course, did he come from the priestly
caste or from a rich business or land-owning background. He was a petit-bourgeois.
Kidnapping and assassination
The ruling class throughout this period became increasingly compromised with the Romans. It
was the Roman Procurator who appointed the High Priest, usually a matter for bribery. In
return, the High Priest acted as a Quisling, maintaining law and order in Jerusalem, a
sensitive area for Romans, with his own Temple police and handing over troublemakers for trial.
Yet at the same time, the Temple and its High Priest were the main symbols of national
consciousness. In the end, class feelings came out into the open. Zealots kidnapped a Temple
official and, like Tupamaros, held him ransom for the release of political prisoners.
Assassination of collaborators was stepped up, until a High Priest was struck down too.
When, in the sixties, resistance gathered momentum, there were particularly troubled
economic circumstances. For years extensions to the Temple had provided employment in Jerusalem
and these suddenly halted. After riots, the programme was set in motion again in the form of
paving the city streets. At the same time, there were complaints that the high-priestly
families, who had equipped themselves with armed gangs, were marauding in the countryside
extorting 'tithes' on which they had no claim. Matters came to a head in 66 AD when, after a
huge tax boycott, the Roman Procurator looted the Temple treasury to make up the deficit. There
was an immediate Zealot uprising. The Roman's main force withdrew and the remnant left behind
were massacred. One of the first acts of the Zealot regime was to destroy the record of debts
– freeing the masses from the grip of moneylenders and landlords. A new High Priest was
elected by lot, which fell to a peasant, an impoverished member of the priestly caste, an act
regarded as outrageous by ruling class opinion.
The left is isolated
During the four years between 66 and 70 AD there was all-out war. A whole Roman
expeditionary force, comprising two legions and several thousand auxiliaries, was wiped out.
The Romans lost over 5,000 infantry and 480 calvary. This victory led to the setting up of a
national Government, representing all aspects of religious opinion, both Sadducees and
Pharisees, and even Essenes, the monastic group who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Zealots
opposed this Government, which they regarded as class-based and potentially collaborationist.
They were quite right.
The Jewish commander in Galilee, Josephus, who was a Pharisee, spent more time harassing the
Zealots than preparing defences against Rome. When the Romans arrived, under Vespasian, he
capitulated on the spot and became an open collaborator. Later he wrote a history of the events
to justify his completely treacherous role. The backbone of resistance was led throughout by
the Zealots who fought to the last in Jerusalem and then in the mountain fortress at Masada.
When the Romans took Jerusalem in 70 AD, under Titus, hundreds of thousands were butchered and
the city levelled. Josephus recounts how at one point the Romans ran out of wood for crosses
and, when they had enough, had to search for empty spaces to put more crosses up in. It is in
this context, that the crucifixion of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels must be seen.
Where did Jesus stand?
It can hardly be believed that he was as oblivious to what was going on around him as the
Gospel writers make out. Roman reprisals must have struck the families of Jews known to him in
the area. One of Jesus's own disciples, one of the Twelve, was Simon the Zealot, who presumably
participated in one of the uprisings.
Reading the Gospels, the picture presented in the main is that of a passive collaborator.
Although Jesus was condemned and executed by Pontius Pilate, every effort is made to clear him
of any real responsibility. Crucifixion was not a Jewish method of execution. It was the Roman
punishment for political crimes. Spartacus was crucified, for instance. Whereas the Jews had
responsibility for ordinary crimes and for religious offences, the political crimes went to
Pilate. Yet the Gospels claim that Pilate washed his hands of the affair, protested Jesus's
innocence, could see no wrong in him and was only pressured into crucifying him by the High
Priest and his lobby.
Jesus himself is represented in a pro-Roman light. For example, he is described as friendly
with tax-collectors and collaborationists. He heals the child of a Roman centurion. He advises,
not simply going along with the authority of Rome under duress, but going twice as far as
required. And, of course, the most important incident recounted concerns the payment of tax.
'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's'. In the Gospels,
this is presented as a particularly cunning reply which outwitted the Pharisees who asked it.
In fact, it is not at all equivocal. It plainly supports the payment of taxes to Rome. The
whole question of taxation was the burning issue of the day. On this issue, Jesus took a
pro-Roman stand and backed the claims of the Imperial power.
Keeping Jesus clear of Judaism
The counterpart of this pro-Roman attitude of the Gospels is the persistent denigration of
the Pharisees. The Zealots, as such, play no part in the Gospel story at all. They are simply
suppressed verbally, as the Romans suppressed them militarily. But the Pharisees are very much
in the forefront. They are used as straw-men who feed Jesus the straight lines which enable him
to score off them. The purpose of this, as far as the Gospels are concerned, is clearly to
distinguish Jesus and the Christian community from the Jews and the Jewish cause. In almost
every case, it is a disagreement with Judaism which is stressed, so that Jesus can be distanced
from his own people. Stories like that of the Good Samaritan are heavily promoted to the same
end.
A number of scholars have tried to rescue Jesus from this Pro-Roman presentation, especially
in recent years when, after Auschwitz and Belsen, commentators on the Gospel have at long last
become sensitive to its anti-Jewish bias. In particular, the episode of Jesus's trial has been
gone over in detail and it has been admitted that Rome and not the High Priest was responsible
for his execution – as a political offender.
Pilate was not a weak administrator who was likely to allow the High Priest's lobby to
pressure him against his better judgement.
Pacifist sentiment
This line of reasoning has led some writers to go as far as claiming that Jesus was actually
pro-Zealot and sympathetic to armed struggle. This interpretation means discounting the great
slabs of pacifist sentiment which fill the Gospels as nothing but post-Fall of Jerusalem PR,
put in by the fawning Evangelists, eager not to rub Rome the wrong way. In contrast, episodes
like driving the money-changers out of the Temple are stressed and the fact that Jesus was
arrested by an armed patrol and one of his disciples drew his sword and resisted arrest.
Indeed, Luke describes how Jesus apparently instructed his disciples to buy swords just before
the arrest, though he quickly adds that two would be enough.
It is certainly true that there are patches of anti-Roman material in the Gospels which may
get closer to the attitude of Jesus, or at least the early followers, than the Gospel writers
do. For example, the story of the Gadarene swine seems to have an anti-imperialist gibe hidden
away in it. Jesus exorcises an evil demon, who is called 'Legion', and the demon then enters a
herd of pigs who plunge over a cliff. The Roman occupation troops were known as 'pigs' by the
Jews, so the moral is pretty clear. But conversely, there is a definite strain of anti-Temple
feeling in a Jesus's preaching. He is critical of a number of Temple institutions, particularly
the financial institutions, and more than once criticises the various ways the Temple made
money: donations, taxes, commercial transactions and so forth.
Above all Jesus did not in any way advocate violent resistance to the Romans, but believed
that it was necessary to undergo a spiritual change in readiness for the coming of the Kingdom.
He conceived of this change in a way which brought him up against the Pharisees, because he was
an anti-traditionalist in his attitude to the Jewish religious Law. Ethically, he was a purist,
but not in a legalistic way. Judging from his numerous parables about vineyards, labourers and
husbandmen, he was fully satisfied with the existing relations of production, including
slavery, and the general economic set-up, though he was distrustful of the rich. He seems to
have felt that the Temple should not be in any way a secular institution, either commercially
or politically.
Jesus not subversive
In itself, there was little that was subversive in Jesus's preaching and, in this sense the
Gospel writers were right to portray him as a passive collaborator. But his fate was sealed
when he began to attract crowds, partly because of his feats of healing, partly because he was
a compelling orator. The Gospels several times tell how he tried to get away from the crowds
and give them the slip, anxious about the outcome, as well he might be.
Pontius Pilate's last official act for example, in 36 AD, only two or three years after
Jesus's execution, was to massacre a crowd of Samaritans who expected a revelation on their
Holy Mountain. Anybody who gathered large crowds was in danger of being halted in their tracks
for political reasons. In Rome the careers of sports and theatre stars were abruptly stopped
when they began to acquire supporters who were too vocal or demonstrative.
Religions of the oppressed
It is quite usual for messianic and prophetic religious movements to spring up in times of
political upheaval. Jesus can be compared with the new movements which sprang up as part of the
response to the advance of European imperialism: Peyotism and Ghost-dancing among the American
Indians, Ringatū among the Maoris, Hòa Hảo in Vietnam. These movements
attempt to break out of the confines of an apparently hopeless historical predicament, by
stressing a glorious other-worldly role for the followers of their prophet. In a time of
political turmoil, they appear dangerous to the authorities, anxious to suppress anything which
might develop into a threat, usually cynical and ignorant, and inclined to err on the side of
ruthlessness rather than mercy. They are put down and, if the circumstances are right, a new
cult based on the prestige of martyrdom springs up.
The man in the middle
The real strength of Jesus's preaching lay in his ability to respond to conflict without
being sucked into it. He was the man in the middle. Not only was he in the middle of a class
conflict but of a national liberation struggle. He was able to find something to say which made
sense to all kinds of people without ever coming down on one side or the other. This still is
his strength. The discontented, the disaffected, the wretched of the earth could respond to
him. So could tax-collectors and Roman soldiers. In part, this was because he chose out of
preference to speak in riddles and parables, to tell stories rather than make statements. But
partly too it was because he had a talent for the ring of truth, for words which sounded right,
which pushed everyone a little bit further together. He walked a verbal tightrope which he wove
as he went along. And he could back it up with a quotation every time. It is precisely because
he had this ability to reconcile conflicting aspirations, that he sometimes seemed subversive.
But in the long run anything that covers over contradictions by appealing to both sides always
favours those in power, and Christianity still does.
First published in the left weekly 7 Days , 22 December 1971. An offshoot of
Black Dwarf , the paper ran from October 1971 to March 1971; it is available at the Amiel
Melburn Trust internet archive under Creative Commons license .
I would'nt have thought that a socialist sympathizer would be an enthusiast for the "level
playing field". The neo-liberal Thatcherite freedoms of the single market have led to much
unemployment in Europe. Freedom of capital and freedom of labour work to the benefit of
transnational corporations and much to the detriment of ordinary working people. Much of the
liberal left in Britain now insists that we must remain locked in to this neo-liberal
straight jacket. https://www.thefullbrexit.com/quit-single-market
@ james | Dec 22 2020 19:58 utc | 80 who wrote
"
@ Maff | Dec 22 2020 16:05 utc | 68.. thanks maff.. i stand corrected... i thought the city
wanted brexit.. it appears that is wrong...
"
Maff qualified their claim with the "almost" adverb "all" and provided no linked backing or
specifying the "corporation, bank, financial institution and media outlet" camps. I still
believe that The City of London Corp wanted Brexit, but silly me, I still think those that
own global private finance run the West/world.
I'd say you're both correct. Several banker types have profited nicely on Brexit so far.
Others clearly have not or stand to lose out. Rees Mogg is an excellent example of the Brexit
disaster capitalist lackey.
For long time I viewed the city as homogeneous, but the last five years have taught me
otherwise.
The question I have is was it always like this (well concealed), or is it another side
effect of the west turning in on itself?
James it was a very large majority that wished to leave.
And this is entirely consistent with the history of the EU and its predecessors (The Common
Market): the Irish also voted to leave, then, after great pressure and an almost unanimous
front including almost all the political parties and fire threats of retribution, the vote
was reversed.
In France and the Netherlands where the EU's neo-liberal constitution was put to a vote it
was defeated in both countries. In this case though, as I recollect, the matter of approving
the Constitution was simply taken out of the electorate's hands. The barely revised rejected
constitution was then approved in the form of a treaty which of course was not put before the
electorate.
The reality is that the EU is both a stalking horse for Washington and a hedge against
democracy. It is a neo-liberal project established to ensure that private property should not
be threatened by a potentially egalitarian electorate. It is essentially anti-democratic a
recreation of the Hapsburg empire complete with parliaments/talking shops without sovereign
power and directed by unelected commissioners.
This month's New Left Review has a marvelous article-some 19000 words long, by Perry
Anderson which reveals the EU's nature in great detail. I gave a link a week or so ago.
The problem with much discussion of this matter is that it is a subject on which a radical
socialist and a conservative banker can both agree that the EU is a bad thing. I, a radical
socialist, because I believe that the state must take control over the commanding heights of
the economy and ensure that such horrors as homelessness and poverty are ended. The
conservative financier because he believes that the City of London, which he and his class
have defended from socialist regulation over the years, ought not to be controlled by
bureaucrats in Brussels or the European Central Bank.
The millions of working class Englishmen and women who voted to leave the EU anticipated
that the procedure of doing so would be orderly, sensible and transparent. They were not
voting for Boris and his banker friends but for a revival of manufacturing, progressive
taxation, nationalised, rather than profit taking, utilities and natural monopolies and a
restoration of trade union and civil rights, the right to strike for example.
The truth is that the world is a very big place and there are plenty of countries who
would eagerly embrace offers from the UK to enter into trade agreements formal or informal:
Venezuela, Cuba and Iran all spring to mind. But Russia and China are also obvious potential
partners. And what such countries have in common is that they would not seek to interfere in
the UK's internal politics and to dictate the limits within which political parties there can
operate. In this they differ from the EU, joined at the hip with NATO which is always under
US command. We have just seen in the surgical defenestration of Jeremy Corbyn and his
replacement by a Zionist member of the Trilateral Commission how the EU/US axis, acting
through the tame media and employing the agency of the swollen security establishment (where
the first loyalty is to the Empire and Washington), arrogates to itself the right to decide
just how far the British people will be allowed to go.
In this matter that means that they will, at a pinch, be allowed to leave the EU but that
the Special Relationship (US Occupation) is sacrosanct and NATO is forever.
That's wishful thinking. While Chinese are making progress, the USA still is the only
technological superpower and can cut oxygen to China companies in one minute.
Increasingly America does not compete with China, but strongarms it because it cannot
compete. For example, in Five G China is ahead in technology, manufacturing capacity, and
turnkey systems. Unable to produce an equivalent product, Washington banned Huawei Five G in
the US and has twisted arms to keep countries that it controls from using Huawei. Seeing that
Huawei had very attractive smartphones that would have competed with Apple, it banned these
also. What America can't do, it seeks to keep anybody else from doing.
WSJ:
"US vs. China in Five G: The Battle Isn't Even Close
HONG KONG -- By most measures, China is no longer just leading the U.S. when it comes to
5G. It is running away with the game. China has more 5G subscribers than the U.S., not just
in total but per capita. It has more 5G smartphones for sale, and at lower prices, and it has
more-widespread 5G coverage. Connections in China are, on average, faster than in the U.S.,
too By year's end, China will have an estimated 690,000 5G base stations -- boxes that blast
5G signals to consumers -- up and running across the country ."
Techies can argue C band versus millimeter waves but I will bet that the Chinese, nothing if
not commercially agile, will have Five G up and running in factories and the IoT and everywhere
else while American pols rattle on about how China is an Existential Threat and the Pentagon
needs more money for Space Command and diversity is more important than schooling anyway.
The shifting balance may already be visible. For example, America used to make superb
aircraft such as the SR-71 and the F-16. Now it has the F-35, an engineering horror. The Boeing
737 MAX, its flagship product, has been grounded internationally because of poor engineering,
second-rate software, and corporate lying about both.
America invented the microcircuit, and once dominated its manufacture. Today, American
companies cannot make the seven nanometer chips now used in high-end telephones, and certainly
not the five nanometer chips now coming online. Neither can China. Both countries buy them from
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC, Interestingly, the Taiwanese are genetically
and culturally Chinese. Washington has strongarmed TSMC into ceasing to sell to Huawei -- the
US still can't make high end chips. Recently it strongarmed TSMC into agreeing to build a
semiconductor fab in Arizona. Because America can't.
Then there is TikTok, a hugely popular Chinese video app that threatened to break America's
lock on social media. Unable to compete, Washington decided simply to confiscate it on grounds
that it might be used to spy on Americans. (Chinese intelligence is deeply interested in your
daughter's video of her cat.)
Parenthetically, technology seems to be shifting toward East Asia, with America being less
ahead in things in which it is ahead and behind in others. Did I mention demographics?
You can't argue with the real engineering going on over there, especially the Civil
Engineering. When you don't have a thousand tax-payer-supported bureaucrats from a hundred
different agencies and even "Non-Governmental Organizations" blocking every thought you have,
it's hard to get things done. There's no doubt that the huge military spending on "democracy
for the world" and the squandering of the huge amount of goodwill and power accumulated at
the end of the Cold War is part of America's problem (thanks NotSoFast). Mr. Reed never
mentioned the increase in regulation and taxation by the Feral Beast that has turned America
into a Can't-Do country.
It's a great photo essay on the amazing engineering advances out of China, but, as usual,
Fred gets major things wrong.
I don't know what the deal is with Mr. Reed's repetitive harping on Americans' concern for
intellectual property rights. The Chinese will do fine without our help now, but it's the
theft of the IP of American engineering that has gotten them this far so fast. Why would you
not be concerned with your ideas being stolen? Not giving your stuff away for free is not the
same as trying to "cripple development. That's water under the bridge now but stupidity by
Mr. Reed nonetheless.
@Beckow
ow quality Indian workers far less interesting to the profiteers that then get the same low
quality code and have to pay white/east Asian male wages.
It's funny how the tech companies are all about diversity until it means higher costs.
It will also be funny when the token blacks people hiring programs by the tech companies
mean that peak-diversity signaling, token hire Jamal realizes he'll be working with nothing
but Indians that hate anyone would who is not brainwashed by Jewish propaganda and speak
nothing but Hindi to each other and whom you can't understand when they actually try to speak
English,
Excellent analysis, entirely plausible. Lacking any survey of broad opinion, I'm apt to
project my own view as Trump's Waterloo: that while the political damage of poorly managing
the pandemic was mostly washed out by the emerging view that the economic damage (including
the rioting) of the severe course favored by the left has been more harmful than the virus, a
decisive fraction of his core demographic nevertheless arrived at the view – despite
the ceaseless scolding insistence of this by much of mainstream media – that their
president is indeed glaringly ill-suited for public office.
Perhaps it is due to living near Philly, but there is always fraud. Democrats are good at
it, and Republican Inc. loves it. Can't have any honest, straight shooter interrupt the long
standing political graft. Of course the Donald isn't really an honest man. Had he kept that
5% of the 2016 white male vote, any cheating would have been impossible. But hey we have
still have Israel first with President Kamala. Whew on that. However I don't look forward to
being uncomfortable in my house due to the Paris Accords mandates.
In defense of Maga, there are so many professional agitators in their ranks besides Qanon.
Call them dumb, but they really desperate for something called hope. Maybe that is the reason
I tend to think Trump was the bait to reel them in for the sporting catch and kill.
@prime
noticer Trump's a business man, not a career politician like Biden or Hillary. The system
wants the latter. Soros funds BLM, antifa, ect. It's safe to say the system was against
Trump. Much of his own party of sellout politicians weren't with him. Trump got through the
cracks once, the deep state wasn't going to let that happen again. To get 8 years in office
you have to be a total puppet. The Bush's, Clinton, and Obama were all hand-picked puppets.
Trump wasn't in the club. Trump as President was an accident they had clean up, even if he
was more than willing to betray the White men that voted him in and submit to the beast.
It is obvious why (((they))) wanted Trumpstein out, Trumpstein, despite being a cuckold to
the Zionist was threatening to bring our brave young men and women home, protect our borders,
and his base was about 98% White at the lowest. And many of those were common everyday
working class Whites, you know, the people who really made America great, the people who
actually grow food, build buildings, work and produce automobiles in factories, drive trucks,
you know jobs that are REAL JOBS, JOBS THAT ACTUALLY PRODUCE SOMETHING.
(((They))) didn't really hate Trump, they hated the typical Trump voter. Actually it has
already been pointed out, Trump did very little for the average White other than give them
hope, he really didn't deliver that much. Trump became uber popular by just giving the people
crumbs, now can you imagine how popular a man or woman will be when they come out of nowhere
and give the people the hundred per cent truth. It will take a fearless man or woman, someone
with nothing left to lose, because that is the way it has always been. I NEVER expected Trump
to do much, after all, this guy is the typical NYC businessman, think of who this guy has had
dealings with in his lifetime, hell, look at his in-laws. For all his, "I am not a
politician" rantings, Trump spent his life around politicians and pictures are all over the
place with Trump & Bill Clinton golfing together, Trump and Ghislane, Trump &
Epstein, Trump with his friend Baby Nut&Yahoo, etc. Sounds like the typical politician to
me. Trump was NEVER a man of the people and it will take a real man of the people to set
things right in America.
@Ano4
emonized, censored, attacked, and even murdered. I am glad to have sat this one out, between
who knows how many men like me and those 5% we brought this supposed contest to a standstill
and caused a nation of cope.
Wignats gave him 2016 and we turned 2020 into a shitshow in answer to his betrayal. Trump
only has himself to blame for doing almost nothing to stop censorship, clean up the FBI/DOJ,
prosecute Antifa, end birthright citizenship, end H1B, so many other opportunities
squandered. Trump supporters should start working toward something productive for their
interests.
Harris/Biden like Trump/Pence are Israel Firsters, so really all this hoopla over a
transition is not really called for when you think about it. Matter of fact, the 1st and 2nd
Amendment will continue to be under attacked just like it was with Trumpstein, now more than
ever. Anti-White racism will continue until Whites start standing up for their rights the
same way as everyone else. Trumpstein was never the savior for America, face it. Maybe things
will become so bad IF Harris/Biden take over that this country and Whites will gain a spine
again. Until then, new boss, same as the old boss, more or less. Still as bad as the Orange
Man was, IF you are "White" and voted for Harris/Biden, you have to be legally retarded.
Thanks to all the WINOs and white traitor trash out there. Brilliant you bunch of
retards.
A nice splash of cold water on the sadly losing side in the 2020 election. What you say is
mostly true. There are some significant points you don't acknowledge, such as the idea that
massive numbers of mailed ballots will certainly result in unauthorized votes being counted.
It's hard to say how many that is, but I suspect, like you, that it can't have made a
difference of hundreds of thousands across all the states necessary for a Trump victory.
Blame the phony virus for most of these results and I insist that shutdown policies have
been a gross overreaction designed to make Trump powerless to campaign.
Finally, one simply has to admit that Trump was unprepared to be an effective President
and never learned how. Saying things that sound populist over and over isn't governing.
We have a nice wall that's 400 miles long down on the Mexican border and that's about it.
At some point in the fast approaching future, it will have a plaque on it saying, "I am
Ozymandias Trump. Look on all that I survey."
Well?
What kind of pathetic miserable 17 intelligence agencies, with support of democratic party
and Judenpresse would be , if they would not be able to fix the election such way that their
mischief cannot be found. And on top of it Covid with mail in voting was a surefire help.
.
But than you sleep in the bed you make.
Very misleading and dis-informative post. It ignores the Democrats' history of fraudulent
elections and manipulation of Americans. From the beginning and before the elections, the
Democrats said that they will do everything to remove Trump from the White House, by violence
if necessary.
In reality, the only times the Democrats won fair elections were by JFK and Obama recently.
The reasons were because of the efficient and highly successful advertising campaigns
(propaganda) to manipulate Americans. In fact, Obama won a prize for his efficient
advertising campaign to con Americans and "win" the elections. He was far more criminal than
his predecessors.
Like the petrodollars, WTO better known as globalization, was formed in 1995 after the
fall of Eastern blocks ,to dominate and control the world trade in US fiat currency specially
when China with her cheap skilled labor was to become major world manufacturers of goods.
Basically like oil America agreed not to impose tariff on goods they consumed if you trade
and exported on their fiat currency which costed US nothing to produce. Obviously unlike oil
trade this globalization of trade in US dollar could not work, since unlike oil trade America
couldn't politically dominated and control the good manufacturing countries, like it could,
with small oil producing countries. The period of free trade in goods and energy is coming to
an end, therefore US needs to lower her standards of living, or to go to major wars with
other resources hungry powers to continue colonizing the third world resources and labor.
Either way the end result will be the sam as for, not so Great Britain, ottomans, Spanish,
Persian empires, the only obvious difference shorter empire.
I guess it's mission accomplished. Trump can loosen his witch hunt of Huawei and end the
tech/trade war now. Or maybe he won't. Maybe the eventual goal is still the toppling of a
government that the Chosenites have no hand in electing through "democracy".
Meanwhile, I'm sure more corrupt CCP elites will take full advantage of the selling out of
their country, sleep(invest) with the enemy, get rich/richer, emigrate to the US, push their
kids into our elite high schools and colleges, and turn us more and more like the
dog-eat-dog, corrupt hellhole from whence they came.
So much for a government that looks out for its people. The CCP is as self-serving as the
US Congress critters or the EU. The only difference is they don't need the charade of
elections to install themselves in power.
@vk #110
You do realize that H1B is literal indentured servitude, right?
And that its purpose is nothing more than cheap(er) labor for the tech companies?
I know many people on H1B, as well as several people who specialize in H1B "hiring".
The good news: many of these people are smart and capable.
The bad news: they're stuck at the companies they start at for 7 years or more - and are paid
significantly (20% to 50%) under "market". If they leave, their green card process starts
anew even assuming they find another H1B sponsor.
More bad news: there are also a significant number of "body shops" who do nothing but enter
the lottery for H1B visas, then auction off the "wins" to the tech companies. The H1B people
in these situations are far worse off because they work for the "body shop", not the tech
company.
Most importantly: H1B, even at its peak, brought in less than 200K people (188K by law).
In comparison: in 2017 - legal immigration was
Family and Immediate Relatives: 748,746
Employment: 137,855
Refugees and Asylees: 146,003
Diversity and Other: 94,563
Total Visas Issued: 1,127,167
Over 1.1 million people came in legally without the H1B.
" A US District judge has made an 11th hour intervention to block a federal government
order prohibiting downloads of TikTok from app stores by American users.
US District Judge Carl Nichols issued a preliminary injunction, which would allow the
popular app to still be on offer in Apple and Google stores, shortly before the ban was
supposed to come into force on Sunday midnight. Earlier in the day, Nichols allowed a
90-minute hearing, where a lawyer representing TikTok made the case for it remaining
available to users in the US.
Last week, a judge in California blocked a similar order ousting the WeChat app from
American stores hours before it was supposed to take effect."
What a bummer. Looks like your neocon handlers took a couple of hits, whitney. No doubt
those judges were agents of The B.L.M.
It was a week ago that Beijing made clear it won't be signing off on the messy and mired in
confusion proposed Oracle-TikTok deal, citing that it would harm its "national security
interests," which is exactly the same reason given by Trump for trying to shut TikTok down in
the first place.
China's state-run Global Times is out with a new editorial Saturday indicating that Beijing
will stick to protecting TikTok "at all costs" . The theme of "compromised" national security
is still being presented as the crux of the matter.
" China is prepared to prevent Chinese firm TikTok and its advanced technologies from
falling into US hands at all cost ," Global Times introduces.
This even if that should mean the hugely popular app "risks being shut
down in the US, because allowing the US to seize the firm and its technology will not only set
a dangerous precedent for other Chinese firms, but also pose a direct threat to China's
national security , Chinese experts said on Saturday, a day ahead of a court battle in the US
over a ban of the app."
Again, interestingly this seems to be the mirror image argument the Trump administration has
harped on for much of the past year, especially on Huawei. GT's argument continues:
More importantly, for Beijing, the case goes way beyond just a mafia-style robbery of a
lucrative Chinese business and cutting-edge technologies , but a threat to its national
security, because the US could find loopholes in those technologies to launch cyber and other
attacks on China and other countries to preserve its hegemony, the experts added.
Voicing the communist government's rationale further, GT cites an expert at the China
Electronics Standardization Institute Liu Chang, who says "What the US wants, we definitely
cannot give."
https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"From the perspective of both the company and the Chinese government, this cannot be allowed
to happen ," he said. y_arrow 1 Pliskin , 18 hours ago
American Pirates looking for more stuff to steal..no surprises there!
Go and make your own stuff，piss-ant Yanks!
...And get the message into your thick skulls，the whole World hates you!
Srbutterfly , 13 hours ago
Except for Israel.
TheRapture , 19 hours ago
The USA has abandoned Ronald Reagan and free trade, and morphed into an incompetent rogue
state that behaves like the Mafia. Tik Tok, Huawei, etc. The U.S. can't compete fairly, so it
cheats, steals and launches "regime-change" wars.
R.I.P, America.
LEEPERMAX , 20 hours ago
The CCP is nothing but A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION with that pompous clown Xi JinPig as their
despicable ringleader.
Criminals, all of them.
HoyeruNew , 18 hours ago
its called projection.
Srbutterfly , 13 hours ago
The ccp is an extension of the imperial system, they are no better off than when the
emperors were calling the shots.
kleptomistic , 19 hours ago
TikTok is "cutting edge technology"? Exactly what is this app capable of? It must really
be something since it's worth billions and everyone is fighting over it.
kleptomistic , 19 hours ago
Installing TikTok is literally like handing your phone to the CCP.
You give them total control of your phone...to listen/watch...to track you...to upload
your address book so they know everyone you know...you also allow them to upload stuff to
your phone.
HoyeruNew , 18 hours ago
prove it. BTW< I hear USA is STILL looking for Saddam's weapons of mass
distraction.
Suey Cidal , 18 hours ago
It is valuable as a distraction, keeping the sheep believing the lie that China and USA
are independent countries and that they are not both owned by the same rich fuktards.
Yen Cross , 18 hours ago
Lets look realistically at the situation. China is not cheap for manufacturing, has zero
interest honoring 'favored nation' trade status, and is definitely NOT a developing third
world country.
The Chinese love to gamble, yet call themselves, "long game" players?
Tic Tok is a fad. Just an information gathering scheme.
Ex-Kalifornian , 12 hours ago
Our society would be better off if we had no social media, so just ban it and make
everyone that more productive.....
halcyon , 15 hours ago
Good for them
**** Silicon Valley/NSA spy monopoly.
At least this way we'll have a spy duopoly, with one of them free of Israel's UNIT 8200
backdoor crap, and we can make them compete against each other.
Monopoly and no choice is the worst possible choice.
The president is not an evangelical Christian; he's not Catholic. Unlike the previous
national Republican standard-bearer, he is not a Latter Day Saint. And despite unassailable
status as a Vladimir Putin puppet, he's interestingly not joined the Orthodox Church, which the
Russian strongman has in some ways empowered. When Donald Trump speaks about his
Presbyterianism, he speaks about it as I do: awkwardly, as an exoticism from America's mainline
past.
"I'm a Protestant, I'm a Presbyterian," Trump said in June 2015, the day after descending
the escalator in Manhattan. There are entertaining reads of Trump as a sort of lunatic
optimist, owing to a childhood association with the Americana positive thinker Norman Vincent
Peale -- that he is a devotee of something akin to the "The Secret," (released back when
the future president was hawking Trump Vodka). But one look at the commander-in-chief's acerbic
Twitter feed tells us if he is an insistent positive thinker, he's a hidden one.
The status of America's Christians as obvious rubes has been a familiar refrain of the Trump
presidency. It is as it was then, if with a different flavor, during the last Republican White
House. But now they're being outright had, so goes the thinking. Unlike with the born-again,
younger Bush, the Religious Right's embrace of Trump -- a divorcee egoist who shares beds with
adult film stars -- should tell you all you need to know. In many cases, goes the argument, it
tells you a story of an immoral minority, if the
debacle at Liberty University this summer is any indication, and as traditional
Christianity is ever more sidelined from culture. This is the death rattle.
So you'll have to forgive convinced Christians their jubilation on Saturday as Trump
nominates his third Supreme Court justice in three-and-a-half years. It's already more than
George W. Bush did in two terms, ditto his father, and if the White House and Republicans are
successful in the Senate -- as looks likely -- Trump will instantly surpass both Bill Clinton
and Barack Obama in his impact on the Court. You'll have to pardon the country's dumb set for
thinking to themselves maybe, just maybe they made the right bet four years ago.
My sources in the capital are unanimous: President Donald Trump is likely to name Amy Coney
Barrett, 48, to the Supreme Court on Saturday. She is from Louisiana; she went to Notre Dame
Law; she is a favorite of American Catholics; she is the mother of seven children. She's poised
to succeed the woman she replaces,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg , in icon status, just for the other side.
I like how everyone who writes about Trump feels the urge to proclaim they're morally
superior to him. To idiots like Mills, adultery is a bigger moral sin than killing thousands
of people in wars that are based on lies, which is why the "born again Christian" George
Dubya Bush is morally superior to Trump in their eyes despite Bush's obvious war crimes.
"The status of America's Christians as obvious rubes has been a familiar refrain of the
Trump presidency."
"so you'll have to forgive convinced Christians their jubilation"
No matter how many times ya'll claim it, "Christian" is not synonymous with "Trump
Supporter". Many, many Christians are against Trump. The existence of the Black church alone
should be enough to disabuse even the most unobservant pundit of the idea that to be a
Christian is to be a Republican. We are Christians too, which is why we are not Trump
supporters.
I tend to think conservative Christians will once again be disappointed with the Court.
Ms. Barrett has said repeatedly that her religious beliefs have no influence on her
interpretation and understanding of the law and the Supreme Court's role in it. Overturning
Roe v Wade, an almost 50 year old decision at this point, is extremely unlikely regardless of
who is on the Court.
While I would like to see it overturned myself and returned to state jurisdictions, I just
don't see how that can happen at this point.
Tom Fowdy is a British writer and analyst of politics and international relations
with a primary focus on East Asia. The battle over TikTok is all because the US finds the idea
of a Chinese social media app gaining global acclaim as intolerable and a threat to its own
monopolies in Silicon Valley.
Did I miss the announcement that The Apprentice has got a new episode out? You know,
the one where Donald Trump shouts " You're fired! " to TikTok's owners in Beijing? Oh,
wait, that's not a reality TV show – it is reality. At least in his mind.
Were it not so serious, you would have to laugh at this week's flip-flopping antics of the
former TV show host turned president of the USA.
On Sunday, he stated he was giving his " blessing " to a deal between US giants
Oracle and Walmart and ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese owner. ' TikTok-Oracle Deal Wins Trump's
Approval ,' read
the headline on Bloomberg.
By Monday, he had made a U-turn, demanding that the Chinese firm cede control of its US
operations completely, or he would ban the popular platform. ' Trump Says ByteDance Can't
Keep Control of TikTok in Oracle Deal ,'
said Bloomberg.
Initially, the deal reported by the media involved the two US companies taking a 20 percent
stake in the creation of a new venture, TikTok Global, which would see its data managed by the
American stakeholders. But now the White House has seemingly reverted to its old position of
demanding that ByteDance, or as it puts it, " China ," cedes " complete control" of
the application in the US, including the handover of its technology and algorithm. Under the
headline 'Say 'No!' to US robbery of Tik Tok,' China's Global Times stated the country will
"not accept an unequal treaty that targets Chinese companies. "
Trump's actions concerning this app, irrespective of the eventual outcome, should be
understood not as legitimate " national security concerns, " but a clear attempt to
subjugate and humiliate China for his own political and electoral gain, as well as to maintain
American primacy over technology and global social media.
His approach has been infused with his classical ' Art of the Deal ' approach so
beloved of fans of The Apprentice . It essentially involves pushing a given target to
the brink in an attempt to extort an outcome on terms favorable to him. Beijing, however, sees
painful historical parallels in Trump's conduct, and is prepared to rise to the
challenge.
There is a period in China's history, roughly dating from 1830 to the 1950s, which is
popularly referred to as the " century of humiliation. " It describes an era when the
country was subjugated to political and economic exploitation by Western powers and forced to
accept agreements on unequal terms, particularly by Britain, France, Germany and Japan, amongst
others.
The era is commonly defined to have begun with the commencement of the opium wars, whereby
the British Empire waged war against the Qing Dynasty in order to open up its markets by force
to export opium, resulting in the Treaty of Nanking, which forced China to accept British
demands and the subsequent annexation of Hong Kong.
The legacy of the century of humiliation has a deep influence on how China perceives its
relations with the rest of the world today, particularly the West. To Beijing, the Trump
administration has sought to forcefully confront and contain China on multiple fronts,
especially in the field of technology and trade, in ways reminiscent of the bad old days.
The US evidently does not accept China on equal terms, and once having believed trade and
engagement would " reform " the country towards America's image and preferences, the
impetus has now shifted to Washington attempting to stifle the country's rise and force changes
to its political-economic system.
This is where TikTok comes into the picture. The claim that the popular video application is
a threat to US national security should not be taken seriously – it's a platform used by
young people to post videos, mostly of them doing silly dances.
Washington has a way of whipping up fear and hysteria in order to manufacture consent for
its aggressive foreign policies. There is no serious evidence TikTok has engaged in any
wrongdoing. Instead the impetus is geopolitical: the US finds the idea of a Chinese social
media application gaining global acclaim as intolerable and a threat to its own monopolies in
Silicon Valley. The Trump administration's response to any Chinese initiative which challenges
or outgrows US capabilities is simply to attempt to crush it by coercive force.
In this case, however, an outright ban on an application as popular as TikTok (it has around
80 million users in the US) would be politically damaging for Trump. Which is why he has sought
to utilize state force with the view to extorting the app into American ownership. The fact
that the proposed venture is called TikTok Global is an obvious indicator that the new "
US " version of the platform would quickly aim to compete with and make obsolete
ByteDance's market in the rest of the world.
Little wonder then that, in line with the rest of the administration's policies, China
perceives the attempt by Trump to extort TikTok as an attempt to start a new century of
humiliation. Their judgement is correct. Once again, a Western power believes that China ought
only to exist on terms which are tolerable to the West, and that the way to "handle" the
country involves attempting to subjugate it into accepting unequal agreements.
But this is 2020, not 1920. China will no longer be treated in this way or approve any deal
which extorts ByteDance's business. Beijing would rather see TikTok banned in America than have
it stolen from them through Trumpian coercion.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
In what is perhaps the most compelling sign yet that Beijing has put the kibosh on the
Oracle-TikTok deal, the Global Times on Tuesday published a scathing editorial attacking
President Trump for attempting a "robbery" of TikTok and violate China's "dignity."
The paper's editorial writers echoed claims made in an editorial published more than six
weeks ago by
the People's Daily - that Beijing would never tolerate Trump transferring majority
ownership of TikTok to the US. Furthermore, as
Kyle Bass explained earlier, anything that would require the company to fork over its
content-recommendation algorithm is an instant deal breaker. Beijing has previously said it
would rather shut down TikTok US than hand the business to the Americans.
Writers explained that by turning over source code from TikTok to Oracle, Americans would
also gain insight into the operations of Douyin, TikTok's counterpart built for the Chinese
market (which, remember, runs on an entirely separate, cordoned-off internet).
Throwing Trump's words back in his face, the writers insisted Beijing didn't appreciate the
president's characterization that the new TikTok would have "nothing" to do with China.
Because even more than money, China must have the credit. Like
Bass explained, the CCP is fighting a narrative war against the US.
And in case the point wasn't clear, the Global Times editor, Hu Xijin, drives it home with a
tweet.
It was reported Sunday, Beijing time, that US President Donald Trump approved a deal in
principle between TikTok's parent company ByteDance, and Oracle and Walmart. The main content
of the deal was later disclosed. From the information provided by the US, the deal was unfair.
It caters to the unreasonable demands of Washington. It's hard for us to believe that Beijing
will approve such an agreement.
Although people can have various interpretations, some articles in the agreement show what
the problems are.
For instance, American citizens will take up four of the five board seats for TikTok Global
and only one can be Chinese. The board of TikTok Global would include a national security
director, who will have to be approved by the US.
Oracle will have the authority to check the source code of TikTok USA and updates. As the
TikTok and Douyin should have the same source code , this means the US can get to know the
operations of Douyin, t he Chinese version of TikTok.
TikTok Global will control the business of TikTok around the world except China. It will
block IP from the Chinese mainland to access it. This means the Americans can take control of
the global business of TikTok and reject Chinese to access it.
It is clear that these articles extensively show Washington's bullying style and hooligan
logic. They hurt China's national security, interests and dignity. ByteDance is an ordinary
company in China. The US suppresses it with all its national strength and forces it to sign a
deal under coercion. China, also a major country, will not yield to US intimidation and will
not accept an unequal treaty that targets Chinese companies.
When Trump said he had approved the new TikTok deal, he noted the new company would have
"nothing to do" with China and would be fully controlled by the US. On Monday, he said Oracle
and Walmart would have total control of the service; otherwise, "we're not going to approve the
deal."
It seems this is not his campaign language, but the Trump administration's real attitude
toward restructuring TikTok. Washington is way too confident and has underestimated China's
determination to defend its basic rights and dignity.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The US is a big market. If the reorganization of TikTok under US manipulation becomes a
model, it means once any successful Chinese company expands its business to the US and becomes
competitive, it will be targeted by the US and turned into a US-controlled company via trickery
and coercion, which eventually serves only US interests.
If China surrenders, which country in the world can resist? The US encirclement of TikTok
and the global huntdown of Huawei are stifling the hopes of high-tech companies around the
world for having world-class technologies and independent development. Once Washington
succeeds, the US will enjoy global technological hegemony forever.
China will not accept this kind of bullying arrangement of the US. The US is taking
discriminatory action to squeeze TikTok. In an era when countries have concerns about network
data security, US internet giants set up branches around the world. But does any one of them
hand over its control to companies of the host country? Which company's board members must be
approved by the government of the host country?
Washington's huntdown on TikTok is creating problems for US internet companies worldwide.
With cyber security increasingly becoming a common issue, there must be countries that will
imitate the US to take action against American companies. The precedent set by the US will
eventually hurt its own companies.
Issues concerning global internet data security should be addressed in a fair, reasonable
and effective manner. China has put forward an eight-point proposal for this. The US seeks its
own interests in a hegemonic way, and attempts to maintain its technological hegemony under the
guise of cyber security. This cannot be accepted by international society, including China.
It's hoped the US returns to globalization from "America First," and retake the universal
commercial values that will not only benefit itself but also others.
Starting Sunday, downloads of the massively popular video app TikTok and the messaging app
WeChat will be banned in the United States, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced Friday
morning.
The department said in a statement that the move was necessary to "safeguard the national
security of the United States."
President Donald Trump issued twin executive orders in August, saying the apps would shut
down by Sept. 20 if they were not sold to U.S. owners. The admin claimed the Chinese Communist
Party was using data collected through these apps to "threaten the national security, foreign
policy and the economy of the U.S."
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in an interview on Fox Business News Friday morning that
these new rules announced this morning were in connection with the executive orders issued in
August and are "separate" from the ongoing negotiations between TikTok and tentative U.S.
buyers including Oracle and Walmart.
Ross said that "for all practical purposes" WeChat will be shut down in the U.S. as of
midnight Monday with the new Commerce Department ruling.
MORE: For Chinese Americans, WeChat ban threatens to upend business and community "TikTok is
more complicated," Ross added, saying that essentially a deadline for a deal with a U.S. buyer
has been extended until Nov. 12. In the meantime, updates will be barred in the app.
"Basic TikTok will stay intact until November 12," he said. "If there is not a deal by
November 12 under the provisions of the old order then TikTok also will be, for all practical
purposes, shut down."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo separately weighed in on the news while traveling in Guyana
on Friday.
White House counselor Stephen Miller and CNN's Jim Acosta clash at the Wednesday press
briefing focused on the administration's new immigration proposal:
A little over a week ago, we shared how President Trump's decision to expand the scope of
his crackdown on Chinese tech firms to include WeChat, Tencent's ubiquitous platform for
everything from payments, to messaging to e-commerce sent a wave of panic through American
multinationals like Apple who depend on the Chinese market for growth, and feared being
essentially shut out due to an oversight by the administration.
The backlash has been just as intense as could be expected. In
a quintuple-byline story published Friday afternoon, Bloomberg reported that an army of
corporate lobbyists are working with Team Trump to try and find a way to restrict WeChat's use
in the US without hamstringing every American company that depends on the app to connect with
Chinese consumers.
According to sources from within the West Wing, the administration is still "working through
the technicals" of how they're going to restrict WeChat in the US while allowing American
companies to liaise with it in foreign markets.
The Trump administration is signaling that U.S. companies can continue to use the WeChat
messaging app in China, according to several people familiar with the matter, two weeks after
President Donald Trump ordered a U.S. ban on the Chinese-owned service.
The administration is still working through the technical implications of how to enforce
such a partial ban on the app , which is owned by Tencent Holdings Ltd., one of China's
biggest companies. A key question is whether the White House would allow Apple Inc. and
Alphabet Inc.'s Google to carry the app in its global app stores outside of the U.S.,
according to the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Over the past week, lobbyists went into "overdrive" and started harassing White House and
Commerce Department staffers about Trump's order, and the "logistics and intention of the
WeChat executive order." Now they're pushing to "narrow" the scope of the looming ban.
"We are talking to everyone who will listen to us," said Craig Allen, president of the
US-China Business Council, whose group represents companies including Walmart Inc. and General
Motors Co. "WeChat is a little like electricity. You use it everywhere" in China, Allen
said.
Sign in to comment Viewing Options arrow_drop_down
All Comments 18
YesWeKahn , 3 hours ago
Wechat is just junk, people used to do a lot more business in china without it, I think
these tech firms are bought by the ccp
aberfoyle_crumplehausen , 1 hour ago
America is turning Fascist under Trump right in front of our eyes. Fascism: merging of
State and Corporates. Full stop. You can't argue this, don't even try.
LetThemEatRand , 3 hours ago
Big tech depends on a communist country for growth. Let that sink in.
hoytmonger , 2 hours ago
A communist country is better at business than the US.
Let that sink in.
holyvanguard , 3 hours ago
Xi and Trump should stage a photograph to reinact a classic Winne the Pooh scene.
NIRP_BTFD , 3 hours ago
Riddle me this. How the hell does the USA want to ban apps? I can install every possible
apk on my device. If google takes apps out of their store i just install them with an
alternative app store or just download them somewhere else.
inhibi , 3 hours ago
That's you and me and the few tech minded folks out there.
99% of the users get what the store bought phone gives them. This is just trying to rattle
China's market.
Lets be honest: the real issue, as you have touched upon, is the complete monopoly of OS
and app stores by Google and Apple.
philipat , 2 hours ago
You expect Gubmin to understand that?
Or that these things work both ways and China will surely tit-for-tat with restrictions on
US Companies, probably starting with Apple?
Still, there's an election coming.............
HedgeJunkie , 3 hours ago
**** 'em all, ban it totally, let their vastly inflated values inflate more.
cr1stal , 3 hours ago
you have no idea how globalism works. they dont go oh i have 1000 billion so ill let a few
beady eyed devil worshippers who just dropped out of harvard cooking school accrue a few
hundred million. a disruptive autistic clown is about as welcome as he would be in the opium
fields of the golden triangle
BeePee , 3 hours ago
This is what I will miss about the exiting of the Trump administration. Standing up to CCP
China.
After Biden's inauguration, all this will roll back, money goes into Hunter Biden's
account. China will roll over us. Yes, there will be some agreements, none of which will be
honored by CCP China.
Kamala will be jocking one of the young male interns at the VP mansion. Apparently she is
very adept at penis stimulation.
I guess we'll get what we want, or at least deserve. Trans bathrooms everywhere. There are
no longer male or female identities. To heck with science, sexuality and gender is just a
perspective. Crime really doesn't go up if you don't consider it a crime.
DeathMerchant , 14 minutes ago
Who gives a rats about Chinese consumers ?? Lobbyists should not even be permitted to be
in or communicate with anyone in DC.
Experts familiar with law enforcement requests say that what TikTok collects and hands over
is not significantly more than what companies like Amazon, Facebook, or Google regularly
provide, but that's because U.S. tech companies collect and hand over a lot of information.
The documents also reveal that two representatives with bytedance.com email addresses
registered on the website of the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, a fusion
center that covers the Silicon Valley area.
And they show that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland
Security actively monitored TikTok for signs of unrest during the George Floyd
protests.
The number of requests for subscriber information that TikTok says it receives from law
enforcement is significantly lower than what U.S. tech giants reportedly field, likely
because police are more accustomed to using data from U.S. companies and apps in
investigations. TikTok enumerates its requests from law enforcement in a biannual
transparency report, the most recent of which says that for the last half of 2019, the
company received 100 requests covering 107 accounts. It handed over information in 82
percent of cases. Facebook, by contrast, says it received a whopping 51,121 requests over
the same period, and handed over at least some data in 88 percent of cases.
That last sentence... That's *why* Facebook exists. As does Google and Twitter and the
rest of the social media giants.
Home / Articles / Economy
/ All About The Chips: Taiwan Is Next Battleground For Trade Fight ECONOMY , WORLDAll
About The Chips: Taiwan Is Next Battleground For Trade Fight
The media likes to dabble in war-game fantasies between the 21st-century great powers China
and the U.S., but it's a distraction from the hybrid economic warfare that is underway -- from
Trump's tariff hikes to the shores of the advanced economy.
Here in a nutshell is the problem facing the United States. The country that used to be a
world leader in all forms of high tech, especially semiconductor chips, now spends its time
redesigning chocolate chips. By contrast, Taiwan, officially a "rogue province of China,"
but in reality operating as an independent nation of 23 million people, ranked 20th as a
world economy (right behind Switzerland), is now a leading global player in the production of
semiconductor chips. As such it has emerged as the key supply link to a multiplicity of
American and Chinese high-tech companies at a time when the Trump administration is working
hard to cut China's access to Taiwan's semiconductors.
For all of China's significant technological advancements, the country still lags in the
production of semiconductor chips.
Memory chips are principally made by Samsung, SK Hynix (South Korea), and Micron (USA).
Intel also makes some memory chips for its own use. Memory chips are a big issue for China.
Beijing has deployed considerable fiscal resources into producing them and last year set a goal
of producing 5 percent
of the world's total production by the end of 2020.
That's ambitious. It's one thing to produce memory chips, another to get a usable "yield,"
i.e., the percentage of output that actually works. It is a singularly challenging industry in
which to attain industrial self-sufficiency.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) is a "
fabless chip maker " that produces customized semiconductor chips for use in various types
of electronics, such as digital cameras, smartphones, and the new technologically sophisticated
"smart" cars. They also produce chips for the military, and for 5G base stations. China's
leading telecom equipment manufacturer, Huawei, was a large customer, but the Trump
administration has now
mandated that all semiconductor chip manufacturers using U.S. equipment, IP, or design
software will require a license before shipping to Huawei, which has forced TSMC to stop taking
fresh orders from Huawei, as it uses U.S. equipment in its own manufacturing processes,
such as LAM research and Applied Materials.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.400.1_en.html#goog_567409621 Ad ends in 44s
Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family
Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
The wisdom of so many companies relying on manufacturing facilities located in Taiwan is
debatable. Intel and Micron locate fabs around the world, in part to diversify risk
(earthquake, weather, politics) and to access skilled labor pools. Intel has long had
production facilities in Ireland, Israel, and China itself; it has also purchased Israeli
companies for their research and development. But it also has retained significant production
facilities still in the United States. Similarly, Micron has fabs in Boise Idaho, Utah, and
Manassas, Virginia (right near the CIA and Pentagon.)
TSMC is important because it is pretty much the only place to get processor chips
fabricated, unless you're Intel. In that regard, Intel's recent 2nd quarter
earnings announcement that its planned launch of the company's next generation of chips
will be delayed by six months is most concerning. News of the production delay (which now
pushes the production of the company's latest central processing unit (CPU) -- aka the "brains"
of the laptop -- out to early 2023) generated considerable market anxiety, as evidenced by the
17 percent fall in the share price in the wake of the disclosure. From a long-term perspective,
however, the more alarming aspect is Intel's decision to consider
outsourcing its manufacturing capacity, a sharp break from the company's historic practice.
Intel has been one of the few leading American high-tech companies that has hitherto largely
resisted the panacea of offshoring its production. Much of this is a product of the corporate
culture established by former CEO Andy Grove, who had warned that Silicon Valley risked
"squandering its competitive edge in innovation by failing to propel strong job growth in the
United States," according to a New York Times op-ed by Teresa Tritch written shortly after his
death. Tritch explains
that:
in [Grove's] view, those lower Asian costs masked the high price of offshoring as measured
by lost jobs and lost expertise
Mr. Grove contrasted the start-up phase of a business, when uses for new technologies are
identified, with the scale-up phase, when technology goes from prototype to mass production.
Both are important. But only scale-up is an engine for job growth -- and scale-up, in
general, no longer occurs in the United States. "Without scaling," he wrote, "we don't just
lose jobs -- we lose our hold on new technologies" and "ultimately damage our capacity to
innovate."
Intel's decision comes at a time when American policymakers are finally beginning to
appreciate the adverse economic and strategic consequences of such moves. Were Intel to
follow through on its outsourcing threat, it too would further exacerbate America's strategic
reliance on Taiwan for customized semiconductor manufacturing, as well as undermining the
impact of recent legislative attempts to
rebuild the country's semiconductor manufacturing capacity.
By contrast, economic competition that degenerates into out-and-out war would be a disaster
for all sides. As David Arase, resident professor of International Politics at the
Hopkins-Nanjing Center of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International
Studies, recently contended in
the Asia Times, "Even an unsuccessful invasion of Taiwan would cause a supply chain
disruption." By the same token, actively upgrading
diplomatic relations with Taiwan to something akin to the old
mutual defense treaty that existed prior to Washington's recognition of Beijing in 1979 as
the one sovereign government representing China, would almost certainly provoke a more
aggressive response from Beijing.
U.S. goals should be far more modest: not to underwrite the freedom aspirations of another
country (even a vibrant multi-party democracy such as Taiwan) but, rather, to fix a key
vulnerability in the global supply chain that currently renders the U.S. so reliant on Taiwan.
Even TSMC has implicitly acknowledged its own geographical shortcomings, as it has recently
announced plans to build a new $12 billion chip manufacturing facility in Arizona. Consider
this a form of political risk insurance.
A full-scale defense of Taiwan would cost thousands of lives, and potentially entrench the
U.S. military in a long-term quagmire; it would also represent a logistical nightmare in terms
of supplying such a force over so many thousands of miles (versus an opposing Chinese army a
mere
100 miles away .) To say nothing of the risks posed to numerous substantial American
multinationals already operating in China.
A key conceptual problem that our policymakers and business leaders have today is an
addiction to 19th-century concepts that are anomalous in the context of a 21st-century economy.
David Ricardo's " comparative advantage " --
that "refers to an economy's ability to produce goods and services at a lower opportunity cost
than that of trade partners" -- has less relevance at a time when such advantage can be largely
created as a byproduct of state policy. Countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, and now China
itself, can dominate targeted industries by subsidizing them aggressively. Because of
increasing returns to scale, there is a winner-take-all pattern in which, at any given time,
one nation tends to dominate a huge global market share of the underlying product -- since the
1970s, Japan, South Korea and China in that order. It also creates huge employment
opportunities in high-quality jobs for the countries as they scale up production. This was also
a key insight of Andy Grove .
None of these countries had a natural "comparative advantage" in semiconductor production;
they just followed the
classic pattern of subsidizing their growth via substantial government support,
relentlessly driving down cost inputs to push other marginal manufacturers out of the
industry.
The incessant focus on market share usually comes at a cost of short-term profitability (a
no-no for Wall Street, which focuses on quarterly earnings as intently as an audience waiting
for the white smoke to emerge from a papal election). However, businesses usually recoup these
costs later once they've established dominant market share.
Semiconductors are a high value-added manufacturing platform industry that has a significant
multiplier effect on the domestic economy. It represents an area that should be prioritized by
the U.S., not de-emphasized (as Intel's proposed move threatens to do). The road back to
manufacturing relevance is a long one, but the perpetuation of the current policy risks
exacerbating longstanding pathologies in the U.S. economy, while simultaneously creating new
national security vulnerabilities.
Taiwan is a vibrant multiparty democracy that constitutes a model of economic development.
But those virtues could be threatened if we try, shortsightedly, to turn it into a U.S.
protectorate to address problems that should be resolved much closer to home.
Marshall Auerback is a market analyst and contributor to the Independent Media
Institute .
TSMC's Arizona fab is tiny compared to its 12 Taiwan ones, and more of a sop to the Trump
administration than a serious effort to diversify. The jugular vein of the semiconductor
industry is within easy reach of China's missile arsenal, and indeed the Chinese military can
be said to have been designed specifically for the task of retaking Taiwan.
China might not even need to invade. If they blockade Taiwan--air and sea--and threaten to
destroy ships and aircraft trying to enter or leave Taiwan, they can stop chip export.
It's similar to Iran saying, "Either everybody can export oil from the Gulf or no one
can." China would say, "Either everyone can import chips from Taiwan or no one can. And China
is in a much better position to enforce its will than Iran.
The reaction to Auberback's refutation of comparative advantage would be extreme depending
on who was reacting. The field of economics is like a cult, with a lot of groupthink and
academic homogeneity. In this way failed consensuses are continued and alternatives, even if
they have a good historical track record, are railed against as heterodox and fringe.
Its amazing how in just two or three decades we forgot about basically all of US economic
history and policy history up to that point.
I completely agree that a supply chains including those for memory chips in Taiwan must be
diversified but it is of paramount importance that Taiwan not be left weakened and vulnerable
to mainland China by these shifting supply chains because any weakness in Taiwan will be an
invitation for Beijing to exploit...and if Beijing exploits that invitation then they could
take that invitation all the way to an invasion which will be a detriment of all other
nations in the Pacific. Right now China is focused on Hong Kong, Taiwan and India....with
Hong Kong and Taiwan gone the China will push its aggressive hegemony to Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippines, etc.
I also complete agree that we (the US, Japan and any other asian nation that will join)
need a treaty protecting Taiwan's independence from mainland China but the very first thing
the US should do prior to such a new treaty is to get other nations to start using the name
Taiwan again on their maps, plane flights, UN, etc because as you know Beijing has been doing
everything possible to not just get nations and businesses to stop recognizing Taiwan and to
even stop using its name in an attempt to erase both the existence of Taiwan and any
distinction that Taiwan is separate from mainland China. The recognition of Taiwan and the
use of its name must be reinforced everywhere in the world as part of the first step in
negotiating a security treaty for Taiwan.
The USA has a one China policy and recognises the Chinese Government as the Government of
China. It's true that it once recognised the Government of Taiwan as the Government of China.
It's a completely new policy you're proposing of splitting China into 2 (or more?) states.
That needs war, as it would if China was proposing to break up the USA, and the USA would
lose a non-nuclear war.
The USA could win a nuclear war but would lose a lot of its population. I don't know how
seriously we should take the US estimate of 90% within a year by starvation and disease with
just an EMP attack. Mexico, Canada and Cuba might accept many US refugees even though they
would also suffer damage. Not all of the area of those countries would suffer EMP damage.
Other countries might also provide some charity.
Mexico, Canada and Cuba could be rewarded for their charity by dividing the USA between
them. That would be a powerful incentive and remove a country fond of wars of aggression. A
USA that poses no threat to anybody could continue to exist and be called Hawaii.
[email protected]
TSMC's Arizona fab is tiny compared to its 12 Taiwan ones, and more of a sop to the Trump
administration than a serious effort to diversify. The jugular vein of the semiconductor
industry is within easy reach of China's missile arsenal, and indeed the Chinese military can
be said to have been designed specifically for the task of retaking Taiwan.
China might not even need to invade. If they blockade Taiwan--air and sea--and threaten to
destroy ships and aircraft trying to enter or leave Taiwan, they can stop chip export.
It's similar to Iran saying, "Either everybody can export oil from the Gulf or no one
can." China would say, "Either everyone can import chips from Taiwan or no one can. And China
is in a much better position to enforce its will than Iran.
The reaction to Auberback's refutation of comparative advantage would be extreme depending
on who was reacting. The field of economics is like a cult, with a lot of groupthink and
academic homogeneity. In this way failed consensuses are continued and alternatives, even if
they have a good historical track record, are railed against as heterodox and fringe.
Its amazing how in just two or three decades we forgot about basically all of US economic
history and policy history up to that point.
I completely agree that a supply chains including those for memory chips in Taiwan must be
diversified but it is of paramount importance that Taiwan not be left weakened and vulnerable
to mainland China by these shifting supply chains because any weakness in Taiwan will be an
invitation for Beijing to exploit...and if Beijing exploits that invitation then they could
take that invitation all the way to an invasion which will be a detriment of all other
nations in the Pacific. Right now China is focused on Hong Kong, Taiwan and India....with
Hong Kong and Taiwan gone the China will push its aggressive hegemony to Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippines, etc.
I also complete agree that we (the US, Japan and any other asian nation that will join)
need a treaty protecting Taiwan's independence from mainland China but the very first thing
the US should do prior to such a new treaty is to get other nations to start using the name
Taiwan again on their maps, plane flights, UN, etc because as you know Beijing has been doing
everything possible to not just get nations and businesses to stop recognizing Taiwan and to
even stop using its name in an attempt to erase both the existence of Taiwan and any
distinction that Taiwan is separate from mainland China. The recognition of Taiwan and the
use of its name must be reinforced everywhere in the world as part of the first step in
negotiating a security treaty for Taiwan.
The USA has a one China policy and recognises the Chinese Government as the Government of
China. It's true that it once recognised the Government of Taiwan as the Government of China.
It's a completely new policy you're proposing of splitting China into 2 (or more?) states.
That needs war, as it would if China was proposing to break up the USA, and the USA would
lose a non-nuclear war.
The USA could win a nuclear war but would lose a lot of its population. I don't know how
seriously we should take the US estimate of 90% within a year by starvation and disease with
just an EMP attack. Mexico, Canada and Cuba might accept many US refugees even though they
would also suffer damage. Not all of the area of those countries would suffer EMP damage.
Other countries might also provide some charity.
Mexico, Canada and Cuba could be rewarded for their charity by dividing the USA between
them. That would be a powerful incentive and remove a country fond of wars of aggression. A
USA that poses no threat to anybody could continue to exist and be called Hawaii.
[email protected]
The Trump administration is
working to dispossess the Chinese company ByteDance by blackmailing it to sell its
valuable TikTok business to a U.S. company for a bargain price. This to the benefit of yet
unknown people.
False allegation over the security of TikTok user data were used to threaten the
prohibition of the video app in its U.S. market. In the U.S. alone the app is used by more
than 80 million people. It plays an important
part in the youth culture and music business. Faced with a potential close down of its
prime business in one of its most profitable markets ByteDance had no choice but to agree to
negotiate about a sale.
ByteDance declined an offer by two of its U.S. based minority investors to buy the
business for $50 billion as that price was far below its presumed value. The White House
stepped in to find a new buyer with enough change to pay for a deal. As the largest social
media companies - Facebook, Apple, Google and Twitter - are already
under congressional investigations for their monopoly positions in U.S. markets none of
them could be the potential buyer. Facebook has in fact just launched a rip-off of the TikTok
product under the name Reels. It is
trying to poach TikTok 'creators' for its own service. Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg has
warned
of Chinese competition. He would be the biggest winner should TikTok be thrown out of the
U.S. market.
The White House finally came up with Microsoft as a potential buyer. But Microsoft has
historically been unsuccessful in the social media business. It also does other business with
China and is reluctant to get involved in a move that could damage that business.
Despite Microsoft's lack of interest President Trump personally pressed for a shotgun
marriage. The Democrats are supporting him
in this. But neither ByteDance nor Microsoft really want to make the deal.
TikTok could become totally independent from its Chinese owner ByteDance to continue
operating overseas, according to a source who has been briefed on the discussions.
But the source said that despite reports that the video-sharing platform would be taken
over by Microsoft, ByteDance founder Zhang Yiming and investors were reluctant to sell to
the US company.
...
[I]f it is able to continue operating in the US, the board of ByteDance will agree to a
complete spin-off for the overseas version of the app, which operates under the name Douyin
in China.
The new entity would keep the TikTok name, but will have different management and will
no longer answer to ByteDance.
"Except for Zhang Yiming, almost all those in the room favour such a spin-off," the
source said. "The mood is kind of: 'the founder will be out and the house will be
ours'.
"But even for Zhang himself, there's really no other option because the app will be
killed if you don't let it go."
The spin-off would cover all markets except China where a ByteDance owned app similar to
TikTok is run under the name Douyin. A sale to Microsoft would only include the markets in
the U.S., Canada, New Zealand and Australia. (Note that Britain is the only member of the
5-eyes club missing here.)
That Microsoft is not really wanting the deal can be gleaned for the convoluted statement
it issued yesterday. This is clearly unprecedented language in a public company's
communication:
Following a conversation between Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and President Donald J. Trump,
Microsoft is prepared to continue discussions to explore a purchase of TikTok in the United
States.
Microsoft fully appreciates the importance of addressing the President's concerns. It is
committed to acquiring TikTok subject to a complete security review and providing proper
economic benefits to the United States, including the United States Treasury .
Microsoft will move quickly to pursue discussions with TikTok's parent company,
ByteDance, in a matter of weeks, and in any event completing these discussions no later
than September 15, 2020. During this process, Microsoft looks forward to continuing
dialogue with the United States Government, including with the President.
The discussions with ByteDance will build upon a notification made by Microsoft and
ByteDance to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).
...
Microsoft may invite other American investors to participate on a minority basis in this
purchase.
...
Microsoft appreciates the U.S. Government's and President Trump's personal involvement as
it continues to develop strong security protections for the country.
This ass kissing of Trump is not what Microsoft is used to do. Satva Nadella was clearly
pressed into publishing this. Such a statement would usually include language about
increasing shareholder value or better user experience. This statement has none of that
standard sweet talk.
The stock market seems to believe that a takeover of TikTok would be profitable for
Microsoft :
I have my doubts that Microsoft can successfully run a social network business. This one
would be restricted to just four countries and it would likely lose access to the continuing
development of the app. Where is the potential growth for such a restricted application?
And how will China react if Microsoft takes part in the U.S. raid of ByteDance's business?
While China is only contributing some 2% to Microsoft's overall revenue the company's biggest
R&D center outside of the U.S. is in China . It
contributes to its global success:
"[There has been an] explosion of innovation in China," [Microsoft President Brad] Smith
said. "One of the things that we at Microsoft have long appreciated is the enormous
ingenuity of the engineering population of China."
Microsoft's X-Box game station as well as other hardware it sells is at least partially
developed and produced
in China . Some of Microsoft's Chinese engineers might have there own ideas on how China
should retaliate to the attack on a successful Chinese company. The Trump administration sees
that danger and it is pressing
Microsoft to get rid of all its relations with China:
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro suggested on Monday that Microsoft could divest its
holdings in China if it were to buy TikTok.
"So the question is, is Microsoft going to be compromised?" Navarro said in an interview
with CNN. "Maybe Microsoft could divest its Chinese holdings?"
Leaving China would surely damage Microsoft's long term business. For a global company
that country is a too big potential market to be left at the wayside.
But the real question about the mafia raid on ByteDance is who is destined to profit from
it.
Today Trump said (vid) that if Microsoft
closes the deal a substantial amount should be paid to the Treasury because his
administration 'enabled the deal'. He likely didn't consult a lawyer before making that
wrongheaded statement.
But who are the "other American investors" who are invited "to participate on a minority
basis in this purchase". Reuters had already reported
that 'minority investor' clause. Is the wider Trump family involved in this?
Why is that term so important for Trump that Microsoft has felt a need to repeat it in
what is essentially a public terms letter addressed to Trump?
Posted by b on August 3, 2020 at 17:47 UTC |
Permalink
I know B says this is about stealing, but maybe this is about sending China a message
about how it does business in general. As you should know by now, China disallows many
American apps in China. Is this a message to China about how America and maybe American
allies will do business with them from now on? First Huawei and now Tik Tok and next who
knows what? It looks to me like the message to China is: Follow the Golden Rule, which is not
"whoever has the most gold rules" but is instead "Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you."
Hey Kali, China DOES NOT need the US but what you are seeing is a violation of business
norms. You say China doesn't allow many apps from entering its market is not the same as the
US trying to blackmail a successful Chinese app that have already entered the US market.
Since you mentioned Huawei; they own almost the entire 5G technology so either you pay
directly or indirectly irregardless if the US bans them or not
Facebook at one time was operating in China. In 2008-2009 terrorists were using Facebook
to coordinate attacks in Xinjiang province. When the Chinese government demanded the
information Facebook declined to provide citing privacy issues. After that Facebook was
banned.
"For example Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Google--maybe they want complete control over
what their populations hear or says online?"
If that's the case why is it not illegal in China to have a VPN? How many strawmen are in
that diatribe you just posted? I can only knock down one at a time.
Is the dispute over Tik-Tok really about protecting American citizens?
Non-US companies collect a lot of info about US citizens and citizens of other Western
countries via internet apps and other means. And much info is available for sale as well.
Seems more likely that the forced sale is really about protecting the Western
establishment and US power-elite. A massive social network is a threat to their control
because it could be used to spread anti-US govt messages. Mostly to younger people who are
already very cynical (as we can see from the protesting) and thus more willing to accept it
as true or reflecting a truth.
Although Sarah's comedy is not a threat to the US power-elite, one can easily imagine
messaging that would be:
USA threatens war against a country and suddenly everyone in USA gets messages that
depict Trump/USA as a bully and that create sympathy for the good people of the target
country.
Messaging that decries the harsh and unfair treatment of political prisoners
(Assange?);
Messaging that calls into question the legitimacy of a US Presidential election.
Messages that mock Trump's blaming China for the pandemic by describing the Trump
Administration's inept response to the pandemic.
<> <> <> <> <>
PS Where's the libertarian mob complaining about government control? Those astro-turfed
bullsh*ters are not really interested in issues that they are not paid to be interested
in.
"As TikTok's global market influence was skyrocketing, the company was suppressed by the
US government. Again, this shows how difficult it is for companies from China to go global.
ByteDance said in a statement that it is "committed to becoming a global company." But
Washington will not easily let the company off just because of its good wishes.
"The US' decoupling from China starts from killing China's most competitive companies. In
the process, Washington ignores rules and is unreasonable. Although suppressing Huawei and
TikTok also incurs losses to the US, the suppression can still be implemented in the US. This
is because such suppression echoes the sense of crisis instigated by some US elites when
facing China's rise.
"Huawei and ByteDance can only provide limited protection to themselves via legal means.
But we should not overestimate the US' sense of justice. The country has shown us too many
examples of politics overwhelming everything else....
"Huawei has advanced equipment, and ByteDance sells services to the world through unique
concepts and technologies. The two companies are pioneers worldwide. They have brought a
sense of crisis to US elites, which shows that China's top companies have the ability to move
to the forefront of the world in technology. It reflects the power of China as an emerging
market. As long as such power continues to expand, these top Chinese companies can eventually
break through US suppression.
"By banning Huawei, the US would lag behind in 5G technology. By banning TikTok, the US
would harm its own internet diversity and its belief in freedom and democracy. When similar
things happen time and again, the US will take steps closer to its decline. The US is a
pioneer in global internet and has created Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. But in
recent years, the US' internet structure has been rigid.
"Rising stars such as ByteDance continue to emerge in Chinese internet sector, showing
huge vitality. China knows its deficiencies, strives to become stronger, and adheres to
opening-up to the world. The US, however, is gradually being shrouded in arrogance, seclusion
and a negative attitude. Chinese people should not be discouraged by temporary setbacks, or
our weaker position in the China-US confrontation. What's important is that China's trend of
faster-pace progress has not changed....
"The COVID-19 pandemic is an important issue, clearly showing us that the US has fallen
into a type of systematic chaos. This will severely limit its ability to indefinitely upgrade
and exert pressure on China. Many of the US practices, including banning TikTok, show the
country's weakening competitiveness. Can't Facebook just come up with a more powerful app and
beat TikTok in the market? The problem is Facebook cannot do it. It can only resort to the
brute force of US politics."
As you read, China takes this very differently. It sees the inability of Outlaw US Empire
firms to compete and thus seek protection as suggested here :
"Western countries' social media platforms have long dominated, and only a handful of
Chinese firms that have entered the arena in recent years have won popularity. TikTok has
seen record-high downloads across the world. Per data from an industry analysis platform
Sensor Tower in April, TikTok had been downloaded more than 2 billion times globally
.
"The US' plan to ban TikTok follows the same logic as its crackdown on Chinese tech firm
Huawei. The US has been limiting the 5G frontrunner for years, essentially the result of
evolving relations between China and the US-led Western world.
" TikTok and Huawei are not isolated cases. Chinese high-tech firms that expand
overseas will encounter different levels of barriers as China develops into a new tech power,
giving rise to concerns from countries that feel threatened by Chinese technology .
"The US will not allow a social media platform that enjoys high popularity among younger
generations to be operated by a foreign company, especially when the countdown to its
presidential election ticks on. Banning TikTok now is, to some extent, also a move by Trump
to control public voices after groups of young American TikTok users reportedly upstaged his
first large-scale public rally amid the COVID-19 pandemic by registering for tickets and
failing to attend.
"With the election drawing near, a plunging second-quarter GDP at negative 32.9 percent,
and the world's largest number of coronavirus infections, it is likely the Trump
administration will continue rolling out new and even harsher measures to antagonize China
and attempt to block it economically." [My Emphasis]
How much revenge and the election play into the drama are unknown, but we know Trump is
soft-skinned and very vindictive; Tulsa was a huge embarrassment. Can't compete; erect a
tariff wall to protect your weak companies--the Outlaw US Empire demands China "open up"
while it closes up instead. As the headline of the first item screamed, "Banning TikTok
reflects Washington's cowardice."
Gotta love the stupid Western capitalists.
First, it was "Let's all invest in China, do a lot of business and move all our factories
there because we'll make a shit-ton of $$".
Then, it's "Oh, they're too big and powerful, we need to stop trading and making any kind of
business with them".
As some clever guy said about these short-sighted idiots more than a century ago, they're
selling the rope with which to hang them.
The mafia methods used are often packaged as monopoly powers such copyrights, patents,
transformation of public goods into for profit private enterprizes (privatization), takeovers and
bankruptcy, private ownership of the highest levels of nearly all governments, and just 6 own 92%
of all media.
Takeover of Tik Toc by Microsoft is just one demonstrating of a wider trend -- the tend
toward gangster capitalism. BTW Chinese proposes complete divestment. That spells big trouble for
US heavyweights such as Amazon, Google and Facebook.
"We lie to deceive ourselves, we lie to comfort others, we lie out of pity, we lie out of
shame, to encourage, to hide our misery, we lie out of honesty. We lie for freedom."
Trump blames China every chance he can and the Democrats either agree or offer mealy-mouthed
protest.
Notable quotes:
"... It comes to light that at least 125 US companies owned or invested in by Chinese entities, including Chinese SOE, received hundreds of millions in PPP loans backed by the US SBS. ..."
"... This level of capitalust interconnection between elite investors and governments belies all the heated talk of cold war by politicians on both sides as well as useful idiots the world over. ..."
"... "If this is also national security, then US national security is synonymous with hegemony." ..."
China has never banned US high-tech companies from doing business in the country. What the
Chinese government demands is that what they do in China should comply with Chinese law.
That's all . It was some US companies that refused to comply with Chinese laws.
Google used to have a position in the Chinese market. It itself pulled out of China a
decade ago, while other companies were accused in the US of kowtowing to China when they
tried to design their specific versions for the Chinese market. This leaves no US internet
giant currently operating in China.
TikTok operates in the US in full compliance with US laws and is completely cut off from
Douyin, its Chinese equivalent. Users in the Chinese mainland cannot register for TikTok
even if they bypass the so-called great firewall . TikTok does not violate any US
law but fully cooperates with the US administration.
The US claim that TikTok threatens its own national security is a purely hypothetical
and unwarranted charge - just like the groundless accusation that Huawei gathers
intelligence for the Chinese government. This is fundamentally different from China's
refusal to allow the original versions of Facebook and Twitter to enter China and require
them to operate in accordance with Chinese laws.
In just three paragraphs, the Global Times killed two myths: that a "great firewall"
exists and that China censorship things from the West (i.e. that the Chinese people is
"living in the darkness").
I had a teacher who traveled to China recently. He went to a local bar (100% Mainland
Chinese) as soon as he landed. He was having difficulty accessing Google (I think it was
either Gmail or Google Drive). He tried, tried, tried but couldn't do it. When the locals
there realized he was trying to access Google products, they promptly and calmly told him he
should use VPN because Google didn't operate in China. No drama, no fear of a local police
officer suddenly coming to the place to arrest them.
They know what Apple, Google and Facebook are. It's just that China has better local
options for the same product.
Not that globalization is a one way street by any means.
It comes to light that at least 125 US companies owned or invested in by Chinese entities,
including Chinese SOE, received hundreds of millions in PPP loans backed by the US SBS.
This level of capitalust interconnection between elite investors and governments belies
all the heated talk of cold war by politicians on both sides as well as useful idiots the
world over.
Why even favorite Chinese PR flack Pepe Escobar recently characterized the Stupidity Trap
aka Thucydides Trap as childish nonsense.
"If this is also national security, then US national security is synonymous with
hegemony."
That is precisely the problem. Unfortunately, the current US economy has become dependent on
advantages arising from unrivaled geopolitical power. Take it away too suddenly, and there
would be a painful economic transition to become a normal nation again.
While concern might be legitimate, Trump administration actions looks more and more like
extortion. They really open the door for king US financial companies and accounting firms from
China and Russia. The latter also represent "national security" threat.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday that President Trump would soon take action
against Chinese software companies that the administration believes present a national security
risk for Americans.
"President Trump has said, 'enough,' and we're going to fix it," Pompeo said on Fox News's
"Sunday Morning Futures." "And so he will take action in the coming days with respect to a
broad array of national security risks that are presented by software connected to the Chinese
Communist Party."
The comments come on the heels of Trump's announcement on Friday that he was prepared to
sign an executive order to ban TikTok, a Chinese-owned short-form video app, from operating in
the U.S.
Pompeo on Sunday asserted that Chinese-owned software companies doing business in America
were "feeding data directly" to the government in Beijing and that the practices amounted to
"true national security issues." He specifically named TikTok and WeChat, a Chinese-owned
messaging and social media app.
"They are true privacy issues for the American people. And for a long time, a long time, the
United States just said, well, goodness, if we're having fun with it, or if a company can make
money off of it, we're going to permit that to happen," Pompeo added, noting that officials
have been deliberating on a decision for months now.
TikTok, which has become especially popular among teens in recent years, has gained
relentless scrutiny from the Trump administration and members of Congress overs its
relationship with ByteDance, a Chinese firm. Lawmakers have voiced concerns that Americans'
information is not secure in the hands of TikTok, considering Chinese laws that require
disclosures of sensitive data upon request by the government.
TikTok has strongly pushed back against allegations about its handling of user data in
recent days, with the company's CEO releasing a statement rebuking "rumors and misinformation."
The company also sent a letter to leaders on the House Judiciary Committee last Wednesday
rebutting allegations about its data practices.
"TikTok is not available in China," the letter said. "We store Americans' user data in the
US, with back-up in Singapore, with strict access controls for employees. We have never
provided any US user data to the Chinese government, nor would we do so if asked. Any
allegations to the contrary are unfounded."
TikTok has not directly commented on Trump's stated plans to bar the app's use in the U.S.
Though TikTok's U.S. general manager, Vanessa Pappas, said in a video on Saturday that the
company is "here for the long run." The company has also highlighted the 1,000 people in the
U.S. it has hired, noting that it plans on adding another 10,000 employees in the country in
the future.
After Trump's comments on Friday, reports surfaced that Microsoft was in talks to purchase
the short-form video app, which boasts roughly 100 million American users.
Asked about that possibility and whether it would end any opportunity for Chinese
surveillance, Pompeo said on Fox News that the administration "will make sure that everything
we have done drives us as close to zero risk for the American people."
Multiple GOP Senators have voiced support of the prospect of a U.S. company purchasing
TikTok to avoid an outright ban. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a tweet Sunday that a
"trusted" U.S. company buying the app would be a "positive and acceptable outcome."
Judeo-Christian could indicate a common origin and whatever little they may have in common
as the result, but "values" can't be part of it. Judaism and Christianity don't have common
values, in the sense of ethics or morality.
Feelings don't care about facts. The mass hysteria that's gripped
the Western world after the death of George Floyd can't be explained in rational terms. Police
are shooting fewer
unarmed black men each year, and most of the shootings are justified. Police are more likely to
shoot a
non-threatening white than a non-threatening black. In the Floyd case specifically, there's
nothing
that shows racial bias by police officers, and Floyd was on drugs and resisting
arrest . Minneapolis police procedure
allowed neck pressure in some circumstances. Former police officer Derek Chauvin's conduct
wasn't extraordinary. But the facts are almost irrelevant. We're dealing with faith ,
religious ecstasy. We're in the midst of BLMania.
Collective frenzies aren't new. Almost every American knows about the Salem witch trials,
during which Christians claimed they saw demons and devils. Evil had to be rooted out, whatever
the cost. Arthur Miller's fictional re-telling in The Crucible , originally meant to
criticize McCarthyism, now reads like a satire of SJWs .
In 1536, Anabaptists took over Münster, Germany, and tried to establish a divine
kingdom. Would-be prophet Jan Matthys cannot have been a charlatan; he must have believed he
was chosen by God, because he rode out almost by himself to attack a besieging army. He was
instantly killed, but that didn't shake the faith of his followers. In 1917, hundreds of people
in Fátima, Portugal, claimed they saw the sun dance in the sky. The Catholic Church,
which often debunks alleged visions and miracles, declared this "worthy of belief."
Still, because of the doctrine of Original Sin and man's fallen nature, Christians are
reminded not to " immanentize the eschaton " and
seek heaven on earth. If Christians are delusional, can go only so far. "Secular" movements
have no such restraints. During the last century, tens of millions were butchered in Russia,
China, Cambodia, and other places in the name of the Brotherhood of Man, with the
revolutionaries often creating cults of personality to replace older faiths and heroes. The
Revolutionary Communist Party, which can be found
burning American flags around the country, has its own cult of personality
around leader Bob Avakian .
During the French Revolution, a "Cult of Reason" was established, with Robespierre as high
priest. Busts of the assassinated revolutionary Jean-Paul Marat replaced crucifixes in some
churches. During the Spanish Civil War, anarchists burned churches, shot at statues of Jesus,
murdered clergy, and desecrated the dead to pave the way for a new order. The Communards
executed Archbishop Georges Darboy during the Paris Commune and destroyed the original
Vendôme Column because it glorified empire. The famous French protests of May 1968, which
strongly influenced the current intellectual climate, had a utopian, religious flavor. Would-be
revolutionaries destroyed property as they spray-painted the following slogans:
Ann Coulter analyzed mobs in her 2011 book Demonic . She heavily cited Gustave Le
Bon's famous 1895 book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind . Miss Coulter said a
mob is "an irrational, childlike, often violent organism that derives its energy from the
group" and is "intoxicated by messianic goals." One chapter is called "Imaginary Violence From
the Right Vs. Actual Violence From The Left." This is especially prescient. CHAZ/CHOP
"security" in Seattle
murdered a black teenager and wounded another because they thought right-wing
paramilitaries would attack any second (no one has been arrested for these shootings). As
cities burn, NBC
reports that "an expert" thinks the real threat is "far right" violence.
The "messianic goal" Miss Coulter wrote of is human equality. The premise is that if
existing social institutions are removed, a natural and authentic human equality will emerge.
Even the past must be destroyed to make this possible. The French Revolution remade the
calendar, with 1792 as Year Zero. All culture and history from the past was irrelevant because
everything was to be built anew. Rousseau famously wrote that "man is born free and everywhere
is in chains." This comes from assuming that man is a blank slate and that people are born
equal. If there is inequality, it can only be because of unjust institutions or exploitative
social forces.
Who is the boogeyman? Many once believed it was the Church: Voltaire's "
infâme ." Some blamed kings; Jefferson's post-revolutionary writings show
paranoia about "monarchial" tendencies. Many believe capitalism is the enemy, but I'd argue
that most progressives today believe the fundamental problem is "whiteness."
What is whiteness? Psychology Today says
it's "an unfairly privileged exclusionary category, based on physical features, most notably a
lack of melanin." Many others who study "whiteness" say something similar. Whiteness is a
social construct used to justify domination, slavery, and economic exploitation today.
There are three obvious objections to this.
This
is clearly not true . Third, it assumes that those with power use white racism to
exercise privilege. However, almost every powerful corporation openly supports Black Lives
Matter and opposes white racial consciousness. Though "whiteness as property" is a common
theme in "whiteness studies," there are benefits
to being labeled non-white, which is why some whites fake their racial identity and some
groups
organize politically so the government won't call them white.
"Whiteness" has become the explanation for all "the evils of the modern world."
Critical race theorists are right to say that "whiteness" is socially constructed; what they
fail to understand is that they created its modern meaning.
Most race realists, Identitarians, and white advocates know Susan Sontag's quote that the
"white race is the cancer of human history." She also said America, which is "the culmination
of Western white civilization," is guilty of causing global suffering. The full context is even
more revealing: "The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary
government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine
ballets, et al., don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the
world."
In this sentence, she concedes three things that would be politically incorrect today.
First, Western
civilization is white civilization . Second, despite the pathetic claims of
some
journalists and academics , Sontag recognized that white civilization isn't simply built on
domination of non-whites, and that it has produced things of great value. Third, Sontag admits
that some (if not all) progressive accomplishments such as "the emancipation of women" are
products of "this particular civilization." "Morgoth's Review" made this same point , noting that when
progressives try to destroy "whiteness," they are dynamiting the foundations of their own
liberal, universal worldview.
However, Sontag still thought white civilization was irredeemable because it "eradicates
autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads" and threatens the planet. Whiteness wasn't cancer
just because it was bad. Sontag meant that whiteness, like cancer, grows, metastasizes, and
consumes. It never seemed to occur to Sontag that this universalizing, homogenizing force
"eradicated" authentic European cultures too. If "Western culture" is Netflix, Amazon, and
Hollywood, I'm with the Third World anti-imperialists.
Still, at least Sontag recognized that whites had a real culture, at least in the past. Her
intellectual successors are worse. They accepted her view the whiteness is cancer while denying
any value to our culture and our standards. Instead, " Whiteness
Studies " and "Critical Race Theory" criticize "white" civilization because of its
standards. The National Museum of African American History and Culture identifies objective,
rational linear thinking, cause and effect relationships, and hard work to be "whiteness" and
therefore "racist." Everything can therefore be "racist" or in need of
"decolonization," including math ,
grammar ,
grades , SAT and
ACT tests ,
bar exams , and
artificial intelligence .
This ends in denying truth itself. Claire Lehmann found a slide at an education
conference in Washington that said that "if you conclude that outcomes differences [sic] by
demographic subgroup are a result of anything other than a broken system, that is, by
definition, bigotry." Actually, bigotry is "obstinate or intolerant
devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices." We've now come full circle, and define bigotry
as not being bound by opinions and prejudices. The way many academics and journalists
talk about whiteness is worse than anything Susan Sontag said.
This is the thinking of a fanatic religious sect, like the one Jim Jones
led . "We were too good for this world," Jones said before the infamous mass suicide. While
progressives haven't yet gone that far, they clearly enjoy the feeling of "woke" moral
righteousness, which has replaced the sense of being "elect" that some Protestant sects once provided .
Much as the French revolutionaries replaced saints with Jacobins during the Terror, today's
woke disciples are creating their own saints, with "Big George" Floyd taking the place of
Christ. Insufficient adulation for Floyd cost
one priest his job. BLMania is even consuming the churches themselves.
Black Lives Matter is more sacred than the American flag or Christ.
Federal agents , police , military ,
athletes , politicians , and many others
all genuflect before BLM. Many would never bow before God. This new, powerful faith even has a
liturgical
calendar and a hymn built on a sacred myth.
Worse, because this creed is impervious to truth, it must always seek new scapegoats (or
devils) for egalitarianism's continuing failure. Despite the constant funding, programs, and
repression, equality never arrives. The late Lawrence Auster's " First Law of Majority/Minority Relations In
Liberal Society " holds that "the more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group
behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions
about that group's bad behavior." Likewise, the more blacks fail, the more fictional portrayals
of black superiority must be created, from Black
Panther to
Black Is King . And the more whites give, the more fiercely they must be accused of
bigotry for wanting good
schools ,
classical music , or even
video games left alone.
The egalitarian revolution is a Permanent Revolution. BLMania will constantly devour its
children . It will continue until it is stopped by superior power. Even Robin DiAngelo,
author of White Fragility and high priestess of the Anti-Racist
Church of the Damned , is no longer pure enough.
The late Noel Ignatiev , editor of
Race Traitor , famously said that "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity."
However, he said that this wasn't a call to violence against whites. "When we say we want to
abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin," he
said . "We
mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the
white race as a social category." I question this. If I cited Shlomo Sand's
The Invention of the Jewish People to deconstruct Jewish identity, religious claims,
and Israel, one might rightly suspect I had an anti-Jewish motive.
Still, let's assume Ignatiev was sincere. Could we "abolish the social meaning of skin
color" today? Skin color is more important as a social category than at any other time in
decades. Those with power may say whites are just a "social construct," but they have no
trouble telling who is white and who is not when it comes to affirmative action. The media view
almost all economic, political, and cultural issues through a racial lens. Indeed, with a
separate black
"national anthem ," graduation
ceremonies , and
separate events for non-whites , we're seeing the return of segregation. It may even be the
beginning of America's breakup along racial lines.
"Wokeness" holds that whites are racist no matter what we do. "White racism" is the new
original sin. Fighting one's own racism is a lifelong struggle -- one that ultimately can't be
won. "Whiteness" is also responsible for great evil. If all whites are racist and "whiteness"
is evil, isn't it best just to eliminate whites? Some whites may even want to join this racial
death drive, exhausted, ashamed, and despairing after decades of relentless anti-white propaganda . Even
those whites who don't want to surrender psychologically may see no hope, and become a "
defeated and despairing
race ," in Steve Sailer's words.
What can we call this death-cult? Some leftists, including Ignatiev, called for "abolishing"
the white race. It's tempting to call it " Abolitionism ." However, this word is
forever linked with (whites) ending slavery. Some leftists may eventually use the term,
but it will never catch on. Still, it is useful because of its vivid history. Many 19th century
abolitionists were not peaceful idealists but blood-crazed fanatics , who
cloaked their dreams of war and slaughter in apocalyptic, Biblical language. John Brown, whose
band began its infamous raid on Harpers Ferry by killing a free black man, is the primary
example.
The creed's violence, militancy, and destructiveness lead me to call it
Eradicationism. Like some Christian sects, whites who embrace it want collectively to abandon
the world, if not through suicide then by failing to reproduce. Instead of making the world
better "for ourselves and our posterity," they will expunge their blood guilt by ending their
line. White Saviors share a curious mix of self-hatred and self-exaltation, something we see
when white protesters post themselves indulging in BLMania online.
Eradicationism will be with us for some time. Regardless, our course is clear. Facts are
important, but statistics don't move mountains. Faith does. We must act with faith in victory , in
service to a great ideal. Our Western tradition tells us to do our duty to uphold
the cosmic order . This chaotic time will be an opportunity for racial rebirth. Steel
yourself against this death cult that has hijacked our civilization. Reject BLMania. We were
meant for something great. We shouldn't fear this time of struggle, which is demonstrating what
we've been warning of all along. We should welcome it. The American experiment in equality
couldn't have ended any other way.
Good summary of the points we are all familiar with by now.
"Whiteness" has become the explanation for all "the evils of the modern world."
If black people weren't so bad at practically everything, we wouldn't have to play this
game where everyone goes overboard to avoid talking about race realism, or scientific racism.
India encountered White Western Civilization, basically absorbed parts of it, and came out
the other side as the people they always were. Same with China. Same with Japan. Same with
Mexico. Etc. The Western World has also encountered other civilizations as the weaker party
to an extent, and likewise absorbed or fought back, and came out the other side still being
themselves. The Mongols and the Ottoman Turks, just to name a couple of examples, both
enslaved white people. We are not all sitting around moaning about it centuries later and
saying that's why we can read or do math. That realization forces people down a path where
they have to believe against all the evidence that there was something extremely different
about the way white people treated black people for them to turn out this way. And as a
corollary that there is something very different about white people that makes them uniquely
evil.
Or, alternatively, you could just think about your own actual experiences with real black
people you have met in life and notice that you generally have to talk to them like they are
special needs children and they are really really dumb and aggressive. And then it all makes
sense.
We are witnessing something extraordinary, the death of what some call 'liberal
progressivism' or what I prefer to call 'American atheistic humanism.' It's a hell of a thing
to watch. What's next is anybody's guess. It's going to get much worse before it gets better.
I'd like to share some of the things I do to maintain strength and sanity.
1 exercise and work out.
2 do not watch television.
3 associate with non-cucked Catholics and practice the Faith
4 read voraciously, especially the classics and lives of the saints.
5 flirt with women regularly (not the fat ones)
6 set aside resources for 'fallout.' If and when shit hits the fan I'm prepared for a long
winter.
This list could be a expanded. These are the big things I've integrated into my daily
life.
1. Exercise
2. Never watch television
3. Read books written before the "Woke" era and never any book written by a Jew, not even Ben
Shapiro. I always google the authors before I read anything.
4. Use bookmarks instead of search for the vast majority of the content you look at online.
Search is a tool Silicon Valley uses to "recommend" woke content.
Of course, these rules only apply in the current times of information warfare where
everyone is trying to demoralize you and subvert anything you think is valuable.
That civilization lasted for approximately 280 years, and disappeared without a trace
around 1400 AD.
As you walk around the ruins of an obviously civilized people, there is one question that
goes through everyone's mind.
What happened?
This was before there were settlers from Europe, and the land is empty for many miles
around so there are no obvious enemies anywhere to be found.
It is unlikely that an earthquake or flood or other natural event destroyed the
city–there seems to be no physical evidence to support that. Perhaps there was a long
dry period (since this is Arizona) but long enough to destroy the entire civilization?
Then there is the little voice in your head that says the most likely
explanation–"They must have destroyed themselves, probably based on some horrible
ideology or religious fervor."
Bottom line–insanity is toxic, and can destroy a civilization.
There is no arguing with insanity, there is no negotiating with insanity, there is no
solution for insanity.
Civilizations must have the will to remove the insane people from the territory before
they destroy it–or they will become just another forgotten ruin on the landscape.
The hatred for whiteness in America comes from 70 years of massive number of Jews who in
many parts of the country dominated public schools and universities in teaching and
leadership positions in academia.
Black person to white person: "your ancestors enslaved my ancestors"
White person to black person: "your ancestors along with the Arabs enslaved my ancestors
in the Ottoman Empire for over 400 years up until the 1800s"
White person to black person: "you have never been a slave and neither have I"
White person to black person: "all white majority nations have outlawed slavery, have
outlawed segregation, have enshrined equal rights into law, and have outlawed the taking of
land by force"
White person to black person: "many black majority nations have not outlawed slavery, have
not outlawed segregation, have not enshrined equal rights into law, and still take land by
force"
White person to black person: "man up like my ancestors did and go to Africa and free the
slaves, put your blood, sweat, and tears on the land and get it done like my ancestors
did"
White person to black person: "you can't blame white people for black criminality and for
black underperformance in society, most black people are not criminals and many black people
perform and overperform in society, so stop being racist towards white people and take
responsibility and build something"
The unemployed. Without hope and nothing to show for, members will do anything to proof
thy can. In history famous for doing the ting attacking the unarmed, on orders. Controlling
is their hidden desire. Makes them the ideal public servant. Handicapped only by lack of the
brain part called working IQ. In war of times of change, needed badly by ones who own a
little of that stuff wile steering the ship named state..
It seems some people(such as this author) are viewing the current situation through one
prism, and I think it has multiple causations.
1.Militarized police abuse of the general population is real – especially the
poor(soft targets). As incidents pile up, resistance grows.
2.Funding by various political entities are responsible for the political strengthening of
BLM and other groups as controlled opposition and used as divide and conquer tactics.
3.The progressive left is low hanging ripe fruit for the former, especially after the
election of Donald Trump.
4.An education system pumping out SJW's at an exponential rate.
5.Now just add poverty and depravity from a lockdown.
George Floyd or no George Floyd the current situation(or new religion) was just a matter
of time.
This anti-whiteness among Liberal whites reminds me of old Gnostic cults. They sought to
overcome the flesh to achieve heaven on earth. Some took it so far as to avoid reproduction.
I don't think any took it so far as to adopt the children of other races.
It is a privilege to read UNZ everyday. It is important for everyone who is kind at heart,
reading this article and others who are concerned about this actual insanity made sane, is
nothing more than a movement to draw foolish people, black, white and everyone else, to drink
just another flavor of Koolaid, into self-selecting their genetic discontinuation in the New
World. It is a sublime process supported by the powers that be – to thin the hierd.
Don't be alarmed by this. All shall pass. BLM is a part of the culling process – and
you may or may not be aware of it: opioids & legal & illegal drugs, obesity,
dumberism, political extremism on either side, China/Russia bashing, J bashing, and so on.
Stay sure-footed. Understand the motivations of the PTB, and truly understand WHY they must
take action for the good of the human race. It is only thru these operations, the wiser among
us can & must understand why the human herd must be culled. And if you have a problem
with that, please do stand first in line with the many lines & flavors of protesters,
refuseniks & freedom fighters. The New World will truly be a better place for better
human beings. Anyone who wants to get in to the New World & must first qualify with
kind-heartedness, a strong obligation responsibility to better oneself & the community in
which we live in. Forget all the political terms of democracy, freedom, liberty, capitalism,
& such. It will simply be a New World where people are healthy in mind, body & soul.
The crazies, psychopaths & criminals will not survive. It will be a much better world.
And, the Powers that be are creating every sort of selection process to sift thru humanity's
strata. If you are possibly fit for the New World, this comment will ring bells – and
all will be clear to you. If not, go ahead and disagree with me . G*d bless you – for
we will in time bow (or made to bow) to our Master(s). If you can't accept that, well, you're
not likely to make it, and neither will your progeny . Please discern.
@American
Citizen 2.0 rey.
BLM handlers know this and that is why it encourages ANTIFA and BLM to group together and at
the same time discourages for decades any attempt by whites to associate in leagues,
groupings, unions, sindicats etc. Look what hapenned to Proud Boys.
The second in which 100 whites joined together the ruling elite put the leaders in prison and
dismembered the white group.
United we surely stand, divided guaranteed to fall.
We must learn from the Jews – tribalism, fight for our kind no matter what.
They do not give a shit if you exercise, don't watch tv, read books etc. You are not a threat
to them.
A threat is 1000 sheep + one lion.
In the last year of his Presidency (2015) Barack Obama in an interview made the following
observation:
Obama: "What is also true is that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in
almost every institution of our lives -- you know, that casts a long shadow. And that's still
part of our DNA that's passed on. We're not cured of it."
Interviewer: "Racism"
Obama: "Racism. We're not cured of it."
Few, if any of the cognoscenti who constantly lecture Americans 24×7 on the ubiquity
of "racism" and daily pounce on yet another politician or celebrity who breaks the strict
rules of "Diversity-Speak," bothered to decode the President's remarks so that the average
American might get a sense of what he was in for. They can be boiled down to: "Racism has
always been the defining feature of American life and will be far into the future." What
then, we might wonder, is the "cure," and who gets to say that it has been successful and the
patient is whole and released from treatment?
Obama chose the wrong metaphor. His view of race is better expressed in theological terms.
"Racism" is America's "original sin." It was, and still is, committed exclusively by white
people, and no matter what metaphor you care to use, consider it a permanent fixture of
American society. "We shall overcome someday." But, sorry Pal, not today. With sin comes
guilt, and white America now finds itself confronted with guilt, virtually unlimited
guilt.
@Miro23
motherland. Imperialism has been a long term disaster for the West.
Stupid white people – Yes, yes, people here blame the Jews but let's be honest here,
if it was the Jews who helped contribute, who happily lapsed it up and performed the dance?
The stupid white people! Had the stupid white people been more intelligent, they would have
put two and two together and stopped the madness along time ago. Instead they are worshipping
George Floyd.
Look, I'm no leftie liberal. I want white people to survive and prosper. But honestly, I
see alot of sins and ultimately stupidity at the white man's feet. I blame him more then
anyone else.
"... Join the Singapore Property Festival - a virtual exhibition organised by the South China Morning Post on August 1 to explore a wide range of affordable luxury residential and commercial real estate assets in Singapore, perfect as relocation and investment options. Get property project highlights and market insights from Info Session webinars and LIVE 1-on-1 chats with property taxation, immigration and investment experts. Register for your FREE PASS now. ..."
Curtis also stuck close to the main theme of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's
high-profile
China policy speech last week by arguing that the India border clash and sovereign debt
financing used for Belt and Road Initiative projects
"fits with a larger pattern of PRC aggression in other parts of the world". Pompeo called for
"a new grouping of like-minded nations" to counter China.
Accusing Beijing of "selling cheap armaments and building a base for the 1970s-era
submarines that it sold to the Bangladesh Navy in 2016", Curtis also committed to stronger
relations with Dhaka.
"We're committed to Bangladesh's long-term success because US interests in the Indo-Pacific
depends on a Bangladesh that is peaceful, secure, prosperous healthy and democratic," Curtis
said. "We continue to encourage the Bangladeshi government to renew its commitment to
democratic values as it prepares to celebrate its 50th anniversary of independence, next year."
Big Tech tangles with US lawmakers in antitrust showdown 30 Jul 2020
While the India-China border clash, pressing of maritime claims in the South China Sea, and
increasing military and economic pressure on Taiwan may have helped to push countries in the
region to cooperate more, Washington will not necessarily benefit, said Ali Wyne, a
non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a non-resident fellow at the Modern War
Institute.
"China's actions in recent months have compelled many of its neighbours to try and bolster
their military capabilities on an accelerated timeline and to intensify their security
cooperation with one another," Wyne said.
"For at least two reasons, though, it is unclear that those neighbours would be full
participants in a US-led effort to counterbalance China.
"First, geographical proximity and economic dependence constrain the extent to which they
can push back against Beijing's assertiveness without undercutting their own national
interests," he said. "Second, many of them are reluctant to make common cause with the United
States in view of the transactional diplomacy that it has pursued in recent years."
China's foreign minister calls on other nations to resist US and stop a new cold war 29 Jul
2020
China's embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.
However, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Tuesday called Washington's increasingly hard
line against the Chinese government "naked power politics". In a phone
call with his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian on Tuesday, Wang said the Trump
administration's strategy was to "constantly provoke China's core interests, attack the social
system chosen by the Chinese people and slander the ruling party that is closely connected with
the Chinese people," according to state news agency Xinhua.
"These actions have lost the most basic etiquette for state-to-state exchanges and have
broken through the most basic bottom line of international norms," he said, warning that "the
world will fall into a crisis of division, and the future and destiny of mankind will also be
in danger".
https://www.youtube.com/embed/c3uzkXgW4yY?rel=0&mute=1&playsinline=1&frameborder=0&autoplay=0&embed_config=%7B%22relatedChannels%22%3A%5B%22UC4SUWizzKc1tptprBkWjX2Q%22%5D%2C%22adsConfig%22%3A%7B%22adTagParameters%22%3A%7B%22iu%22%3A%22%2F8134%2Fscmp%2Fweb%2Fchina_policiespolitics%2Farticle%2Finstream1%22%2C%22cust_params%22%3A%7B%22paid%22%3A1%2C%22scnid%22%3A%223095250%22%2C%22sctid%22%3A%22326745%22%2C%22scsid%22%3A%5B%2291%22%2C%224%22%2C%22318198%22%5D%2C%22articletype%22%3A%22DEFAULT%22%7D%7D%2C%22nonPersonalizedAd%22%3Atrue%7D%7D&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scmp.com&widgetid=2
US House of Representatives sends Uygur Human Rights Policy Act to Trump's desk for
approval
US House of Representatives sends Uygur Human Rights Policy Act to Trump's desk for
approval
Curtis was less sanguine about how much Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and other Central Asian
republics were resisting China's influence, citing an emphasis by governments in the region on
the economic consequences of strained ties with Beijing by protesting the treatment of Muslim
minorities in China's far northwest.
China's internment of Muslim Uygurs in the Xinjiang region has drawn international
condemnation. The UN has estimated that more than a million Muslims have been detained in camps
there for political re-education, but Beijing claims they are vocational training centres aimed
at countering religious extremism.
"With regard to the Central Asian countries, I think they're concerned about China's
economic influence in their countries, and therefore they very much hedge their comments about
the repression of Muslims in Xinjiang province," Curtis said, but added that she expected
public condemnation of China in Pakistan and Bangladesh to mount over the issue.
"There has been reticence, which has been disheartening, but I think as these countries see
China trying to trying to increase disinformation campaigns you'll start to see pushback from
the South Central Asian countries and more speaking out about the treatment of Muslims in
Xinjiang," she said. Join the Singapore
Property Festival - a virtual exhibition organised by the South China Morning Post on
August 1 to explore a wide range of affordable luxury residential and commercial real estate
assets in Singapore, perfect as relocation and investment options. Get property project
highlights and market insights from Info Session webinars and LIVE 1-on-1 chats with property
taxation, immigration and investment experts. Register for
your FREE PASS now.
"... The problem for the US is that China is the world's biggest semiconductor market and biggest chip importer on the world ..."
"... these bans are lose lose situation for both the US and China ..."
"... I do not think that Pompeo is smelling blood and moving for the jugular, its not such a situation as China is not that vulnerable, it is more likely to be US elite anger due to the US weakening and China gains during the Covid-19 crisis. ..."
"... Trump strategy of bullying works many times. Supposedly there should be costs for the US in soft power and world opinion, but we are not seeing them. ..."
"... I guess most of the world is too cowardly and prefers to go with the flow. They will abandon the US only after the US lost anyway. Well, it is not an easy situation. Still, the US reactions are very strong and hateful precisely because things are still not good for it and its decline is continuing, regardless of some tactical victories, where in some cases it is a lose lose situation anyway. ..."
A Significant Decline Is Coming For The U.S.james , Jul 27 2020 18:10 utc |
1
by Passer by
In response to several comments in the last
open thread (slightly edited).
Actually there is even some real, and not only relative, decline for the US, for example
US life expectancy is dropping. This is a pretty bad sign for a developed country. Same for
the UK by the way.
On the issue of China gaining during the Covid crisis, they gained in raw power, for
example gained in GDP relatively to the US. And they gained in debt levels too, relatively,
as US debt levels exploded due to the crisis. Now you have V-shaped recovery in China and
poor, W-shaped double dip recovery in the US. With far more debt added.
Of course there is the issue of public relations and soft power. On the one hand the US
blamed China for the pandemic, but on the other hand it embarrassed itself due to its poor
performance in containing the pandemic, compared to other countries. And the US lost points
around the world due to rejecting WHO right in the middle of the pandemic. Europe and
developing countries did not like that at all. Don't forget that Covid also weakened the US
military, they have problems with it, including on ships and overseas bases, and even broke
the biggest US exercise planned in Europe for the last 30 years. And the pandemic in the US
is still raging, its not fixed at all and death rates are increasing again.
Here for example, the futurologists from Pardee Canter that that China gained during the
crisis, in raw capabilities. Future research and relative power between countries is
their specialty :
Research Associate Collin Meisel and Pardee Center Director Jonathan Moyer use IFs
(International Futures) to explore the long-term impact of COVID-19 in China in this Duck
Of Minerva blog post" "Where broad measures of material capabilities are concerned, the
picture is clear: COVID-19 is closing the gap in relative capabilities for the U.S. and
China and accelerating the U.S.-China transition. Through multiple long-term forecast
scenarios using the International Futures tool,
Research Associate Collin Meisel and Pardee Center Director Jonathan Moyer explain on the
Duck of Minerva blog that China is likely to gain approximately one percent of global
power relative to the U.S. by 2030 due to the economic and mortality impacts of COVID-19.
This share of global power is similar to the relative capabilities of Turkey today.
On the issue of the USD, Stephen Roach
also says that there will be a significant decline in the medium term. And the argument
is pretty logical - if the US share in the global economy is declining (and it will be
declining at least up to year 2060), and if the level of US debts is reaching all time high
levels, then the USD will decline. I agree with that argument. It is fully logical.
On the chip/semiconductor issue. David Goldman is skeptical that the US will be able
to stop
China on this :
The chip ban gives the world an enormous incentive to circumvent the US
Basically Huawei still has advanced suppliers, from South Korea and Japan. And
some of them are refusing to yield. The problem for the US is that China is the world's
biggest semiconductor market and biggest chip importer on the world , which gives
enormous initiative for private businesses to circumvent US made equipment in order to export
to China. Then also China is stashing large quantities of chips. By 2025, it should be able
to replace foreign production with homegrown. So these bans are lose lose situation for
both the US and China - yes, this will cause come costs to China up to 2025. But it will
also lead to US companies, such as Qualcomm, to lose the Chinese chip market, which is the
largest in the world, and there is nothing to replace it.
These are hundreds of billions of losses for the US due to gradually losing the most
lucrative market. Thus, in relative terms, China does not lose from these games, as the US
will pay a large price just as China. It is lose-lose situation, but in relative terms the
same. US loses just as China loses. And do not forget that China warned that a full US attack
on Huawei will lead to Boeing being kicked from the country, which is becoming the biggest
aviation market in the world, and will lead to hundreds of billions of losses for that
company too, and will probably burry it under Airbus. China needs lots of planes up to 2028,
when they will replace them with their own, worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Elevating
Airbus over Boeing, which already has big troubles, will be a significant hit for the US
aerospace industry.
So China has cards to play too. On the issue of the US getting some countries to ban
Huawei, it is again lose - lose situation - that is both the US and some of its allies will
lose due to using more expensive 5G equipment and will lose more time to build their
networks. So China loses, and US and some allies lose, but in relative terms things remain
the same between them power-wise, as they both lose. Do not forget that Germany said that
it will continue to use Huawei equipment, and this is the biggest economy in Europe:
Germany's three major telecommunications operators Deutsche Telekom, Vodafone and
Telefonica have been actively promoting 5G in recent years. They implement the "supplier
diversification" strategy and use Huawei equipment in their networks among other vendors.
Peter Altmaier, German minister of economy, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on July
11 that Germany would not exclude Huawei from the country's 5G network rollout. "There can
only be an exclusion if national security is demonstrably at risk. However, we will
strengthen our security measures, regardless of which country the products come from," said
Altmaier. "There is no change in Germany's position," a spokesperson of the country's
Interior Ministry told local broadcaster ARD on July 16.
So we can say that probably half of Europe will be using Huawei. Still, as you said, a
large part of the world will exclude it. Maybe half of world's GDP. Unfortunately things are
not perfect. One bright spot in that is that Huawei is betting on emerging markets, and
emerging markets have higher growth rates than western markets - that is, they will matter
more in the future.
I would agree that the US is harming China, but the damage is not large IMO, as these are
mostly lose lose situations where relative power stays the same. And with time, there will be
significant damages for the US too, such as losing the biggest chip and aviation markets and
the empowerment of Boeing competitors such as Airbus.
So its not too bad in China. Thus, after mentioning all of this, I do not think that
Pompeo is smelling blood and moving for the jugular, its not such a situation as China is not
that vulnerable, it is more likely to be US elite anger due to the US weakening and China
gains during the Covid-19 crisis.
On Hong Kong China had no options. It was a lose-lose situation. If they allowed
everything to stay as it is there would be constant color revolution there and they will be
constantly in the media. Maybe it is better to stop this once and for all. They hoped that
the Covid crisis will give them cover to do this. It did not work very well.
Unfortunately it is right that the Trump strategy of bullying works many times.
Supposedly there should be costs for the US in soft power and world opinion, but we are not
seeing them.
I guess most of the world is too cowardly and prefers to go with the flow. They will
abandon the US only after the US lost anyway. Well, it is not an easy situation. Still, the
US reactions are very strong and hateful precisely because things are still not good for it
and its decline is continuing, regardless of some tactical victories, where in some cases it
is a lose lose situation anyway.
The data shows a
significant decline incoming for the US.
2019 China 1,27 times bigger in GDP/PPP
2030 China 1,8 times bigger in GDP/PPP
US debt to GDP 2019 80%
US debt to GDP 2030 125%
US debt to GDP 2050 230 %
The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will be depleted by 2021, the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI)
trust fund by the beginning of 2024, the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) trust
fund in the 2020s, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) Multi-Employer fund at
some point in the mid-2020s, and the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI)
trust fund by 2031. We estimate the theoretically combined Social Security OASDI Trust fund
will run out of reserves by 2031.
Military budget (before Covid estimates, Trump budget) 2019 3,2 % of GDP - 2030 2,5 %
of GDP (Could drop to 2,3 % of GDP due to Covid)
Civilian discretionary spending (before Covid estimates) 2019 3,2 % of GDP - 2030 1.8 %
of GDP (drop to all time low) (Could drop further due to Covid)
That is not to mention the big divide in US society, and the ongoing Covid crisis, which
is still not fixed in the US. But is largely fixed in China. Do you see the decline now? They
have a big, big reason to be worried. A significant decline is coming for the US.
Posted by b on July 27, 2020 at 17:53 UTC | Permalink
thanks for highlighting 'passer by's post b... i agree with them for the most part... it
reminds me of a game of chess where pieces are being removed from the board.. it is a lose-
lose, but ultimately, it is a bigger loss for the usa down the road... for whatever reason
the usa can't see that the financial sanctions, bullying and etc, only go so far and others
work around this as we see with russia, iran, venezuala and china in particular...
the one comment i would view differently then passer by is this one - "Unfortunately it is
right that the Trump strategy of bullying works many times. Supposedly there should be costs
for the US in soft power and world opinion, but we are not seeing them." i think the usa is
losing it's position in terms of soft power and world opinion but you won't be reading about
it in the western msm.. that is going to come out later after the emergence of a new reality
is very clear for all to see... the trump strategy is really more of the same and it is like
a medicine that loses it's power over time and becomes ineffective - sort of like
antibiotics...
In other words the western oligarchs will lose out to the eastern oligarchs in the Great
Trade War under the cover of a fake pandemic.
Or perhaps the global oligarchs in general just want the world to follow more in the
Chinese model where the population is more agreeable to total surveillance, social credit
scores and even more out right fascistic government/corp model under the cover of a fake
pandemic.
With respect to "bullying works", in international diplomacy it usually does since weaker
powers have more to lose in a direct diplomatic crisis with a larger power. This is not to
say that they won't push back, but they will be far more strategic in where they do. In
essence, weaker powers have fewer "red lines" but they will still enforce those, while
greater powers have more "red lines", because they have more power to squander on
fundamentally insignificant issues. However, weaker states will still remember being abused
and oppressed, so when the worms turns while they won't be the first to jump ship, they will
be more than eager to pile on and extract some juicy retribution once it is clear they will
not be singled out. I suspect the Germany will be the bellwether, when (if) Germany breaks
from the US on a key aspect on the transatlantic relationship that will be the signal for
others to start jumping ship. If Nordstream 2 go through, then there will be a break within 5
years; if Nordstream is killed, then the break might be delayed for 5 years or more but there
will still be a break when the US pushes Germany to support the next major US regime change
war in the Middle East.
The engineered collapse is being called the "Great Reset" by many outlets already. The
covid nonsense is just a cover for it. Instead of Saudi Arabian terrorist it is a basically a
harmless coronavirus. Just in the days immediately following 911 the "terrorist'' threat was
so overhyped that security theater was employed everywhere. Now sanitation theater is the new
act in town.
Where does anyone get these numbers about military spend as a % of gdp? Have you listened
to Katherine Austin Fitts on Corbett Report?
Posted by: oglalla | Jul 27 2020 18:27 utc | 4
Good to see your comment. Lots of anecdotal evidence nationwide about store closures and
many vacancies in business centers, particularly within economic engines of NYC and elsewhere
along the East Coast. IMO, lots of self-censorship by business media while the reality
reported by Shadowstats goes ignored. As for losing the status of #1 economy, that was always
going to occur once China or India became a moderately developed economy. It just happened
that China is far more efficient politically which allowed it to become #1. And until India
improves politically, it will continue to lag behind numerous smaller nations. Too bad there
isn't a place where one can bet on the great likelihood that the Outlaw US Empire will
outperform all nations in the production of Bullshit and Lies.
I also disagree with the comparison between USA and China gdp and other statistics.
China is not simply competing against USA but against the Empire: 5 eyes, NATO, Euro
poodles, Israel and the Gulf States and others like Mexico, Columbia, Brazil, India.
Anyone that is minimizing the conflict and the advantages of one side vs another is doing
a disservice.
CitizenX @ 26
Agree with your tone and content.
Particularly the third from last paragraph. I think people are missing by choice the growing
ground-swell of public opinion US wide as this blog shows, a multi-faceted detereation of US
political morals and legality.
Combined with a world wide growing awareness of how deranged American leaders now are.
Haterd consumes itself as dose greed.
My ear to the ground tells me, the protests at present are growing some in full sight some
not.
This is not buseness as usual. Then return to normal. The mood now is -- -- - let's settle
this thing once and for all, let's get the job done.
So my personal opinion ? we will see a US regime chainge faster than a lot here predict. Much
faster.
Passer by is correct, no doubt, thanks to incompetent leadership in the US, but this
economic horse race doesn't matter.
What matters above all is that nations should hold it together, "it" being sustainable,
survivable support systems capable of providing for mass populations.We have failed that test
here in our encounter with this pandemic. We have failed to develop a sustainable financial
system. We have failed to meet any sort of environmental goals. We don't even have
environmental goals! Our electoral system doesn't work, either, proof being the election of
this idiot atavistic rich boy. If anyone thinks the election of Trump reflects the will of
the majority of Americans, they are part of the problem.
China is in deep trouble. The CCP's greatest challenge is simply to hold "it" together.
The Party has to perform economic miracles or the country will collapse. Those groups not
satisfied with life in the PRC have no outlet for their voices to be heard. They cannot
protest. They are under the strict control of an increasingly sophisticated but tiny elitist
clique that is only 6.5% of the total population. This clique will not relinquish power and
permit more democratic expression. On the contrary, more and more suppression of dissidence
of any sort will happen. The social scoring system is an especially insidious program of
social control. China's collectivism has turned the country into an ant hill. It is extremely
productive, but people are not ants.
Passer by is looking at the world through a keyhole.
Nightmare' conditions at Chinese factories where Hasbro and Disney toys are made
Investigators found there were serious violations at the factories which were endangering
workers.
In peak production season, employees were working up to 175 overtime hours per month.
Chinese labour law restricts monthly overtime to 36 hours per month, but the report alleged
factories would often ask local governments to implement a "comprehensive working hour
scheme" to override existing legislation.
One wonders if China will run into the same problems of the US in the not too distant
future?
"The End of Sweatshops? Robotisation and the Making of New Skilled Workers in China"
Over the past four decades China has undergone a process of massive industrialisation that
has allowed the country to achieve remarkable economic growth. Because of its large
manufacturing capacity based on a seemingly unlimited supply of cheap migrant labour in light
industries, China has come to be known as the 'workshop of the world'. However, since the
early 2000s the country's labour market has experienced a remarkable transition from labour
surplus to a shortage of labour, which has led to sustained increases in the wages of
ordinary workers. In such a context, since 2015 robotisation has become a driving policy for
industrial upgrading for manufacturing in China, with the slogan 'replacing human workers
with industrial robots' (机器换人) frequently appearing in media
reports and official policy documents.
The early date of "full spectrum dominance" (1996 not 2010) suggests to me that the
doctrine was related the "end of history" thinking of that time. USA Deep State believed its
own propaganda.
It also strengthens my case for the proximate cause for the current conflict originating
in 2014 when the US Deep State suddenly realized the threat that Russia and China Alliance
posed to their plans for global domination.
Not only had they believed their own propaganda but they had overreached with their
attempt to force Russia to capitulate and had been distracted by Israel interests that wanted
to use USA for the greater Israel project.
When I wrote my economic analysis paper on China in 1999, it was quite clear that the 21st
Century was going to become the Asian Century as the Outlaw US Empire would be eclipsed by
Asia's economic dynamism. 20+ years later, my prediction holds true, and it's even stronger
now than then with Russia's resurgence. Both outcomes clearly go against the 500+ years of
Western Global Hegemony and goads numerous people. For students of history like myself,
what's occurring isn't a surprise thanks to the West's adoption of--or should I write forced
indoctrination into--the Neoliberal political-economic philosophy, which is akin to that of
Feudalism since it benefits the same class as that of the Feudal Era. China too was once
Feudal and suffered a massive Civil War that destroyed much of its structure, a conflict
known to the West as The Taiping Rebellion that lasted
almost 14 years, from 1850-1864. One might say that was the first half of China's overall
effort to overthrow Feudalism and Western Imperialism, as the second half began in 1927 and
finally concluded in 1949. That amounts to a large % of years for a newbie nation like the
USA; but for a nation like China inhabited by humans for over 1.3 million years and with
4,500 years of recorded history, it's really just another Dynastic Rollover--something
inconceivable to non-Asians.
In reality, China's a conservative nation, culture and society with a several thousand
year ethos of Collectivism, although that allowed a significant divergence in social
stratification due to the ruling Feudal ways. Those who have read The Good Earth have
an excellent grasp on the nature of Chinese Feudalism, which was embodied by the Kuomintang
or KMT--as with Feudal lords, KMT leaders were deemed "Gangsters" by US Generals and
diplomats during and after WW2. General Marshall wrote in 1947 it was clear to him that the
KMT would lose to the CPC, that there was no good reason to throw good money after bad, and
it would be best for the USA and the West to accept the fact of a Communist China (all noted
by Kolko in his Politics of War ). Contemporary China when compared to China as
depicted in 1931 by Pearl Buck is one of the most amazing human achievements of all time, and
the conservative Chinese government intends to keep it that way through a series of well
thought-out plans. That's the reality. It can be accepted and worked with as numerous nations
realize, or it be somehow seen as unacceptable and fought against in what will prove to be a
losing effort since all China need do is parry the blows and reflect them back upon its
opponent using skills it developed over several thousand years. It would be much easier to
join China than fight.
It's misleading to assess the National Military Capability of various countries in $US terms.
The West's M-IC is privately owned and puts shareholder profit before all else. And the
owners of the Western M-IC also own the politicians who facilitate and approve the rip-offs.
China and Russia's M-IC are owned and controlled by The People via the government and can
therefore get $2+ of value for every $1 invested. For example, one can buy some very nifty
twin-engine bizjets for less than half the price USG pays for a flying Batmobile (F-35) - a
glorified hot-rod with guns.
There is definitely a decline in the USA. Deaths of despair and from the coronavirus are
too great to ignore anymore. 150,000 dead and counting are not nothing. The Western Empire
has fallen. The U.S. federal government failed. The Imperialists are quarantined at home.
The question is if the 19th century North American Empire from Hawaii to Puerto Rico
survives. The Elite have bet it all on a vaccine or patentable treatment to give the
Pharmaceutical Industry billions of dollars. However, quick cheap paper monoclonal antigen
tests would make testing at home before going to work or school practical.
This would end viral transmission and the pandemic. No drug jackpot for the 10%. Instead
public health is ignored as Americans die. The silence is deafening. The protests in the
Pacific Northwest are not about slavery. They are about the 90% of Americans being treated as
disposable trash.
150,000 dead and counting are not nothing. The Western Empire has fallen.
No offense VV but I can't help thinking that you (and maybe some others) are talking past the
issue.
To be clear, the issue is this: Will the West's decline play a role in the US/Empire's
ability and willingness to confront Russia-China? Or is the oft-heard refrain that US/Empire
can not 'win' against China (implying that they shouldn't/won't bother trying!)
because of its decline (usually attributed to 'late-state capitalism') just wishful
thinking?
Virtually everyone here has agreed that the West - especially USA - hasn't fought the
virus correctly and with vigor. And virtually everyone agrees that there has been a relative
decline in USA/West and in some areas an absolute decline.
IMO what is ignored is that:
from the perspective of the US 'Deep State' or Western power-elite the failure to fight
the virus is a net positive if the repercussions are blamed on China (in addition to
other 'positives' from their perspective: saving on cost of care to elderly, boosting Big
Pharma profits, etc.) -
In fact, deliberate mistakes and mounting only a token effort (as we've seen)
is exactly what we should expect from a craven power-elite that want to further their
interests;
the overall decline, while troublesome - especially to the ordinary blokes who get the
short end of that decline - is not yet significant enough to prevent USA/Empire from
countering the Russia-China 'upstarts' aggressively.
I likened the hopefulness of the anti-Empire crowd about Western decline to their hopefulness
they previously expressed regarding Turkey. "Erdogan is turning east!" proved to be wrong.
Posted by: Andrei Martyanov | Jul 27 2020 19:01 utc | 14 Within last 10 years China built
surface fleet which in terms of hulls (and "freshness") rivals that of the US. US economy
would have it bottom falling off if it tried to accomplish a similar task.
Nice to see you here again. Yes, I mentioned the relative navy building in the previous
open thread. China's navy will exceed US capability by 2050 and be on parity by 2030-2040
according to reports I've read. That's just ten years to twenty years from now.
Result: US gets kicked out of the South China Sea and has to share the Pacific, Indian
Ocean (as will India with gnashing of teeth) and even the Med with China. China will
undoubtedly project naval power all the way to the Med in support of BRI in the Middle
East.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 27 2020 20:43 utc | 27 There is decline, and while it has been
mostly relative it is also accelerating - but that hasn't significantly constrained
USA/Empire's response to the upstarts.
I agree. US military power isn't going away in ten years or twenty. China may achieve
parity at some point (and can do serious damage now). But that doesn't obviate the fact that,
short of nuclear war, the US is still in a position to throw its weight around and will
continue to do so until forced back by a (hopefully conventional) military defeat of serious
proportions, i.e., not just "give up and go home". And economic woes won't change that as
long as the taxpayer can be fleeced - and they will be, for at least a few more decades.
@ 62 A.L. "Would it be a surprise to you than there are many many protests in China at the
grass root level everyday?"
There are indeed protests all the time, which is the fire under the local Party leaders
that keeps them dancing. Usually the protests are against local corruption or mismanagement
and are not serious. People can get what they want this way. Each year at the general Party
gathering, however, special note is taken of "mass incidents", that is, protests on a larger
scale, and overtly political events such as those in the Uighur province of Xinjiang and in
Hong Kong. Any protest that challenges the control of the Party is not permitted. The current
protests in the US could not happen in China because they challenge political orthodoxy. The
Chinese don't just roll over on command for the CCP to scratch their bellies and the Party
knows just how volatile the political situation could be if mishandled. China is developing
into the ultimate surveillance state. There are lots of Chinese like that little guy that
stood down the tank at Tienanmen in 1989. Eventually that guy is going to say: "There is some
shit I will not eat!" The Party knows this.
Several years ago (close to 10) I noted that the US would be bringing back US companies
from China, that it would actually subsidize their relocation. It's only logical. I saw China
as becoming hostile to US corporations: in light of how things are going today it's the US
govt becoming hostile toward US companies in China. Make huge profits and then get free money
to return back to the US: and be welcomed as victorious troops arriving back from some
glorious war.
It's Musical Chairs. As the music plays more and more chairs are being removed. Capitalism
has been the most efficient economic system in which to trigger an economic collapse. WTF did
people think would happen with basing economic systems on the impossible, basing on perpetual
growth on a finite planet. All of this was readily foreseeable using SIMPLE MATH.
China is in deep trouble. The CCP's greatest challenge is simply to hold "it" together.
The Party has to perform economic miracles or the country will collapse.
How do you square your dire prediction of China's collapse with the
Edelman trust barometer of 2019 (warning: PDF file), where China scores 88 on the trust
index and the US scores 60?
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed that all the "leading" western countries are unable
to handle even a relatively moderate public health crisis. The neoliberal economic model
considers any aspect of society that isn't generating a profit as ideologically unsound and
targets these areas for "reform" (i.e. privatization).
Sometimes this is done outright, as when a public utility or service is sold to a private,
for-profit operator (e.g. British Rail in the UK). But when the government thinks the public
will resist and push back it is done by stealth, usually by starving the targeted
service/organization of funds and then farming out parts of it to for-profit companies in the
name of "efficiency", "innovation", "resilience" or some other neoliberal doublespeak concept
(they all mean only one thing of course: PROFIT). This is currently happening to the US
Postal Service.
Every public healthcare system in the so-called "advanced" nations encompassed by the
EU/NATO and Five Spies has been underfunded and subjected to stealth privatization for
decades. Furthermore, people in neoliberal societies exist to serve as fodder and raw
material for "the economy" (i.e. the plutocrat or oligarch class) and there is no mechanism
to deal with emergencies that can't be milked for a profit. Hence, the half arsed,
incompetent, making-it up-as-they-go-along response to COVID-19 that simply writes off older
and sick people as expendable.
Neoliberalism began as a US/UK project, that's why poverty, crime, inadequate health care
and social services etc. and governmental and societal dysfunction generally is more advanced
there than in, say, Canada and Germany.
So, yes, the US is in decline, maybe even collapsing, but that doesn't mean the imperial
lackey countries are immune to the forces tearing apart the United States. They are just
proceeding down that road at a slower pace. If the US falls, the west falls...globalization
takes no prisoners.
I live in Canada where sometimes people get a bit smug about how great everything is here
compared to the US. In British Columbia, for example, opiate overdose deaths are at a record
high and have killed many many more people than COVID-19 since the pandemic began. Housing in
cities like Vancouver is increasingly unaffordable, there aren't enough jobs that pay a
living wage, permanent homeless camps exist in city parks, there are entire blocks where
people who live in their vehicles park etc.etc.
The reality is that it's the west that is in decline, not only the United States.
China is developing into the ultimate surveillance state.
Posted by: jadan | Jul 28 2020 1:30 utc | 95
But don't you see, dear jadan, it is for the good of the people, if only the rest of the
world could see the benevolence of Big Brother we would all be much happier at least that is
what the thought police has told me to think. One government, one heart, one mind. Long Live
the PRC revolution./s
Amidst all of the nonsense in the discussion section of the following link, I believe
there are some germane comments from individuals that work in the semiconductor space that
touch on some of the challenges China's chip industry faces. link
I hope their hiring of 3,000 experienced chip engineers accelerates their learning curve.
Developing a chip industry on a moment's notice, let alone competing with Samsung and TSMC,
is no small chore.
One item not mentioned in the above article is whether China could build many consumer
components based on domestic 14nm (or larger) technology. Given China used to spend more
importing chips than oil, I assume that even less advanced chips used for TVs, etc. as
opposed to cellphones, would be very helpful for China's consumer electronics
manufacturing.
They are also making some strides in the flash memory and CPU space, but production
quantities are still very low.
Health, education, infrastructure, research and development. The backbone of prosperity.
These will all continue no matter trade war or cold war but barring hot war. There must be a
doubling time for this - something like an R0. Cold war and sanctions will only serve to
increase R&D
US mistakes, hubris ect move in the opposite direction, mistakes multiplying
mistakes.
@Schmoe 105
thanks, interesting. Here is a complementary tho less detailed article on some of the same
topics I ran across recently: China Speeds Up
Advanced Chip Development [semiconductorengineering.com]
One important point, clearly visible in the tables in the seekingalpha article linked by
Schmoe, is that the ultra-small 14nm/7nm stuff is for specialized (but strategically
important) applications. Most consumer electronics, industry, and everything else is 40-60nm
and up, although of course smaller has benefits to older applications in improve power (i.e.
mobile applications and servers) and cost (higher density/wafer)
US as an one excuse for its current hostilities against China is 'intellectual property'
theft. Makes me think of ninja Chinese sneaking around removing peoples brains.
But back to semiconductors. One of China's biggest imports is chips, mostly made by machines
using US tech. Many industries are highly specialized and it often makes sense from small
community level to national and global level to by a product from those that specialist in
that product.
China has been content to buy chips, but that will now change due to necessity. Yankistan can
now expect to get its brains hacked, but I am also reminded of the Scientists in the
Manhattan Project being the ones to pass on much information to the Soviet Union.
Yankistan will be leaking like a sieve. I guess that's why both oz and the poms are beefing
up their secret police laws. Wont be long before we are getting shot trying to run through
checkpoint charlie to the free east.
It is clear that the US is in decline. It is clear the US military is bloated and
overpriced but it can still turn most countries into rubble (even without using nuclear
weapons) and has done a few recently. Mostly the US uses its reserve currency status and
control of financial networks to punish countries that do not go along with its program. Can
you say sanctions. but as Hemingway said about bankruptcy - it happens slowly and then all at
once - is probably how it will continue to go. It is even losing its technological advantage.
Boeing used to be the leader and made reliable planes. Now they sometimes fall out of the
air. Things like high speed railways used to be the kind of thing the US did well. Now
California can't get one built. China has built thousands of miles of them. Russia built a 19
kilometer bridge to Crimea in 2 years after 2 years of planning. It appears to be competently
built on time and on budget. Do you really think this could happen in the USA now? In the 70s
the US was the leader in environmental actions. I wonder if the present day Congress could
even pass bills comparable to the Clean Air ACT or the Clean water bill. US national politics
are a mean joke. Our choice this year for President - two 70+ old white men with mental
issues. Our health system is overpriced. Medical bills are one of the main reasons for
personal bankruptcies. As others mentioned the US life expectancy is falling. As Dmitri Orlov
who watched the Soviet Empire fail said - Empire hollowed out the Soviet Union till it
failed, I see it doing the same thing in the US.
The current 'adjustment' in the USD & living standards is just what the doctor ordered
to allow elites to roll out "tech wave 2" - there is precious little gain to be had from
further staffing & wages cuts to the average shit-kicker, so now the bourgeoisie,
medicos, architects, academics, writers plus all the rest of the tertiary educated types who
blew hundreds of thousands on an education guaranteed to keep them employed, are about to be
tossed on the scrap heap.
We already know from previous stunts such as 911 & the 2008 'global financial
meltdown' that those most disadvantaged by this entirely predictable destruction of lives
will be easily diverted into time-wasting and pointless arguments about the real cause
of the mess.
This will allow the elites to use that diversion to funnel all federal funds into
subsidising the capital costs of the retooling, as both parties have begun to with the
despicable CARES Act, supported by the mad christian right in the senate, as well as the
so-called socialists in the Congress squad.
All the Cares Act does is inject capital into big corporations, boosting their stock price
& leaving citizens to lose most of their unemployment benefit. Citizens get evicted from
their homes. This time it will be tenants as well as home owners.
Both of those factions of elite enablers are going to create a great deal of noise and
crass finger pointing. The squad will jump up and down about this being a deliberate attack
on citizens by the elite while senate fundies will claim that this 'retooling' is the result
of unreasonable pay & working conditions demands by the communist unions.
What should be a universal expression of disgust will be reduced to just another culture
war.
Neither will ever admit that it is far too late to be worrying about cause, it is time to
concern themselves with effect, because to do so would create focus back on where the money
was going at time when it is important to be saying "everyone is hurting, including the
elites". Fools.
Eventually when the deed has been done assorted scummy senators & creepy congress
people will announce "It is time to move on" That will be a signal that treasury tanks are
dry, the elites have gotten everything which wasn't nailed down so now the citizens can roll
clawing & scratching in the mud.
I have no doubt that will be the direction of discussion here as well, it is much easier
to sit at a keyboard digging out obscure 'facts' that 'prove' one point of view or another,
than it is to leave the keyboard behind and put work into resisting the elites and in doing
so forcing a change that is more citizen friendly.
With the return of Russia to the geo-political arena, US can no longer destroy counties at
will through conventional weapons nor color revolutions and AQ freedom fighters.
Trump decided to go nuclear, so Russia placed its nuclear umbrella over it allies.
US can no longer destroy countries at will. It can attack a country and risk ensuring its own
destruction.
So back to hybrid war and proxie war ... but now the field is narrowed down to five-eyes and
in the case of China - India.
So to keep Russia out, yankistan has to rely on conventional war and hybrid war, though we
are looking at a country where the lunatics are in charge of the asylum so anything could
happen.
The MNCs producing it, the MSS, NSA and GCHQ, the IoT idiots and all authoritarians on the
globe. Consumers are happy with 3G: many don't even have 4G reception - give that to
them.
With IoT more unemployment, more electricity and Internet dependency, more chance of hacks
or natural disruptions (solar flares), more 1984.
The Chinese Communist Party wants a tributary international system where smaller countries
are deferential to larger powers, instead of a rules-based international order where
small countries enjoy equal rights.
The US/UK declining won't bother most billionaires with those passports: they just buy any
other. Stuck are the millions of others.
Equally "China" ascending brings joy for all billionaires around the globe holding stock
depending on Chinese near monopolies, including Anglo-es.
Some middle class Chinese are beginning to see that dying "rich" is is very limited goal,
as zero can be taken to the Here After and the price for this Now is too high. Money is not
everything. Welcome to this select club, Chinese brothers and sisters. Sure, a bit is good to
live but amassing is a waste of precious time and attention.
The US lacks the capacity to erect an "economic wall" that can stop China's
development. Trump's "trade war" was an attempt to do just that, and America got
steamrolled.
To be sure, the US can attempt even more irrational and desperate acts such as trying to
seize assets owned by Chinese people and organizations in the US, but that would be America
shooting itself in the head rather than just the foot.
The US simply does not posses the ability to "take the wind out of China's sails" .
That is not something that is within America's power to accomplish without going kinetic by,
for instance, trying to enforce a naval blockade of China's maritime transport routes. At
this point there are no economic measures America can take that will not do vastly more
damage to America than to China. Both trade war and bio attack were the best options America
had, and America has suffered grievously from those efforts with relatively minimal impact on
China. China's economy remains fundamentally strong while America's economy is
devastated.
As for disrupting China's international development efforts, America has been trying its
hardest for years now with the only impact being minor delays in China's plans. The only way
to truly disrupt China's international development efforts would be to offer a better deal,
but America no longer has anything to offer that is better. The only option left to America
to delay the BRI for longer would be a kinetic one, and the door is closing on that.
from the perspective of the US 'Deep State' or Western power-elite the failure to fight the
virus is a net positive if the repercussions are blamed on China (in addition to other
'positives' from their perspective: saving on cost of care to elderly, boosting Big Pharma
profits, etc.) -
It will not be possible to blame China, simply because no one believes the US press any
longer, and there is no convincing the woman or man on the street that US handling of the
virus has been in any way competent. We may not understand its virulence, and we perhaps
don't understand yet how to cope with it, but the example of China has been clear from the
earliest moments, and that speaks louder than any false rhetoric can claim.
We know what we have been experiencing in comparison with others who acted with celerity,
and that basically was what was needed. The US chose to go it alone, at its peril. It stuck
by a set of rules it had made for itself in these last years - rules which have not benefited
the people at large. It all comes down to that.
I would not quote a Zionist dominated source like Wikipedia on anything politically
sensitive and the article you refer to is in any case 10 years out of date. However if you
read it it refers to two foreign-owned firms, and it mentions that there are (In 2010)plans
to double wages in the next ten years which has happened. The article also states"
Strikes are not new in China. Chinese authorities have long tolerated limited, local
protests by workers unhappy over wages or other issues.[40] The Pearl River Delta alone has
up to 10,000 labor disputes each year. In the spring of 2008, a local union official
described strikes as "as natural as arguments between a husband and wife".[41] The Chinese
government sought balance on the issue; while it has recently repeated calls for increased
domestic consumption through wage increases and regulations, it is also aware that labour
unrest could cause political instability.[42][43]
In response to the string of employee suicides at Foxconn, Guangdong CPC chief Wang Yang
called on companies to improve their treatment of workers. Wang said that "economic growth
should be people-oriented".[44] As the strikes intensified, Wang went further by calling
for more effective negotiations mechanisms, particularly the reform of existing trade
unions. At the same time, authorities began shutting down some websites reporting on the
labour incidents, and have restricted reporting, particularly on strikes occurring at
domestic-owned factories.[46][47] Guangdong province also announced plans to
"professionalize union staff" by taking union representatives off of company payroll to
ensure their independence from management influence.
Which indicates to me that the suicides alerted the government to the fact that
these firms were making the lives of their workers miserable and took steps to improve the
control of them. They obviously realized that the Union officials had been bought by the
management. I wonder how the British government or the USG would have reacted? What I am
certain about is that the MSM would have been much less enthusiastic about reporting it.
IMO, taking a good look at Brazil's situation provides close to a mirror image for those
within the Outlaw US Empire having trouble seeing clearly. Too often we forget to look
South at the great sewer and its misery US Imperialism's created. It may be getting
defeated in Eurasia, but it's winning in Latin America.
That sewer of misery was running full flush during Susan Rice's rise through the
ranks.
National Security Adviser to Obummer 2013 - 2017,
US Ambassador to the UN 2009 - 2013
Do read the rest:
And well beyond South America.
Now she is close to seizing the prize of VP to Biden. She is a iron war horse of
formidable capacity and mendacity given her past roles. She has few redeeming features. She
will conform exactly to the dictats of the permanent state and she will easily step right
over Joe Biden as he either falls or is taken down at the most opportune time.
What drole sense of humour thought of this - the hapless Trump squeezed between two black
American presidents. Seems like something the Clintons dreamed up.
"It was asked upthread if the US citizenry would trade its no-longer existing Superpower
status for decent living standards.... There're only two forces keeping the American people
from attaining freedom from the above fundamental fear and having lifelong security: The
Duopoly and its Donor Class, the Rentier Class of Feudalistic Parasites that are the enemy of
virtually all humanity."
The US citizenry will choose decent living standards in a heartbeat, but the present
arrangement for eating off the labour of deplorables is just too profitable for the Duopoly
& Donor Class to be permitted to change for a couple decades more.
Perhaps they will move on when there is no more meat on the American corpse, or when they
have built up a sufficiently large group of useful idiots in China to begin eating off the
backs of deplorables with Chinese characteristics.
Anything is possible, with the right amount of moolah, even overcoming Confucian morals.
Joshua Wong comes to mind, who not only does idiotic, but actually looks idiotic.
USA: The slippery slope of egalitarian racism by Thierry Meyssan
The reactions to the murder of black George Flyod by a white policeman do not refer to the
history of slavery in the United States, but - like the systemic opposition to President Trump-
to a profound problem in Anglo-Saxon culture: Puritan fanaticism. The domestic violence that
rocked this country during the two civil wars of Independence and Secession must be remembered
in order to understand current events and prevent their resurgence. Beware: in the United
States, the political class now preaches egalitarian racism. All equal, but separate. VOLTAIRE
NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 14 JULY 2020 عربي DEUTSCH
ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆ ESPAÑOLFRANÇAIS ITALIANO PORTUGUÊS
TÜRKÇE
It could be humour, but unfortunately it is a puritanical slogan to be taken at face
value: "Black Men are an endangered species".
The Anglo-Saxon Puritans
About four hundred members of the Church of England fled their country where they were
considered fanatics. They took refuge in Leiden, Holland, where they were able to live
according to the Calvinist tradition, or more precisely the Puritan interpretation of
Christianity. Probably at the request of King James I, they sent two groups to the Americas to
fight against the Spanish Empire. The first founded what was to become the United States, the
second was lost in Central America.
Later, the Puritans took power in England with Lord Cromwell. They beheaded the Papist King
Charles I, established an egalitarian Commonwealth and colonized Ireland, massacring Catholics
en masse. This bloodthirsty experiment was short-lived and discredited for a long time the idea
of a General Interest ( Res Publica ) in the eyes of the English.
The 35 Pilgrim Fathers set out from Leiden, stopped in England, and then crossed the ocean
on the Mayflower . They arrived in North America in 1620 to practice their religion
freely. During their voyage, they signed a Covenant in which they vowed to establish a model
society (strict observance of the Calvinist faith and cult, intense community life, and
unfailing social and moral discipline). By creating the Colony of Plymouth, they hoped to build
the "New Jerusalem" after fleeing from the "Pharaoh" (James I) and crossing the "Red Sea" (the
Atlantic). After a year, they thanked God for their epic, which is commemorated each year as
Thanksgiving. [ 1 ] They established their capital
city 60 kilometers north, in Boston. Their community veiled its women, practiced public
confessions and corporal punishment.
The logo of the very powerful Pilgrim's Society: the Pilgrim Father is depicted alongside
the British lion and the American eagle.
These events are not only myths that every American should know, they shape the political
system of the USA. Eight out of 45 presidents (including the Bushes) are direct descendants of
the 35 "Pilgrim Fathers". Despite the arrival of tens of millions of immigrants and
institutional appearances, their ideology remained in power for four centuries, until the
election of Donald Trump. A very closed club, Pilgrim's Sociey, brought together, under the
authority of the English monarch, very high British and American personalities. It set up the
"Special Relationship" between London and Washington and, among other things, provided many
secretaries and advisers to President Obama.
Many ceremonies planned this year for the 400th anniversary of the Mayflower have been
cancelled due to the fight against the coronavirus epidemic, in particular the conference that
the former British National Security Advisor was to give at Pilgrim's Society. Bad tongues
assure that the epidemic will end the day after the US presidential election, if Donald Trump
loses it, and that the festivities can then take place.
There are two cultures that have always been opposed in the United States among Christians:
Calvinists or Puritans on the one hand, and Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans on the other.
While some "denominations" among the eight hundred US churches resolutely line up on one side,
most are crossed by both because Puritanism has no defined theological corpus. It is rather a
way of thinking.
The War of Independence began in 1773 with the Boston Tea Party. Its first actor was John
Adams, another direct descendant of one of the 35 "Pilgrim Fathers" and second president of the
United States. While the call for independence was made by the political journalist Thomas
Paine based on religious arguments although he himself did not believe in anything.
In a way, the War of Independence was a continuation in the Americas of Lord Cromwell's
British Civil War (the "Great Rebellion"). This conflict would resurface a third time with the
Civil War, which, it should be remembered, had nothing to do with slavery (both sides practised
it at the beginning of the war and both sides repealed it during the war to hire former slaves
into their armies).
The Puritans lost in England with Cromwell's Republic, but won the next two times in the
United States. Historian Kevin Phillips, who was Republican electoral adviser to Republican
Richard Nixon (descendant of a brother of one of the 35 "Pilgrim Fathers"), has studied this
conflict at length over the centuries. [ 2 ] It is on the basis of this data
that he imagined the strategy of "Law and Order" in the face of the segregationist Democrat
George Wallace in the 1968 presidential election; a strategy that Donald Trump has taken up
again for the 2020 election.
All this to say that appearances are deceiving. The dividing lines are not where the rest of
the world thinks they are.
The Puritans have always supported absolute equality, but only among
Christians. They long forbade Jews from entering the civil service and massacred the Indians
they claimed to love. During the American Civil War, they extended their egalitarianism to
blacks (unlike the Puritans in southern Africa, who defended apartheid to the end), giving rise
to the false myth of a war against slavery. Today, they defend the idea that humanity is
divided between equal and, if possible, separate races. They are still reluctant to call them
interracial marriages. The Puritans place lying at the bottom of their scale of values. It cannot
be for them a ruse, but always the worst of crimes, far more serious than robbery and murder.
In the seventeenth century, they punished with the whip for lying to a pastor for any reason.
They established laws that still punish lying to a federal official for any reason.
US
Evangelism
With time, and particularly in the 19th century, another current of thought arose within
American Christianity: evangelism. These are Christians of all denominations who try to get
closer to the original Christianity of which they know little. So they rely on the sacred
texts. Like the Puritans, the Evangelicals are fundamentalists, i.e. they give the Scriptures
the role of a divine word and interpret them while refusing any contextualization of the texts.
But they are much more pragmatic. On everything, they have a position of principle, but when
faced with a problem, they act in conscience and not according to the rules of their
community.
It is very easy to make fun of the grotesque convictions of the Evangelicals against the
theory of evolution, but this is of little importance and they abandon it when necessary. It is
much more significant, but unfortunately rarer, to denounce the puritanical vision of a
humanity divided into distinct, equal, but separate races. Yet this has serious consequences on
a daily basis.
The Puritans remained the masters of U.S. politics until 1997, when Libertine President Bill
Clinton issued an executive order banning all expressions of religious faith in federal
institutions. The result was a shift in religion from the Administration to the private sector.
All major corporations accepted prayer groups in their workplaces. This shift favored the
public emergence of Evangelicals at the expense of Puritans.
During the riots outside the White House, President Trump went to St. John's Episcopal
Church to present himself, Bible in hand, as the defender of the religious beliefs of all
Christians in the face of Puritan fanaticism.
The Return of Puritan Fanaticism
The conflict between the Puritans and the rest of society is today taking a radical and
religious turn. It opposes two mentalities, one idealist, egalitarian within their community
and fanatical, the other sometimes even more extravagant, agreeing on inequalities, but
realistic.
Puritan Hillary Clinton hesitated to become a Methodist pastor after her failure in the
presidential election [ 3 ]. She sinned a lot (her affair with
Vince Foster), was punished by God (her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky) repented (within
the Pentagon Family [ 4 ]) and was saved. She is sure that
she was chosen by God and takes pride in her violence against non-Christian peoples. She
supports all wars against the "enemies of America" and hopes to see the return of Christ.
On the contrary, Donald Trump shows no interest in theology, has only an approximate
knowledge of the Bible and a summary faith. He has sinned as much as anyone else, but
boasts of what he has achieved rather than repenting of his sins in public. He doubts himself
and compensates for his feeling of inferiority with excessive egotism. He loves to compete with
his enemies, but does not want to destroy them. In any case, he embodies the will to restore
the greatness of their country ("Make America Great Again!") rather than to pursue wars always
and everywhere, which makes him the champion of the Evangelicals against the Puritans. He
offers the opportunity for Christians to reform themselves rather than convert the world.
In the 2016 election campaign, I asked the question, "Will the United States reform or tear
itself apart? " [ 5 ] In my view, only Donald Trump
could allow the USA to continue as a nation, while Hillary Clinton would provoke a civil war
and probably the dissolution of the country on the model of the end of the USSR. What has
happened since the death of George Flyod shows that I was not mistaken.
Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election campaign.
Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party supporters are imposing their ideology. They fight
against lies and destroy statues like their Puritan ancestors burned the Salem witches. They
develop an absurd reading of their own society, denying social conflicts and interpreting
inequalities only in terms of so-called distinct human races. They disarm the local police and
force "white" personalities to apologize in public for enjoying an invisible privilege.
In the Russian case, the discontinuation of the prosecution of former National Security
Advisor Michael Flynn and the presidential pardon granted to Donald Trump's former advisor,
Roger Stone, sparked angry protests from Puritans. Neither man harmed anyone, but they dared to
lie to the FBI to keep him out of the White House.
The mayor of Minneapolis (the town of George Flyod) was publicly humiliated for refusing to
disband the "racist" city police. While Seattle City Council has just cut its city police
budget in half. This does not bother the upper social classes living in private residences, but
deprives those who cannot afford private security guards.
The Associated Press , then the New Yok Times , the Los Angeles Times
and soon almost all US media, decided to write Black with a capital letter when
referring to "race" [ 6 ], but not White in the same
way. Indeed, the fact of writing White with a capital letter is a distinctive sign of
the white supremacists [ 7 ].
The Pentagon considered renaming its military bases with the names of southern personalities
accused of being "racist" and sent an e-mail to all civilian and military personnel of the US
Army denouncing as "extreme right" the claim that there is only one human race. Although these
initiatives have provoked a strong reaction from the trumped-up GIs and have failed, they mark
a very dangerous escalation [ 8 ].
"... Attempting to neutralise a global competitor is the main goal of Americans. Neutralising China's rapid, dynamic development is the essence of the American strategy ..."
Recap from today's Global Times where the argument is to continue to stay the
course and counterpunch in the typical martial arts fashion, as this op/ed from today's Global
Times says :
"Chinese analysts said Sunday the key for China to handle the US offensive is to focus on
its own development and insist on continued reform and opening-up to meet the increasing
needs of Chinese people for better lives. In the upcoming three months, before the November
US presidential election, the China-US relationship is in extreme danger as the Trump
administration is likely to launch more aggressions to force China to retaliate, they
said."
Stay the course; Trump's shit is just an election ploy. However,
"The US' posturing is serving to distract from domestic pressure over President Trump's
failure in handling the pandemic when Trump is seeking reelection this year, Chinese
observers said. However, the Trump administration's China stance still reflects bipartisan
consensus among US elites, so China should not expect significant change in US policy toward
China even if there is a power transition in November, which means China should prepare
itself for a long fight."
Don't stray from the Long Game. An international conference was held that I'll try to get
a link for. Here's GT's summation:
"According to the Xinhua News Agency on Saturday, international scholars said at a virtual
meeting on the international campaign against a new cold war on China on Saturday that
'aggressive statements and actions by the US government toward China poses a threat to world
peace and a potential new cold war on China goes against the interests of humanity.'
"The meeting gathered experts from a number of countries including the US, China, Britain,
India, Russia and Canada.
"Experts attending the meeting issued a statement calling upon the US to step back from
this threat of a cold war and also from other dangerous threats to world peace it is engaged
in.
"The reason why international scholars are criticizing the US rather than China is that
they can see how restrained China remains and the sincerity of China to settle the tension by
dialogue, even though the US is getting unreasonably aggressive, said Chinese experts.
"Washington has made a huge mistake as it has chosen the wrong target - China - to be 'the
common enemy or common fear' to reshape its declining leadership among the West. Right now,
the common enemy of humanity is COVID-19, and this is why its new cold war declaration
received almost no positive responses from other major powers and even raised concern, said
Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, on
Sunday."
Today's Global Timeslead editorial asked most of the
questions everyone else's asking:
"People are asking: How far will the current China-US confrontation keep going? Will a new
cold war take shape? Will there be military conflicts and will the possible clashes evolve
into large-scale military confrontation between the two?
"Perhaps everyone believes that China does not want a new cold war, let alone a hot war.
But the above-mentioned questions have become disturbing suspense because no one knows how
wild the ambitions the US ruling team has now, and whether American and international
societies are capable of restraining their ambitions."
IMO, the editor's conclusions are quite correct:
"The world must start to act and do whatever it can to stop Washington's hysteria in its
relations with China.
"Right now, it is no longer a matter of whether China-US ties are in freefall, but whether
the line of defense on world peace is being broken through by Washington. The world must
not be hijacked by a group of political madmen. The tragedies in 1910s and 1930s must not be
repeated again ."
Trump is elevated to the same plane as Hitler and Mussolini, and the Outlaw US Empire is
now the equivalent of Nazi Germany and the Fascist drive to rule the world--a well
illustrated trend that's been ongoing since 1991 that only those blinded by propaganda aren't
capable of seeing. I think it absolutely correct for China to focus its rhetoric on the
Outlaw US Empire's utter failure to control COVID, which prompts some probing questions made
from the first article:
"Shen Yi, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan
University, told the Global Times on Sunday that there is wide consensus among the
international community that the COVID-19 pandemic is the most urgent challenge that the
world should deal with. Whether on domestic epidemic control or international cooperation,
the US has done almost nothing right compared to China's efforts to assist others and its
successful control measures for domestic outbreaks .
"In response to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 'new Iron Curtain speech' at the
Richard Nixon Presidential Library on Thursday declaring a new cold war against China, Shen
said, ' We can also ask 'is Pompeo an ally of coronavirus?' Because he wants to confuse
the world to target the wrong enemy amid the tough fight against the pandemic, so that the
virus can kill more people, especially US people, since his country is in the worst
situation .'
Shen said, 'In 2018, US Vice President Mike Pence already made a speech which the media
saw as a new 'Iron Curtain speech,' and in 2020, Pompeo made a similar speech again, which
means their cold war idea is not popular and brings no positive responses from its allies, so
they need to try time and again. Of course, they will fail again.'" [My Emphasis]
Wow! The suggestion that Trump, Pompeo, Pence, and company want to "kill more people,
especially US people" seems to be proven via their behavior which some of us barflies
recognize and have discussed. Now that notion is out in the public, internationally. You
don't need Concentration Camps and ovens when the work can be done via the dysfunctional
structure of your economy and doing nothing about the situation.
Shen provides the clincher, what Gruff, myself, and others have said here:
"'So if we want to win this competition that was forced by the US, we must focus on our
own development and not get distracted. The US is not afraid of a cold war with us, it is
afraid of our development .'" [My Emphasis]
My synopsis of both articles omitted some additional info, so do please click the links to
read them fully.
Sputnik offers
this analysis of the China/Outlaw US Empire issue , where I found this bit quite apt from
"Alexey Biryukov, senior adviser at the Centre for International Information Security,
Science and Technology Policy (CIIS) MGIMO-University":
"'The US is fighting with a country that is developing very rapidly, gaining power,
increasing its competitiveness in areas where previously there was undeniably US leadership.
Attempting to neutralise a global competitor is the main goal of Americans. Neutralising
China's rapid, dynamic development is the essence of the American strategy .
Meanwhile, China is interested in developing friendly relations with all countries.
Recently, it presented the idea of building a community of common destiny for humanity.
That's what Sino-American relations should be built around . It would seem that the
pandemic should have brought people together around the idea of building a prosperous world
for all, not just someone. But the Americans didn't understand that: they started looking for
the guilty ones. This is the favourite strategy of Anglo-Saxons, Americans including, to
look for the guilty . As a result, they found their main competitor – China'". [My
Emphasis]
That is the "guilty ones" that aren't within the Outlaw US Empire. Many more opinions are
provided in the article, but they all revolve around the one theme of Trump's actions being
motivated by the election and his morbidly poor attempts to corral COVID.
French authorities have told telecoms operators planning to buy Huawei 5G equipment that
they won't be able to renew licences for the gear once they expire, effectively phasing the
Chinese firm out of mobile networks, three sources close to the matter said.
####
Quelle surprise that they fall in to line too. No doubt €µ will say something
different to Beijing that France values 'friendly ties' with China, but the die is cast. It
must be tempting for Beijing to kill two birds with one stone by pulling the plug on UK NPPs
as France's EDF is also the project lead. The anti-China crowd want it out of any European
NPPs likewise. We'll see
What a triumph for the global bully. Well, as I have said before – marry in haste,
repent at leisure. European countries which commit to an inferior network just for the
privilege of having Uncle Sam spy on their every move instead of the Chinese will have many
years to ponder their gutlessness. The USA knows now that is in a fight to the finish, and
will want to consolidate as much of the globe as possible under its solid control. But those
who are in thrall will regularly be reminded who is the boss, with forced concessions to
American objectives, so let's have no more of this 'sovereignty' pap. If you're in, you're
ALL in.
It will mess up Huawei's plans and give the iPhone a new lease on life, but it will also
sharpen the division between East and West in terms of networks and smartphones. iPhones will
be bigger in the west as Huawei fades from competition, but iPhones should all but vanish
from the shelves in Asia, which was the growth market, especially China. Loyal American ally
Japan might become a bit of an outlier in its own region. Washington will have a much harder
time spying on China as the demand for American electronics dries up. What goes around comes
around, and the search will be on for neutral companies from whom you can buy a cheap
smartphone to use while you're going from one side to the other, which can draw on the
networks of both. America has been successful to a significant degree in excluding a
competitor who makes a superior product – which, by the bye, goes completely against
the blabber America spouts about a level playing field and trade based on merit – but I
am confident it will not go unanswered by China and American products in China will suffer as
a consequence.
Closing consulates is far from the best foreign policy and fat Pompeo known it. It just
starts the unnecessary and counter productive spiral of retaliation and Chinese have more
leverage over the USA as more the USA diplomatic personnel woks in China than the china
diplomatic personnel in the USA. They were always burned in Russia and now they stepped on the
same rake again.
Maybe fat Pompeo knows he's on his way out and desperate to make a lasting mark on the
geopolitical stage on behalf of the West Point mafia and his brothers-in-arm at the Jweish
mafia.
QABubba , 8 hours ago
Quit stealing Russian consulates, Chinese consulates, etc.
It serves no purpose.
Haboob , 7 hours ago
Closing diplomacy with nations as USA shrinks on the world stage shows America's juvenile
behavior.
Salisarsims , 7 hours ago
We are a young twenty something nation what do you expect but drama.
Haboob , 7 hours ago
It is funny how the young and arrogant always think they are right and have manifest
destiny over the old and wise. The young never listen to the old and as the story goes they
are defeated everytime. China is older than America, older than the west, they understand
this world we are living in far more than we do.
me or you , 9 hours ago
He is right!
The world has witnessed the US is not more than a banana Republic with a banana healthcare
system
To Hell In A Handbasket , 9 hours ago
I love seeing how gullible the USSA dunces are susceptible to hating an imaginary enemy.
Go on dunces wave the star spangled banner, and place the hand over the heart, you
non-critical thinking imbeciles. I told you fools years ago we are going to invoke the Yellow
Peril 2.0, and now we are living it. China bad, is just as stupid as Russia bad, while the
state stenographers at the MSM netowrks do all in their power to hide our rotten
behaviour.
Who falls for this ****? The poorly educated, and the inherently stupid.
To Hell In A Handbasket , 8 hours ago
No, it's called nationalism or self preservation.
What are the citizens of the US suppose to do,
You are wrong on so many levels, but ultimately the Chinese have beaten us at our own
rigged game. When I was riling against unfettered free-markets, and the movement of capital,
that allowed the west for centuries to move into undeveloped foreign markets and gain a
stranglehold, I was called a communist, and a protectionist.
While the USSA money printing b@stards was roaming around the planet like imperialists,
and their companies was not only raping the planet, but gouging foreign markets, the average
USSA dunce was brainwashed into believing USSA companies were the best.
Now these same market and economic rules we the west have set for the last several hundred
years no longer work for us, we want to change the rules. Again, my point is "where was you
on this position 5-10-20-30 years ago?" I've always seen this outcome, because logic said so.
To reject our own status quo, and return to mercantilism, makes us look like the biggest
hypocrites ever.
The American Revolution was a catastrophe for its economy, which had to endure decades of
reconstruction. In order to neutralize the threat of the British Empire, it stroke multiple
trade deals with it.
The USA is home to the father of protectionism: Alexander Hamilton. He stated that a
national industry in its infancy should be protected from its more mature competition. The
USA followed his advice and protected its nascent industry from the British threat.
When the British Empire begun to degenerate, the Americans used the cheap British capital
in excess in the financial markets to build up their infrastructure, specially their
railways. Australia did the same.
The Founding Fathers did what they had to do in order to protect their country and make it
flourish. When the ideology of the time stated they shouldn't, they invented a new ideology
that stated they should. And the could: when the British and French tried to destroy the USA
through a sea embargo, they responded in kind (Embargo Act of 1807) and prevailed; they did
not cave in to the then imperial powers.
So, I don't understand why so many Americans are offended with China. The capitalist world
tried to keep China poor and as a raw material exporter, sweatshop conglomeration. China
didn't accept this, and decided to fight back. The result is here for all of us to see.
"Much of the focus of the Trump administration's trade dispute with China has centered on
the size of the U.S. bilateral trade deficit. Most economists agree that this focus is
misdirected, and that the existence or size of bilateral trade deficits should not generally
be a matter of concern or a target of public policy. Instead, there is bipartisan agreement
regarding a different problem at the core of trade issues with China: China's persistent
misappropriation of foreign technology. Forced technology transfer occurs when foreign
multinational companies have to provide strategically significant technology to an indigenous
entity they do not control in order to gain access to the massive Chinese market." https://econofact.org/what-is-the-problem-of-forced-technology-transfer-in-china
The western oligarchs want the Chinese oligarchs to be more fair, in particular Huawei to
transfer their tech the other way in order to play in western markets.
"The global business community would generally prefer that business with Huawei could just go
on as usual. Huawei and its affiliates are the acclaimed leaders in 5G technology, and the
rest of the commercial world wants to have access to that technology, and also to be able to
interoperate with it. In other words, to the extent that western companies agree with the US
administration the risks, they have decided that the rewards outweigh those risks and are
willing to accept them -- as most recently evidenced by the news yesterday relating to how
many US components are finding their way into Chinese handsets." https://www.zdnet.com/article/huawei-changes-its-patent-story/
Furthermore, Houston is one the main cities where total 5g tech is being implemented first
along with L.A and Chicago.
Forced Tech Transfers Are on the Rise in China, European Firms Say
The practice has become more widespread despite official assurances from Beijing it would be
stopped
Is the US right to cry foul about forced technology transfer to do business in China
– and what is Beijing's position?
Foreign companies' concerns about having to share their tech secrets are among the matters
being discussed in ongoing US-China trade talks
Beijing's draft foreign investment law could legislate against the practice, but businesses
are sceptical about enforcement
The gradual process of Turkey's becoming an Islamic
sharia-law country , again, is no longer so gradual . It has taken a sudden and sharp rightward turn, into
Islamic-nationhood. Turkey's Hagia Sophia, which had been "the world's largest cathedral
for nearly a thousand years, until Seville Cathedral was completed in 1520," has now been
officially declared by the Turkish Government to be, instead, a mosque.
This is an act with huge international implications. It is an important event in human
history.
Turkey's strongman, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose entire actual education was only in Islamic schools though he
lies about it and claims to have received a degree from a non-Islamic university , is in
the process of transforming Turkey back again into a specifically Islamic type of dictatorship,
a Sharia-law-ruled state. The secularist Turkish Republic that was instituted in 1923 by the
Enlightenment-inspired Kemal Attaturk has now
decisively ended. The widespread speculations that Erdogan has been aiming to restore Turkey to
being the imperial nation and ruler of a restored Islamic Ottoman Empire are now decisively
confirmed by this brazen act of insult to Orthodox Christians, and even to Roman Christians,
because -- as
Wikipedia notes -- "Justinian has sometimes been known as the 'Last Roman' in mid-20th
century historiography." The Orthodox Church in America titles him as "Saint
Justinian The Emperor" . However, Wikipedia also notes that Constantine XI Palaiologos,
who was killed by Mehmet's forces on that date, 29 May 1453, was actually the last Roman
Emperor. That ended the Roman Empire.
In other words: the Turkish Government's official change of Saint Sophia Cathedral, which
Justinian had created in 537, into now and henceforth a mosque, is a taking ownership of, and a
Turkish-Muslim declaration of supremacy over, a different religion's main house of worship.
It's a historical dagger into the heart of Orthodox Christianity, as well as being an insult to
Roman Christianity.
This is not merely an isolated act, either; it is, instead, something to which Erdogan has
long been building. Erdogan's grab of land
from secularist-ruled (committedly anti-sectarian) Syria , and his recent sending of troops
to help conquer the formerly secularist Libya, which land had been turned into a hellish civil
war by a U.S.-and-allied invasion in 2011 and which chaos there continues to this day, all are
consistent with an understanding of Erdogan in which his foremost objective is a restoration of
the Ottoman Empire. And the U.S. Government has supported this objective of his (but only as
Turkey being a branch of the U.S. empire), and tried to get the EU to accept it.
The question now -- since the United States Government has been pushing against European
resistance to accepting a military alliance with an Islamic dictatorship -- is whether
continuation of the NATO alliance will be ended because of the path that Erdogan and the United
States Government have jointly been taking to re-impose a decidedly Sunni Islamic dictatorship
upon Turkey (by means of which, Turkey will serve as a wedge against both Shiite controlled
Iran, and an increasingly Orthodox-dominated Russia). However, there has been a split between
Erdogan and the U.S. regime, because he does not intend his restored Ottoman empire to be a
part of the U.S. or any other empire. Erdogan's independent streak is what now threatens to
break-up the Western Alliance -- the U.S. empire (which is actually the Rhodesist UK-U.S. empire ).
The United States Government has been preferring Erdogan's former political partner but now
enemy, Erdogan's fellow Sunni Islamist Fethullah Gulen, who cooperates with the U.S. and is
a CIA protégé (including
rabidly
against Shiite Iran and against Iran's main ally Russia). Gulen is
passionately endorsed by America's aristocracy . The U.S. regime has been preferring Gulen
to impose this
transformation of Turkey into an Islamic U.S. satellite , because Gulen models his
operation (and he has even described it in remarkable detail )
upon U.S. and UK 'intelligence' practices (CIA & MI6), whereas Erdogan has insisted upon an
independent Turkey with its own nationalistic 'intelligence' organization -- a
nationalistically transformed version of Turkey's existing MIT or National
Intelligence Organization -- an 'intelligence' organization that's cleansed of what
the CIA
praises as "Gulen is interested in slow and deep social change, including secular higher
education; Erdogan as a party leader is first and foremost interested in preserving his party's
power, operating in a populist manner, trying to raise the general welfare ." (The CIA actually
knows that this has nothing whatsoever to do with "trying to raise the general welfare" -- the
U.S. regime's goal is to extend everywhere the U.S. empire, and Erdogan's Turkish regime has
that same goal for the Turkish empire, which doesn't yet even exist, though it once did as the
Ottoman Empire, and he wants to restore it.) Erdogan insists upon Turkey's not being merely a
vassal-state or colony within a foreign-led empire, but instead the leading nation of its own
empire, starting perhaps with gobbling up Syria and
Libya , but extending ultimately more globally. There is a soundly documented article
titled "Why Are Gulenists Hostile Toward
Iran?" and it provides much of the reason why the CIA supports Gulen (they do largely
because Erdogan isn't so obsessive against Iran -- which country America's aristocracy crave to
conquer again, as they had done in 1953, and Erdogan doesn't support that as passionately as
they require).
The question now for Europe is whether it wants to be again a participant in various
aristocracies', and clergies', imperialistic designs, or instead to declare itself finally
non-aligned and to lead thereby a new global non-aligned movement, not militaristically, but
instead by providing, to the entire world, an anti -imperialistic and truly democratic model, a
re-start and replacement of today's United Nations, and one that will reflect what had been
Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's anti -imperialist intention , and not Harry S. Truman's American-imperialist
intention -- a start from scratch that has FDR's statements to guide it, and not Truman's
actions to guide it (such as has been the case). Perhaps even the U.S., NYC-based, U.N. would
ultimately sign onto that new international global federation; but the only basis upon which
nations in the old U.N. should be accepted into its successor would be if the old U.N. were
gradually to dissolve itself as its individual nations would, each on its own, sign onto the
new one. Ultimately, this option must be made available to all Governments, to choose to either
continue in Truman's U.N., or else join instead a new, and authentically FDR-based,
authentically anti -imperialistic, replacement of it.
That is what this dictatorial Islamization of Turkey is really all about, and only Europe
can make the decision -- no other land can. However, such a decision will only fail if any such
organization as a new U.N. is to be at all involved in the particular national issues that now
are so clearly coming to the fore in the transformation of Turkey into a Sunni Islamist
dictatorship.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The "international community" should have no say in Turkey's intranational (or "domestic")
affairs -- regardless of whether Turkey is in or out of Europe. Sectarian and nationalistic
concerns cannot rule in the formation of any authentically democratic new international order
-- an authentically non -imperialistic international order. All such concerns, domestic
concerns, must be strictly the domain of the authority and power of each one of the individual
constituent units, each individual national Government itself controlling its own internal
affairs. FDR was adamant about that. He was insistent that the U.N. not get involved in
individual nations' internal affairs. The profoundly anti-FDR, "Responsibility to Protect" idea (which now has even acquired the
status of being represented by an acronym "R2P" catch-phrase), has increasingly arisen recently to become a
guiding principle of international relations, and must be soundly and uncompromisingly rejected
in the formulation and formation of any replacement-organization -- any authentically
democratic international federation of nations. Otherwise, everything would be futile, and
there will be a WWIII. We are heading in exactly the opposite direction from that which FDR had
intended -- which was to prevent any Third World War.
This decision will be made by the individual nations of Europe. Only they collectively hold
this power. They will be able to exercise it only if they will terminate their alliances
outside of Europe, and proceed forward no longer bound by external alliances, but instead
become a free and independent European federation of European states. Only they, collectively ,
will be able to make this decision, as Europeans, for the entire world, regarding what the
world's future will be. And only they will hold the ultimate responsibility -- and it's NOT the
"responsibility to protect" . It is
instead the responsibility to protect the future of the entire world . It's the responsibility
to protect a future for the world. And if Europe fails it, then the world will inevitably move
forward to WWIII, as it is doing. A new international order is needed, and only Europe can lead
it, if Europe will.
In order for Europe to do that, Europe must first define itself. Is Turkey part of Europe?
Is Russia? What is Europe? If Europeans won't be able to agree on that, then the world will
continue to move forward towards WWIII, because the world will then have no center, it will
continue to have only contending empires -- exactly what FDR had aimed to prevent .
Europe is the key. But will Europe's leaders place the key in the lock, and open, finally,
the door to a non -imperialistic world? The present, U.S.-empire-aligned, Europe, won't do
that. Turkey's action on the Hagia Sophia, which is an insult to all Christians, and especially
to Orthodox ones, might finally force the issue -- and its solution.
Other than that, however, the official designation of the Hagia Sophia as being a mosque is
entirely a domestic, Turkish, matter.
That's the question DB's new tech strategist Apjit Walia asks in a new research report, in
which he looks at the interplay between the Post Covid Tech Rally and the Tech Cold War, which
have emerged as two of the most salient aspects of the current market dynamic. And with
tensions between US and China continuing to rise and spread to other parts of the world, the
strategist conducts a top-down analysis of the impact on the Global Information &
Communications Technology sector from a full-blown cold war.
The report finds that the ensuing demand disruption, supply chain upheaval and resultant
"Tech Wall" that would delineate the world into rivaling tech standards could cost the sector
more than $3.5 Trillion over the next five years .
But before getting into the details, we update on the current state of the DB Tech Cold War
Index. As Walia writes, a nuanced observation of the tariff and geopolitical issues between the
US and China over the past few year suggest they are primarily a smaller strategy that is part
of a larger Global Tech Cold War. To reduce the noise from the subjective geopolitical
commentaries, DB created a systematic measure using machine learning to quantify the intensity
of the cold war at any given point of time. It quantitatively analyzes and tracks the sentiment
of the Tech Cold War globally. Not surprisingly, the DB Tech Cold War Index has been trending
higher since 2016 with peaks coinciding with tit-for-tat measures by US and China on technology
IP protection and counter measures. It made an all-time high in April 2020 with the Covid
crisis fueling tensions and has spiraled higher since then. The political headlines are
matching the sentiment among the populace. Recurrent surveys from April to June show that post
Covid tempers remain at elevated levels with 41%+ of Americans and 35%+ of Chinese stating they
will not buy each other's products. An election year in the US further complicates this
geopolitical dynamic.
US and China have been engaging in an increasing capacity since the 1970s and the level of
integration between the two global tech regimes is unprecedented. The integration is a complex
demand and labyrinthine supply chain network that has taken 40 years to develop. DB uses a top
down approach to ascertain the level of revenues and supply chain links across the global ICT
industries to China. To analyze and quantify this complex co-dependent Tech relationship
between the two countries is a challenging task, the bank surveyed Tech managements, CTOs,
Industry associations and supply chain experts globally. The estimate on the total impact is by
no means a solid target but a reference point that should provide context if the cold war
escalates significantly and decoupling picks up momentum. The bank's strategist quantifies the
downside impact on the sector from a material escalation of the tech cold war, categorized
under the following three broad categories:
Loss of domestic Chinese demand
Costs of shifting global supply chain currently located in China
Higher operating costs due to emergence of two divergent tech standards (the "Tech
Wall")
DB looks at a range of downside scenarios including one of a full-fledged tech cold war and
estimate the total impact on the ICT sector from the three factors over a 5-year period to be
around $3.5 trillion. And while the bank thinks that 5-8 years is an appropriate time period
some supply chain experts believe the time to relocate the cluster of supply chain networks
could take as long as 10 years.
Globally, China has about 13% of revenues of the ICT sector amounting to around $730 Billion
per annum. However, a significant part of this is demand from the Chinese tech sector that is
re-exported after some value-add, assembly and packaging ("re-export demand") - this
constitutes supply chain risk . To analyze domestic end demand from China that could be at risk
if tensions escalate leading to IP restrictions, product bans and export-restrictions, DB looks
at the underlying ICT industry groups and their varied re-export mixes from China. The range
varies widely with Telecom services sectors that have minimal revenue exposure all the way to
software services that have pure domestic Chinese consumption (low or no re-export). For
majority of the ICT sector, the range falls between 25%-75% in re-export mix (semiconductors,
electronic components, computer hardware, computer peripherals, electronic equipment sectors).
The weighted average of the re-export demand mix for the whole ICT sector comes to 45%.
Stripping that out of the total ICT revenues, one gets 55% in current organic Chinese
end-demand or $400 Billion in revenues. In the worst case scenario of a full-fledged tech cold
war, the ICT sector would stand to lose these revenues.
Supply Chain Risk
A transition out of Mainland China could take 5-8 years to achieve successfully. Lack of
infrastructure, clustered networks and skilled labor in other countries versus China are major
obstacles. Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines are the primary targets for this
transition but most of them would need significant infrastructure upgrades to catch up with the
Chinese supply chain cluster strength.
In most categories, exports outstrip imports, except for electronic components, where
imports are 3x of exports. Electronic components, such as semiconductors are imported and used
as inputs in consumer goods and communication equipment and exported out of China. While
Electronic component manufacturers have the risk of end demand from China declining –
e.g. semis used in communication equipment, majority of the supply chain costs would fall on
the final goods manufacturers who use China as a manufacturing base. When they shift the supply
chain outside, component manufacturers would simply shift the destination of where they ship
components.
The supply chain risk of the ICT sector is estimated to be the built-up book value that is
exposed to China that would require relocation in the event of disengagement. Although book
value provides a decent lower bound measure for the capital
deployed in hard assets, it does not fully account for the economic value of the supply chain
network, which may be quite costly to rebuild. To arrive at an estimate of the book value that
is exposed to supply chain facilities in China, DB analyzed the revenues and Export/Import
ratio of various categories of Tech goods. The book value of the ICT sector tied to China comes
to approximately $500 billion.
The average cost of rebuilding the supply chain will be approximately 1.5 to 2x of the book
value based on feedback from Tech managements and supply chain experts. Using a sustainable
capex rate, it would take 5-8 years to relocate the supply chains. The cost of a transition
over a five year period would come to around $1 Trillion.
Tech Wall Risk
On top of the demand disruption and supply chain upheaval, it would be unavoidable for Tech
companies to operate efficiently in a large part of the "Non Aligned" world without complying
with the two rivaling global standards that would come up as the cold war heats up. The Tech
Wall would entail rival internet platforms, satellite communication networks, telecom
infrastructure regimes, CPU architectures, operating systems, IOT networks and payment systems
with very little inter-operability or interaction. It would mean having to deploy two different
communication and networking standards across several geographies to ensure inter-operability.
In this new world order, these non-aligned countries would require companies to have dual
standard compliance to operate there.
A divergence in standards could increase costs in multiple ways. Increased R&D, design,
product development and related costs for manufacturers. Increased costs of compliance to
different IP, networking, data privacy/localization regimes for corporates. Loss of
interoperability of devices across geographies for consumer. For example, a high-end smartphone
networking gear makes up ~10%-15% of the bill of materials. If phones had to support dual
standards that cost could increase by ~30-70% and can add close to $100 for the end consumer.
For lower end handsets costs would be high enough that manufacturers would probably choose to
cater to a single standard based on geography. Corporations' compliance to different data
localization, privacy rules as well as supporting multiple networking standards would increase
costs by 2-3%.
The Tech Wall's impact on ICT sector could range between 2-3% in incremental costs (capex,
labor) or $100-$150 Billion per year. After some time, these costs would get absorbed as
economies of scale kick in, but that would take about 5 years to average out.
Second and third order effects:
There are also going to be cross effects and second order effects.
One Belt One Road - Loss of market share for ICT would not only be limited to China but
can extend to China allied OBOR markets. However there is a cross effect here - in markets
adopting US standards, western ICT firms would gain share lost by Chinese firms. The net
effect may be relatively small but would be marginally incremental.
Economic downturn - These potential second order effects with substantial uncertainty and
the actual impact would depend to a large extent on policy response - direct government
spending, sector specific policy incentives and tax policy. While we estimate the potential
impact of a full blown tech cold war at $3.5 Trillion over a five year period, the actual
outcome will obviously be path dependent on how both countries approach the economic and
geopolitical trade-offs.
Second and third order effects : There are also going to be cross effects and second
order effects. One Belt One Road - Loss of market share for ICT would not only be limited to
China but can extend to China allied OBOR markets. However there is a cross effect here - in
markets adopting US standards, western ICT firms would gain share lost by Chinese firms. The
net effect may be relatively small but would be marginally incremental. Economic downturn -
These potential second order effects with substantial uncertainty and the actual impact would
depend to a large extent on policy response - direct government spending, sector specific
policy incentives and tax policy.
In summary, while DB estimates the potential impact of a full blown tech cold war at $3.5
Trillion over a five year period, the actual outcome will obviously be path dependent on how
both countries approach the economic and geopolitical trade-offs.
ICT Sector Correlations to Tech Cold War
The following chart shows ICT industry group's revenues to China, this includes sales of
goods that are re-exported out of China after assembly for end consumption
elsewhere.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
DB measured sensitivities of these industry groups to escalations between US and China.
Using the DB Tech Cold War Index, the bank identified 15 major periods of sustained escalation
in news intensity. These are periods where the geopolitical tech dispute news flow picks up
from low initial levels and continues to grow in intensity until it reaches a peak, often
coinciding with major news events or steps on either side. DB then computed the correlations of
these global ICT industry stock returns with the DB Tech Cold War index over these
episodes.
As the chart shows, the market is quite efficient. Industries in the right bottom quadrant
are the ones with the higher revenue exposure to China and have the most sensitivity or
negative stock price correlation to rising tensions. The hardware industries which
predominantly have both revenue and supply chain dependence on China respond sharply to
escalations. Industries with lower revenue exposure to China display defensive characteristics
during rising tensions, and fall in the top left quadrant. Software and service display
defensive characteristics as they have very limited revenue exposure to China. Telecom service
providers have limited revenue exposure and their returns appear to be uncorrelated to
escalation events.
The one surprising exception to this trend is the Semiconductor sector, standing out in the
top right hand quadrant. Contrary to consensus opinion, the analysis shows that semiconductor
stocks are reacting positively to rising cold war tensions despite the sector being the biggest
point of contention in the conflict and high sales exposure to the Chinese market.
This could be driven by several factors. One of the explanations is inventory build that
occurs when tensions rise and companies over order as they are concerned about supply chains
clogging up . These orders could be viewed by the market as incremental demand.
Another factor could be the market considering the sector as defensive given its long term
secular potential and the structural growth becoming less sensitive to business cycles. With
digitization ramping up globally in the post Covid tech ramp, this structural dynamic of the
sector starts to become self-reinforcing.
Anticipated policy support from governments given the centrality of the sector to nation
states in geopolitical tech relevance is also touted as a driving factor in multiples. Clearly,
Semis are key to retaining tech supremacy and form the backbone of any AI or Software
enhancements to institutions and countries.
However, there remains one tail case scenario and that is in the event of disengagement and
escalation of the cold war, Semiconductors will see significant market share and supply chain
disruption that will be too big to be offset by government policy support and central bank
liquidity. This scenario does not seem to have been factored in the current market.
"... The ruling effectively ends the privileged access companies in the United States had to personal data from Europe and puts the country on a similar footing to other nations outside the bloc, meaning data transfers are likely to face closer scrutiny. ..."
"... The so-called Privacy Shield was set up in 2016 by Washington and Brussels to protect personal data when it is sent to the United States for commercial use after a previous agreement known as Safe Harbour was ruled invalid in 2015. ..."
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Friday the United States was "deeply disappointed" in a ruling
on Thursday by Europe's highest court that a trans-Atlantic data transfer deal is invalid because of concerns about U.S. surveillance.
Pompeo said in a statement that the United States would review the consequences and implications of the decision by the Court
of Justice of the European Union that could disrupt thousands of companies that rely on the agreement.
"We are deeply disappointed that the Court of Justice of the European Union ... has invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework,"
Pompeo said.
"The United States will continue to work closely with the EU to find a mechanism to enable the essential unimpeded commercial
transfer of data from the EU to the United States," he added.
The ruling effectively ends the privileged access companies in the United States had to personal data from Europe and puts the
country on a similar footing to other nations outside the bloc, meaning data transfers are likely to face closer scrutiny.
The so-called Privacy Shield was set up in 2016 by Washington and Brussels to protect personal data when it is sent to the United
States for commercial use after a previous agreement known as Safe Harbour was ruled invalid in 2015.
More than 5,000 companies have signed up to it but the Privacy Shield was challenged in a long-running dispute between Facebook
and Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems, who has campaigned about the risk of U.S. intelligence agencies accessing data on Europeans.
(Reporting by Daphne Psaledakis; editing by Jonathan Oatis)
That is correct. Backdoors were baked into every piece of equipment and random number
generator the US and friends are able to influence. Hardware and software.
Read up on how cisco networking equipments were/are intercepted enroute for 'extra'
attention by US Intel depending on where they're going to. With full assistance from cisco.
Other manufacturer also play the same game.
This was the genesis of Huawei, to cut reliance on US network gear and it is also why
China is doing its own silicon. Huawei with the Kirin which is an ARM based processor and
also x86 via the AMD JV and VIA/Cyrix.
Fabs aside the Kirin can cut it with the best and the x86 are about 2-6 years behind but
rapidly improving depending on who you ask.
Their achilles heel is the Fabs where China is about 2-3 generations behind. Today Huawei
is relying on Taiwanese Fabs to produce its cutting edge chips to Huawei's design.
However, these are just a function of investment in research and time, China is well past
the tipping point for self reliance and they'll get to parity and beyond soon enough. So the
west's game is already lost.
Reading between the lines, when China is cut out of the west's networks who then could the
5 peeping Tom's look at? Yup, the serfs, and that's the game plan all along.
"Today the Department of State is updating the public guidance for CAATSA authorities
to include Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream 2. This action puts investments or
other activities that are related to these Russian energy export pipelines at risk of US
sanctions. It's a clear warning to companies aiding and abetting Russia's malign influence
projects and will not be tolerated. Get out now or risk the consequences".
Pompeo speaking at a press conference today.
CAATSA -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act
So Russia and Turkey are "adversaries" of the USA?
In what way?
Do these states wish to wage war against the USA?
Is it adversarial to United States interest to compete economically with the hegemon?
Who cares? Really, is Pompeo still scary? If he has a functioning brain, he should realize
that all these blatant efforts to reserve markets for America by sanctioning all its
competitors out of the picture is having the opposite effect, and frightening customers away
from becoming dependent on American products which might be withheld on a whim when America
wants political concessions. 'Will not be tolerated' – what a pompous ass. Sanction
away. The consequence is well-known to be seizure of assets held in the United States or an
inability to do business in the United States. That will frighten some into submission
– like the UK, which was threatened with the cessation of intelligence-sharing with the
USA (sure you can spare it?) if it did not drop Huawei from its 5G networks. But others will
take prudent steps to limit their exposure to such threats, in the certain knowledge that if
they work, they will encourage the USA to use the technique again.
The good news is that the unstoppable juggernaut of globalization has fallen to it's
knees. Countries and societies around the world will have to look at ways they came become
independent and self sufficient,at least to some degree. It's like "War of the Worlds"
really, the best effort of humanity to contain the plague fails, but a random natural
occurrence saves humanity from the brink of destruction. Hopefully some real scientists will
be allowed to mitigate the medical disaster, but one thing is for sure, the grand plan of
turning everyone into a nomad competing for pennies on the international market, for the sole
benefit of the richest among the rich, is dead. Some really hard times are coming for the
international nomads/ parasites, and hopefully humanity will move to some more beneficial
culture, and have a real chance to survive as a species, in the long term.
Again, probably not an urgent problem unless some existing Chinese aircraft in service are
on their last legs and urgently must be replaced. In which case they could go with Airbus if
the situation could not wait. China has options. Boeing does not.
The west loves to portray the Chinese as totally without ethics, and if you have a product
they can't make for themselves, they will buy it from you only until they have figured out
how to make it themselves, and then fuck you, Jack. I don't see any reason to believe the
Chinese value alliances less than the west does, or are any more incapable of grasping the
value of a give-and-take trade policy. The west – especially the United States –
favours establishing a monopoly on markets and then using your inability to get the product
anywhere else as leverage to force concessions you don't want to make; is that ethical? China
must surely see the advantages of a mutually-respectful relationship with Russia, considering
that country not only safeguards a significant length of its border from western probing, but
supplies most of its energy. There remain many unexplored avenues for technical, engineering
and technological cooperation. At the same time, Russia is not in a subordinate position
where it has to endure being taken advantage of.
Trade is hard work, and any partner will maneuver for advantage, because everyone in
commerce likes market share and money. But Washington has essentially forgotten how to
negotiate on mutually-respectful terms, and favours maneuvering its 'partners' into
relationships in which the USA has an overwhelmingly dominant position, and then announcing
it is 'leveling the playing field'. Which means putting its thumb on the scale.
Must. Pass. Foreign. Relations. Policy. Past. USDoS. First. Well that is
unforgiveable for the Masters of the Universe(TM). No-one knows exactly what's in it except
that it is substantial. Still, the USDoS is having a public aneurism tells us that they care
a lot.
Every time you "impose costs" on another country, you make more enemies and inspire more
end-around plays which take you as an economic player out of that loop. And by and by what
you do is of no great consequence, and your ability – your LEGAL ability, I should
interject – to 'impose costs' is gone.
Sooner or later America's allies are going to
refuse to recognize its extraterritorial sanctions, which it has no legal right to impose; it
gets away with it by threatening costs in trade with the USA, which is a huge economy and is
something under its control.
But that practice causes other countries to gradually insulate
themselves against exposure, and one day the cost of obeying will be greater than the
cost of saying "Go fuck yourself".
"... The US is too indulged in using geopolitical means to cope with challenges and pursuing its own interests. Following the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, Russia hoped to integrate into the Western world, but the US pulled geopolitical levers and imposed the most intense strategic pressure on Russia. As NATO expanded eastward, it not only incorporated all countries of the Warsaw Pact and the Baltic states, but also extended its hand to the Commonwealth of Independent States, such as Georgia and Ukraine, eventually prompting Russia to have no other options but to take countermeasures. ..."
"... The world has to pay for Washington's ambition to strengthen its hegemony. What the US advocates is not simply decoupling from China, but urging the Western world and more countries to side with the US amid its clashes with China, and to contain China. China is the largest trading partner of more than 100 countries, and has a market almost as big as that of the US. The US not only stabbed China, but the current global cooperative system as well. ..."
"... Unfortunately, those geopolitical maniacs in the US are ending the "good old days" since the end of the Cold War. We are likely to enter a new era with more hatred and the menace of war. Major countries would become more nervous, and the prosperity of small countries would become fragile. The US political elite behind such changes are bound to be shamed by history. ..."
Washington has almost destroyed the cooperation-centered major-power relations and is
pushing the world back to confrontation between major powers.
The global geopolitical struggle has apparently become an irreversible trend. This will have
a profound influence on the nature of international relations, fundamentally disturb
globalization, and lead to undesirable consequences.
The US is too indulged in using geopolitical means to cope with challenges and pursuing its
own interests. Following the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, Russia hoped to
integrate into the Western world, but the US pulled geopolitical levers and imposed the most
intense strategic pressure on Russia. As NATO expanded eastward, it not only incorporated all
countries of the Warsaw Pact and the Baltic states, but also extended its hand to the
Commonwealth of Independent States, such as Georgia and Ukraine, eventually prompting Russia to
have no other options but to take countermeasures.
Now, the US is using its extreme geopolitical tools on China. It is making the ideological
conflict with China more extreme, because it is the cheapest means to mobilize its allies
against China. It supports all countries that have territorial disputes with China, incites
them to adopt a hard-line approach toward China, and smears China's foreign cooperation to
overthrow the world order. It aims to worsen China's external environment, and make people in
other countries less willing to cooperate with China.
The world has to pay for Washington's ambition to strengthen its hegemony. What the US
advocates is not simply decoupling from China, but urging the Western world and more countries
to side with the US amid its clashes with China, and to contain China. China is the largest
trading partner of more than 100 countries, and has a market almost as big as that of the US.
The US not only stabbed China, but the current global cooperative system as well.
The world will suffer long-lasting costs. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is just the first
wave. In the face of the raging pandemic, the US has blocked international cooperation. It has
only two perspectives on the anti-virus fight - one from the upcoming presidential elections,
and the other from international geopolitics. Its lack of a scientific perspective has become
the biggest obstacle to international cooperation.
It is not hard to imagine that if China and the US, together with all major powers, join
hands and coordinate strategies, the COVID-19 pandemic could have been much less severe than it
is now, and the global economy could resume in a more orderly manner.
The US policy that favors major-power confrontation will surely drag down global economic
growth, which will force countries to consume their own resources. Coupled with the destructive
impact of the pandemic, global economic prosperity after the Cold War is, perhaps, coming to an
end. The world will lose huge employment. The global economy will become politicized, and the
concept of national security would play a leading role in irrelevant sectors such as the
economy.
An arms race and intimidation will return to international relations. Age-old contradictions
will be reinforced in the loss of a world order. Favorable opinions toward each other's society
will be reduced. The passion for studying and traveling abroad will cool down. The lives of
many people will change.
Unfortunately, those geopolitical maniacs in the US are ending the "good old days" since the
end of the Cold War. We are likely to enter a new era with more hatred and the menace of war.
Major countries would become more nervous, and the prosperity of small countries would become
fragile. The US political elite behind such changes are bound to be shamed by history.
An estimated $24 billion of Venezuelan public money has been looted, and the Trump administration has used at least $601 million
of it to construct a militarized wall on the US-Mexico border.
By Ben Norton
In his new book "The Room Where It Happened," former Trump administration national security advisor John Bolton boasted
that the British government "was delighted to cooperate on steps they could take" to assist in Washington's coup efforts, "for
example freezing Venezuelan gold deposits in the Bank of England, so the regime could not sell the gold to keep itself going."..
####
Remember that Juan Guan is recognized by 50 UN states as interim President of Venezuela. But it's not the number that counts,
but who those countries are. It is an effective loading of more votes per country though the unofficial Law of the Jungle system
that the democratic West employs.
"... I agree that globalism is/will be heading into the dumpers, but I see no chance that US-based manufacturing is going to make any significant come-back. ..."
"... What market will there be for US-manufactured goods? US "consumers" are heavily in debt and facing continued downward pressures on income. ..."
"... There will certainly be, especially given the eye-opener of COVID-19, a big push to have medical (which includes associated tech) production capacities reinvigorated in the US. ..."
"... More "disposable" income goes toward medical expenditures. Less money goes toward creating export items; wealth creation only occurs through a positive increase in balance of trade. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, death, the US will likely continue, for the mid-term, to export weaponry; but, don't expect enough growth here to mean much (margins will drop as competition increases, so figure downward pressure on net export $$). ..."
"... the planet cannot comply with our economic model's dependency on perpetual growth: there can NOT be perpetual growth on a finite planet. US manufacturing requires, as it always has, export markets; requires ever-increasing exports: this is really true for all others. Higher standards of living in the US (and add in increasing medical costs which factor into cost of goods sold) means that the price of US-manufactured goods will be less affordable to peoples outside of the US. ..."
"... I'll also note that the notion of there being a cycle, a parabolic curve, in civilizations is well noted/documented in Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival (you can find electronic bootlegged copies on the Internet)- HIGHLY recommended reading! ..."
"... All of this is pretty much reflected in Wall Street companies ramp-ups in stock-buy-backs. That's money that's NOT put in R&D or expansion. I'm pretty sure that the brains in all of this KNOW what the situation is: growth is never coming back. ..."
"... Make no mistake, what we're facing is NOT another recession or depression, it's not part of what we think as a downturn in the "business cycle," as though we'll "pull out of it," it's basically an end to the super-cycle ..."
"... We are at the peak (slightly past peak, but not far enough to realize it yet) and there is no returning. Per-capita income and energy consumption have peaked. There's not enough resources and not enough new demand (younger people, people that have wealth) to keep the perpetual growth machine going. ..."
I agree that globalism is/will be heading into the dumpers, but I see no chance that US-based manufacturing is going to
make any significant come-back.
The world's economy is in contraction. Although capital, what actual capital exists, will have to try and do something "productive,"
it is confronted by this fact, that everything is facing contraction. During times of contraction it's a game of acquisition rather
than expanding capacity: the sum total is STILL contraction; and the contraction WILL be a reduction in excess, excess manufacturing
and labor.
What market will there be for US-manufactured goods? US "consumers" are heavily in debt and facing continued downward pressures
on income. China is self-sufficient (enough) other than energy (which can be acquired outside of US markets). Most every other
country is in a position of declining wealth (per capita income levels peaked and in decline). And manufacturing continues to
increase its automation (less workers means less consumers).
There will certainly be, especially given the eye-opener of COVID-19, a big push to have medical (which includes associated
tech) production capacities reinvigorated in the US. One has to look at this in The Big Picture of what it means, and that's that
the US population is aging (and in poor health).
More "disposable" income goes toward medical expenditures. Less money goes toward
creating export items; wealth creation only occurs through a positive increase in balance of trade. And on the opposite end of
the spectrum, death, the US will likely continue, for the mid-term, to export weaponry; but, don't expect enough growth here to
mean much (margins will drop as competition increases, so figure downward pressure on net export $$).
Lastly, and it's the reason why global trade is being knocked down, is that the planet cannot comply with our economic model's
dependency on perpetual growth: there can NOT be perpetual growth on a finite planet. US manufacturing requires, as it always
has, export markets; requires ever-increasing exports: this is really true for all others. Higher standards of living in the US
(and add in increasing medical costs which factor into cost of goods sold) means that the price of US-manufactured goods will
be less affordable to peoples outside of the US.
And here too is the fact that other countries' populations are also aging. Years
ago I dove into the demographics angle/assessment to find out that ALL countries ramp and age and that you can see countries'
energy consumption rise and their their net trade balance swing negative- there's a direct correlation: go to the CIA's Factbook
and look at demographics and energy and the graphs tell the story.
I'll also note that the notion of there being a cycle, a parabolic
curve, in civilizations is well noted/documented in Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival (you can find
electronic bootlegged copies on the Internet)- HIGHLY recommended reading!
All of this is pretty much reflected in Wall Street companies ramp-ups in stock-buy-backs. That's money that's NOT put in R&D
or expansion. I'm pretty sure that the brains in all of this KNOW what the situation is: growth is never coming back.
MANY years ago I stated that we will one day face "economies of scale in reverse." We NEVER considered that growth couldn't
continue forever. There was never a though about what would happen with the reverse "of economies of scale."
Make no mistake,
what we're facing is NOT another recession or depression, it's not part of what we think as a downturn in the "business cycle,"
as though we'll "pull out of it," it's basically an end to the super-cycle.
We will never be able to replicate the state of things
as they are. We are at the peak (slightly past peak, but not far enough to realize it yet) and there is no returning. Per-capita
income and energy consumption have peaked. There's not enough resources and not enough new demand (younger people, people that
have wealth) to keep the perpetual growth machine going.
@Rev. Spooner bout the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or community. Those are a joke
to people whose money is made transnational.
The lumpens who have never traveled out of their state have no concept of geographic
dimensions. They have never even left home. They think everyone is as patriotic as them and
will fight and die for their country and their community.
I assure none of the elite care a whit. Penthouses look the same from Manhattan to
Tokyo.
Ask the Boers in South Africa or Polish in Detroit who did not "sniff the wind" in
time.
The guy who has a gun loaded in his pocket as an insurance policy has a plan and it does
not end well for the person who hit him.
The elites have two or three passports, own businesses overseas, own houses.
A bit off topic, but, personally, I'd really appreciate it if the Current Affairs-Jacobin
crowd would drop the childish open-borders fantasy stuff.
Marx himself figured out what the immigration game was all about back in the mid-1800s,
why do those who purport to represent the working class seem so intent on unlearning what was
patently obvious back then and continues to be so, today?
Yes, I get we all like to meet different people, learn up close about different cultures,
cuisines, and all that, but let's be clear-eyed that there's a cost to those things. It comes
in the form of rising rents/property prices and gentrification, disinvestment in the labor
force (why train workers when you can just import replacements?), degradation in local
environment.
Also, can we stop strip-mining the human capital of other countries?
Let's focus more on creating a right to 'stay in place' instead of 'freedom of movement'
fantasy stuff which sounds more like a right to tourism or something weird like that.
"I have regretfully come to the conclusion that The Hill, owned by one of Trump's close
personal friends, puts on Rising mainly for the purpose of trying to trick leftists into
softening on Trump & see nationalist racists as preferable to moderate Democrats"
Wow that is flat out ridiculous how stupid does he think people are?
Have you talked to people in public lately? They can't understand how you can be against
both republicans and democrats. Then spend the next hour trying to convince you to vote
democrat. Orrrrr they storm off in a fit.
Neoliberalism's support of very open boarders for both finance and labor arbitrage is
assumed to be always good because the American and English nomenklatura and their
apparatchiks implicitly. very often without any real thought, believe in the ideology of
neoliberalism. So, while there is often manipulation by whatever hidden authority is doing
it, most of the time there is no need. The writers have brainwashed themselves into
ignorance. 2+2=5
One of the groups that suffers most from open borders is African Americans. If Blacks in
Los Angeles, for example, lacked a college degree, they could nevertheless earn decent wages
in various sectors including construction and janitorial work, as two examples. Illegal
immigration ended that.
Borders are a problem only when capitalism prevails. Note the problems/objections you
cited having to do with wages, property prices, and other "market" features that would not
apply under socialism. When people rule themselves cooperatively and share the wealth that
presently is stolen from them and used against them, the problem of borders will cease to be
a problem.
The problem I have is that, even assuming you're correct, the utopian socialist crew
somehow thinks that open borders is compatible, in the actual capitalist world we live in,
with forwarding the interests of the working class. It's just not.
Certainly 'open borders' are not compatible with anyone's interests because they're a
contradiction in terms. The capitalists see the border (the real border, not the mythical
'open border') as a kind of valve which can be opened or shut as their interests require. It
also provides for ways of further disadvantaging certain portions of the working class and
thus reducing their wages and eliminating their rights. So the institution of the border
turns out to be a kind of variable form of coercion, as well as a myth to build racist and
classist politics on.
The media is more fascinating by the day if you try not to take it seriously. Really.
Trying to deconstruct who is the real audience, what is the underlying message (aka dog
whistle), how is the media doing plausible deniability, who is the real source (who is the
piece written to serve) and what is the motivation for the piece could take whole PhDs to
figure out sometimes.
And it's hard because I have biases, like everyone I guess, which can get in the way.
Every few days I get a lightbulb moment on something and that is fascinating.
But at the bottom of every media pronouncement is the money, so follow the money and the
power. Not so easy sometimes because the real hallmark of the powerful is the ability to pay
for invisibility. My CEO used to say that he had no real power. Now, he knew how to
operate.
Yes, this is now my approach. I still watch and read widely, but never (or hardly ever) in
the expectation that I'll either learn something or get told anything even vaguely related to
the unvarnished truth.
Much more interesting (but as you say, requiring adroit mental gymnastics and prone to all
sorts of misdirection) is trying to work out the answers to the inevitable questions:
-- Why am I being shown this at this time ?
-- What narratives are intended to be constructed by this "story"?
-- Who is trying to influence me and why, into doing (or refraining from doing) what?
-- Is it a false-flag or should it be taken at face value?
-- Is it supportive of existing norms or trying to change them (or, the old favourite
stand-by "controlled opposition")?
-- Is it organic (highly, highly unlikely) or is it the latest exciting instalment of the
ongoing oligarch v. oligarch grudge match?
-- What messaging / influencing technique is being employed (fear, guilt, appeal to ethics,
tribalism, family values et. al.)?
The last is usually the most intriguing. Is this the family-favourite Soros v. Putin title
fight? A Bill Gates v. Trump proxy war? The Clinton Democrats-in-name-only leftist faction v.
whoever Sanders constituency actually is? Globalist Internationalism capitalists v. disaster
capitalists?
I was going to write the following sentence at this point:
"Someone should publish " Top Trumps " (no irony intended) so we can
all work our way around who's who in all this
But then, can you believe it, reality trumped me because some
wisecracker beat me to it . Of course, the political power players Top Trumps pack really
needs additional categories to make it realistic. "Number of SuperPACs", "$Billions Grifted",
"Brown People in Far Away Places Blown to Pink Mist Total in Office", "Media Outlets Owned",
"MSM Actors on the Payroll" etc. etc. etc.
Thank you Clive for enunciating and listing so clearly the mental editing of reporting
that I too have been doing for decades.
My only addition: __'Who profits from this being accepted.'
There's a lot more recent papers on the issue than Marx. To put it shortly, it's almost
impossible to separate the effect of immigration on wages from the effects of "free trade"
and automatisation.
For example, in "The impact of massmigration on the Israeli labor market" in 2001 R.M.
Friedberg concluded that wages actually went up, when Russians migrated en masse to Israel,
though they did not migrate to seek employment.
Ottaviano and Peri in "Immigration and National Wages: Clarifying the theory and the
empirics" and Card in "Immigration and inequality" state that the models used to estimate the
wages are mostly too simple and very sensitive to how education levels are defined.
All economists seem to agree that in the least skilled or educated "class" the effect of
migration is lower wages or raising unemployment, if wages are the only way for
the economy to adjust.
I just don't think the issue is as clear cut as people make it to be.
Robinson is continuing a great British tradition where mediocrities from the Mother
country head for the colonies to wow the gullible colonists with their fancy ways. The guy is
such a lightweight, like fellow grifting Brits Niall Ferguson or Louise Mensch.
Robinson could refer not to Fox, but to Fox Butterfield . That has a quaint, somewhat
British-sounding aspirational upper class twit aspect that seems fitting. /s
Per wikipedia, Robinson moved with his family from the U.K. to the U.S. in 1995; he was
born in 1989. He's almost entirely the product of an American upbringing and education. He
hasn't dropped the accent because he doesn't want to. Frankly he's more of a Florida Man than
a Brit imo. (I say this as an admirer.)
I generally like Nathan Robinson -- most of the time he writes long detailed heavily
linked arguments that are worth reading and which I think most people here would agree with.
He is not liked by mainstream Democrats.
I was very disappointed with his Taibbi piece. But I tend to be disappointed by nearly
everyone at one point or another. When Robinson says he likes Taibbi, I think he is telling
the truth. He just thinks Taibbi is wrong in this case, while I think it is Robinson who is
wrong.
Why is everyone ignoring one of the most bizarre aspects of the Bernie Sanders campaign?
That his campaign staff and most prominent supporters were mostly members and supporters of a
small religious sect that comprises 1% of the US population, and they were not typical
members of this sect, but instead the most extremist ones.
Moreover this small religious sect that comprises 1% of the US population causes one half of
US terrorism deaths. Proof:
According to Wikipedia, between 2008 and 2016
right-wing terrorists caused 79 deaths
left-wing terrorists caused 7 deaths
jihadi terrorists caused 90 deaths
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#
Recent trends
Therefore Islamic terrorists actually killed MORE people than right-wing terrorists.
Furthermore, if we assume that right-wingers make up 10% of the US population, and Muslims
make up 1% of the US population, then per capita, Muslims accounted for TEN TIMES as many
terrorism deaths as right-wingers did. Furthermore Muslims accounted for ONE HUNDRED TIMES as
many terrorism deaths as non-Muslims did.
Bernie Sanders' campaign was run by Muslim extremists Faiz Shakir and Matt Duss.
But nobody seems to mind. Anyone who criticizes Islam is called a bigot. But Islam's holy
book says: "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are ruthless to
unbelievers, merciful to one another." (Qur'an 48:29) Is that bigotry or is that not
bigotry?
In 1946 the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, praised Amin al-Husseini, the
leader of the Palestinian national movement, in the following words:
Germany and Hitler are no more, but Amin el-Husseini will fight on!
Source: Die Welt, Hamburg
https://www.welt.de/kultur/history/article107737611/Von-Deutschland-lernen-heisst-erinnern-lernen.html
Bernie Sanders represents left-wing ideas and programs that are ANATHEMA to this small sect
and ESPECIALLY to its extremist wing. Ideas like sexual freedom and religious freedom,
freedom to criticize religions, equality among religions and non-religions, and equality
between sexes, the idea that laws must be made by human beings elected by majorities through
democratic elections instead of by some divinity who is obviously merely a social construct
invented in order to exert tyrannical power over society. Those are all principles that
flatly contradict Islam and its legal code, sharia law, which CAIR has been doing its utmost
to protect from anti-sharia lagislation.
All of Bernie Sanders' most prominent supporters opposed ALL of his leftist ideas, because
they want a theocratic state where binary sexuality is the norm and criticism of their sect
is verboten.
They hopped onto the Sanders bandwagon and took control of it out of sheer opportunism,
because they see Sanders as the path firstly to liquidating Israel and thus achieving one of
the primary goals of the worldwide Islamist movement, namely to turn the Middle East into a
homogeneous Muslim region, and secondly in order to seize key political positions in the
political system of the US, DESPITE BEING SUCH A TINY MINORITY.
Matt Duss, Bernie Sanders' foreign policy adviser, is tightly linked through his family to
World Vision, a Christian charity that for decades has funded the FDLP, a Palestinian
terrorist group that is nominally secular, but in reality is Islamist. This is proved by the
fact that when some of its members killed 4 rabbis in Jerusalem a few years ago, they yelled
Allahu akbar. It was recently discovered that World Vision has financed Hamas with US
government money. Moreover Matt Duss together with Faiz Shakir, Sanders' Islamist campaign
manager, have campaigned in favor of sharia law, a legal system that claims divine authority
and is a product of 7th century Arabian society.
By contrast, 20% of Americans are secularists who -- at least in theory -- strongly oppose
the reactionary and obscurantist program of Bernie Sanders' principal supporters. But no
prominent secularist appeared among Sanders' most important backers. Now why is it that
Sanders relied principally on people who wholeheartedly oppose his program and ignored the
vastly greater number of Americans who support freedom and equality?
Proto -fascism? I rather think it might be here already, but in an American
guise.
(Sorry, I just couldn't decide where the sentences and paragraphs should be. Semicolons
were the solution.)
As the United States is its own unique blend; utopian, socialistic, religious, fascistic,
authoritarian or totalitarian, dysfunctional, increasingly hourglass shaped (oligarchy with
skilled workers, tiny middle class, and massive poor class) like any very corrupt Third-World
country; an increasingly oppressive police state trying to control a very diverse, well
educated, skilled "rightsized" people, often armed and getting more so, with a large number
retire military; everyone is angry or afraid and most know that it was laziness or stupidity
or the race/social group/Russians/Chinese/Space Elves that turned the prosperity, power, and
general competence of fifty into the economic hellscape, weakness, and near complete
incompetence of today; it is increasingly obvious that it was the wealthy with the help of
their courtiers and servants of the apparatchiks, and the intelligentsia/punditocracy.
Fear and self righteousness facing anger and desperation. What a situation to have.
Bookmarked for later. Nathan Robinson manages to insidiously smuggle Cold War propaganda
into articles that ostensibly argue against Russiagate. He appears to be the most dangerous
kind of propagandist.
Read that Taibbi piece and boy does he have links -- to back his sound and clear
narrative.
It seems like he always has a lot of research, way more than he makes his case with
Drawing fire, as a tactic for the well prepared, can be useful.
If NC wants to add a Media Whores Online section to Links or Water Cooler we won't object.
Of course this would probably inspire PropOrNot part deux. Those MSM journalists can dish it
out but not take it.
As I seem to recall MWO somewhat got the stuffing knocked out of it after 9/11. But when
it was really rolling it seemed to embodied what the internet was for and why many of us took
it up. Monica-gate followed by Bush v Gore offered a TINA media landscape begging to be
debunked.
MWO published what might have been my first blog comment, really just an email, and it was
on the Kaus affair, piling on with sarc mode set to high, another example of the 'hate' we
were apparently guilty of. It was the daily visit then that NC is now. It was important. The
creator remains a mystery, though Bartcop seems to deserve favouritism.
Looking at some of the MWO Wayback pages from 2002 took me back (though the whole of July
when the Kaus thing blew is missing). Lots of familiar names – digby, Alterman,
Marshall, Conason, Lyons, Pierce et al, all of whom I just stopped reading at some point,
probably about the same time I ceased to have any respect for the Clintons.
Color me skeptical when it comes to the wonders of Mr. Taibbi's observations. I find his
narratives full of sound and fury as often as they are sound and clear. But, like Craig
Murray or Glenn Greenwald, he can be a good read on the right topic. Sy Hersh and Thomas
Frank, however, I have a lot of time for.
By contrast I've always found that Taibbi always signifies something, but tries to do so
in a way that might enable him to avoid being cancelled or deplatformed. Sy Hersh has no such
concern. And last time I checked Thomas Frank was trying to signify to me that "maybe there
is a case for Joe Biden". With more than 40 years' experience of the man, I utterly
disagree.
"maybe there is a case for Joe Biden" is the headline and most of the article. It's
deception. Read to the last paragraph if you want to see what Frank actually thinks of Biden.
Quite a sucker punch! Though that does not fully capture the sticking and twisting of Frank's
shiv.
Yes I think Taibbi knows a lot more than he puts forward in his articles. How could he
not? Same with Frank, probably. Even Hersh censors himself, as evidenced by that recorded
phone conversation about Seth Rich.
The wonder of Mr. Taibbi's observations is that he's brave enough to keep making them.
Real journalism is rare these days because our corporate organizations have removed
journalists from the protected species list. Mr. Taibbi is just documenting the fallout from
the officially sanctioned behavior that leads to people canceling those who are discussing
actual injustice and real problems in our country. He's also trying, and failing, to show
Team Blue fans that their inability to accept reality hurts their electoral chances. For
example, the many attempts to scrub Hillary's problems from the media lead to a sense of
complacency in likely Democrat voters and made people voting for her opponent highly
motivated to turn out at the polls. Taking something like her "basket of deplorables" comment
and not discussing why it was just as problematic as Mitt Romney's "48% of people who are
voting for Obama don't pay income tax" comments was journalistic and political malpractice.
It remains to be seen whether the many attempts to shield Biden using similar tactics will
help or hurt him. Personally I think the Democrats will lose because they have rubber stamped
the reduction of voting access so much in so many states that the people who would like to
vote for them won't be able to vote. Which is a legitimately awful problem.
There are so many issues that Mr. Taibbi has discussed which bear repeating because unless
you're getting your news from sites like NC you just don't see it. A recent Useful Idiots
podcast episode that Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper did with Shahid Buttar noted that an
interview that Mr. Buttar gave which mentioned corporate democrats supporting the re-approval
of the Patriot Act under Trump was removed from YouTube and no reasons were given as to why
that occurred. Stuff like that makes me think we're living on a spectrum between Brave New
World and 1984, with class largely determining where you fall, and we have Cancel Culture
people in media running around playing the role of Fireman from Fahrenheit 451 to keep the
wrong people from asking too many questions regardless of class. As Mr. Buttar pointed out
during his UI podcast interview, the algorithms that FB and YouTube use to remove content
without due process catch all the videos of violent acts AND video evidence police abusing
citizens. That's by design. But you wouldnt even know about it without reporters like Matt
Taibbi.
Yes, thanks for taking the time to encapsulate what Taibbi represents for me.
I admire his relentless pursuit of the 'how' our world is being spun out of control.
That is a very interesting story. Call me paranoid, but IMO we are witnessing the collapse
of American society, where every institution is losing it's credibility for various reasons.
Personally, I think it is a combination of increased oppression from the threatened rulers,
resulting in increased conformity by its victims ((journalists and the public) This combined
with the privatization of information, ( ie everything becoming paywalled) is aimed at the
reduction of important information by making it unavailable. I fear all of this ends in a
veil of tears. This can only lead to fascism, where only the current accepted narrative is
permitted.
We face the criminal persecution and torture of Assange; the criminal persecution of Craig
Murray; the recent debacle at TruthDig; the demise of the Weatherunderground, the growing
numbers of pay walls and pop-ups pleading for money and email addresses all suggesting a most
unhappy outcome for the future. The consolidation and control of the major media is old
history. Reporters are becoming extinct. And there's the pollution of youtube, search
engines, and social media. Our society is devolving -- it is being dismantled, vivisected
before our eyes to no end but the end of social order.
I am not sure fascism is the result. We already live in what is technically a fascism
where State and Business share the same bed.
'The consolidation and control of the major media is old history. Reporters are becoming
extinct. And there's the pollution of youtube, search engines, and social media'
There should be a public option for the provision of information (surely up there with
food, water and shelter as an essential public good) that is not polluted. Of course it would
be derided (and feared) by the wingnuts, the Borg and finance capital as a vehicle for
progressive propaganda. Which it could well be given consistent polling indicating majority
support for many if not most progressive positions. That of course means that the Democrats
would hate it too.
Which segues into my next pipe dream: Abolish parties!
Ellsberg, like, Seymour Hersh and Thomas Frank, has been drummed out of town.
Interesting that those with a conscience are the ones "drummed out of town". Guess that
tells you everything you need to know about that "town".
As for Matt Taibbi, he is one of the VERY RARE journalists that I give the benefit of the
doubt is actually telling the truth (even though I still verify) as I usually assume most
"journalists" are lying (or trying to sell a particular story) and go from there. I also find
his podcast with Katie Halper entertaining and informative.
I read that article. I thought it was one of the best of his I've read. Hats off Matt
Taibbi. As far as I'm concerned once we lose the complexity that inhabits a serious regard
for the truth, we're done. I always appreciate being brought up short by my 'enemies.' It
means they might not be as hideous as I'd thought.
being consistently lied to by TV reporters, print media, and politicians not only breeds
cynicism, it births, welps, nurses, and rears. the limitation of news outlets until the
explosion of social media meant they could be parsed out in narrow sets of ideas and
language. Today big media is laid bare, McLuhan was so right, Today it is crucial to know
ones own biases, allow opinion and research in opposition into my field of view. As a trader,
I always searched for the refuting argument, chart, analysis that would tell me i was wrong,
saved me a lot of money. Inflaming passions today is crucial to getting buy-in, not just
voting, which is the tail trying to wag the dog. Taibbi has earned his stripes, fields
critics on twitter at least, faithfully and honestly.
I have been reading Taibbi since the eXiled. Robinson and Current Affairs I only found out
about more recently.
I view Taibbi as a real journalist with a proven track record. Current Affairs often has
some entertaining and thoughful content, but Robinson frankly seems to be more of a
lightweight, especially in comparison to Taibbi.
He specializes in "takedowns" of right wing grifters like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.
Not exactly difficult targets. His turning on Taibbi, and more recently Krystal Ball and
Rising, has been interesting to see. I don't know if he just grew tired of writing about only
right wing types, or if he's trying to raise his own profile by attacking better-known left
media figures (probably a bit of both). Either way, Robinson's shitck has gotten decidedly
old.
Robinson's not really an investigative reporter. More like a pundit for the over-educated
left. So it's not really fair to compare him to people like Greenwald and Taibbi. He's also
quite young, and every one his age has some big blind spots and youthful hubris that will
(hopefully) shrink in time.
And of course his shtick got tired. Anyone who's job consists of basically writing 2-3
op-eds a week is gonna run out of new material real fast. In a marginally more sane world
he'd have a nice job as the regular NYT lefty op-ed guy, and be pretty good at it I
think.
In any case, he's a sincere young man who does seem to listen and learn. I mostly side
with Taibbi in this kerfuffle, but maybe I wouldn't have 10 years ago. Given the large number
of truly horrible people in the public eye these days, the vitriol towards young Nate seems a
bit excessive. Frankly, if there's anyone who could get the PMC+DSA crowd to start
questioning identitarianism, it's probably him (as I believe they constitute the near
entirety of his readership), so lets work on helping him "recognize his own privilege" re:
the working class instead of bashing him or questioning his motives.
I forgot about the attack on Krystal Ball. I didn't like that either, but another person I
generally like, Adam Johnson, did the same.
I have just gotten used to the fact that there aren't going to be people I agree with on
every important issue 100 percent of the time. This isn't irony or sarcasm -- I really am
disappointed when otherwise smart and (IMO) clearly well intentioned people have opinions I
think are wrong. But it is possible I am wrong. ( This is all painfully earnest, as corny as
it sounds. )
I think you have the correct approach. People are far too hair triggered about certain
topics. A journalist has to churn out lots of copy, even the best will occasionally get it
wrong, or just happen to express beliefs that don't match up with what i or anyone else
believes. It is I think the sort of trap that IdPol people fall into – insisting on
increasing levels of purity from those on their side, and immediately casting them out if
they dare shift one inch from the narrative.
It should be possible to read and learn from good writers, even if you disagree with them.
And it's very important that progressives learn and develop by listening to those who have
respectful and intellectually coherent reasons not to buy into every precious shibboleth. I
think its very important to have voices like Taibbi and Stoller, people who aren't afraid to
make even fellow left progressives angry by taking strong positions.
As seen on TV, Frank Figliuzzi x Greenwald mistaking Figliuzzi's shingle advertising
body-man services, for a Wurlitzer. "Figliuzzi" is "small son" in Italian, a euphemism for
abandoned orphans, also known for working on behalf of the parents that raised them: The
State. Perhaps Figliuzzi's booking agency has insight into clandestine media control. It's
hard to decipher whether Taibbi's beef is that journalists' ethical lapses are not properly
coordinated or whether the lapses are not authentic enough. Which is the same criticism
leveled at the street demonstrators without acknowledging that higher levels of coordination
and authentic anger potentiate more physical harm. Spontaneity is the x-factor in both
pursuits. Last point. When the surveillance state is conceptualized as the ever-vigilant eyes
of BLM and the feverish archiving of Journos, rather than the underworld of the Police State,
the surveillance state-less becomes a mode for positive change. Vindication by security
camera. Can one be baffled by hope?
"What the heck is the correct pejorative for a member of the intelligence commumity? "
The intelligence communities must have there own terms for these people. "Agents of
influence"? Psychological warfare specialists? Propagandists? Minitrue Goodthinker?
I think the United States needs a mandatory high school class in "How to read propaganda".
Americans are probably the most propagandized people on the planet.
Some of the CIA are analysts, like Ray McGovern, albeit politicized ones. The CIA has
different departments. The best word for the CIA is probably "disgrace" or "national
shame".
Would love to hear Taibbi explain why the NY Times spent the summer of 2016 pretending to
care that Republicans pretended to care about Clinton's email protocols.
Speaking of the fake news NY Times, here is a good 2017 analysis of its decades-long
mendacity and war propagandizing. Here is a snippet:
"The CIA's brazen intervention in the electoral process in 2016 and 2017 broke new ground
in the agency's politicization. Former CIA head Michael Morell announced in an August 2016
op-ed in the Times: "I Ran the C.I.A. Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton," and former CIA boss
Michael Hayden published an op-ed in the Washington Post just days before the election,
entitled "Former CIA Chief: Trump is Russia's Useful Fool." Morell had yet another op-ed in
the Times on January 6, now openly assailing the new president. These attacks were
unrelievedly insulting to Trump and laudatory to Clinton, even portraying Trump as a traitor;
they also made clear that Clinton's more pugnacious stance toward Syria and Russia was
preferable by far to Trump's leanings toward negotiation and cooperation with Russia."
Note where so many seemingly-disreputable people end up, and why. There is money , whether
to reward for past services, or to transfer in anticipation of legal defenses needed.
Money shows up in novel ways, like book deals and in plain old propagandizing ways, like
pundit spots.
And of course there really is such a thing as "Left Wing Hate" (for some definition of
"left," I admit).
Glad to see this qualifier added. I suspect the language that is necessary to have
meaningful discussions about political ideologies with people from different political tribes
is purposely corrupted by the conservative and liberal media establishments, probably at the
behest of the CIA.
Einstein's definition of madness "Doing the same thing again and again and expecting to
get a different result"
Do you remember the last time you let the robber barons and reckless bankers run riot in
the 1920s?
No.
Do you remember the last time you used neoclassical economics in the 1920s?
No.
Do you remember how bad it was in the 1970s?
Yes.
Do you remember how bad it was in the 1930s?
No.
During the 1920s there was a great consolidation of US businesses into often single
companies that dominated every sector.
This time this has happened in the media.
About six corporations control the US media, and they make sure you hear, what they want you
to hear.
We stepped onto an old path that still leads to the same place.
1920s/2000s – neoclassical economics, high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation,
low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, austerity, rising
nationalism and extremism
1940s – World war.
We forgot we had been down that path before.
I remembered where this path goes.
When the US needed an FDR, it got an Obama.
Now they've got Trump.
They've taken a more European approach this time.
Trying to maintain the status quo is not a good idea, they needed a New Deal.
Somewhat relevant. Don't threaten the narrative.
"Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex (@slatestarcodex deletes his blog after a @nytimes
reporter threatens to doxx him, which could ruin his career as a psychiatrist and raises
serious safety concerns."
That said, anyone who believes the NYT was ever respectable, as in worthy of respect, not
as in "mainstay of the establishment", needs only harken back to Pulitzer's role in fanning
the Spanish-American War to understand how fundamentally depraved an institution it really
is.
His name was known to many readers of Slate Star Codex, and they were too polite to repeat
it. There is a decency and brilliance that would be sorely missed with any permanent
silencing of his unique voice and views.
Absolutely, its a brilliant blog, on so many levels. Its beyond belief that the NY would
insist on publishing his real name, when there is absolutely no reason or public interest in
doing so.
The NYT fancies itself an empire, dispensing and dispatching at will. Here is a Star Wars
quote from Obi-Wan applicable to those that the Grey Lady targets, or even purposefully
ignores:
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in
terror and were suddenly silenced.
It is quite interesting, and positive, should I say, that nobody resorted to the argument
of "lefty" thinkers destroying themselves as the perennial malaise of the left. Regarding the
confrontation between Taibbi and Robinson it looks clear they do not represent 2 variations
of the same camp: They inhabit completely different camps though, as an outsider, I am not
able to establish clearly the limits between their audiences and their supporting
platforms.
It strikes me, as very well pointed, the similarities that Lambert brougth from Taibbi in
the ADDENDUM about the, IMO very likely, Trump reelection and the 2016 elections: he can
easily run away with his errors and the liberals look poised to make similar mistakes in 2020
as they did in 2016. They learnt nothing and forgot nothing.
On this I really would like a well informed discussion on some news pieces that have seen
linked here before indicating that Trump very much dislikes voting by mail "because of fraud"
though my opinion is that he just wants the election turnout to be the smaller the
better.
Regarding the vast U.S. media propaganda machine, Chomsky famously said long ago that
propaganda was MORE necessary in democratic societies. In a totalitarian regime, the
government can control the public with force and violence, imprisoning or executing
dissidents. But in a democratic society, citizens have the power to vote and change the
government. Therefore, it is more necessary in a democratic society to control how the public
thinks. Thus propaganda is the very essence of democracy. Propaganda ids thought control in
democratic societies.
There was a time when I went to the established media to learn things. Now, it feels more
like checking in on an evolving soap opera with a baffling plot and inconsistent characters.
There's a certain grim amusement in seeing the latest plot twist but that's about all. I get
my actual information from sites like NC and specialist sites and newsletters by experts. I'm
afraid that my gut reaction to clicking on a MSM story these days is: why is this bast**d
lying to me?
Likewise. The thing is, as a teenager back in the 1980's I'd read my Chomsky and a number
of radical media writers. My eyes had been opened when I was around 15, home on holidays and
bored watching afternoon TV when a particular incident occurred in NI. I remember watching
open mouthed as the narrative was completely twisted around 180 degrees by the time of the
evening news (I won't go into the details, but it started as 'brave mourners tackle
terrorists who drove a car into a crowd saving many lives' into 'barbaric Republicans lynch
two innocent soldiers who had lost their way' over the course of about 4 hours of reporting.
But I still, up to a few years ago, as a default tended to believe what I read in the
newspapers or watched on TV, unless I had a reasonably good reason not to do so. But no more.
I don't really know whether things have gotten much worse, or I've just become more
educated/cynical.
Fast forward to 2003, very much like the terrorist attacks in Atocha train station when
Aznar phoned all the media to say "it is certain it was ETA" and so the publications in Spain
went with this story. Thereafter, only the conservative media went on with a conspiracy
theory with the Spanish police in collusion with ETA to maintain their narrative even when it
was crystal clear it was a yihaddist attack.
So, regarding the media, it is the narrative what goes first and much more important than
facts. No matter if it is a conservative or a liberal outlet, they will stick to their
narrative. This has worsened with time.
I love this quote, so let me be a stickler. The actual question is: Why is this lying
bastard lying to me?. It was originally atributed to Louis Heron of the Times and
channeled by Paxman in an interview at the end of his Newsnight career. Otherwise, I am
depressed to say that I can do nothing other than agree with your view of the MSM in general,
although there are a few journalists who appear to be doing what they should be doing even if
they may not doing it as well as they probably could. As for the rest, some of them can't
even write.
Yes, I'm not sure whether Heron actually said that (accounts differ) but I remember
thinking when I first read it decades ago that it was silly: I spent a good part of my life
preparing politicians for interviews, and, at least then, you made sure they were briefed to
put the best spin on things, which is not the same as lying. But on subjects I was familiar
with, I used to reckon that most jobbing journalists (ie not the deep specialists) would get
things factually accurate about 50% of the time, and that the problems were more related to
ignorance and preconceptions than active attempts to mislead. I don't think that's the case
now. Journalists today, by contrast, actively tell lies, often for political reasons or to
conform to groupthink.
Taibbi is a national treasure. He is a funny, engaging writer who knows where the
boundaries are involving spin, humor and articulating a precise message. The fact that he has
been so clairvoyant about hundreds of issues (Political futility, Financial Crisis, Policing,
and changes in Media) is due to his unique willingness to talk to people in all walks of life
to understand the complexity of what he is writing about. And when he does not know
something, he owns it. Connectivity to people, and his marriage to journalism all breed more
and more trust (as well as puts a target on his back).
We live in a time of fracture (capital/labor, institutional decay, and the indelible scars
of markets taking over our lives at every level) means we need people to cut through the
noise, effectively -- reminding us of our fantastic thinking and proffering uncomfortable
truths. And nowhere has this been more apparent than the NL core of the democratic party on
the Left:
1. Russiagate Maddowers versus Mate-Blumenthal
2. Syria/Bolivia/Venezuela/Chile CIA media engineers vs The Grayzone and Greenwald
3. The Warren/Sanders rift. The Warren/Warren rift.
4. The night of 1000 Knives.
5. BLM and Democratic Party.
6. And left media puts out a hit against Taibbi – with very little serious discussion
of Hate Inc..
7. Leftist Fractures – N Robinson vs Krystal Ball, Lee Fang, Taibbi and an academic
accused of "bad research"
8. Attack on the show Rising – why would the left talk to the populist right
canard.
The left are playing a role in their own demise -- often at the behest of the NL center or
in concert to a more individualistic lens, separate of that to ordinary people. Kyle Kulinski
just did a 30 minutes on this too.
All in all, the group who needs to be shattered into a thousand pieces in the wind (the NL
core of both parties) just got stronger this election cycle -- and in my mind the fractures
on the left are just starting.
It did not have to be that way. Sickening to consider when you think about the opportunity
we had in January.
Over the years I have asked many people about press coverage of subjects they knew well. I
asked if, from their perspective, the press got all, most, some or none of the story right.
The long run average response is between some and none.
Then I ask, "Why, if your personal experience says the press rarely gets it right
concerning something you know a lot about, do you believe they get it right concerning things
you know little about?"
Taibbi is correct in that piece, undeniably so, but more than that it's the entire
Sanders-based social democratic movement that's coming apart. The media is mostly a
reflection of that. I had always hoped that the movement towards social democracy Sanders
fostered could survive beyond him as a viable candidate, but I must confess I no longer think
that likely. The whole movement is imploding in on itself, and people lashing out against
Taibbi is, to me at least, just more evidence of how much of his criticism hit the mark.
Even if the current left can survive the end of Sanders as a political figure on the
national stage, I see even less of a path for it once Trump is gone. Rabid anti-Trump
sentiment is the only adhesive that keeps the different parts of it together. They saw a boom
when Trump was elected, and I can only conclude there will be a big bust when he goes away.
If they put a lot of effort into publicly shilling for Biden, then it's even more likely,
because on some level they'll be bound to carry water for him while he's in office because
they advocated for him as a leader in the first place. No, it's not just the press that's
destroying itself it's also practically all of the liberal class and most of what flies under
the banner of the left too.
I have to disagree with your assessment about the movement towards social democracy. There
isn't a specific "leader" at present, but just the sheer number of people who protested in
the streets around the country (during a pandemic I might add) in regards to police
brutality, economic inequality, a better healthcare system such as Medicare For All, are all
fighting for social justice and democracy. This is coming from people who recognize what our
system is doing to them and others.
"Rabid anti-Trump sentiment is the only adhesive that keeps the different parts of it
together."
Once again, I have to disagree. The supposed "liberal" media, many "liberal" politicians,
and supporters who base their personal opinion on whatever is popular that particular day may
have "rabid anti-Trump sentiment".
But there are plenty of people who recognize we are going through a major "social
collapse".
Some people may not want to discuss these issues because they don't want to change the
current system (they would rather attack Matt Taibbi and others than discuss the legitimate
problems we have). These problems, including an economic collapse, are not going to disappear
the day Donald Trump is out of office nor will it improve with a "more of the same" Joe Biden
administration.
At this point, I tend to believe our country will either
a) become even more authoritarian where the citizens just accept they have no civil
rights and view police and military brutality as part of "everyday life" or
b) we continue on this trajectory of collapse with a very small percentage of people
doing quite well and the vast majority wondering or already in circumstances which lead
them to question how long it will be before they are homeless, without a job, how they will
feed their family and whether they can get any healthcare if they need it or
c) we finally wake up as a majority of citizens and demand a government (executive,
congressional, and judicial) responsive to the citizens which deals with social and economic
collapse. All of those with the current ideologies of the Democratic/Republican parties
need to go as they represent either their careers or moneyed interests. Then again, maybe the
level of corruption and greed is so far gone in this country that the only trajectory is
collapse.
Taibbi has been doing good work on this. This would seem to be another example. Krystal
and Saagar: CNN viewers REVOLT after journalist correctly says 'Biden is a flawed
candidate:
"... Wokeness is a gnostic cult that asks its sectaries to adopt a platform of national self-loathing. These are not protests. They are religious celebrations. The cult needs to be consistently classified as a religion, and conservatives must resist the temptation to view it as merely a silly sideshow distraction. Its bizarro liturgy is increasingly enshrined in all of our institutions, and conservatives must act as if a cult has hijacked the nation. ..."
At a park in New York City, I witnessed something odd. A group of women silently formed a
circle in the middle of a large lawn. Their all-black outfits contrasted with the surrounding
summer pastels, and they ignored the adjacent sun bathers as they began to kneel and slowly
chant. They repeated a three word matin. The most striking feature of this scene was its
familiarity. Any half-decent anthropologist would label this a religious ritual.
Yet, few are willing to explicitly describe these events as part of a religion. The women
may have been kneeling in a circle while chanting, but they repeated the words "black lives
matter." Politics obscures the obvious. Wokeness is a religion, and conservatives must act as
if large parts of our institutions are run by this cult.
Americans are united in their disgust at what happened to George Floyd. Everyone agrees: A
minor run-in with the police should never lead to death. Yet, the past two weeks do not
actually seem connected to the events in Minneapolis. Most East Coast yuppies would have
trouble placing Minneapolis on a map. Does it really make sense to gather in a mass crowd
during a pandemic because of something that happened a half-continent away? It does when you
recognize that it's a religious movement.
Wokeness has been identified as a religion by several writers and commentators. Linguist
John McWhorter wrote an article on " Antiracism, Our Flawed New
Religion " several years ago. Harvard professor Adrian Vermeulle wrote a must-read analysis
of the liturgical nature of liberalism
in 2019. And all the way back in 2004, historian Paul Gottfried wrote a prescient book on the
topic with the subtitle "towards a secular theocracy." The increasing intensity of woke culture
suggests that this is no longer just a curiosity, or a point of ridicule. It is the most
clear-eyed way of viewing current politics, and this is most obvious when viewing the
protests.
The nationwide protests are best understood as religious ceremonies, and this can be seen in
the way they keep engaging in off-brand Christianity. In Portland, Maine, protestors lay
stomach down on the sidewalk in order to ritualistically reenact Floyd's arrest. They
prostrated themselves in the exact way Catholic priests do in their ordination ceremony.
Journalist Michael Tracey noted the religious feeling in New Jersey protests. Protestors knelt
and held up their hands in a mirror image of how Evangelicals pray over each other at revivals.
The Guardian ran an article on how people must keep repeating the names of police
victims, and protestors routinely chant a list of names as if it is a litany of the saints. It
is a transparent attempt to transform the victims into martyrs. And while Floyd's killing is a
tragedy and an outrage, he had no agency over his death.
Perhaps the appropriation of Christian liturgy is just coincidental, and not evidence that
the woke have become a cult. It's not like they're trafficking in classic cult behavior, like
trying to separate devotees from their family, right? Wrong: Taking a cue from the
Scientologists, The New York Times ran an op-ed encouraging readers to stop visiting,
or speaking to family members until they pledge to "take significant action in supporting black
lives either through protest or financial contributions." Very normal! Shaking down family
members for money by threatening not to talk to them is classic cult behavior and is not how
well-adjusted adults voice political opinions. The insidious engine of this religious impulse
can be seen in the most egregious ripoff from Christianity so far.
In North Carolina, a pastor organized an event where white police officers knelt before her
and washed her feet. She claimed God told her directly to do this. Only the
most delusional would try to call this a protest. This is a pathetic perversion of Christian
liturgy. To state the obvious: washing feet is a Christian tradition with Biblical origins.
Washing feet was a chore reserved for the lowest servants. Jesus, God himself incarnate as man,
washed the feet of his disciples at the Last Supper. The disciple Peter objects to this and
doesn't want Jesus to lower himself. Jesus replies "if I don't wash you, you don't really
belong to me."
The white people washing feet are only pretending to lower themselves. In reality, they're
symbolically placing themselves in the role of God. For white people, woke anti-racism offers a
way to worship themselves. "White privilege" is a purely subjective concept that allows
unremarkable white people to recast their own ordinary lives in a flattering light. It's not
enough to simply point this out and laugh at it. The religious nature of the woke has real
policy implications.
The woke make policy decisions in reference to the values of their religion. Back in
January, it was considered racist to be concerned about the coronavirus. CNN ran
headlines about how racism was spreading faster than COVID, Al Jazeera ran an op-ed
with a headline suggesting racism was the more dangerous epidemic, and New York City
politicians encouraged people to join crowds in Chinatown. Now, after months of stringent
social distancing, suddenly the "experts" are telling us that massive crowds gathering in every
city around the globe won't impact the ongoing pandemic. A certain type of person pretends to
be above all culture war topics, and always wants to get back to the "real issues." Yet it
should be clear that in any long and protracted economic struggle with China, the woke cult has
the ability to distort priorities and jettison all good sense. You may not be interested in the
culture war, but the culture war is interested in you.
In 2014, and 2015, many conservative pundits made a name for themselves laughing at the
"SJW" phenomenon on college campuses. Older conservatives loved to make jabs about "snowflakes"
who they predicted wouldn't be able to tough it in the real world. This was a complete
misreading of the situation. Woke Yale graduates do just fine in their careers, and these
extremist students are now rising through institutions of power. Ivy League-educated lawyers
are throwing molotov cocktails in New York. The scholastics grew out of an institutional
arrangement where Christianity was the official religion of the university. Wokeness is the
scholastic form of anti-racism. It is enshrined in our institutions because the Civil Rights
movement coincided with the formation of our new upper class.
In the 20th Century, corporations and government grew to unforeseen scale. Experts,
managers, bureaucrats, and new types of lawyers were required to run these organizations, and
this changed the nature of the middle class, and how people achieved power. As Fred Siegel
argued in his book "Revolt Against the Masses," this new class became conscious of itself as a
distinct class through the Civil Rights movement. The South was a poor and backwards place, and
the new class of experts could use their position to correct a grave injustice.
Civil Rights legislation then needed more lawyers, managers, and bureaucrats to enforce. The
concrete forms of discrimination in the Jim Crow south slowly disappeared as racism was openly
confronted, but we are left with a class structure that still defines itself around these
issues. Those with power have a vested interest in finding ever new forms of racism because
this allows them to create new instruments to fight racism. Universities and corporations
create more and more administrative jobs that produce a brahmin class whose only purpose is to
keep vigilant for bigotry. This is why the woke capital phenomenon cannot be dismissed as
posturing. One implication of this is that striving political leaders who seek to enter the
upper class must prove their anti-racism bonafides again, and again. Another, much darker,
implication is that we may live in a theocracy.
Wokeness is a gnostic cult that asks its sectaries to adopt a platform of national
self-loathing. These are not protests. They are religious celebrations. The cult needs to be
consistently classified as a religion, and conservatives must resist the temptation to view it
as merely a silly sideshow distraction. Its bizarro liturgy is increasingly enshrined in all of
our institutions, and conservatives must act as if a cult has hijacked the nation.
Yeah, there's nothing 'mere' about religion. It organized two of premodern society's major
cultural spheres (Christendom and dar al-Islam) and started countless wars. You could make
a pretty good case for Communism as a religion.
According to Bertrand Russell Communism WAS a religion! Indeed, ideologies are, at bottom,
indistinguishable from religions. The French Revolution was Exhibit One of that phenomenon.
Spanish Inquisition was a religion
English Civil War was about religion
Abolitionism was a religion
Communism was a religion and National Socialism was a religion too
Every religion has its sacred content, though not every religion involves God,
reconciliation or redemption
Ah, but in America, we are not supposed to pay too much attention to the supposed truth or
falsity of each other's religions.
You can't fight something with nothing. The traditional religions seem to be spent
forces. The wokeness seems to attract devout, or at least fervent believers.
I'Ve seen much larger and more involved ceremonies worshipping capitalism, if that's how
we're determining religions now.
And the worshipping capitalists had a complete theology, with their religion driving
their ethics and behavior much more than almost all professed Christians I've met.
A religion with heresy trials and excommunications as well. And, at least In some states,
well on its way to becoming the established state religion. In March and April,
practitioners of the old religions from Christianity to Judaism to Islam discovered that
their religions were non-essential and subject to lockdown. In May, they learned that the
new religion is essential and not subject to lockdown.
Want to talk about cults? Let's talk about the New Apostolic Reformation cult and right
wing evangelicals who are part of and/or closely associated with this fake Christian cult.
Let's talk about 7 Mountains Mandate heresy and the right wing evangelicals who have bought
into and even preach that heresy. I can't find anywhere in the Bible where it says these
fake Christian and cult members have to take over the world to make it safe for Jesus to
return. Until they do this, Jesus CANNOT return? Yes, Ted Cruz's father preaches the 7
Mountains heresy as do many other evangelicals.
How about the false teacher and fraud that Trump claims is his closest Christian
advisor, Paula White. Why would he say such a thing when Paula White is nothing more a
prosperity gospel fraud who said Jesus is not the only Begotten Son of God. Who has been
investigated several times by the IRS. Who commanded 'All Satanic Pregnancies to
Miscarry'
Maybe we should talk about some of those who are part of Trump's evangelical advisory
council.
One of the leaders, Kevin Copeland, said "God is the biggest failure in the Bible" and his
wife, Gloria, who has said her husband controls the weather and can make tornadoes and
storms disappear.
Or the man Trump asked to come to DC, lay hands on and pray for him. Sick weirdo Rodney
Howard Brown who says he is Jesus' bartender.
I also seem to remember Franklin Graham and Robert Jeffress and a few right wing
evangelicals promoting frauds Paula White, Kenneth Copeland and few other fake
Christians.
If you are going to express concern about people and their "religion", how about talking
about the evangelicals who are a threat to the Christian faith and that Romans 16:17-18, 2
Corinthians 11:13-15, 1 John 1:5-10, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 1 Timothy 6:4-5 and others warn
about.
"... Moreover, people do distinguish between needs and wants. Americans need to eat, but they mostly don't need to eat out. They don't need to travel. Restaurant owners and airlines therefore have two problems: they can't cover costs while their capacity is limited for public-health reasons, and demand would be down even if the coronavirus disappeared. This explains why many businesses are not reopening even though they legally can. Others are reopening, but fear they cannot hold out for long. And the many millions of workers in America's vast services sector are realizing that their jobs are simply not essential. ..."
"... America's economic plight is structural. It is not simply the consequence of Trump's incompetence or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's poor political strategy. It reflects systemic changes over 50 years that have created an economy based on global demand for advanced goods, consumer demand for frills, and ever-growing household and business debts. This economy was in many ways prosperous, and it provided jobs and incomes to many millions. Yet it was a house of cards, and COVID-19 has blown it down. ..."
In the 1960s, the US had a balanced economy that produced goods for both businesses and
households, at all levels of technology, with a fairly small (and tightly regulated) financial
sector. It produced largely for itself, importing mainly commodities.
Today, the US produces for the world, mainly advanced investment goods and services, in
sectors such as aerospace, information technology, arms, oilfield services, and finance. And it
imports far more consumer goods, such as clothing, electronics, cars, and car parts, than it
did a half-century ago.
And whereas cars, televisions, and household appliances drove US consumer demand in the
1960s, a much larger share of domestic spending today goes (or went) to restaurants, bars,
hotels, resorts, gyms, salons, coffee shops, and tattoo parlors, as well as college tuition and
doctor's visits. Tens of millions of Americans work in these sectors.
Finally, American household spending in the 1960s was powered by rising wages and growing
home equity. But wages have been largely stagnant since at least 2000, and spending increases
since 2010 were powered by rising personal and corporate debts. House values are now stagnant
at best, and will likely fall in the months ahead.
Mainstream economics pays little attention to such structural questions. Instead, it assumes
that business investment responds mostly to the consumer, whose spending is dictated equally by
income and desire. The distinction between "essential" and "superfluous" does not exist. Debt
burdens are largely ignored.
But demand for many US-made capital goods now depends on global conditions. Orders for new
aircraft will not recover while half of all existing planes are grounded. At current prices,
the global oil industry is not drilling new wells. Even at home, though existing construction
projects may be completed, plans for new office towers or retail outlets won't be launched
soon. And as people commute less, cars will last longer, so demand for them (and gasoline) will
suffer.
Faced with radical uncertainty, US consumers will save more and spend less. Even if the
government replaces their lost incomes for a time, people know that stimulus is short term.
What they do not know is when the next job offer – or layoff – will come along.
Moreover, people do distinguish between needs and wants. Americans need to eat, but they
mostly don't need to eat out. They don't need to travel. Restaurant owners and airlines
therefore have two problems: they can't cover costs while their capacity is limited for
public-health reasons, and demand would be down even if the coronavirus disappeared. This
explains why many businesses are not reopening even though they legally can. Others are
reopening, but fear they cannot hold out for long. And the many millions of workers in
America's vast services sector are realizing that their jobs are simply not essential.
Meanwhile, US household debts – rent, mortgage, and utility arrears, as well as
interest on education and car loans – have continued to mount. True, stimulus checks have
helped: defaults have so far been modest, and many landlords have been accommodating. But as
people face long periods with lower incomes, they will continue to hoard funds to ensure that
they can repay their fixed debts. As if all this were not enough, falling sales- and income-tax
revenues are prompting US state and local governments to cut spending, compounding the loss of
jobs and incomes.
America's economic plight is structural. It is not simply the consequence of Trump's
incompetence or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's poor political strategy. It reflects systemic
changes over 50 years that have created an economy based on global demand for advanced goods,
consumer demand for frills, and ever-growing household and business debts. This economy was in
many ways prosperous, and it provided jobs and incomes to many millions. Yet it was a house of
cards, and COVID-19 has blown it down.
"Reopen America" is therefore an economic and political fantasy. Incumbent politicians crave
a cheery growth rebound, and the depth of the collapse makes possible some attractive
short-term numbers. But taking them seriously will merely set the stage for a new round of
disillusion. As nationwide protests against systemic racism and police brutality show,
disillusion is America's one big growth sector right now.
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity
in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into
the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite
power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes
sense
China's economic shutdown at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic disrupted many global supply
chains, prompting a number of countries and corporations to accelerate their strategy of
reducing their dependency on China for components.
...the trade war between Washington and Beijing had contributed to the
U.S. fashion industry and tech firms
like Apple rethinking their own supply chains. Japan, heavily dependent on Chinese trade,
is
using $2 billion in economic stimulus funds to subsidize the move of Japanese firms out of
China.
The Trump administration is thus swimming with the current in its effort to isolate China.
It has imposed sanctions because of China's violations of Uyghur human rights. It has levied
penalties against China for its cooperation with Iranian firms. And it has threatened to add
another set of tariffs on top of the existing ones for China's handling of the coronavirus.
Its latest initiative has been to tighten the screws on the Chinese technology firm, Huawei.
Last week, the administration announced sanctions against any firms using U.S.-made equipment
that supply the Chinese tech giant. The chief victim of these new restrictions will be the
Taiwanese firm TSMC, which supplies 90 percent of Huawei's smartphone chips.
In other words, the Trump administration is committed not only to severing U.S. economic
connections with China. It wants to put as much pressure on other countries as well to
disentangle themselves from Chinese manufacturing. Taiwan, of course, has no particular love
for Mainland China. It battles Beijing on a daily basis to get international recognition --
from other countries and from global organizations like the World Health Organization.
But the Taiwanese economy is also heavily dependent on its cross-strait neighbor. As Eleanor
Albert points
out :
China is Taiwan's largest trading partner, accounting for nearly 30 percent of the
island's total trade, and trade between the two reached $150.5 billion in 2018 (up from $35
billion in 1999). China and Taiwan have also agreed to allow banks, insurers, and other
financial service providers to work in both markets.
And it probably won't be Huawei but Taiwan that suffers from the U.S. move. As Michael
Reilly notes
, "Huawei's size in the global market means its Taiwanese suppliers cannot easily find an
alternative customer of comparable standing to replace it." China, meanwhile, will either find
another source of chips outside the U.S. sphere, or it will do what the United States has been
threatening to do: bring production of critical components back closer to home.
Another key player in the containment of China is India. Trump's friendship with Indian
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a right-wing Hindu nationalist, is more than simply an
ideological affection. Trump sealed
a $3 billion in military sales deal with India in February, with a trade deal still on the
horizon.
Modi, in turn, is hoping to be the biggest beneficiary of the falling out between Washington
and Beijing. "The government in April reached out to more than 1,000 companies in the U.S. and
through overseas missions to offer incentives for manufacturers seeking to move out of China,"
reports Bloomberg . "India is prioritizing medical equipment suppliers, food processing
units, textiles, leather, and auto part makers among more than 550 products covered in the
discussions."
Vietnam is another regional competitor that the United States is supporting in its
containment strategy. With only a couple hundred reported coronavirus cases and zero deaths,
Vietnam is
poised to emerge from the current crisis virtually unscathed. With low labor costs and an
authoritarian government that can enforce deals, it is already a favored alternative for
corporations looking for alternatives to China. But wildcat strikes have been happening in
greater numbers in the country, and the Vietnamese government recently
approved the country's first independent trade union.
Yet with a more technologically sophisticated infrastructure, China will continue to look
more attractive to investors than India or Vietnam.
... ... ...
Trump administration is, frankly, at a huge disadvantage when it tries to
pressure companies to relocate their operations. Writes
Manisha Mirchandani:
The global technology and consumer electronics sectors are especially reliant on China's
infrastructure and specialized labor pool, neither of which will be easy to replicate. The
Chinese government is already mobilizing resources to convince producers of China's unique
merits as a manufacturing location. Zhengzhou, within Henan Province, has appointed officials
to support Apple's partner Foxconn in mitigating the disruptions caused by the coronavirus,
while the Ministry of Finance is increasing credit support to the manufacturing sector.
Further, the Chinese government is likely to channel stimulus efforts to develop the
country's high-tech manufacturing infrastructure, moving away from its low-value
manufacturing base and accelerating its vision for a technology-driven services economy.
The Trump administration is playing the short game, trying to use tariffs and anti-Chinese
sentiment to hobble a rising power. China, on the other hand, is playing the long game,
translating its trade surpluses into structural advantages in a fast-evolving global
economy.
Will the Conflict Turn Hot?
Despite the economic ravages of the pandemic, the Pentagon continues to demand the lion's
share of the U.S. budget. It wants another $705 billion for 2021, after increasing its budget
by 20 percent between 2016 and 2020.
This appalling waste of government resources has already caused long-term damage to the
economic competitiveness of the United States. But it's all the money the Pentagon is spending
on "deterring China" that might prove more devastating in the short term.
John Feffer is the director of Foreign
Policy In Focus , where this article originally appeared.
The administration also took off the gloves with China over U.S. listings by mainland
companies that fail to follow U.S. securities laws. This came after the Commerce Department
finally moved to limit access by Huawei Technologies to high-end silicon chips made with U.S.
lithography machines. The trade war with China is heating up, but a conflict was inevitable and
particularly when it comes to technology.
At the bleeding edge of 7 and 5 nanometer feature size, American tech still rules the world
of semiconductors. In 2018, Qualcomm confirmed its next-generation Snapdragon SoC would be
built at 7 nm. Huawei has already officially announced its first 7nm chip -- the Kirin 980. But
now Huawei is effectively shut out of the best in class of custom-made chips, giving Samsung
and Apple a built-in advantage in handsets and network equipment.
It was no secret that Washington allowed Huawei to use loopholes in last year's blacklist
rules to continue to buy U.S. sourced chips. Now the door is closed, however, as the major
Taiwan foundries led by TSMC will be forced to stop custom production for Huawei, which is
basically out of business in about 90 days when its inventory of chips runs out. But even as
Huawei spirals down, the White House is declaring financial war on dozens of other listed
Chinese firms.
President Donald Trump said
in an interview with Fox Business News that forcing Chinese companies to follow U.S.
accounting norms would likely push them to list in non-U.S. exchanges. Chinese companies that
list their shares in the U.S. have long refused to allow American regulators to inspect their
accounting audits, citing direction from their government -- a practice that market authorities
here have been unwilling or unable to stop.
The attack by the Trump Administration on shoddy financial disclosure at Chinese firms is
long overdue, but comes at a time when the political evolution in China is turning decidedly
authoritarian in nature and against any pretense of market-oriented development. The rising
power of state companies in China parallels the accumulation of power in the hands of Xi
Jinping, who is increasingly seen as a threat to western-oriented business leaders. The trade
tensions with Washington provide a perfect foil to crack down on popular unrest in Hong Kong
and discipline wayward oligarchs.
The latest moves by Beijing to take full control in Hong Kong are part of the more general
retrenchment visible in China. "[P]rivate entrepreneurs are increasingly nervous about their
future," writes Henny Sender in the Financial Times . "In many cases, these
entrepreneurs have U.S. passports or green cards and both children and property in America. To
be paid in U.S. dollars outside China for their companies must look more tempting by the day."
A torrent of western oriented Chinese business leaders is exiting before the door is shut
completely.
The fact is that China's position in U.S. trade has retreated as nations like Mexico and
Vietnam have gained. Mexico is now America's largest trading partner and Vietnam has risen to
11th, reports Qian Wang of Bloomberg News . Meanwhile, China has dropped from 21 percent
of U.S. trade in 2018 to just 18 percent last year. A big part of the shift is due to the
U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade pact, which is expected to accelerate a return of production to North
America. Sourcing for everything from autos to semiconductors is expected to rotate away from
China in coming years.
China abandoned its decades-old practice of
setting a target for annual economic growth , claiming that it was prioritizing goals such
as stabilizing employment, alleviating poverty and preventing risks in 2020. Many observers
accept the official communist party line that the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic made it
almost impossible to fix an expansion rate this year, but in fact the lasting effects of the
2008 financial crisis and the aggressive policies of President Trump have rocked China back on
its heels.
As China becomes increasingly focused inward and with an eye on public security, the
economic situation is likely to deteriorate further. While many observers viewed China's "Belt
& Road" initiative as a sign of confidence and strength, in fact it was Beijing's attempt
to deal with an economic realignment that followed the 2008 crisis. The arrival of President
Trump on the scene further weakened China's already unstable mercantilist economic model, where
non-existent internal demand was supposed to make up for falling global trade flows. Or at
least this was the plan until COVID-19.
"Before the Covid-19 outbreak, many economists were expecting China to set a GDP growth
target of 6% to 6.5% to reflect the gradual slowdown in the pace of expansion over the past few
years," reports Caixin Global . "Growth slid to 6.1% in 2019 from 6.7% in 2018. But the
devastation caused by the coronavirus epidemic -- which saw the economy contract 6.8%
year-on-year in the first quarter -- has thrown those forecasts out of the window."
Out of the window indeed. Instead of presiding over a glorious expansion of the Chinese
sphere of influence in Asia, Xi Jinping is instead left to fight a defensive action
economically and financially. The prospective end of the special status of Hong Kong is
unlikely to have any economic benefits and may actually cause China's problems with massive
internal debt and economic malaise to intensify. Beijing's proposed security law would reduce
Hong Kong's separate legal status and likely bring an end to the separate currency and business
environment.
I honestly don't know if this article is or is not correct... But I wonder...
AmConMag publishes a major anti-China article on most days now. What is happening? What is
the mechanics of this... "phenomenon"?
A place where where Americans opposed to U.S. hegemony because it's harm on everyone
without being overwhelmed by the Neocon acolytes where can we go, anyone ever try to get a
word in on foxnews ?
If you try to reach out to twitter on Tom Cotton or Mike Waltz dismisses you as a
'Chinese govt / Iranian / Russian bot'
You know what, God will judge us and we will all be equal in he eyes of Him
Why should I be afraid. Why should I be silent. And thank you TAC for the opportunity to
post.
I too came here for interesting commentary, - and even better comments... five years ago or
so?
I found the original articles mostly okay, often too verbose, meandering for my taste but
the different point of view made them worthwhile. The readers' comments, now that is
priceless. That brings the real value. That's where we learn. That's where I learn, anyway.
:)
It never occurred to me to message to any politician, I think my voice would be lost in the
cacophony.
The target of my curiosity is that when all these articles start to point in one direction
(like belligerence toward China) how does it happen? Is there a chain of command? It seems
coordinated.
It's possible to be anti-neocon, for their being too ideological, and not pacifist. That is
basically my position.
I agree with most here on Russia and Iran. They are not threats, and in specific cases
should be partners instead. Agree on American imperialism being foolish and often evil. I
believe in a multipolar world as a practical matter. I don't take a soft view of China
however. I believe they do intend to replace nefarious American hegemony with their own
relevant, but equally nefarious, flavor of hegemony. There are few countries in the world
with such a pathological distrust of their own people. I truly believe that country is a
threat that needs to be checked at least for a couple of decades by the rest of the
world.
As to the editorial direction, I think it is merely capitalism. China's perception in
the world is extremely bad lately. I would fully expect the always somewhat Russophile
environment here to seize the moment to say 'see! Russia is not a true threat! It's China!'
RT itself soon after Trump's election I recall posted an article complaining about total
disregard for Chinese election meddling.
You can see when the people holding the leash give a tug on the collar. And it's clear that
the GOP is feeling the need for a warlike political environment.
The most blatant presstitution example, of course, was the National Review, going from
'Never Trump' to full time servicing.
Of all the options in the Western arsenal against China, arresting Huawei's heir apparent
on blatantly forged charges is easily one of the worst.
Chinese or not Chinese, fact is Meng is a member of the bourgeoisie. She is one of them.
It doesn't matter if Huawei only became big and prosperous thanks to the CCP: bourgeoisie is
bourgeoisie, and having a strong one within communist China's belly is essential for the long
term success of capitalism in its war against communism.
By arresting Meng, the capitalists (i.e. Americans) are just driving a hedge between
inside the "Capitalist International". The Chinese capitalist class - who was certainly very
interested in ganging up with their western counterparts to, in the long term, topple the CCP
- is now completely at the mercy of the CCP, as the CCP is now the only guarantor of their
own class status.
The correct strategy would be for the Western bourgeoisie to woo the Chinese bourgeoisie
with as many tax breaks, green cards and other kinds of flattery, so that, withing the course
of some generations, the Chinese bourgeoisie become fully liberal (westernized). It would
then make the infamous "middle class insurgence" theory feasible.
But (and there's always a "but" in the real world), it seems that capitalism itself is in
crisis. It seems that, all of a sudden, the pot became too small to make every alpha male
happy. The international bourgeoisie is now devouring its children (the petite-bourgeoisie,
the "small business owners") and is beginning to devour itself.
Meng is a high profile scalp but won't change anything. it'll just up the ante in this
game of chicken.
in regards to HK's special trading rights, it's horseshit really. HK hasn't made anything
anyone needed for decades. the biggest use of this special relationship (cough cough) is to
move mainland product through Hong Kong to skirt quota and tariff restrictions. as an
inhabitant I won't be sorry to see it go. it hasn't and doesn't benefit the people here
anyway.
as to it's status as a financial hub, do you really think the bankers will leave if there
are money to be made? c'mon who are we kidding here. actually, if it means driving away a few
expat bankers who does nothing except creating glass ceilings and hanging out in various golf
and aristocratic clubs in hk, I'm all for it too.
as to visa free travel, again it's a non issue as well. I remember before the 1997
handover having to get visas to go pretty much anywhere with my HK British passport it was an
utterly useless 3nd class citizen passport. so nothing changes. ironically all of the visa
free agreement came after the handover with no thanks to the Brits.
if USA start freezing assets of individuals and businesses it'll be a sloppily slope for
Trumpville. For one freezing individuals assets won't hurt China on the whole one iota,
second, China can play that game too. US businesses and assets can all be nationalised.
I'm still waiting for China to cancel all Boeing and GE orders because they're defense
suppliers of USA, just as USA is claiming huawei to be as the reason for sanctions.
"The Chinese capitalist class - who was certainly very interested in ganging up with their
western counterparts to, in the long term, topple the CCP - is now completely at the mercy of
the CCP, as the CCP is now the only guarantor of their own class status."
I think you nailed it on the head there. it's not just capitalists, a lot of party
officials shipped their families to the 5 eye countries thinking it's their plan B (often
with obscene, questionable wealth and under fake identities as dual citizenship is not
allowed in China). now it's becoming clear to them they're now in the pocket of uncle Sam,
their loved ones to be sacrificed and used against them in any moment.
I agree, stripping HK of its' special trading agreement isn't going to hurt China in any
meaningful way and I don't think the financial elite of HK are going to flee from China over
this. However, the way in which the US is doing this is an insult to the Chinese (not just
the government, but the Chinese people themselves). The US claiming to have the right to
adjudicate over the domestic policies of other countries is not just an insult but also an
implied threat. In international politics claiming that you have a right of approval over
another nation's internal policies is in effect a claim of superior authority over that
country than that country's own government and it logically brings up all sorts of questions
about what happens if they refuse to accept your claim, do you impose sanctions or go to war
over it?
The bigger threats are coming over Taiwan and Tibet, the US suggesting that it might pass
legislation recognizing them as independent countries means that the US feels it has the
right to unilaterally impose new boarders on countries - that only happens if you win a war,
so the US feels it is at war with China and that it has already won or is so certain to win
that it can announce what it wants the new boarders to look like. That is crazy. What's next,
will the US do what they did with Venezuela and declare some random oligarch the new Chinese
President then sign agreements with him and insist that they are real legal documents (that
might very well be the plan for the leader of the HK protests Joshua Wong).
The US was stupid or crazy or both to try this path with Venezuela to try this with China
means war.
@ 25 kadath... isn't this what the usa is doing with the huawei case in canada? they are
essentially saying - our rules 'trump' all of yours... this is how exceptional nations work
ya know... either that or the bullying tactics are wearing thin with me...
Since the subject of Meng Wanzhou's court case came up, I thought I'd post more detail.
"Meng's lawyers argued that the fact Canada does not have economic sanctions against Iran
meant her alleged actions would not have been considered a crime in Canada because no bank
would have suffered a loss in an identical set of circumstances.
But the judge said Meng's lawyers were trying to make the scope of her analysis too
narrow.
"Canada's law of fraud looks beyond international boundaries to encompass all the relevant
details that make up the factual matrix, including foreign laws that may give meaning to some
of the facts," Holmes said.
____
OK, so that's settled but there is a lot more to come:
"The judge still has to hold hearings to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to
warrant extradition, and Meng has also claimed that her rights were violated at the time of
her arrest.
Holmes pointed out that Canada's minister of justice will also have a chance to weigh in
on whether a decision to commit Meng for extradition would be contrary to Canadian
values.
The ministry confirmed in a statement that extradition proceedings will go ahead "as
expeditiously as possible."
The extraterritoriality the US is claiming over everything related to international
finance and sanctions (not just Iran, but also Cuba, Russia, roughly 1/3 of the world is
under some form of US sanctions) is a constant crime which kills thousands of people per
year. But what the US has been doing over the past few years, changing boarders unilaterally
without evening going to war is a step towards pure insanity. The US "declares" that the
"Golan heights" belong to Israel, the US hates the current President of Venezuela so they
declare some random guy the new President and bully other countries into pretending his is as
well. Ultimately, this is a sign of growing weakness, when the US wanted to change the
government of Iraq they invaded (and failed), when they wanted to breakup Syria they
bankrolled a bunch of mercenaries (and failed again). Now the US isn't even confident enough
to invade Venezuela and impose a new government, so instead they play make-believe with
Guaido. Despite this, Venezula isn't strong enough to punish the US for its' delusions but if
the US insists on playing make-believe with China they will learn some very painful lessons
because China is strong enough to push back.
The Meng case has always been part of the Trump campaign to put pressure on China. The
Judge's ruling today is quite ludicrous but wholly consistent with Canada's historic
tradition of carrying out instructions from the Imperial capital, whether that be in London
or Washington.
It is sad to see a national ruling class prostituting itself and sadder still when it does so
out of fear rather than for profit.
It is all about China, which is in an invulnerable position thanks to Washington having spent
the last twenty years forcing Russia and Iran into Beijing's arms. Having given up diplomacy
in order to concentrate on gangster bullying tactics the US has ended up, the way all
declining empires do, with no friends except those countries so weak that they still crave
the Emperor's favour.
An important ruling in the Canada-US extradition case of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou will be
announced shortly. A Canadian court will rule if the case has suitable "double-criminality"
- i.e. an act illegal in both countries - and Men will either be free or one step closer to
being delivered to the Americans. While it is claimed the arrest was political in nature
due to an off-the-cuff comment by Trump, the politicized nature of the charge and
extradition request goes back ten years as revealed in the New York Times in December 2018
(How A National Security Investigation of Huawei Set Off an International Incident Dec 14,
2018):
"The details of the criminal charges against Ms. Meng, filed under seal, remain murky. But
court filings in Canada and interviews with people familiar with the Huawei investigation
show that the events leading to her arrest were set in motion years ago.
How a National Security Investigation of Huawei Set Off an International Incident - The
New York Times 2018-12-15, 4*50 PM
They grew out of an Obama administration national security investigation into Chinese
companies -- including Huawei -- that act as extensions of the country's government,
according to the people familiar with the investigation. The focus only recently shifted to
whether Huawei, and specifically Ms. Meng, deceived HSBC and other banks to get them to
keep facilitating business in Iran. Former federal prosecutors said pursuing Ms. Meng, 46,
for alleged bank fraud proved to be a better line of attack than trying to build a case on
national security grounds...
Counterintelligence agents and federal prosecutors began exploring possible cases
against Huawei's leadership in 2010, according to a former federal law enforcement
official. The effort was led by United States attorney's offices in places where Huawei has
facilities, including Massachusetts, Alabama, California, New York and Texas."
In other words, the Americans had decided to use its courts against Huawei many years
before any charges directed at Meng came to pass. They were literally in search of a
crime.
Some of the uglier features of the Canadian political establishment and media have been
pounding the drums for expanded hostilities directed at China, in concert with other Five
Eyes partners.
Well now that it's 95% sure that Meng will be extradited to the US by the Canadian poodle
courts, we should now consider how China will respond as the full court press against China
has really heated up in the past month. If Meng is extradited to the US, she'll almost
certainly be kept in a high security prison, as I can't imagine the US allowing her to
remain free on bail during the trial and then given a 10-15yr prison sentence which will be
used as a bargaining chip in the US-China trade war. US intelligence agencies will
constantly interrogate/torture/bribe her in efforts to get her to flip against the Chinese
government or provide them some intelligence. Given her high status I think China may want
to consider the following options
1. Arrest some more Canadian "diplomats" (i.e. spies) and perhaps even up the ante by
arresting a US spy.
2. Pull an Assange and have Meng flee to the Chinese Consulate in Vancouver, I've seen the
Consulate and it is much roomier than the Ecuadorian embassy that Julian was stuck in. This
would ensure her protection and bypass the corrupt Courts, making it purely a question of
diplomacy between states (not that Canada has good diplomacy skills, but if China was also
holding a bunch of Canadian spies it would make sense to make this problem go away).
6 months ago, I think the Chinese would have allowed her to be extradited to the US and
then fought it out in backdown diplomacy with the US. But will all of the crazy things the
US has done in the past 2 months I think China has had enough and will start pushing back.
Heck, in the past 48 hours a congressman put forth a motion to declare Tibet an independent
country illegally occupied by China and the Whitehouse is threatening to strip Hong Kong of
special trading rights.
Of all the options in the Western arsenal against China, arresting Huawei's heir
apparent on blatantly forged charges is easily one of the worst.
Chinese or not Chinese, fact is Meng is a member of the bourgeoisie. She is one of them.
It doesn't matter if Huawei only became big and prosperous thanks to the CCP: bourgeoisie
is bourgeoisie, and having a strong one within communist China's belly is essential for the
long term success of capitalism in its war against communism.
By arresting Meng, the capitalists (i.e. Americans) are just driving a hedge between
inside the "Capitalist International". The Chinese capitalist class - who was certainly
very interested in ganging up with their western counterparts to, in the long term, topple
the CCP - is now completely at the mercy of the CCP, as the CCP is now the only guarantor
of their own class status.
The correct strategy would be for the Western bourgeoisie to woo the Chinese bourgeoisie
with as many tax breaks, green cards and other kinds of flattery, so that, withing the
course of some generations, the Chinese bourgeoisie become fully liberal (westernized). It
would then make the infamous "middle class insurgence" theory feasible.
But (and there's always a "but" in the real world), it seems that capitalism itself is
in crisis. It seems that, all of a sudden, the pot became too small to make every alpha
male happy. The international bourgeoisie is now devouring its children (the
petite-bourgeoisie, the "small business owners") and is beginning to devour itself.
"... Guo was far less vocal than colleague Richard Yu, who runs the consumer division responsible for smartphones. The outspoken executive said the restrictions that ostensibly aim to allay U.S. cybersecurity concerns are really designed to safeguard American dominance of global tech. ..."
"... "The so-called cybersecurity reasons are merely an excuse," Yu, head of the Chinese tech giant's consumer electronics unit, wrote in a post to his account on messaging app WeChat earlier on Monday. "The key is the threat to the technology hegemony of the U.S." posed by Huawei, he added. ..."
Trump's economic war on China comes in the shadow of an even deadlier military escalation.
And it may not stop after November, no matter who wins the election.
Economists like to
think of the wreckage caused by stock market downturns, widespread bankruptcies, and corporate
downsizing as "creative destruction." As it destroys the old and the dysfunctional, the
capitalist system continually spurs innovation, much as a forest fire prepares the ground for
new growth.
Or so the representatives of the dismal science argue.
Donald Trump, who is neither economist nor scientist, has his own version of creative
destruction. He is determined to destroy the Affordable Care Act and replace it with his own
health insurance alternative. He has torn up the Iran nuclear deal in favor of negotiating
something brand new with Tehran. He has withdrawn from the Paris climate accord and argues that the United
States is reducing carbon emissions in its own superior manner.
The problem, of course, is that Trump is very good at destruction but, despite his previous
job as a real estate mogul, exceedingly bad at construction. Indeed, there's abundant evidence
that he never intended to replace what he is destroying with anything at all. Trump has never
offered any viable alternative to Obamacare or any new negotiating framework with Iran. And
prior to the recent economic downturn, U.S. carbon emissions were increasing after several
years of decline.
Perhaps the most dangerous example of Trump's uncreative destruction is his approach to
China.
Previously, Trump said that he simply wanted to level the playing field by placing trade
with China on a fairer and more reciprocal basis, strengthening the regime of intellectual
property rights, and stopping Beijing from manipulating its currency.
He was willing to go to great lengths to accomplish this goal. The tariffs that Trump
imposed on Chinese products precipitated a trade war that jeopardized the livelihoods of
millions of American farmers and workers. The initial trade deal that the United States and
China signed in January, even though many of the U.S. tariffs remain in place, was supposed to
be the grand alternative to the old and dysfunctional trade relationship.
But here again, Trump is not telling the truth. He and his team have a very different set of
objectives. As with so many other elements of his domestic and foreign policy, Trump wants to
tear apart the current system -- in this case, the network of economic ties between the United
States and China -- and replace it with absolutely nothing at all.
Oh sure, Trump believes that U.S. manufacturers can step up to take the place of Chinese
suppliers. More recently, as the administration "turbocharges" its efforts to isolate China in
response to its purported pandemic mistakes , it has
talked of creating
an Economic Prosperity Network of trusted allies like South Korea, Australia, India, and
Vietnam. But this is all whistling in the dark, because the administration doesn't really
understand the consequences -- for the world economy, for the U.S. economy -- of tearing apart
the global supply chain in this way.
Just how poorly Trump understands all this is reflected in
his statement last week that "we could cut off the whole relationship" with China and "save
$500 billion." This from the president who erroneously believes that China
is paying the United States "billions and billions of dollars of tariffs a month." What else do
you expect from a man who received a BS in economics from Wharton?
Unlike many of the administration's other policies, however, its hardline approach to China
has some bipartisan support. Engagement with China has virtually
disappeared as a policy option in the Democratic Party. Joe Biden, the Democrats'
presumptive presidential candidate, has attempted to present himself as the tougher alternative
when it comes to China, a misguided
effort to fend off charges of his bedding down with Beijing.
Finger to the wind, Biden is crafting policies in response not just to Trump but to public
opinion. In 2017, 44 percent of Americans had a favorable view of China, compared to 47 percent
who held an unfavorable opinion of the country, according to Pew. In
this year's survey , only 26 percent looked at China positively versus 66 percent who
viewed it negatively. The latter category includes 62 percent of Democrats.
Writing for the Atlantic Council, Michael Greenwald
sums up the new conventional wisdom of the centrists:
The United States can no longer remain content with the notion of a Chinese economic
threat arising in the distant future. The advent of COVID-19 has made it more apparent than
any other time including the US-China trade war that now is the moment for the United States,
European Union, and other like-minded countries to diversify supply chains away from
China.
That's what makes Trump's uncreative destruction vis a vis China so dangerous. It may not
stop after November, no matter who wins the election.
The Great Disentanglement
China's economic shutdown at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic disrupted many global supply
chains, prompting a number of countries and corporations to accelerate their strategy of
reducing their dependency on China for components.
Rising labor costs in China, concerns over human rights abuses there, but especially the
trade war between Washington and Beijing had contributed to the
U.S. fashion industry and tech firms
like Apple rethinking their own supply chains. Japan, heavily dependent on Chinese trade,
is
using $2 billion in economic stimulus funds to subsidize the move of Japanese firms out of
China.
The Trump administration is thus swimming with the current in its effort to isolate China.
It has imposed sanctions because of China's violations of Uyghur human rights. It has levied
penalties against China for its cooperation with Iranian firms. And it has threatened to add
another set of tariffs on top of the existing ones for China's handling of the coronavirus.
Its latest initiative has been to tighten the screws on the Chinese technology firm, Huawei.
Last week, the administration announced sanctions against any firms using U.S.-made equipment
that supply the Chinese tech giant. The chief victim of these new restrictions will be the
Taiwanese firm TSMC, which supplies 90 percent of Huawei's smartphone chips.
In other words, the Trump administration is committed not only to severing U.S. economic
connections with China. It wants to put as much pressure on other countries as well to
disentangle themselves from Chinese manufacturing. Taiwan, of course, has no particular love
for Mainland China. It battles Beijing on a daily basis to get international recognition --
from other countries and from global organizations like the World Health Organization.
But the Taiwanese economy is also heavily dependent on its cross-strait neighbor. As Eleanor
Albert points
out :
China is Taiwan's largest trading partner, accounting for nearly 30 percent of
the island's total trade, and trade between the two reached $150.5 billion in 2018 (up from
$35 billion in 1999). China and Taiwan have also agreed to allow banks, insurers, and other
financial service providers to work in both markets.
And it probably won't be Huawei but Taiwan that suffers from the U.S. move. As Michael
Reilly notes
, "Huawei's size in the global market means its Taiwanese suppliers cannot easily find an
alternative customer of comparable standing to replace it." China, meanwhile, will either find
another source of chips outside the U.S. sphere, or it will do what the United States has been
threatening to do: bring production of critical components back closer to home.
Another key player in the containment of China is India. Trump's friendship with Indian
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a right-wing Hindu nationalist, is more than simply an
ideological affection. Trump sealed
a $3 billion in military sales deal with India in February, with a trade deal still on the
horizon.
Modi, in turn, is hoping to be the biggest beneficiary of the falling out between Washington
and Beijing. "The government in April reached out to more than 1,000 companies in the U.S. and
through overseas missions to offer incentives for manufacturers seeking to move out of China,"
reports Bloomberg . "India is prioritizing medical equipment suppliers, food processing
units, textiles, leather, and auto part makers among more than 550 products covered in the
discussions."
Vietnam is another regional competitor that the United States is supporting in its
containment strategy. With only a couple hundred reported coronavirus cases and zero deaths,
Vietnam is
poised to emerge from the current crisis virtually unscathed. With low labor costs and an
authoritarian government that can enforce deals, it is already a favored alternative for
corporations looking for alternatives to China. But wildcat strikes have been happening in
greater numbers in the country, and the Vietnamese government recently
approved the country's first independent trade union.
Yet with a more technologically sophisticated infrastructure, China will continue to look
more attractive to investors than India or Vietnam.
Don't Count Out China
If your image of the Chinese economy is stuck in the 1980s -- cheap toys and mass-produced
baubles -- then you probably think that severing economic ties with the country is no big deal.
America can produce its own plastic junk, right?
But China is no longer hurrying to catch up to the West. In some ways, the West is already
in China's rearview mirror.
Huawei is well-known for the part it's playing in the rollout of 5G networks worldwide.
China is not only ahead of the curve in upgrading to 5G domestically, it is busy manufacturing
all the new tech that will run on these high-speed networks, like virtual reality and
augmented reality and AI-driven devices.
Perhaps more to the point, China is not simply part of the global supply chain. It is using
these new technologies to revolutionize the global supply chain.
For instance, it's using 3-D modeling to shorten product development. It has long integrated
drones into its distribution networks. "Chinese supply chain companies are incorporating
groundbreaking technologies like cloud-based systems, data analytics, and artificial
intelligence (AI) and using them to redesign supply chain operations," writes Adina-Laura
Achim.
And don't discount the role of a well-financed, centralized, authoritarian government. The
Trump administration is, frankly, at a huge disadvantage when it tries to pressure companies to
relocate their operations. Writes
Manisha Mirchandani:
The global technology and consumer electronics sectors are especially reliant on
China's infrastructure and specialized labor pool, neither of which will be easy to
replicate. The Chinese government is already mobilizing resources to convince producers of
China's unique merits as a manufacturing location. Zhengzhou, within Henan Province, has
appointed officials to support Apple's partner Foxconn in mitigating the disruptions caused
by the coronavirus, while the Ministry of Finance is increasing credit support to the
manufacturing sector. Further, the Chinese government is likely to channel stimulus efforts
to develop the country's high-tech manufacturing infrastructure, moving away from its
low-value manufacturing base and accelerating its vision for a technology-driven services
economy.
The Trump administration is playing the short game, trying to use tariffs and anti-Chinese
sentiment to hobble a rising power. China, on the other hand, is playing the long game,
translating its trade surpluses into structural advantages in a fast-evolving global
economy.
Will the Conflict Turn Hot?
Despite the economic ravages of the pandemic, the Pentagon continues to demand the lion's
share of the U.S. budget. It wants another $705 billion for 2021, after increasing its budget
by 20 percent between 2016 and 2020.
This appalling waste of government resources has already caused long-term damage to the
economic competitiveness of the United States. But it's all the money the Pentagon is spending
on "deterring China" that might prove more devastating in the short term.
The U.S. Navy announced
this month that it was sending its entire forward-deployed sub fleet on "contingency
response operations" as a warning to China. Last month, the U.S. Navy Expeditionary Strike
Group
sailed into the South China Sea to support Malaysia's oil exploration in an area that China
claims. Aside from the reality that oil exploration makes no economic sense at a time of record
low oil prices, the United States should be helping the countries bordering the South China Sea
come to a fair resolution of their disputes, not throwing more armaments at the problem.
There's also heightened risk of confrontation in the Taiwan Strait, the East China Sea, and
even in outer space . A huge portion of the Pentagon's budget goes toward preparing for war
with China -- and, frankly, provoking war as well.
What does this all have to do with the Great Disentanglement?
The close economic ties between the United States and China have always represented a
significant constraint on military confrontation. Surely the two countries would not risk
grievous economic harm by coming to blows. Economic cooperation also provides multiple channels
for resolving conflicts and communicating discontent. The United States and Soviet Union never
had that kind of buffer.
If the Great Disentanglement goes forward, however, then the two countries have less to lose
economically in a military confrontation. Trading partners, of course, sometimes go to war with
one another. But as the data
demonstrates , more trade generally
translates into less war.
There are lots and lots of problems in the U.S.-China economic relationship. But they pale
in comparison to World War III. Share this:
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/likebox.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FForeign-Policy-In-Focus%2F126648970682757&width=292&height=258&show_faces=true&colorscheme=light&stream=false&show_border=false&header=false&appId=229260323752355
Related Posts
So, yes, the West still has a realistic chance of destroying China and inaugurating a new
cycle of capitalist prosperity.
What happens with the "decoupling"/"Pivot to Asia" is that, in the West, there's
a scatological theory [go to 10th paragraph] - of Keynesian origin - that socialism can
only play "catch up" with capitalism, but never surpass it when a "toyotist phase" of
technological innovation comes (this is obviously based on the USSR's case). This theory
states that, if there's innovation in socialism, it is residual and by accident, and that
only in capitalism is significant technological advancement possible. From this, they posit
that, if China is blocked out of Western IP, it will soon "go back to its place" - which is
probably to Brazil or India level.
If China will be able to get out of the "Toyotist Trap" that destroyed the USSR, only time
will tell. Regardless, decoupling is clearly not working, and China is not showing any signs
so far of slowing down. Hence Trump is now embracing a more direct approach.
As for the USA, I've put my big picture opinion about it some days ago, so I won't repeat
myself. Here, it suffices to say that, yes, I believe the USA can continue to survive as an
empire - even if, worst case scenario, in a "byzantine" form. To its favor, it has: 1) the
third largest world population 2) huge territory, with excellent proportion of high-quality
arable land (35%), that basically guarantees food security indefinitely (for comparison, the
USSR only had 10% of arable land, and of worse quality) 3) two coasts, to the two main Oceans
(Pacific and Atlantic), plus a direct exit to the Arctic (Alaska and, de facto, Greenland and
Canada) 4) excellent, very defensive territory, protected by both oceans (sea-to-sea),
bordered only by two very feeble neighbors (Mexico and Canada) that can be easily absorbed if
the situation asks to 4) still the financial superpower 5) still a robust "real" economy -
specially if compared to the micro-nations of Western Europe and East-Asia 6) a big fucking
Navy, which gives it thalassocratic power.
I don't see the USA losing its territorial integrity anytime soon. There are separatist
movements in places like Texas and, more recently, the Western Coast. Most of them exist only
for fiscal reasons and are not taken seriously by anyone else. The Star-and-Stripes is still
a very strong ideal to the average American, and nobody takes the idea of territory loss for
real. If that happens, though, it would change my equation on the survival of the American
Empire completely.
As for Hong Kong. I watched a video by the chief of the PLA last year (unfortunately, I
watched it on Twitter and don't have the link with me anymore). He was very clear: Hong Kong
does not present an existential threat to China. The greatest existential threat to China
are, by far, Xinjiang and Tibet, followed by Taiwan and the South China Sea. Hong Kong is a
distant fourth place.
One problem with your scenario is that the US navy may be over-extended in parts of the
world where all the enemy has to do is to cut off supply lines to battleship groups and then
those ships would be completely helpless. US warships in the Persian Gulf with the Strait of
Hormuz sealed off by Iran come to mind.
Incidents involving US naval ship collisions with slow-moving oil tankers in SE Asian
waters and some other parts of of the the world, resulting in the loss of sailors, hardly
instill the notion that the US is a mighty thalassocratic force.
It's my understanding also that Russia, China and maybe some other countries have invested
hugely in long-range missiles capable of hitting US coastal cities and areas where the bulk
of the US population lives.
And if long-range missiles don't put paid to the notion that projecting power through
sending naval warships all over the planet works, maybe the fact that many of these ships are
sitting ducks for COVID-19 infection clusters might, where the US public is concerned.
I agree the new anti-ship missile technology may have changed the rules of naval
warfare.
However, it's important to highlight that, contrary to the US Army, the USN has a stellar
record. It fought wonderfully against the Japanese Empire in 1941-1945, and successfully
converted both the Pacific and the Atlantic into "American lakes" for the next 75 years. All
the Americans have nowadays it owes its Navy.
But you may be right. Maybe the USN is also susceptible to degeneration.
Of the existing 30 or so high-tech productive chains, China only enjoys superiority at 2
or 3 (see 6:48). It is still greatly dependent on the West to development and still is a
developing country.
Based on what I've read, China is on a fast track to develop technology on their own. In
addition, technology development is world-wide these days. What China can not develop itself
- quickly enough, time is the only real problem - it can buy with its economic power.
"if China is blocked out of Western IP, it will soon "go back to its place" - which is
probably to Brazil or India level."
Ah, but that's where hackers come in. China can *not* be blocked out of Western IP. First,
as I said, China can *buy* it. Unless there is a general prohibition across the entire
Western world, and by extension sanctions against any other nation from selling to China -
which is an unenforceable policy, as Iran has shown - China can buy what it doesn't have and
then reverse-engineer it. Russia will sell it if no one else will.
Second, China can continue to simply acquire technology through industrial espionage.
Every country and every industry engages in this sort of thing. Ever watch the movie
"Duplicity"? That shit actually happens. I read about industrial espionage years ago and it's
only gotten fancier since the old days of paper files. I would be happy to breach any US or
EU industrial sector and sell what I find to the Chinese, the Malaysians or anyone else
interested. It's called "leveling the playing field" and that is advantageous for everyone.
If the US industrial sector employees can't keep up, that's their problem. No one is
guaranteed a job for life - and shouldn't be.
"1) the third largest world population"
Which is mostly engaged in unproductive activities like finance, law, etc. I've read that
if you visit the main US universities teaching science and technology, who are the students?
Chinese. Indians. Not Americans. Americans only want to "make money" in law and finance, not
"make things."
"2) huge territory, with excellent proportion of high-quality arable land (35%), that
basically guarantees food security indefinitely"
In military terms, given current military technology, territory doesn't matter. China has
enough nuclear missiles to destroy the 50 Major Metropolitan Areas in this country. Losing
100-200 millions citizens kinda puts a damper on US productivity. Losing the same number in
China merely means more for the rest.
"3) two coasts, to the two main Oceans (Pacific and Atlantic)"
Which submarines can make irrelevant. Good for economic matters - *if* your economy can
continue competing. China has one coast - but its Belt and Road Initiative gives it economic
clout on the back-end and the front-end. I don't see the US successfully countering that
Initiative.
"4) excellent, very defensive territory, protected by both oceans (sea-to-sea)"
Which only means the US can't be "invaded". That's WWI and WWII thinking the US is mired
in. Today, you destroy an opponent's military and, if necessary, his civilian population, or
at least its ability to "project" force against you. You don't "invade" unless it's some weak
Third World country. And if the US can't "project" its power via its navy or air force,
having a lot of territory doesn't mean much. This is where Russia is right now. Very
defensible but limited in force projection (but getting better fast.) The problem for the US
is China and Russia are developing military technology that can prevent US force projection
around *their* borders.
"bordered only by two very feeble neighbors (Mexico and Canada) that can be easily
absorbed if the situation asks"
LOL I can just see the US "absorbing" Mexico. Canada, maybe - they're allies anyway.
Mexico, not so much. You want a "quagmire", send the US troops to take on the Mexican drug
gangs. They aren't Pancho Villa.
"4) still the financial superpower"
Uhm, what part of "Depression" did you miss? And even if that doesn't happen now,
continued financial success is unlikely. Like pandemics, shit happens in economics and
monetary policy.
"a big fucking Navy, which gives it thalassocratic power."
That can be sunk in a heartbeat and is virtually a colossal money pit with limited
strategic value given current military technology which both China and Russia are as advanced
as the US is, if not more so. Plus China is developing its own navy quickly. I read somewhere
a description of one Chinese naval shipyard. There were several advanced destroyers being
developed. Then the article noted that China has several more large shipyards. That Chinese
long coast comes in handy for that sort of thing.
China Now Has More Warships Than the U.S.
But sometimes quantity doesn't trump quality. [My note: But sometimes it does.] https://tinyurl.com/y7numhef
That's just the first article I found, from a crappy source. There are better analyses, of
course.
"I don't see the USA losing its territorial integrity anytime soon. There are separatist
movements in places like Texas and, more recently, the Western Coast. Most of them exist only
for fiscal reasons and are not taken seriously by anyone else."
I'd agree with that. I hear this "California secession" crap periodically and never
believe it. However, for state politicians, the notion of being "President" of your own
country versus a "Governor" probably is tempting to these morons. State populations are
frequently idiots as well, as the current lockdown response is demonstrating. All in all,
though, if there are perceived external military threats, that is likely to make the states
prefer to remain under US central control.
"Britain had to agree to the pact because it had lost the capability to defend the
colony.".."
That was the excuse. I believe HK was offered to China in return for Deng to open up and
turn China capitalist. Deng was not the one who
demanded HK return. Britain initiated the discussions. Deng gladly accepted although he
insisted on maintaining their authoritarian form of undemocratic government and left HK's
fate ambiguous so Britain could get support from their people and the HK elite. The party
elites were happy to be able to join the Western Elites in accumulating an unequal share of
the wealth. The Soviet elites led by the US Globalist puppet Gorbachev chose the same path
although they chose Fake Democracy and rule of the oligarchs as in the US rather than party
control of China
HK is protected against US tarrifs imposed on China goods. China exports a good chunk of
goods through HK. If Trump were really serious he would remove HK's protected status.
The timing doesn't add up. China opened up in 1972 (the famous Nixon-Mao handshake), while
the UK's agreement to give HK back was from 1984 - well into the Thatcher Era.
The most likely reason for the UK to decide to obey the lease deal was of military nature:
the valuable land necessary to defend HK was the flatland adjacent to the city proper, where
potable water comes from. It already part of the Mainland, thus rendering the defense of HK
virtually impossible without an outright invasion of the Mainland itself.
Margaret Thatcher probably didn't want to obey the treaty (99-year lease), as a good
neoliberal she was, but her military advisors probably warned her of the practical
difficulties, and, since it was a 99-year lease anyway, she must've agreed to simply allow
the treaty to be followed.
It is important to highlight that, in 1984, there were a lot of reasons the capitalist
world should be optimist about China becoming capitalist. After all, it really got off the
Soviet sphere after 1972, and Deng's reforms were - from the point of view of a vulgar
(bourgeois) economist - indeed a clear path to a capitalist restoration. It didn't cross
Thatcher's mind that China could stand its ground and remain socialist - at least not in
1984. If you read the sources of the time, you will easily see the Western elites treated
China's return to capitalism as a given.
It is still greatly dependent on the West to development and still is a developing
country.
So, yes, the West still has a realistic chance of destroying China and inaugurating a new
cycle of capitalist prosperity.
What happens with the "decoupling"/"Pivot to Asia" is that, in the West, there's
a scatological theory [go to 10th paragraph] - of Keynesian origin - that socialism can
only play "catch up" with capitalism, but never surpass it when a "toyotist phase" of
technological innovation comes (this is obviously based on the USSR's case). This theory
states that, if there's innovation in socialism, it is residual and by accident, and that
only in capitalism is significant technological advancement possible. From this, they posit
that, if China is blocked out of Western IP, it will soon "go back to its place" - which is
probably to Brazil or India level.
If China will be able to get out of the "Toyotist Trap" that destroyed the USSR, only time
will tell. Regardless, decoupling is clearly not working, and China is not showing any signs
so far of slowing down. Hence Trump is now embracing a more direct approach.
As for the USA, I've put my big picture opinion about it some days ago, so I won't repeat
myself. Here, it suffices to say that, yes, I believe the USA can continue to survive as an
empire - even if, worst case scenario, in a "byzantine" form. To its favor, it has: 1) the
third largest world population 2) huge territory, with excellent proportion of high-quality
arable land (35%), that basically guarantees food security indefinitely (for comparison, the
USSR only had 10% of arable land, and of worse quality) 3) two coasts, to the two main Oceans
(Pacific and Atlantic), plus a direct exit to the Arctic (Alaska and, de facto, Greenland and
Canada) 4) excellent, very defensive territory, protected by both oceans (sea-to-sea),
bordered only by two very feeble neighbors (Mexico and Canada) that can be easily absorbed if
the situation asks to 4) still the financial superpower 5) still a robust "real" economy -
specially if compared to the micro-nations of Western Europe and East-Asia 6) a big fucking
Navy, which gives it thalassocratic power.
I don't see the USA losing its territorial integrity anytime soon. There are separatist
movements in places like Texas and, more recently, the Western Coast. Most of them exist only
for fiscal reasons and are not taken seriously by anyone else. The Star-and-Stripes is still
a very strong ideal to the average American, and nobody takes the idea of territory loss for
real. If that happens, though, it would change my equation on the survival of the American
Empire completely.
As for Hong Kong. I watched a video by the chief of the PLA last year (unfortunately, I
watched it on Twitter and don't have the link with me anymore). He was very clear: Hong Kong
does not present an existential threat to China. The greatest existential threat to China
are, by far, Xinjiang and Tibet, followed by Taiwan and the South China Sea. Hong Kong is a
distant fourth place.
"They Saw This Day Coming" - Huawei Forges Alliances With Rival Chipmakers As
Washington's Crackdown Intensifies by Tyler Durden Fri, 05/22/2020 - 18:05 The US
Commerce Department's latest move to block companies from selling products to Huawei that were
created with American technology, equipment or software has undoubtedly hurt the Chinese
telecoms giant. But it won't be nearly enough to take it down.
Since Washington launched its campaign against Huawei two years ago (when the trade tensions
between the US and China started to heat up, as President Trump started slapping more tariffs
on foreign goods) the company has been strengthening ties with contract chipmakers in Taiwan
and elsewhere, while ramping up its own microchip-technology arm, known as HiSilicon
Technologies.
On Friday,
Nikkei reported that Huawei had initiated conversations with other mobile chipmakers to try
and figure out where it might source certain essential components for its handsets (remember,
Huawei is the second-largest cellphone maker by sales volume) and other products.
Of course, the crackdown cuts both ways, as several American companies relied heavily on
Huawei's business (they can still apply for licenses to continue selling to Huawei...so long as
Commerce approves).
As
we reported earlier this week , it's not just American chipmakers that are distancing
themselves from Huawei: some Taiwan-based chipmakers are also dropping the telecoms giant for
fear of being targeted by Treasury sanctions, including TSMC, the world's largest contract
chipmaker.
Now, Huawei is reportedly in talks with MediaTek, the world's second-largest contract chip
producer.
Huawei Technologies is seeking help from rival mobile-chip makers to withstand a U.S.
clampdown aimed at crippling the Chinese company, sources familiar with the matter told the
Nikkei Asian Review.
Huawei is in talks with MediaTek, the world's second-largest mobile chip developer after
Qualcomm of the U.S., and UNISOC, China's second-largest mobile chip designer after Huawei's
HiSilicon Technologies unit, to buy more chips as alternatives to keep its consumer
electronics business afloat, the sources said.
To work with a contract chipmaker, Huawei would still need to design its own chips. Over the
past two years, Huawei has expanded its team of engineers working on chip design to more than
10,000, Nikkei said.
To be sure, MediaTek already makes low- and medium-end chips for Huawei, evidence that the
company, which was founded by a veteran of China's PLA, and purportedly maintains strong links
to the Chinese military, has been bracing for the other shoe to drop. MediaTek, meanwhile, is
still trying to figure out if it can meet Huawei's latest bid.
"Huawei has foreseen this day coming. It started to allocate more mid- to low-end mobile
chip projects to MediaTek last year amid its de-Americanization efforts," one of the sources
said. "Huawei has also become one of the key clients for the Taiwanese mobile chip
developer's mid-end 5G mobile chip for this year."
MediaTek is evaluating whether it has sufficient human resources to fully support Huawei's
aggressive bid, as the Chinese company is asking for volume 300% above its usual procurement in
the past few years, another source familiar with the talks said.
The situation has also created an opportunity for small Chinese chipmakers (working, we
imagine, mostly with technology stolen from American and Taiwanese companies) to expand.
Huawei also seeks to deepen its collaboration with UNISOC, a Beijing-backed mobile chip
developer that relies mostly on smaller device makers as customers and mainly supports
entry-level products and devices for emerging markets. Previously, Huawei used only very few
UNISOC chips for its low-end smartphone and tablet offerings, sources said.
"The new procurement deals would be a great boost to help UNISOC further upgrade its chip
design capability," said a chip industry executive. "In the past, UNISOC was struggling quite
a bit, because it could not really secure big contracts with global leading smartphone makers
as these top smartphone makers could find better offerings elsewhere. This time could be an
opportunity that it could really seek to match the international standard."
UNISOC last year accelerated its 5G chip development to catch up with Qualcomm and
MediaTek, Nikkei has reported. More recently, the company received 4.5 billion yuan ($630
million) from China's national integrated circuit fund, the so-called Big Fund.
UNISOC is preparing to list on the Shanghai STAR tech board, the Chinese version of
Nasdaq, later this year. Qualcomm has needed a license from the U.S. Department of Commerce
to supply Huawei since mid-May of 2019.
Huawei has already expanded production of in-house mobile processors for its smartphone
business to 75%, up from 69% in 2018 and 45% in 2016, according to to data from GF Securities
cited by Nikkei. Huawei shipped 240 million smartphones in 2019. And with China now throwing
caution to the wind and cracking down on Hong Kong, we wouldn't be surprised to see more Huawei
drama in the headlines next week, with serious market repercussions for the US semiconductor
industry.
That will be an interesting chess party. The USA moved way to many plants to Chine to get out
of this conflict without major losses
Notable quotes:
"... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slammed China as “hostile to free nations,” portraying Beijing as fundamentally opposed to the United States, on Wednesday. ..."
"... But the Secretary of State pointed to deeper issues in the relationship, claiming that “the nature of the regime is not new.” “For several decades, we thought the regime would become more like us through trade, scientific exchanges, diplomatic outreach, letting them in the [World Trade Organization] as a developing nation,” he said. “That didn’t happen.” ..."
'The regime is ideologically and politically hostile to free nations.'
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slammed China as “hostile to free nations,”
portraying Beijing as fundamentally opposed to the United States, on Wednesday.
Tensions between the United States and China have reached a fever pitch during the
coronavirus pandemic. Pompeo’s speech at a Wednesday morning press conference laid out a
vision of a global clash between two fundamentally different societies.
“China’s been ruled by a brutal, authoritarian regime, a communist regime since
1949,” he said. “We greatly underestimated the degree to which Beijing is
ideologically and politically hostile to free nations. The whole world is waking up to that
fact.”
He added that a focus on the coronavirus pandemic “risks missing the bigger picture of
the challenge that’s presented by the Chinese Communist Party.”
The pandemic has accelerated U.S.-China tensions.
Last week, a Chinese Communist Party news threatened sanctions against U.S. lawmakers for
attempting to sue the Chinese government for the pandemic, and U.S. law enforcement accused
Chinese hackers of cyberattacks against U.S. researchers.
But the Secretary of State pointed to deeper issues in the relationship, claiming that
“the nature of the regime is not new.” “For several decades, we thought the
regime would become more like us through trade, scientific exchanges, diplomatic outreach,
letting them in the [World Trade Organization] as a developing nation,” he said.
“That didn’t happen.”
Pompeo accused the World Health Organization’s director-general Dr. Tedros Adhanom
Ghebreyesus of “unusually close ties to Beijing” that “started long before
this current pandemic.”
The Trump administration has accused China of covering up information about the novel
coronavirus—even implying that the virus emerged from a lab accident in Wuhan,
China—and pointed the finger at the World Health Organization for aiding China’s
coverup.
The Secretary of State slammed the public health group for excluding Taiwan in his Wednesday
speech, touching on a sensitive topic for Beijing.
Taiwan, an island that was once ruled by China, has ruled itself since the end of the
Chinese Civil War in 1950. Beijing considers the island a breakaway Chinese province that must
be reunited with the mainland, while Taiwan’s ruling Pan-Green Alliance leans towards
independence.
“The democratic process in Taiwan has matured into a model for the world,”
Pompeo said, congratulating President Tsai Ing-wen on her re-election. “Despite great
pressure from the outside, Taiwan has demonstrated the wisdom of giving people a voice and a
choice.”
But he shied away from changing U..S. policy towards Taiwan..
Pompeo said that work that “comports with the history of the agreements between the
United States and China is the right solution to maximize the stability there in the
straits.”
The United States acknowledged the Chinese position that “there is but one China and
Taiwan is part of China” as part of a 1979 joint communique with Beijing, and does not
officially recognize Taiwan as a state, but maintains close informal ties with the Taiwanese
government and opposes attempts to change the island’s government by force.
“The President talked about how we’re going to respond [to China], how
he’s beginning to think about responding to the calamity that has befallen the world as a
result of the actions of the Chinese Communist Party,” Pompeo said. “I don’t
want to get ahead of him in terms of talking about how the administration will respond to that,
but you can already begin to see the outlines of it.”
Matthew Petti is a national security reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on
Twitter: @matthew_petti. This article initially stated that the United States “recognized
that ‘there is but one China and Taiwan is a part of China’ in a 1979 joint
communique.” The communique actually states that the United States
“acknowledges” this as the Chinese position. The article has been updated to more
correctly reflect the communique. Image: Reuters.
"... The Chinese will not start a shooting war and the US has no guts for one. Its industry has been hollowed out not just by outsourcing but by corruption as well. The campaign of demonization against China is very obvious, how far it is working I have no way of telling. Among the 5-eyes probably quite well, in the rest of the World rather less well, I would imagine. Notably, the British economy has been hollowed out in exactly the same manner as the US's. Canada's, Australia's, NewZealand's? Could they, would they support a war? ..."
"... Right now, China is leading the vaccine race and has developed an antibody treatment for Covid-19 that should be ready this year. ..."
"... Interesting article by Escobar. If one cares to notice, this anti-China cold war is a neocon based aggression. The primary movers of it are mostly neocons or the sorts who follow the neocon lead. ..."
"... "Again! Trump is talking nonsense." Trump seems to be losing his mind right now. Even he has such crazy ideas of cutting ties with China, US politicians, businessmen and Americans would not allow him to do so, Xin Qiang, deputy director of the Center for US Studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times. ..."
"... Jin Canrong, the associate dean of Renmin University of China's School of International Studies in Beijing, told the Global Times on Thursday that Trump made very irresponsible and emotional remarks in the interview. ..."
"... "For Trump, fantasy is power; bluffing is power, so he might use the future of his country to gamble with China. Although China always believes cooperation is the only right choice for the two countries to solve the problems together, if the US unilaterally and irrationally chooses all-out confrontation, China also needs to be prepared." ..."
Washington wants to prevent Russia and China supplanting US interests. Moscow and Beijing
pursue what they see as their own legitimate interests. What we face is not a "hybrid" war or
"New Cold War" but a world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
What we face is not a "hybrid" war or "New Cold War" but a world war.
Honestly, I don't see it. My reasoning is simple, maybe too simple. The Chinese will
not start a shooting war and the US has no guts for one. Its industry has been hollowed out
not just by outsourcing but by corruption as well. The campaign of demonization against China
is very obvious, how far it is working I have no way of telling. Among the 5-eyes probably
quite well, in the rest of the World rather less well, I would imagine. Notably, the British
economy has been hollowed out in exactly the same manner as the US's. Canada's, Australia's,
NewZealand's? Could they, would they support a war?
The other reason I think a shooting war is less likely than might appear, is that the the
MIC is doing so well with the current cold war; that it would seem stupid to allow the
massive disruption and uncertainty that a shooting war would cause to interrupt the torrent
of cash being shoveled its way at the moment.
[Hide MORE]
1990. China's economy has come to a halt. The Economist
1996. China's economy will face a hard landing. The Economist
1998. China's economy's dangerous period of sluggish growth. The Economist
1999. Likelihood of a hard landing for the Chinese economy. Bank of Canada
2000. China currency move nails hard landing risk coffin. Chicago Tribune
2001. A hard landing in China. Wilbanks, Smith & Thomas
2002. China Seeks a Soft Economic Landing. Westchester University
2003. Banking crisis imperils China. New York Times
2004. The great fall of China? The Economist
2005. The Risk of a Hard Landing in China. Nouriel Roubini
2006. Can China Achieve a Soft Landing? International Economy
2007. Can China avoid a hard landing? TIME
2008. Hard Landing In China? Forbes
2009. China's hard landing. China must find a way to recover. Fortune
2010: Hard landing coming in China. Nouriel Roubini
2011: Chinese Hard Landing Closer Than You Think. Business Insider
2012: Economic News from China: Hard Landing. American Interest
2013: A Hard Landing In China. Zero Hedge
2014. A hard landing in China. CNBC
2015. Congratulations, You Got Yourself A Chinese Hard Landing. Forbes
2016. Hard landing looms for China. The Economist
2017. Is China's Economy Going To Crash? National Interest
2018. China's Coming Financial Meltdown. The Daily Reckoning.
2019 China's Economic Slowdown: How worried should we be? BBC
2020. Coronavirus Could End China's Decades-Long Economic Growth Streak. NY Times
Forbes – May 15 2012 – Meghan Casserly The American Dream Is Alive And Well In New Jersey
American Express – November 6 2012 – Rieva Lesonsky The American Dream is Alive and Well -- and Transformed
The Telegraph – August 4 2014 – Jeremy Warner The American Dream is alive and well, if you are trained for the jobs of the future
Forbes – September 30 2015 – John Tamny – FreedomWorks Ignore The Left And Right, The American Dream Is Alive And Well
FOX Business – August 22 2016 – Steve Tobak The American Dream Is Alive and Well
Forbes India – November 1 2016 – Monte Burke The American dream is alive and well
Washington Times – June 19 2017 – Ed Feulner – Heritage Foundation The American Dream, alive and well
KEDM – July 4 2018 – Byron Moore, Argent Advisors, Inc. The American Dream is Alive and Well
New York Times – February 2 2019 – Samuel J. Abrams – American
Enterprise Institute The American Dream Is Alive and Well
Daily Caller – February 6 2019 – Steve Sanetti – NSSF Firearm Industry
Trade Association The American Dream Is Alive And Well
FOX Business – September 30 2019 – Julia Limitone Eric Trump: The American Dream is alive and well
Mail Online – October 2019 – Lauren Fruen The American Dream is still alive! Children of poor immigrants still beat US-born kids up the
ladder – just as they did 100 years ago – but now Chinese and Indian migrants
have replaced Italian and Irish as the most successful
CNBC – November 14 2019 Billionaire Bob Parsons: The American Dream is alive and well
FOX News – November 26 2019 – Carol Ross Carol Roth: The American Dream is alive and well -- Let's be thankful for it
Clarion Ledger – December 10 2019 – Lynn Evans The American Dream is alive and well, but redefined
Wall Street Journal – January 31, 2020 – Michael R. Strain, American
Enterprise Institute The American Dream Is Alive and Well
Newsweek – February 27 2020 – Lee Habeeb The American Dream Is Alive and Well. Just Ask District Taco's Osiris Hoil
The Independent Voice – May 7 2020 – Barbara Ball The American Dream is alive and well
eKenyan – May 8 2020 Opinion | The American Dream Is Alive and Well
New York Times – May 18 2020 – Michael R. Strain – American Enterprise
Institute The American Dream Is Alive and Well
Chinese strategists like Liu He publicly acknowledge that epidemics can catalyze geopolitical
changes.
Right now, China is leading the vaccine race and has developed an antibody treatment
for Covid-19 that should be ready this year.
If development is successful and if it donates the cure to the world as Xi promised
and if WHO's investigation shows China is not the source of the virus, and if
China's economy is firing on all cylinders in November, it's game over: 3-0 China.
Interesting article by Escobar. If one cares to notice, this anti-China cold war is a
neocon based aggression. The primary movers of it are mostly neocons or the sorts who follow
the neocon lead. China is one country the zionazi-gays have not been able to dominate.
Coupled with China's economic rise and appeal to developing countries, these zionazi
oligarchs are going apeshit trying to bring China down. In addition to other articles
referenced in the article, see also this Global Time report:
[MORE] "Again! Trump is talking nonsense." Trump seems to be losing his mind right now. Even he
has such crazy ideas of cutting ties with China, US politicians, businessmen and Americans
would not allow him to do so, Xin Qiang, deputy director of the Center for US Studies at
Fudan University, told the Global Times.
He noted that Trump is bluffing and acting tough toward China to win more support. Fox
News, which has been regarded as Trump's defender and is notorious for a lack of
professionalism, is also making eye-catching news to draw attention.
Jin Canrong, the associate dean of Renmin University of China's School of
International Studies in Beijing, told the Global Times on Thursday that Trump made very
irresponsible and emotional remarks in the interview.
"The China-US relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the world and
involves huge interests of the two countries, as well as the rest of the world. Therefore, it
is not something he can cut off emotionally," Jin said.
"If the US unilaterally cuts off ties, the American people will pay a heavier price than
us, because China's domestic market is huge and 75-80 percent of Chinese manufacturers are
supplying China's market, and the 2 to 5 percent that supply the US can also be absorbed by
the domestic market," he noted.
China has nothing to be afraid of as "in the past, we didn't solve the Taiwan question
because we wanted to maintain the China-US relationship, and if the US unilaterally cuts it
off, we can just reunify Taiwan immediately since the Chinese mainland has an overwhelming
advantage to solve this long-standing problem."
"Trump is like a giant baby on the brink of a meltdown as he faces tremendous pressure due
to massive failures that caused such a high death toll," Shen Yi, an expert from Fudan
University, told the Global Times. "It's like someone who wants to show his guts when he
passes by a cemetery in midnight. He needs to shout to give himself the courage," he
said.
Shen also noted that the American companies and industries would suffer the most severe
consequences, because the supply chain has been integrated with China.
"The Chinese public would only take such bluffing as a joke," Shen said, adding that there
has been no US president in the history who has made such a ridiculous statement against
China, not even during the Cold War.
Yuan Zheng, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), said he
could not even remember any US leader who took a similar action. "His flip-flop rhetoric is
unprecedented, but we need to take a look at whether Trump will take real action," he said,
noting that there is no need to pay attention to claims that are unrealistic and
meaningless.
"For Trump, fantasy is power; bluffing is power, so he might use the future of his country
to gamble with China. Although China always believes cooperation is the only right choice for
the two countries to solve the problems together, if the US unilaterally and irrationally
chooses all-out confrontation, China also needs to be prepared."
@Godfree
Roberts China's economy won't be firing on all cylinders by November, but the important
parts of it will be. The manufacturers I talk to have weathered the worst of it, and their
order books for Q4 are more or less back to what they were in January (or at least healthy
enough to prevent soft skill losses). Many are upbeat about the future. (Not all of them will
survive, and the ones that die probably should have done so years ago.)
Compare this to the rest of Asia (Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Cambodia, Myanmar, and
others): they are a mess. Bangladesh put all its eggs in the huge volume low quality basket
and will now pay a fatal price. Pakistan was dead before corona, and is now in a
manufacturing death spiral. India has the capacity to succeed, but is hamstrung by a
caste-based barbarism that has jettisoned all pretense of decency by throwing migrant workers
in the informal economy to their deaths. This will not be forgotten and I predict years of
trouble. The others only have a manufacturing sector because the Chinese moved their
factories there. Vietnam has some chance, and should be a big winner as China moves out of
low- to middle-end manufacturing.
Countries in South America have lost their opportunity. China passed them by years ago.
It's a tragedy, but they really have themselves to blame for it. And Africa, the last
frontier, is already dominated by China (15 years ago I'd bump into Chinese businessmen who'd
ship a 40-foot container of – 'insert any product you can think of' – to some
back of beyond place in Africa and refuse to come home until everything was sold). They've
moved up the ladder since then. Ethiopia, the fastest-growing economy on the continent, is
essentially an industrial zone for Chinese manufacturing.
Australia has become a mine/farm for China. New Zealand and Canada likewise, and a nice
place to send your teenagers to get educated and perhaps for retirement.
The EU, led by Germany, will be back on track soon. The winners here should be the former
USSR countries, with low labor costs and strong soft skills. With EU companies wanting to
bring the supply chain closer to home, this is their moment. If they screw it up, they will
spend another 30 years wondering what went wrong. I hope they won't, but if you spend any
time working with these people you know they often fail at the final hurdle (as though on
purpose – the psychology of self-destruction is their Achilles heel).
It's China's game to lose. And quite frankly, at this point, I don't see how. This has
been in the making since the late 70s. Perhaps earlier. I admire them for their intelligence,
their work ethic, their organizational capacity, their can-do spirit, and – yes –
their creativity (if you think China is Japan in the 60s, you need to spend some serious time
with younger Chinese in China).
The Chinese problem is, of course, its culture of responsibility avoidance. But even with
this issue, they are on track for a knockout victory. Most people in the West have no idea
what going on, which is exactly how You Know Who likes it.
I have no intention of letting my tribe be overrun by Chinese. But I have enough
experience to know they're smarter than my tribe, and it would be a wise thing to start
thinking more strategically and tactically about how to carve out a space in a new world most
people are unable to imagine (which is less than 10 years away).
The center of gravity of global economic power keeps moving, inexorably, toward
Asia.
it's game over
While the U.S. spent recent decades policing the world in pointless wars, China was about
the business of building an infrastructure in which all roads lead to Beijing, railroad cars
and boatloads of wealth. Just keep it coming, folks. Those roads and railroads and shipping
are linking nothing less than Eurasia, Sir Halford's World Island. It took this coronavirus
to show the imperial subjects that the Empire is naked and that China had already surpassed
it economically several years ago. It seems like it really is game over. I'm sad in a way,
but I would rather have a normal country than a hegemon; that is, if normalcy is still a
possibility.
What about the biggest hybrid war going on since centuries ago: jews (including crypto-jews,
hybrids and minions) versus everybody else?
The chinese had the full cooperation of diaspora jews (and their sayanim network) and
israelis. Specially the Chabad Lubavich.
From the referenced Global Times article, the US attack on Huawei (with its 5G leadership +
NSA proof encryption ) is at the heart of the story:
Based on Global Times sources, if the US further pinches Chinese telecommunication giant
Huawei by blocking companies such as TSMC from providing chips to the company, China will
carry out countermeasures, such as including certain US companies into its list of
"unreliable entities," imposing restrictions on or investigating US companies such as
Qualcomm, Cisco and Apple, and suspending purchases of Boeing aircraft.
The US would lose this fight. Apple for example manufactures in China with only a small
percentage of the sales price staying in China. If Apple manufacturing is shut down then
Apple is the big loser. They're already trying to move manufacturing to India but that's not
going to work.
We must be clear that coping with US suppression will be the key focus of China's
national strategy. We should enhance cooperation with most countries. The US is expected to
contain China's international frontlines, and we must knock out this US plot and make
China-US rivalry a process of US self-isolation.
China has plenty of alternative markets. US corporations mostly only sell to the US using
(now very sophisticated) Chinese manufacturing. Take this away, and Apple for example, have
no alternative supplier for the volumes, quality, sub-contractor network and export
infrastructure required.
General Qiao dismisses the possibility that Vietnam, the Philippines, Bangladesh, India
and other Asian nations may replace China's cheap workforce: "Think about which of these
countries has more skilled workers than China. What quantity of medium and high level human
resources was produced in China in these past 30 years? Which country is educating over 100
million students at secondary and university levels? The energy of all these people is
still far from being liberated for China's economic development."
True.
This will imply a concerted offensive, trying to enforce embargoes and trying to block
regional markets to Chinese companies. Lawfare will be the norm. Even freezing Chinese
assets in the US is not a far-fetched proposition anymore.
If the US steals the $ trillions China has invested in US treasuries, then the US dollar
also forfeits its claim to be the world reserve currency (safe place to hold international
trade balances).
Still, scores of nations are being asked, bluntly, by the hegemon to position themselves
once again in a "you're with us or against us" global war on terror imperative.
9/11 was fakery pumped up by the MSM to target Iraq/Iran and Covid-19 is more of the same
– this time targeting China. European states are getting tired of this game. For
example they were all dragged into supporting the Venezuela CIA coup that fizzled, and are
now trying to disentangle from it.
General Qiao counsels, "Don't think that only territorial sovereignty is linked to the
fundamental interests of a nation. Other kinds of sovereignty – economic, financial,
defense, food, resources, biological and cultural sovereignty – are all linked to the
interests and survival of nations and are components of national sovereignty."
If the US public look carefully at General Qiao's list they will realize that they have
already lost more than 50% of these sovereignties.
" General Qiao dismisses the possibility .. India and other Asian nations may replace China's
c: "Think about which of these countries has more skilled "
Everyday US. news are amplifying the bipartisan chorus against China . India is begging
for favors from USA while serenading USA with reinforcing American position.
India is stealing land from Nepal and Indian media thinks that ultranationalist of Nepal
are to blame for questioning Indian stance .
China is under a real threat of concerted attacks by the US 's opportunistic vassals.
There will be a seismic change affecting the alliances and the future .
Can China persuade Nepal Bangladesh Pakistan Sri Lanka Afghanistan Iran and Myanmar to work
together and persuade them move out of India's hegemony ?.
It's always astounding to read a geopolitical analysis by a journalist who completely ignores
the climate pollution crisis with it's impending effects overhanging every strategy any state
may envision to dominate the planet. It's as if the writer lives in an imaginary world devoid
of nature, along with his supposed expert sources and well placed powerful state movers and
shakers. This is delusional. China's cheap forced labor, making more crap for the planet's
shrinking population of affluent consumers, competing with other countries with equally
desperate workers. Countries competing to build the most dangerous bio-weapons in their
unsafe, leaky level 4 labs. All the while the atmosphere is being polluted to the point of
melting all the ice on the planet, the air is being degraded to the point of being disgusting
to see and carcinogenic to breath, the fresh water supply is being depleted and polluted, the
oceans degraded into radioactive chemical cesspools (soon to be a brown sludge inhabited by
only bacteria, viruses and fungus), the land ceded with thousands of chemicals that have no
purpose other than to kill. The existential threshold is within a few years. The geopolitical
strategy of the US and China can be summarized as a strategy to kill all sentient life on the
planet in order to have a some sort of imaginary strategic dominance. It is mass psychosis.
@foolisholdman
Old man, don't be foolish, they all hate us human scum, and will gladly go to war, are at
war. Remember how, in Catch 22, the opposing sides eventually saved a crap load of money by
geting Milo de Milo to bomb their own airfields using his supply planes? Its already
happening, us plebs are just in the way. In the end, the Protocols calls for one government
ruling what's left of mankind "with an iron staff." I cannot tell you (yet) what Zion's hold
on Beijing is, but be assured, "bring on the war" is the swill of Zion being lapped up by
little globalist piggies trying to get to the trough.
People think 'hybrid warfare" is some kind of technological term. Zion chooses its words very
carefully, and your first defence is your dictionary. The USAGE of words change with time,
the MEANING is constant. Now let's go find them hybrids, before Bill Gates can create enough
microcephalics to man his man/machine interfaced battle 'droids armed with depleted uranium
bullets and virally-delivered vaccines.
@carlusjr
Pollution sure is an important issue, one of the most important of our time, yes. The subject
matter at hand though, is mostly military, with economics as a condiment to explain the sour
taste. China might be the one manufacturing plastic turds, but it is the so-called western
media that is teaching your children the dire need to own the latest version of plastic poop.
China would not bother with plastic poop, but you voted for people who decided China makes
the best poo at the lowest cost and highest profit. Don't blame China for taking advantage of
YOUR leadership's desire to disown YOU and hand your habitat over to those who "know how to
make a profit" from your suffering, while dangling a piece of plastic poop in front of you,
calling it ambition, and deplatforming you if you refuse their offer of improved
turdiness.
But yah, now we know you hate pollution. Soon we will close down all the factories, and ban
all cars, and only those on "official business" will be alowed on aeroplanes, and then you
can breathe freely, as you stand in line, so the Special Agents can see if you have the Bill
Gates vaccine licence to visit the plastic poop and soylent green depository that we used to
call a supermarket.
A toxic racism-meets-anti-communism matrix is responsible for the predominant
anti-Chinese sentiment across the US, encompassing at least 66% of the whole
population.
No it isn't.
A hint of what is responsible is this from the same article:
"They have state of the art technology, but not the methods and production capacity. So
they have to rely on Chinese production."
Our jobs, our industry, our hard-earned intellectual property, and our money have all gone
to China. Our own leaders of industry and government are to blame for our predicament, but
our anger at China is the result.
Funny this from the Chinese General Qiao:
"as a producing country, we still cannot satisfy our manufacturing industry with our own
resources and rely on our own markets to consume our products."
No kidding, General. Your country built itself up by selling to us! We made you into our
own rival. Thanks are in order, but instead you plot to weaken us.
@Godfree
Roberts Sounds like a man who has no understanding of the science regarding the matter,
but so doesn't most of the world. Vaccine? Anti-body treatment? Does anybody know what they
are and how they work (or doesn't) or mean? From those tests to those invasive ventilators,
it shows me how people can easily be herded towards slaughter, for their safety, ofc, because
"science." And just over a mild cold no less.
So much for China's brilliance; they are as dumb or brainwashed by 'accepted science' as the
next moronic authority figure.
But exploiting the situation, that's something else that should be appreciated.
This will be China's contribution to ensuring vaccine accessibility and affordability in
developing countries." The Global South is paying attention.
Do the underdeveloped (hate the PC term "developing") countries even want a vaccine? They
have too many people anyway, any moderate dying will be an advantage to their societies. And
another point is that the anti-vaxxer movement there might be on the rise, just as it is in
America – remember how the Philippines government was watching a conspiracy video about
evil Bill Gates? I have talked to anti-vaxxer people in my Ukrainian university!
"Containment" will go into overdrive. A neat example is Admiral Philip Davidson –
head of the Indo-Pacific Command – asking for $20 billion for a "robust military
cordon" from California to Japan and down the Pacific Rim, complete with "highly
survivable, precision-strike networks" along the Pacific Rim and "forward-based, rotational
joint forces" to counteract the "renewed threat we face from great power competition."
My prediction is the US goes into a civil war > the liberals start losing > the
liberals invite the Chinese into California > the Chinese exterminate all Americans and
get a large Lebensraum in the East.
a Korea War pictorial. Nice.
It's long long ago since China made the last movie about Korea War. Too long ago that they
are in black and white.
Recently someone is preparing for a new movie: The Chosin Lake.
I really hope it will be well made. I love war movies, especially the ones on historical big
wars.
@Buzz
Mohawk I think the Western globalists though that China would be subservient to them and
not get any funny ideas, this virus is just a cover for antipathy that was building up for
years, similar to how the poor Jews being persecuted in Germany was used by propagandists to
whip up Germany sentiment, because of German economic prowess.
Western thinking is dominated by this balance of power mentality, the same mentality such
caused it to enter into two fratricidal wars not too long ago.
One can only hope this is good news for us, but I fear the globalists will just use this
time to move manufacturing to other Third World countries instead of bringing it back
home.
I agree that it was a huge mistake transferring our IP to China, they would simply have
not got to this point if we hadn't. This is also why the Chinese are not taking any chances
in their BRI, and are using Chinese labour instead of doing the more sustainable thing and
training up local workers, that would mean a destruction of their market! Sadly this will
continue, on top of the terrible policy of mass Third World immigration, we let Chinese into
out top companies and research facilities, some of whom no doubt pass this information back
home.
So the Global South is going to be "grateful" to China for coming up with vaccination after
innudating it with the Chinese virus in the first place Pepe, lay of the Mezcal because is
clouding your opaque thinking!
Let me make this clear. America is self-destructing. A malignant narcissist in charge and a
man who cannot construct a sentence is an alternative. A stock market devoid of reality and a
1 percent devoid of conscience. Any remote consideration of the other 99 percent is soley
based on profit. Any civilization that cannot reverse itself is doomed. China maybe a
shortterm factor yet not a factor in the longer considerations.
{ .. and the US has no guts for one. Its industry has been hollowed out not just by
outsourcing but by corruption as well.}
Even in the 50s when US industry was not hollowed out ( ran supreme) and China had no
nukes, US was unable to defeat China in a ground war in Korea. Of course there was talk in US
of using nukes against China (Gen. MacArthur), but cooler heads prevailed, arguing that, that
would trigger USSR to use nukes too, resulting in world wide nuclear conflagration.
Now China has nukes, and delivery systems, and US cannot possible defeat China
conventionally, so US will huff-and-puff, try to damage China financially, or steal its
holdings in US*, but nothing will come out of it.
Sad that US screwed itself over the years so badly that it is in this predicament now.
_____________________________
* There has been semi-serious talk in US of just taking $ hundreds of billions of Chinese
holdings in US as payment for ' damages' China has supposedly caused US by
Covid-19.
All this big nation state fluff stinks today as it did when the first two Western ones,
England and France had a 100 Years War and it has stunk throughout history.
We humans are born naked, helpless, and totally ignorant. We also have an evil streak in
us; vide Adam and Eve. And as Shakespeare stated we must consign ourselves to a willing death
each eve or we die. We are so haughty yet the first thing we must do upon wakening from our
nightly death is evacuate waste.
We have never respected Nature. Now we spray aluminum and plastic microns in the upper
atmosphere which we all breathe as they fall and have virtually destroyed the ozone layer and
the biosphere. We live in 1984 right now!
True libertarianism which is no aggression against person or property and backed up by
cheap, Natural Law arbitration courts works. It is that or sayonara humans.
My reasoning is simple, maybe too simple. The Chinese will not start a shooting war and
the US has no guts for one.
You may be right about the Chinese (their government looks after 1,3 billion people) and
that the US has no guts. But what is the "US"? If you mean the (mostly Jewish) ruling cabal
and their goyim political clowns and puppets, you have no reason to be so sanguine about the
"no guts". It's not their guts that will be on the line, for they will be quite happy so
sacrifice millions of the plebes for the greater good of Israel and rebooting the "economy".
War devastations (and pandemics) are the greatest source for immiserating and culling the
masses and channeling wealth to the banksters.
Facing the demise of the Jewish-led hegemony through its PNAC's "full-spectrum dominance"
– and what that could do to the SHITIS (shit-state of Israel) – it is reasonable
(in their twisted minds) to step to the brink and beyond. Besides, the most recent great wars
(the greatest carnages in the world's history) were not intended to end the way the warhawks
wanted (neither Hitler not Chamberlain wished the destruction of country or empire) but the
power dynamics unleashed by geopolitical gamesmanship suppresses reason.
@paranoid
goy Non-CO2 pollution is a non-issue. It was far worse in the USA and China 50 years ago
(air and water), and in Europe/East coast USA over 200 years ago. Wildlife populations are
also rebounding. Every time I hear some retard complaining about pollution on the internet, I
want to reach through the monitor and pepper spray them.
The zionists are in control of China and the ZUS and Russia and Europe and India and
everywhere in central and South America, and the fact is the zionist control was proven by
every country that forced their people into the forced lockdown, using this scam of a
coronavirus as an excuse.
These wars are a deversion, as the zionist install their global prison.
General Qiao dismisses the possibility that Vietnam, the Philippines, Bangladesh, India
and other Asian nations may replace China's cheap workforce: "Think about which of these
countries has more skilled workers than China. What quantity of medium and high level human
resources was produced in China in these past 30 years? Which country is educating over 100
million students at secondary and university levels? The energy of all these people is
still far from being liberated for China's economic development."
Once again, I must caveat this with the proclamation I was not and I am not an advocate
for Obama's TPP. The reason I'm not an advocate is for environmental purposes. I believe
growth is killing the living planet and soon enough will extinct humans as well as many, most
even, other species on the planet. The TPP did nothing to address growth and instead enabled
it further by enhancing global trade versus diminishing it.
That being said, the TPP was a strategy to contain China's growing influence. It was
intended to put global trade eggs in many baskets and not just in the basket labeled China.
What does Trump do? He puts all the trade eggs in China's basket under the aegis/rubric of
repatriating manufacturing to America. He put a knife in TPP and killed it but he never
brought manufacturing back to America. Now America is truly good and fucked. Over a barrel.
No options. Can you believe this moron and the cabal that's using him as a foil? Like I said
before, if Trump didn't exist, the CCP would have to invent him because more than any other
power player, be it Russia or Saudi Arabia or Israel, Trump has been extremely beneficial to
China. Under Trump's watch, China is now the most powerful country in the world. Because of
Trump, China is now the leader of the world. America, finally, has been knocked from its
perch just as England was over 100 years prior. Once knocked from the perch, there is no
regaining the status you once enjoyed. I suspect that within five years the dollar will no
longer be the world's currency. When that happens, it's lights out for America FOR REAL. All
this banter is whistling past the graveyard. What's done is done.
House Democrats who've been interfering with President Barack Obama's ability to
negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership are missing something very important: The trade
deal isn't primarily significant because of the economy. It matters because it's part of
the broader American geostrategic goal of containing China -- which pointedly hasn't been
invited to join the TPP.
In the new cool war, China's rising economic influence is giving it greater geopolitical
power in Asia. The TPP is, above all, an effort to push back on China's powerful trade
relationships to reduce its political clout. By weakening Obama's ability to pursue it,
congressional Democrats had been unintentionally weakening the U.S. side in the cool
war.
In all this, China is using its close economic relationship with its neighbors as
leverage to build its geopolitical position. Its ultimate goal is to displace the U.S. as
the regional hegemon. President Xi Jinping's slogan of the "Chinese dream" requires nothing
less.
The TPP aims to reduce some of China's geopolitical resurgence by damping down the
extent of China's regional trade dominance. China itself has a proposed regional trade
alliance, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, that would include 16 members
and exclude the U.S. Australia, Japan and South Korea are all involved in negotiations to
become members. The TPP is a direct, competitive counterpart to the RCEP.
Fyi, the following cartoon is per China Daily , a publication owned and run by the
CCP. It's favorable to Trump. It's clear by virtue of Trump's cozy relationship with Putin
and Xi that Trump is a communist in capitalist clothing. He is a communist trojan horse in
the oval office. But he's even more than that. He has many hats. He's a tool, a
self-promoting front man, for any tyrant or tyranny that expands his brand masquerading as a
man of the people. As if. He's a man, albeit an insane moron, of the extractive elite and the
extractive elite are transnational and transcultural. The extractive elite are a nation and
culture unto themselves and the rest of us are their slaves on this global plantation.
@Weston
Waroda Once reserved currency status of dollar is over n done with, there would be zero
need for the huge military budget. That is the silver lining of this whole thing. The wars
might finally stop. But living standards will take a hit from the devaluation of the dollar.
But but, Jobs would return through that weakened dollar as off shoring jobs would no longer
make sense. And just maybe, our political class might finally focus on domestic issues and
improve the country after 4 decades of stagnation.
@Miro23
Apple follows every single law in China. Apple makes a lot of money in China, but also pays
alot of taxes. I highly doubt it would be a target of retaliation. But other companies are
fair game. Just something I noticed.
@carlusjr
Spot on. Humans are drowning in their own filth. There's an adage, "don't shit where you
eat." Humans invented the saying but apparently don't abide by it and in fact zealously defy
it. Here we are. It will be one pandemic after another from now until human is no more. Rapid
pace, like automatic weapon fire. The center cannot hold and is not holding. Civilization is
going down. Will the Samson Option be utilized? Man's last act? Destroy the planet
entirely if he can't have it entirely? My bet is this is how it will go down. All you have to
do is extrapolate the curve.
@bigduke6
It is quite obvious why they are doing, they are using Europeans' own liberal ideology
against them. In today's Western world, nothing is worse than being a "racist" (except maybe,
just maybe a paedophile necrophiliac, but even that is a close one) as such they will use
these terms to beat down Europeans. Erdogan recently likened Greece to "Nazis", due to their
brave defiance to Third World invaders.
As if they genuinely give a shit about Nazis, a particularly European obsession due to
decades of brainwashing by the Jewish media elite. Even if one believes the textbooks in
relation to Nazi atrocities, the fact is that such things are normal for history. No other
people's beat themselves down over bad stuff they've done, hell, the Mongolians have erected
a big statue of Genghis Khan, one of the greatest mass murderers in history!
Extremely misleading headline. Since the Asia Times story is actually about economic
and political sovereignity – always a big issue for China ever since the Eight Powers
carved up the nation in the past: Germany, Japan, Russia, Britain, France, Italy,
Austria-Hungary, and the U.S.
It doesn't speak about warfare against the U.S. It speaks about meeting a threat from the
U.S. It does speak of taking Taiwan, though by avoiding outright warfare. This is not
something we should desire, but it is not war against the U.S., as the misleading headline is
intended to make people believe.
As usual most of the rubes will only read the headline and look at the pictures, maybe
skim through the text a bit, before typing out an angry post based on whether they like or
dislike whatever nation is mentioned. Much like cruzbots and Bush lovers use Breitbart
comments to screech against Iran and praise Israel. No facts needed.
"... An example, referring to Covid-19, is the capacity to produce ventilators: "Out of over 1,400 pieces necessary for a ventilator, over 1,100 must be produced in China, including final assembly. That's the US problem today. They have state of the art technology, but not the methods and production capacity. So they have to rely on Chinese production." ..."
"... The gold standard expression has come in a no-holds barred Global Times editorial : "We must be clear that coping with US suppression will be the key focus of China's national strategy. We should enhance cooperation with most countries. The US is expected to contain China's international front lines, and we must knock out this US plot and make China-US rivalry a process of US self-isolation." ..."
"... An inevitable corollary is that the all-out offensive to cripple Huawei will be counterpunched in kind, targeting Apple, Qualcom, Cisco and Boeing, even including "investigations or suspensions of their right to do business in China." ..."
"... So, for all practical purposes, Beijing has now publicly unveiled its strategy to counteract U.S. President Donald Trump's "We could cut off the whole relationship" kind of assertions. ..."
"... The politicians controlling US foreign policy are leading us straight into the 19th century, with their updated gunboat diplomacy ..."
The bulk of his argument concentrates on the shortcomings of U.S. manufacturing: "How can
the US today want to wage war against the biggest manufacturing power in the world while its
own industry is hollowed out?"
An example, referring to Covid-19, is the capacity to produce ventilators: "Out of over
1,400 pieces necessary for a ventilator, over 1,100 must be produced in China, including final
assembly. That's the US problem today. They have state of the art technology, but not the
methods and production capacity. So they have to rely on Chinese production."
... ... ...
Gloves Are Off
Now compare General Qiao's analysis with the by-now-obvious geopolitical and geo-economic
fact that Beijing will respond tit for tat to any hybrid war tactics deployed by the United
States government. The gloves are definitely off.
The gold standard expression has come in a no-holds barred Global Times editorial : "We must be
clear that coping with US suppression will be the key focus of China's national strategy. We
should enhance cooperation with most countries. The US is expected to contain China's
international front lines, and we must knock out this US plot and make China-US rivalry a
process of US self-isolation."
An inevitable corollary is that the all-out offensive
to cripple Huawei will be counterpunched in kind, targeting Apple,
Qualcom, Cisco and Boeing, even including "investigations or suspensions of their right to do
business in China."
So, for all practical purposes, Beijing has now publicly unveiled its strategy to counteract
U.S. President Donald Trump's "We could cut off the whole relationship" kind of assertions.
A toxic racism-meets-anti-communism matrix is responsible for the predominant anti-Chinese
sentiment across the U.S., encompassing at least 66 percent of the whole population. Trump
instinctively seized it – and repackaged it as his re-election campaign theme, fully
approved by Steve Bannon.
The strategic objective is to go after China across the full spectrum. The tactical
objective is to forge an anti-China front across the West: another instance of encirclement,
hybrid war-style, focused on economic war.
This will imply a concerted offensive, trying to enforce embargoes and trying to block
regional markets to Chinese companies. Lawfare will be the norm. Even freezing Chinese assets
in the U.S. is not a far-fetched proposition anymore.
Every possible Silk Road branch-out – on the energy front, ports, the Health Silk
Road, digital interconnection – will be strategically targeted. Those who were dreaming
that Covid-19 could be the ideal pretext for a new Yalta – uniting Trump, Xi and Putin
– may rest in peace.
"Containment" will go into overdrive. A neat example is Admiral Philip Davidson – head
of the Indo-Pacific Command – asking for $20 billion for a
"robust military cordon" from California to Japan and down the Pacific Rim, complete with
"highly survivable, precision-strike networks" along the Pacific Rim and "forward-based,
rotational joint forces" to counteract the "renewed threat we face from great power
competition."
Davidson argues that, "without a valid and convincing conventional deterrent, China and
Russia will be emboldened to take action in the region to supplant U.S. interests."
... ... ...
From the point of view of large swathes of the Global South, the current, extremely
dangerous incandescence, or New Cold War, is mostly interpreted as the progressive ending of
the Western coalition's hegemony over the whole planet.
Still, scores of nations are being asked, bluntly, by the hegemon to position themselves
once again in a "you're with us or against us" global war on terror imperative.
... ... ...
For the first time in 35 years, Beijing will be forced to relinquish its economic growth
targets. This also means that the objective of doubling GDP and per capita income by 2020
compared with 2010 will also be postponed.
What we should expect is absolute emphasis on domestic spending – and social stability
– over a struggle to become a global leader, even if that's not totally overlooked.
... ... ...
Internally, Beijing will boost support for state-owned enterprises that are strong in
innovation and risk-taking. China always defies predictions by Western "experts." For instance,
exports rose 3.5 percent in April, when the experts were forecasting a decline of 15.7 percent.
The trade surplus was $45.3 billion, when experts were forecasting only $6.3 billion.
Beijing seems to identify clearly the extending gap between a West, especially the U.S.,
that's plunging into de facto New Great Depression territory with a China that's about to
rekindle economic growth
Zhu , May 20, 2020 at 00:34
"A toxic mixture of racism and anti-communism" sounds about right. The Chinese government
is not submissive and the "Chinks" are getting too prosperous. That's bound to infuriate both
elite and grass-roots Americans.
Drew Hunkins , May 20, 2020 at 00:34
"For the first time in 35 years, Beijing will be forced to relinquish its economic growth
targets. This also means that the objective of doubling GDP and per capita income by 2020
compared with 2010 will also be postponed. "
Good, good, just wonderful. This will really endear the United States to the Chinese
people.
All that the Chinese govt did for its people over the last 30 years is totally eliminate
poverty, that's all. Gotta love how our Western mass media won't shut their mouths about this
small achievement.
Drew Hunkins , May 20, 2020 at 00:15
"Those who were dreaming that Covid-19 could be the ideal pretext for a new Yalta –
uniting Trump, Xi and Putin – may rest in peace."
Rest in peace, no doubt. Washington is all about unilateralism, period. This is the crux
of the issue, the rapacious capitalist-imperialists who infest Wall St, the military
contractors and corporate mass media want nothing to do with a multi-polar world. This could
lead to putting the far east on a dangerous path with U.S. warships provocatively traversing
the area.
gcw , May 19, 2020 at 21:08
The politicians controlling US foreign policy are leading us straight into the 19th
century, with their updated gunboat diplomacy . Never a thought to the impending
disaster of climate change and unparalleled social and environmental chaos, they dream
instead of yet another Cold War (Yellow-Peril 2.0), all the time sustaining a gargantuan
military establishment which is draining the life-blood from American society. The Covid-19
virus is just a warning to us: we have about 5% of the world's population, yet lead the pack
in deaths from the virus. If this monumental display of incompetence doesn't wake us up, what
will?
@utu ... He produces evidence, evidence in response to highly-coordinated anti-China
propaganda, the mountains of belligerent lies that are all that remain today of the failed
state the USA. Those lies plus its military killing millions all over the world, incessantly
destroying or attempting to destroy states simply for being independent.
The best argument I have read from the anti China camp has been that if China succeeds, US
dollar will be kaput, living standard in the USA will tanked to shit levels compare to right
now.
Why would China succeeding reduce our living standard?
@Realist If China succeeds, that means dollar as reserve currency is kaput. Without the
reserved currency status, dollar will devalue by 50% or more. Living standard auto lowers by
50% or more.
Just a thought: what if people like Gordon Guthrie Chang, Jennifer Zeng, Peter Navarro or
even Maria Bartiromo suggest to the two dude Trump and Pompeo sending FBI, CIA agents
or even national guard to American's rural areas, small isolate farming communities in
Pennsylvania, Oregon ripping off every Huawei and ZTE hardwares 2G, 3G, 4G and maybe 5G if
any, cell towers and replaced it with Ericsson and Nokia. Would it make America great again
?
Almost every freaking day Trump and Pompeo bashing China including Huawei.. Not a day of
peace without china bashing.
Days earlier ZeroHedge, SCMP and other media reported freaking Trump and Pompeo... no
companies inside or outside USA can sell American software or technology items or chips made
with USA properties or machines to Huawei.
Meaning TSMC a Taiwan chip's foundry not permitted to sell any chips to Huawei, TSMC has
been the world's dedicated semiconductor foundry. "curtailing its chip supply, an
escalation of its campaign against the Chinese company that may also hurt Taiwan
Semiconductor Manufacturing Co."
"China has the most fab projects in the world.... 30 facilities planned, including
10/7nm processes, but trade war and economic factors could slow progress...... SMIC 's
move would put it on par with some of its foreign rivals. In addition, SMIC has
obtained $10 billion in funding to develop 10nm and 7nm. Semiconductor Manufacturing
International Corporation (SMIC) is a publicly held semiconductor foundry company, and the
largest in China.
"Wuhan Hongxin Semiconductor Manufacturing (HSMC), a logic IC foundry founded in late
2017, is gearing up for 14nm and 7nm process manufacturing eyeing to be China's most advanced
contract chipmaker.....Shang-yi Chiang, the former executive VP and co-chief operating
officer overseeing R&D for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), will join a
Wuhan-headquartered foundry in China. "<
Gone are the "good 'ole days" of BRICS bonhomie when the Alt-Media Community used to sing the
praises of this nascent trade bloc and portray it as a game-changing development in
International Relations. Although promising on paper, BRICS was always destined
to be disappointing due to the irreparable differences between India and China that were
either downplayed or outright ignored by this organization's loudest advocates. The author has
been consistently warning for over the past four years that " India Is Now An American Ally " after it
clinched the Logistics Exchange Memorandum Of Agreement (LEMOA) with the US to allow the latter
to use its military infrastructure on a case-by-case "logistical" bases. Since then, India has
fully submitted to the Pentagon's "Indo-Pacific"
strategy of empowering the South Asian state as a "counterweight" China, with even Russian
Foreign Minister Lavrov loudly warning his
country's strategic partner of
the pitfalls of this scenario as recently as early January of this year while speaking at a
conference in their country.
Modi's Military Madness
Alas, whether due to long-lasting ignorance of the situation, unchecked professional
incompetence, and/or shadowy motives that can only be speculated upon, the majority of the
Alt-Media Community still refuses to recognize these facts, though the latest developments
pertaining to Indian-Chinese relations might finally cause them to reconsider their
inexplicable stance of always "covering up" for New Delhi. India has recently clashed with
China
along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in
Indian-Occupied Kashmir 's Ladakh region and close to the Donglang Plateau (described as
"Doklam" by India and thus widely reported upon with this name in the Western Mainstream Media
and among the members of the Alt-Media Community sympathetic to New Delhi) near Sikkim where
they had their infamous three-month-long standoff
in summer 2017 (which threatened
to repeat itself in 2018). So tense has the situation become in Ladakh that China
reportedly flew several helicopters near the scene while India flew a few fighter jets,
significantly upping the ante.
India's Attempt To "Poach" Chinese-Based Companies
The backdrop against which these clashes are transpiring is India's aggressive attempt to
"poach" foreign companies from the People's Republic, which the author analyzed last month in
his piece about how " India's Selective Embrace
Of Economic Nationalism Has Anti-Chinese Motivations ". Of relevance, India has also set
aside land
twice the size of Luxembourg for such companies to exploit in the event that they decide to
re-offshore from the East Asian state to the South Asian one.
This perfectly dovetails with Trump's " trade
war " plans to encourage foreign companies to leave his country's rival and either return
home or set up shop in a friendly pro-American country instead. Of note, India is also
vehemently opposed to China's Belt & Road Initiative ( BRI ) behind the US on
the basis that its flagship project of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor ( CPEC
) traverses through territory that New Delhi claims as its own per its maximalist approach to
the Kashmir Conflict .
Obviously, the US couldn't have found a better ally than India to thwart China's economic
plans.
The US Might Rule The WHO Via Its Indian Proxy
On the soft power front, India is
slated to assume leadership of the World Health Assembly (WHA, the governing body of the
World Health Organization, WHO) from Japan later this month, and it's already being widely
speculated in Indian media that the country might be
seriously considering taking the US' side in respect to investigating the WHO for its
alleged pro-Chinese
bias . Not only that, but India might even be receptive towards Taiwan's request to
participate in the organization's meetings, the scenario of which has already concerned China
so much that its embassy in New Delhi
felt compelled to remind the Indian leadership that doing so would violate the One China
principle. From the American perspective, this is an unprecedented opportunity for Washington
to exercise proxy leadership of the WHO through its "junior partner" of India, which could add
a speciously convincing degree of credibility to its anti-Chinese claims in an attempt to win
back the many hearts and minds that it's lost to its rival throughout the course of World War
C .
The Indo-American Hybrid War On China
Taken together, India is indisputably intensifying its American-backed Hybrid
War against China as a sign of fealty to its new ally, especially considering that it's
only officially been the US' " comprehensive global
strategic partner " since Trump's landmark visit to the country a few months back in
February and thus feels like it has something to prove. Both countries share the grand
strategic goal of "containing" China, to which end they're working hand-in-glove with one
another to carry out this concerted campaign against the People's Republic.
Building off of the idiom, the American hand is unquestionably controlling the Indian
glove after Trump cracked the whip on
Modi by forcing him to export hydroxychloroquine to
the US last month, which asserted his country's dominance as India's neo-imperial master.
Whether across the military, economic, or soft power domains, the US-Indian alliance is
doing its utmost to create serious difficulties for China. With India now suspecting China of
building an island off of its coast, ties will likely continue to worsen to the US'
benefit.
An anonymous reader shares a report: China is ready to take a series of countermeasures against
a US plan to
block shipments of semiconductors to Chinese telecom firm Huawei , including putting US
companies on an "unreliable entity list," launching investigations and imposing restrictions on
US companies such as Apple and suspending the purchase of Boeing airplanes, a source close to
the Chinese government told the Global Times. The Trump administration on Friday moved to block
shipments of semiconductors to Huawei from global chipmakers. The US Commerce Department said
it was amending an export rule and the Entity List to "strategically target Huawei's
acquisition of semiconductors that are the direct product of certain US software and
technology," according to a statement on its website. "China will take forceful countermeasures
to protect its own legitimate rights," if the US moves forward with the plan to bar essential
suppliers of chips, including Taiwan-based TSMC, from selling chips to the Chinese tech giant,
the source told the Global Times in an exclusive interview.
China will also put a lot of money into making things that it has, up to now, obtained
from the USA. It might take a few years, but China's government set up (ie one party always
in power) means that it does not have to do things to an electoral cycle.
"... Sad but true. We are all given our illusions. In US its the illusion of democracy which is a fake democracy cloaking our totalitarian reality. In China they give the people the illusion of moving towards socialism, a fake socialism to be sure, never mind all the billionaire party members (and they don't have universal health care either, its insurance based) .The people have long accepted the reality of totalitarianism so they are one step ahead. ..."
Sad but true. We are all given our illusions. In US its the illusion of democracy which
is a fake democracy cloaking our totalitarian reality. In China they give the people the
illusion of moving towards socialism, a fake socialism to be sure, never mind all the
billionaire party members (and they don't have universal health care either, its insurance
based) .The people have long accepted the reality of totalitarianism so they are one step
ahead.
Since China doesn't have another party to blame they must blame external enemies like the
US and we happily play along with tarrifs paid for by us dumb sheep who cry out in
satisfaction "take that". Lol
A fake Cold War works for us too. Trump says we are in a race for 5G and AI/Robotics with
China. We must win or all is lost to China. Social credit scores, digital ID and digital
currency along with Total Information Awareness and Full Spectrum Dominance over the
herd.
Health effects of 5G will be blamed on CoVID. Fake Science is a great tool. Scientists
never lie, they can be trusted, just like Priests . They are the Priests of the New
Technocratic World Order. Global Warming and COVID- We must believe. They say Vaccines and 5G
are good for you, just like DDT and Tobacco were said to be Good by Scientists of another
time. We must believe. Have Faith and you will earn social credit bonus points.
Reality is Fake Wrestling. Kayfabe all the way baby. Who is the face and who is the heel?
We are free to choose. So who says we don't have freedom?
But it was natural target of offshoring manufacturing during neoliberal globalization frenzy.
Now the USA needs to pay the price for the betryal of its elite.
Notable quotes:
"... China is not a natural ally of the US. It was helped for decades as a counterweight to the USSR and that policy continued after the Cold War ended because the Western elite reaped vast profits from the entry of a billion Chinese into the world labour markets. We have created a monster of arrogance and economic dynamism that refuses to take measures against novel coronaviruses springing out of their peculiar eating and aphrodisiac medicine habits. ..."
The USA is under no obligation whatsoever to be friendly to Russia, and especially not to
China which rather owes America for everything and has repaid it in death. Capital and
technology has flowed to China from America for decades. In return they sent profit to Wall
St, Wuhan made Fentanyl the death of choice for whites desperate as a result of the policies
that made China did so well out of, and now they send us a deadly epidemic.
China is not a natural ally of the US. It was helped for decades as a counterweight to
the USSR and that policy continued after the Cold War ended because the Western elite reaped
vast profits from the entry of a billion Chinese into the world labour markets. We have
created a monster of arrogance and economic dynamism that refuses to take measures against
novel coronaviruses springing out of their peculiar eating and aphrodisiac medicine
habits.
It was coffee made from beans taken from civet faeces that led to the SARS-CoV bat/ civet
recombination virus and the 2002 Sars outbreak, during which China lied about what was
happening as they subsequently admitted. The SARS-CoV 2 receptor-binding domain from
pangolins ( world's most trafficked animal, is in demand by Chinese as a male enhancer) and
it recombined with a bat virus was hundreds of times more effective a pathogen in humans than
the one from bat–civet recombination of eighteen years ago.
But that is not what the Chinese said. Researchers in Wuhan on December 31st told the
world about the Wuhan disease having been identifies as a coronavirus but said, 'It's not
highly transmissible'. As late as the the 24th of January, Doctor Fauci w gave a briefing for
senators in which he said there was very little danger to the US from the Wuhan disease.
Later that day he repeated that opinion at a press conference.
So China said it was not infectious between people and there was nothing much to worry
about. When Trump began to restrict travel into the US from China on the 31st January there
was uproar about this supposed further evidence of his xenophobia,.
President Trump has used his executive power to take a hatchet to 40 years of America's
China policy. His administration has called for a
"whole-of-government" approach to counter Beijing's unfair economic practices, initiated a
damaging trade war, banned Chinese telecommunication equipment from domestic networks, and
implemented stringent regulations to vet Chinese investments in sensitive industries.
In a novel development, the administration has begun coaxing individual states to aid the
federal government in its anti-China fervor. Speaking to the National Governors Association in
early February, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned that "competition with
China is not just a federal issue It's happening in your states with consequences for our
foreign policy, for the citizens that reside in your states, and indeed, for each of you."
The administration's enlisting of states in the broader U.S.-China competition has
significant economic implications for subnational actors. Increasingly hawkish incumbents, as
well as congressional candidates, could provoke economic pushback from Beijing. Many of these
officials have bought into the Republican Party's strategy of carrying out an " anti-China
assault " on the campaign trail, scapegoating Beijing for the coronavirus outbreak in the
United States instead of acknowledging the Trump administration's central role in the country's
failure to prepare itself properly.
While Washington is correct to scrutinize Chinese investments in sensitive technologies
and pursue reciprocal trade and economic relations, politically motivated, opportunistic
anti-China rhetoric could threaten individual states' cooperation with China, one of the few
remaining productive aspects of the bilateral relationship. Indeed, as Hu Xijin, editor of
Chinese tabloid Global Times, tweeted , "Beijing is already
preparing to take necessary punishment measures against some members of the US Congress, the
state of Missouri, and relevant individuals and entities."
China-skeptic sentiment in the U.S. government and on the campaign trail is not a new
phenomenon , but the
coronavirus pandemic and resultant economic crisis have afforded many politicians the cover to
push hawkish policies. Some of their proposals would benefit the United States, including
reducing
U.S. reliance on Chinese-made pharmaceutical products , a motion broadly backed by both
Republicans and Democrats. But many of their arguments are politically motivated and risk
further inflaming U.S.-China tensions and painting Beijing as an enemy, à la the Soviet
Union during the Cold War, rather than a competitor.
Senator Tom Cotton made waves last month by arguing that U.S. universities should not
accept Chinese STEM students given the chance they might return home and use their training
to drive China's scientific advances. Senators Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio have also joined the
fray, advocating that the United States reduce its reliance on China and punish the country for
failing to contain the COVID-19 outbreak. The attorneys general of Missouri and
Mississippi have filed lawsuits seeking damages from Beijing for the coronavirus.
Incumbents, however, are not the only ones wagering their political futures on China. Senate
candidates in Tennessee , Arizona , and
Alabama , among other states,
have adopted overtly hawkish stances toward Beijing, blaming China for the pandemic, painting
their opponents as soft on the country, and using the China threat to push anti-immigration
policies .
Amid Washington's anti-China turn, preserving cooperation at the state level will be
critical to maintaining any semblance of productive bilateral ties going forward. As Los
Angeles Deputy Mayor of International Affairs Nina Hachigian said at a Brookings panel
last year, "cities and states can take advantage of the trade, investment, students, climate
change cooperation, culture, and tourism China offers without really having to balance the
broader national security, geopolitical, and human rights questions."
It is no coincidence that three of the past four U.S. Ambassadors to Beijing previously
served as governors of states with deep links to China: Terry Branstad (Iowa), Gary Locke
(Washington), and John Huntsman (Utah).
The aforementioned politicians may be fighting to relocate supply chains outside of mainland
China and decouple vast sections of the two countries' economies, but their rhetoric may also
lead Beijing to move Chinese-owned businesses out of the United States or cut imports from the
country. Despite bilateral tensions, there is clear evidence that Chinese investments in the
United States can be beneficial. In the midst of the trade war, a Chinese takeover of a failing
paper mill in Maine helped revitalize a local community. In Tennessee, Chinese investments in
automotive
parts ,
mattresses , and porcelain manufacturing have benefited the state's economy. There is a
real risk that Chinese companies, seeing both politicians' and the American public's growing
distaste for China, could simply up and leave.
A more likely outcome of the growing antagonism, however, is for Beijing to engage in
economic coercion , which it uses to try to force nations, companies, and officials into
doing its bidding and punish those who do not. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has developed
a wide-ranging and flexible toolkit of coercive measures that it has used strategically
throughout the world.
When South Korea agreed to host the United States' Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) missile defense system, Beijing did not impose tariffs on Seoul despite its
displeasure. China instead
restricted flights to South Korea, drummed up nationalist sentiment among the Chinese public to
boycott South Korean goods, and even shut down China-based outlets of Lotte Group, the Korean
company on whose land THAAD was installed.
China took a similar approach with the
Philippines following a 2012 dispute over claims in the South China Sea. In order to cause
significant economic pain, Beijing tightened quality controls on agriculture exports from
Manila while stemming the flow of Chinese tourists to the Philippines. And most recently,
Beijing
threatened and then
followed through on a boycott of Australian beef after Canberra called for an independent
investigation into the origins of the coronavirus.
Beijing coerces not only countries but also private companies for perceived transgressions.
Marriott, Delta Airlines, and Zara all faced the prospect of losing business in China after
listing Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Tibet as sovereign nations. Last fall, Beijing suspended
broadcasts of NBA games after Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted his support for pro-democracy
protestors in Hong Kong.
If public sentiment across the United States continues to turn against China, Beijing may
begin adapting its methods of economic coercion to retaliate against states and politicians it
perceives as hostile to its interests.
Indeed, China is clearly paying attention to U.S. domestic politics and state officials'
views of China. A think tank in Beijing recently ranked
all 50 governors on their attitudes toward China, information the CCP values as it attempts to
mold the views of officials outside of Washington. As Dan Blumenthal has noted ,
Beijing "split[s] Americans into 'friends of China' who might lobby on their behalf and others
who refuse to do so [and] will not be granted access to China's massive market."
In recent years, Beijing has provided glimpses of what economic coercion in the United
States might look like. During the initial stages of the trade war, China's retaliatory tariffs
disproportionally targeted Red
states critical to Trump's 2016 election victory. Furthermore, China
identified key officials able to influence U.S. policy, such as then-Wisconsin
Representative Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and levied tariffs that
threatened jobs in and exports from their states in a bid to pressure the politicians to split
with Trump.
These actions are possible harbingers of economic pressures to come. Beijing may be tempted
to pressure local officials to influence policy from the bottom up. As the aforementioned think
tank report explicitly notes
, Beijing believes that "State-level officials 'enjoy a certain degree of diplomatic
independence,'" and that "Governors can ignore orders from the White House."
Recent downturns in public opinion in both countries, the result of several years of
increasing competition, and an emerging view that the other views the pandemic as a strategic
opportunity, could even see Beijing move beyond tariffs and drum up anti-U.S. sentiment. It
could even encourage citizens to boycott American products, the political and economic effects
of which could be devastating.
While the United States imports more from China than it exports, China-bound exports
supported around
one million U.S. jobs in 2018. According to the U.S.-China Business Council, 42 states counted
China among their top five export destinations in 2019. Chinese FDI, which peaked
at $46.5 billion in 2016, dropped to just over $3 billion in 2019 -- a decline of over 90
percent. Industries ranging from energy, agriculture, and manufacturing could be negatively
affected by an exodus of Chinese investment, a freeze on new Chinese FDI into the United
States, or increased tariffs on or bans of imports.
Given the astronomically high
unemployment rate and ballooning federal and state debt levels, U.S. states are in no
position to lose more investments or export-supporting jobs. Senator McConnell's recent call
for states to file
bankruptcy highlights their increasingly gloomy economic prospects, and already over 25
percent of state revenues have
disappeared due to the coronavirus.
The United States certainly needs to diversify its supply chains so as not to depend so much
on China. Washington has already rolled out several measures to better screen Chinese
investments in the country and limit sensitive technology exports. The increasingly prevalent
and politically expedient one-size-fits-all anti-China position espoused by many state-level
politicians, however, could endanger China-state ties, the locus of the two countries' economic
relationship, and threaten China-owned U.S.-based companies that pose no national security
threats and provide hundreds of thousands of jobs.
I recently came across a Facebook comment
from a Hongkonger, arguing that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is nothing communist
given China's prosperous private sector after 1979's reform . He then linked
a video to mock
the western electoral democracy that put Trump and Hitler into the office, leading to the
conclusion that the West has no credential to criticize the one-party system of China for
the lack of democracy. His comment represents the contemporary Chinese sentiment and is
quite understandable given the ongoing color revolution in Hong Kong
2019 , which is still lukewarm to this day, and the unrelenting
blame of COVID19 on China . Although the hybrid war waged on
China is unjust, the current Chinese mindset does not help to diffuse but only fuels
the conflict even further.
The Facebook comment was right about CPP not being Communist that seeks total control
of the economy by the state. Yet, China is state capitalism, an oligarchy, or crony
capitalism. China is a plutocracy by the marriage between the party leadership (the state),
and the monopolizing mega-corporations (the money) like Huawei, Ali, the four state-owned commercial
banks , and Sinopec Group .
It is far from a free-market where the only way to win a competition is to provide
excellent products, where the state has no role in deciding the winner and no ability to
finance itself by forcing the circulation of central-banknotes. China does have a private
sector – the semi-free-market, the good part of our bad plutocracy. Still, even that
part is
weathering after supreme leader Xi took power, and most Chinese do no realize that we
are marching back into a more planned, more communism, more Mao Zedong like system, slowly
but surely. In China, life is artificially expensive under the tightening state control
that imposes layers upon layers of covert taxation, to the point of causing hesitation
to have more children .
However, the west, in general, is fundamentally the same, albeit having a
façade electoral democracy where no crucial issues (i.e., war and peace, monetary
policy, and downsizing the government) are allowed into a debate.
The real private sector (not the likes of Google and Lockheed Martin) is also dying. The
states interfere with the market relentlessly, in the name of safety, welfare, and
stimulating the economy, which achieved the opposite (i.e., the 1929 great depression, 2000
dot com bubble, and 2008 housing bubble). The Federal Reserve finances the government
spending via debt, encourages malinvestment by
atrocious QE packages , which all translate into taxing away people's purchasing power
by creating tons of money out of thin air.
We see the same unholy marriage between the state and the money like big techs, big
pharma, and, most disgustingly, the Military-Industrial Complex. People are either covertly
forced, or duped into funding the nonsense by paying tax, no matter which party they
elect.
Therefore, the Chinese are right about the West not in the position of a critic, but
for the wrong reason. We either fail to realize or willfully deny that we are living
under a harsh plutocracy. Instead, we are distracted by the never losing fake debate about which system
elects the better government, since the "one-party system" is most attacked by western
pro-democracy voices.
Strangely though, both systems have seemingly good intentions, either emphasizing a
person's moral conduct and experience in low-tier office (the Chinese internal nomination),
or the people's direct control of the government (the West electoral democracy). Strangely,
both unanimously favor the use of "government power" the "right way."
Yet, power always corrupts its user by attracting the money, no matter how
well-disciplined, how experienced he/she was. A system that operates on coercive power
always finds its way to circumvent any laws and regulations meant to promote meritocracy.
Both have tried to fight cronyism rigorously with new agencies and new legislation, but in
the end, cronyism always prevails, for both. For the most part of history, the essence
of the Chinese system is not much different from the West, since they are all plutocracies
that conned the people into helplessly relying on more power to solve problems caused by
power until it collapses.
In
a 1979 Chinese opera broadcasted nationwide, the protagonist, a low tier official,
finds himself risking his political career to enforce the law on the aristocrats who made
the law; intoxicated, he yelled in desperation
"谁做管官的官," which literally is " Quis
custodiet ipsos custodes " in Chinese; in the end, he left his career behind
– adding no more to the bloated, self-conflicting bureaucracy, to preserve his
integrity. Maybe this was a coincidence, 1979 was the year the Chinese leadership decided
to let the
government govern less – kudos to them.
The year 1979, and the economic boom that followed, is
one of the most common counter-arguments from a Chinese when you criticize the draconian
practices of CCP. Admittedly, there are times the state power is not insane. In 1979 Deng
Xiaoping at least gave up
some government mandate to allow the private sector to grow , resulting in the
exploitative system we see today, nonetheless a society much more productive than Mao
Zedong's total state dominance. Some state heads refrained from moving the government
"muscle" too much, such as Jimmy Carter's
resistance to wars and money supply that reduced overspending and inflation since the
Vietnam War. In these "less bad, more sensible" eras, it is easier for people's
entrepreneurial spirit and creativity to overcome the innate
irresponsibility of centralized capital management. As a result, we saw significant
progress like the Chinese miracle, and the upswing during the Reagan presidency (even if he
turned up wars, debt, and the Fed's money machine again). Sadly, the leaderships are eager
to claim credits, creating the impression that it is the right administration resulting in
progress and recovery when it is the lack of governing that allows the people to make
sensible decisions on their own, achieving faster growth.
If we Chinese and the American attack each other's electoral system, it is like the two
worst kids in the class picking on each other over their looks rather than their poor study
and bullying of other kids, which only makes them both worse. In the real world, we leave
the unhinged growth of government power – the real enemy of all people, Chinese and
American alike, unattended.
Like that Hongkonger, most Chinese learned to mock Trump's personal, and naively
conclude that the democracy that put him (and Hilter) in the office is a joke. Some more
informed Chinese mock the media's clownish, unfair treatment of Trump, and naively conclude
that the freedom of the press is a joke. However, a bombastic president, the democracy, and
the media are not the problems; neither are the aggressive
sino-phobic policies of which Trump pretends to be in charge. The actual problem is the
monstrous government, married with big money, capable of waging costly war, funding
wasteful programs that drain the middle class to enrich a selected few, no matter who is in
the office. It can either be the well-spoken Obama loved by the media, who started
seven
wars and won the Nobel peace prize, or the bombastic, scandalous New Yorker hated by
the press, who nonetheless continued these wars. People coerced into funding this abusive
machine themselves are part of, with their hard-earned tax dollars, is the problem. Yet,
you do not see the Chinese majority mocking this miserable setup and come to realize that
we are under the same situation!
For us, the Chinese, the real issue is not the superficial corruption that the supreme
leader XI fiercely fought, nor the insanity, the incompetence, and the betrayal of the oath
of some party members. It is our innate reliance on authorities and the love of collective
glory, a part of our culture passing down through generations over more than 2400 years,
being the problem. We can never break the dynastic cycle if we do not see the path
to the self-destruction of unhinged state power, such as Mao's era . If we are still yearning
for a "just leader" to solve issues like retirement, education, and medication, still
admiring exhaustive achievements such as the Belt and Road, the South China Sea, and
Taiwan, we then have learned nothing from the downfall of thirteen dynasties and countless
hegemonies throughout the history of China. The collective conscious of the Chinese have so
far failed to realize the force driving the rise and fall of a dynasty is not the moral and
intellect of the leaders, but the people's economic freedom relatively untouched or
infringed at times, by a mixture of chance, sanity, and imperialism vainglory. The blind
reliance on leaders and the love of collective grandiosity is only compounded when the
Americans fail to take back their power from the government, who is warring with China and
covertly overtaxing them. The collective enlightenment of the Chinese population is nearly
impossible, since the tyrants in Beijing have no shortage of strawman to throw at the
people and say "that is the problem, blame the belligerent Trump and the jealous
Americans", and the Communist Dynasty will always enjoy the " mandate of heaven ".
Even with a sheep's mindset, the Chinese economy will overtake the US, despite the slow
death of its most productive private sector. The sheer momentum of the slight right turn to
liberty 40 years ago is good enough for China, since the Americans do not restore their
free-market and liberty that had made them an exceptionally productive civilization for a
long time. But then what? We Chinese are just molecules burnt to fuel the blinding flash of
a new empire not far from its fourteenth dynastic downfall, just like the Achaemenids, the
Romans, the Umayyads, the Ottomans, Napoleon's France, the British, and the Americans
before us.
Xiaoran Tong has a Ph.D. in
Epidemiology from the Michigan State University (MSU). He is originally from Kunming,
Yunan, China and arrived in the US in 2014 to pursue his Ph.D. at MSU. He is Interested in
the history of America and its similarities with ancient and contemporary
China.
Amid the ongoing diplomatic spat between Washington DC and Beijing,
which now also includes the deployment of B-1B
bombers and warships in the South China Sea , late on Monday (local time) China's Global Times
reported , citing sources close to the Chinese government, that some "hawkish" officials in
China are calling for a renegotiation the the "phase one" trade deal with Washington as well as
a "tit-for-tat approach on spiraling trade issues after US' malicious attacks on China ignited
a tsunami of anger among Chinese trade insiders."
The calls to renegotiate the current version of the deal - which has yet to be actively
implemented - emerge amid dissatisfaction because "China has made compromise for the deal to
press ahead."
While in the past, these same trade negotiators "believed that it would be worthwhile to
make certain compromise to reach a partial truce in the 22-month trade war and ease escalating
tensions", given what the Global Times called "President Donald Trump's hyping an anti-China
conspiracy that aims to cover up his mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic", advisors close to
the trade talks have suggested Chinese officials rekindling the possibility of invalidating the
trade pact and negotiating a new one to tilt the scales more to the Chinese side, sources close
the matter told the Global Times.
A former Chinese trade official told the Global Times on condition of anonymity on Monday
that China could complete such procedures based on force majeure provisions in the pact.
"It's in fact in China's interests to terminate the current phase one deal. It is beneficial
to us. The US now cannot afford to restart the trade war with China if everything goes back to
the starting point," another trade advisor to the Chinese government told the Global Times,
pointing to the staggering US economy and the coming of the US presidential election this
year.
"After signing the phase one deal, the US intensifies crackdown in other areas such as
technology, politics and the military against China. So if we don't retreat on trade issues,
the US could be trapped," the former official noted.
Some could disagree, and counter that Trump can certainly restart the trade war especially
since it suits his pre-election agenda - after all, now that the fate of the market is entirely
in the hands of the Fed which has gone full MMT, Trump is no longer afraid by the market's
response to a renewed trade war. In fact, with over 60% of the US population seeking to
distance US from China, it would appear that Trump's best bet to winning independent votes is
precisely to keep hammering China.
Confirming this, Trump said on Friday that he was "very torn" about whether to end the
China-US phase one deal, Fox News reported, with some observers interpreting his words as
equating to a threat from the US to re-launch a trade war against China.
Then again, over the weekend, the SCMP reported that US source familiar with recent
discussions stated US officials acknowledged China was largely delivering its pledges on
structural issues such as opening market access and improving IP protection but they have yet
to agree in some details including IP action plan and easing equity caps for foreign investors.
Furthermore, the source stated fallout from the virus meant agreement on purchasing US goods
has become much more important and that many believe China needs to increase pace on
purchases.
Meanwhile, Gao Lingyun, an expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences who advises the
government on trade issues, told the Global Times on Monday that China has "well documented"
Washington's usual threats after previous rounds of confrontation. That means if the trade war
restarts, "China knows how to respond, and it is able to retaliate quickly and inflict serious
harm on the US economy," Gao said.
Still, as the Global Times concludes, analysts noted that terminating the phase one trade
deal would be China's "last option" and one that China would only resort to under extremely
hostile conditions.
"... What does a developing country like China, still mired in socio-economic inequality, technological dependence, political corruption and environmental degradation do? Concentrate on its own hinterland while bidding its time? Confront the hegemon head-on which would lead to military conflict? Or control its responses while cultivating partnerships with ALL peace-loving countries, whether rich or poor, First World or Third World, Western or non-Western? ..."
Unlike Escobar, Roberts, et al, I am much more sanguine about the prospects of China's rise
which has threatened the indispensable nation of Yankistan because China was not supposed to
rise above its assigned role as the cheap cog of the globalist economy serving the Capitalist
Oligarchy of the NWO. By dint of hard work, sly cunning and shrew tactics, China outgrew its
role by becoming the hub of the international economy via its New Silk Road and the BRI.
What does a developing country like China, still mired in socio-economic inequality,
technological dependence, political corruption and environmental degradation do? Concentrate on
its own hinterland while bidding its time? Confront the hegemon head-on which would lead to
military conflict? Or control its responses while cultivating partnerships with ALL
peace-loving countries, whether rich or poor, First World or Third World, Western or
non-Western?
The rapid decoupling of China's economy away from the USA started with the GFC 2008 but has
since accelerated with Obama's "Pivot to Asia" and Trump's trade war with China. Exports to the
USA account for less than 3% of China's GDP today with 60% of those exports being either US or
foreign goods manufactured in China. So the real figure is 1% of China's GDP consists of
Chinese goods exported to the US market, consisting mostly of industrial commodities or
consumer products.
As China has already charted its own independent path of building trading/investment
partnerships with Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, the USA has become threatened by
China's successful decoupling from its export dependence on the US market as proven by its
hostile reaction to Xi's BRI and China's New Silk Road. In addition, the US was caught
off-guard by the sudden rise of Chinese tech firms such as Huawei which is the world's number
one vendor of telecommunications equipment with undisputed world leadership in 5G
technology.
Shocked to find its manhood as no longer exceptional, Uncle Sam feels the need to show off
to the world: "Me Gringo! Big Dick!"
China has become, over the past two decades, the planet’s second-most powerful nation after the United States. Booming
economic growth has lifted millions of its citizens out of poverty and catapulted it to the world’s second-largest economy,
while increased military spending has made it the second-largest military power (though its military spending, and nuclear
stockpile, are still a small fraction of the U.S.’s).
That growth — in both economic and military power — has led U.S. officials to conclude that they must do more to counteract
what they regard as China’s growing influence. President Obama, early in his administration, memorably vowed an “Asia pivot,”
whereby the U.S. would devote fewer resources and less attention to the Middle East and more toward China’s growing power in its
own region.
That led to some moderate escalation in adversarial relations between the two countries — including the Trans Pacific
Partnership trade agreement (TPP) and other regional skirmishes — but nothing approaching direct military confrontation.
President Trump, since taking office, has largely heaped praise on the Chinese government and its leader President Xi Jinping,
siding with Xi over democracy protests in Hong Kong and even Beijing’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak.
But this pandemic has seriously escalated tensions between the two countries given the increasingly hostile rhetoric
emanating from various sectors of the west, making it more urgent than ever to grapple with the complex relations between the
two countries and how China ought to be perceived.
The question is far more complex than the usual efforts to create a new U.S. Enemy because numerous power centres in the U.S.
and the west generally — particularly its oligarchs, Wall Street, and international capital — are not remotely hostile to
Beijing but, quite the contrary, are both fond of it and dependent upon it. That’s why — unlike with other U.S. enemies such as
Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, the Iranian government or Nicolas Maduro — one finds very powerful actors, from Bill Gates to
Michael Bloomberg to the consulting giant McKinsey to Trump himself, defending Chinese officials and urging better relations
with them.
That, in turn, reflects a critical reality about U.S./China relations that defies standard foreign policy frameworks: while
hawkish, pro-war political elements in both parties speak of China as an adversary that must be confronted or even punished, the
interests of powerful western financial actors — the Davos crowd — are inextricably linked with China, using Chinese markets and
abusive Chinese labor practices to maximize their profit margins and, in the process, stripping away labor protections, liveable
wages and jobs from industrial towns in the U.S. and throughout the west.
That is why standard left-wing anti-imperialism or right-wing isolationism is an insufficient and overly simplified response
to thinking about China: policy choices regarding Beijing have immense impact on workers and the economic well-being of citizens
throughout the west.
Today’s new episode of SYSTEM UPDATE is devoted to sorting through the complexities of this relationship and how to think
about China. I’m joined by two guests with radically different views on these questions: the long-time Singeporean diplomat who
served as President of the U.N. Security Council, Kishore Mahbubani, whose just-released compelling book “Has China Won?” argues
that the U.S. should view China as a friendly competitor and not as a threat to its interests; and Matt Stoller, who has worked
on issues of economic authoritarianism and the U.S. working class in multiple positions in Congress and in various think tanks,
culminating in his 2019 book “Goliath,” and who argues that China is a threat to the economic well-being of the U.S. working
class and to civil liberties in the west.
The show, which I believe provides excellent insight into how to think about these questions, debuts this afternoon at 2:oo
pm ET on the Intercept’s YouTube channel or can be viewed on the player below at 2:30 p.m. As always, a transcript of the
program will be added shortly thereafter.
Update: May 7, 1:54 p.m. EDT
The debut time for this episode has been moved by 30 minutes; it will not debut on the Intercept’s YouTube channel at 2:30 pm
ET.
I have been watching China's gradual rise in the world's GDP– as well as GDP-per-capita– charts and a concomitant fall in the United
States' position in these charts, for nearly 20 years now. The United States' decline is still relative rather than absolute. In
absolute terms, its GDP is still "Number 1!" But the decline was accelerated from 2003 on, when successive US presidents decided
to pour massive amounts of government revenues into large-scale and always disastrous military adventures all around the world. As
of last November, Brown University's "Costs of War" project
tallied the U.S. budgetary costs of these wars, FY2001-2020, to be $6.4 trillion. These were funds that could have been invested,
instead, in repair and upgrading of vital infrastructure here at home– including vital health infrastructure. But no. Instead, the
money was shoveled into the pockets of the large military contractors who then used a portion of it on expensive lobbying operations
designed to ensure that the sow of military spending continued feeding her offspring (them.)
When Donald Trump became president, in 2017, one of his early instincts was to pull back from the foreign wars. (This was about
his only sound instinct.) The military-industrial complex then proved able to slow-walk a lot of the military-retraction moves
he wanted to make One of the other abiding themes of Trump's presidency has been his desire to "decouple" the U.S. economy from the
tight integration it had developed at many levels with the economy of China, as part of broader push to halt or slow the rise of
China's power in the global system. At the economic level, we have seen the "tariff wars" and the campaign against Huawei. At the
military level, we have seen a slight escalation in the kinds of "demonstration operations" the U.S. Navy has been mounting in the
South China Sea. Mobilizing against "Chinese influence" also seems to come naturally to a president who shows no hesitation in denigrating
anyone– even US citizens and politicians– who happens not to be of pale-complected European-style hue.
With the eruption of Covid-19 in U.S. communities nationwide, Pres. Trump's pre-existing proclivity to demonize and denigrate
anything Chinese has escalated considerably– spurred on, it seems, by his evident desire to find an external scapegoat to blame for
the terrible situation Covid-19 has inflicted on Americans and to detract voters' attention from the grave responsibility he and
his administration bear for their plight.
He and his economic advisors clearly realize that, with the supply chains of major US industries still inextricably
tied
up with companies located in China and with China still
holding $1.1 trillion-worth of U.S. government debt, he
can't just cut the cord and decouple from China overnight. Yesterday, his Treasury Secretary and the US Trade Representative held
a
phone call with China's Vice Premier Liu He, the intent of which was to reassure both sides that a trade deal concluded four
months ago would still be adhered to.
But today, less than 12 hours after the reassuring joint statement released after the phone call, Trump
told Fox News that he was
"very torn" about the trade deal, and had "not decided" whether to maintain it. This, as he launches frequent verbal tirades against
China for having "caused" the coronavirus crisis. US GDP is highly inflated by counting financial moves on Wall Street (extracting
money from suckers and moving money from one hand to another) as productive activity. China's purchasing power parity already exceeds
the US and I suspect its actual GDP does as well. Only US financialization is able to mask the lack of actual productivity in the
US economy.
I am somewhat skeptical about China chances in this race. That will be much tougher environment for China from now on. And
other major technological powers such as Germany, Korea and Japan are still allied with the USA.
The major problem for China is two social systems in one box: state capitalism part controlled by completely corrupt Communist
Party (which completely abandoned the communist doctrine and became essentially a religious cult ) + no less corrupt neoliberalism
part created with the help of the West.
The level of corruption inherent in the current setup (first adopted in Soviet NEP -- New Economic Policy) is tremendous, as
the party has absolute political power and controls the major economic and financial areas while the entrepreneurs try to bribe
state officials to get the leverage and/or enrich themselves at the state expense or bypass the bureaucratic limitations/inefficiencies
imposed by the state, or offload some costs. So mafia style relationship between party officials and entrepreneurs is not an aberration,
it is a norm. And periodic "purges" of corrupt Party officials do not solve the problem. Ecological problems in China are just
one side effect of this.
Add to this the certain pre-existing tendencies within Chinese society to put greed above everything else, the tendency clearly
visible in some emigrants and to which Yen devoted one post recently. Riots in some Asians countries against Chinese diaspora
are often at least partially caused by this diaspora behavior, not only by xenophobia. Note that several African countries with
Chinese investments now intent to sue China for damages from COVID-19. This is not accidental.
Technologically the USA and its G7 satellites are still in the lead although outsourcing manufacturing to China helped Chinese
tremendously to narrow the gap. For example, Intel CPUs still dominate both desktops and servers. All major operating systems
(with the exception of some flavors of Linux) are all USA developed.
You rise important points, but I respectfully disagree with all of them.
1) I don't think China is a "State capitalism" country. The term "State capitalism" was first coined by Lenin for a very specific
situation the USSR was in. Yes, the similarities are striking - and Deng Xiaoping's reforms were clearly inspired by Lenin's NEP
- but it is important to state that the CCP actively avoided the term and built upon the concept both theoretically and in practice.
Besides, we don't need to read Lenin's works critically, an not take him as the second coming of Jesus: when he used the term
"State capitalism", he used it in a clearly desperate moment of the USSR, almost by improvisation. Lenin's last years were definitely
desperate times.
Besides, the NEP didn't culminate with the capitalist restoration of the USSR. On the contrary: it collapsed in 1926 (after
another bad harvest) and gave way to the rise of Stalin and the radical faction of the CPSU. The Five-year plans were born (1928),
and agriculture would be fully collectivized by the end of the 1930s (a process which catapulted Molotov to the second most powerful
man in the USSR during the period). By the end of WWII, the USSR had a fully collectivized economy.
2) The corruption hypothesis is an attractive one - specially for the liberal middle classes of the post-war and for the Trotskyists
- but it doesn't stand the empirical test. The USA was an extremely corrupt nation from its foundation to pre-war, and it never
stopped it from growing and reaching prosperity. The Roman Empire and Republic were so corrupt that it was considered normal.
There's no evidence the PRC is historically exceptionally corrupt. However, I can see why the CCP is worried about corruption,
as it is a flank through which the West can sabotage it from within.
3) The COCOM tactic will be much harder to apply against China than against the USSR. For starters, the USSR lost circa 35%
of its GDP in WWII. This gave it a delay from which it never recovered. Second, the USSR fought against capitalism when capitalism
was at its apex. Third, the USSR collectivized and closed its economy too early, not taking into account that it still lived in
a capitalist world.
China doesn't have that now. It is fighting against capitalism in a phase where it is weakened. It is open and intimately integrated
economically with its capitalist enemies. It closed or is about to close the technological gap in many strategic sectors during
a stage where the capitalists have low retaliation capacity. It found time to close at least the GDP gap. It found time to recover
fully from its civil war and the Japanese Invasion of the Northeast.
Germany, South Korea and Japan are not technologically more advanced than the USA. This is a myth. Plus, they are too small.
They may serve as very useful - even essential - pawns for the USA-side, but I don't see any of the three ever achieving Pax
.
HiSilicon , Huawei
Technologies ' in-house semiconductor and integrated circuit design company, has surpassed
US chip giant Qualcomm in
terms of smartphone processor shipments in China for the first time amid coronavirus-linked
disruptions that have hit most major players, according to a report.
In the first quarter of 2020, HiSilicon shipped 22.21 million smartphone processors,
according to Chinese research firm CINNO's latest monthly report on China's semiconductor
industry. Although HiSilicon's shipments only increased slightly from the 22.17 million units
it shipped in the first quarter of last year, it was the only major company that did not see a
year-on-year decline in the quarter, CINNO said in a summary of the report posted on its
official WeChat account.
As a result, the Huawei subsidiary's market share surged to 43.9 per cent, from 36.5 per
cent during the same period last year, and beat Qualcomm for the first time to become China's
top smartphone processor supplier. HiSilicon's steady performance comes at a time when the
Chinese smartphone industry is being battered by delayed product launches and dampened consumer
sentiment linked to the coronavirus pandemic. Smartphone shipments in the country
slumped by 34.7 per cent – more than a third – to 47.7 million units in the
first quarter of 2020, according to a report released earlier this month by the China Academy
of Information and Communications Technology.
US-based Qualcomm, the long-time market leader, fell to second place in the latest quarter
with a year-on-year decline in its market share from 37.8 per cent to 32.8 per cent. Taiwan's
Mediatek maintained its third-place position, but also saw its market share slide year-on-year
from 14 per cent to 13.1 percent
.
Table showing the market share of smartphone processor supplies according to
CINNO Research. Source: CINNO Research / WeChat
Huawei, HiSilicon's parent company, is at the
centre of a high-profile US-China tech war. The Trump administration
added the company to its Entity List last year, citing the risk that Huawei could give
Beijing access to sensitive data from telecommunications networks. The trade blacklist
effectively bars Huawei from buying US products and services. In response, the Chinese company,
which has denied the allegations, is
ramping up its own capabilities to produce more American component-free network gear,
including through HiSilicon.
Huawei is also reportedly shifting
production of HiSilicon-designed chips
away from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and towards Shanghai-based
Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp (SMIC) as Washington
readies new rules which would require foreign companies using US chipmaking equipment to
obtain a license before supplying chips to Huawei – a move that would directly affect
TSMC.
Over 90 per cent of Huawei phones in China now use HiSilicon processors, according to CINNO.
However, Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei said in an interview with Yahoo Finance last year that the
company would continue using chips from US vendors such as Intel and Qualcomm as long as it is
still allowed by US regulators.
In the face of the upcoming presidential elections, Republicans launched a new China Task
Force committee in US Congress on Thursday to attract attention despite its futile efforts to
pass the buck amid the pandemic. But this not-so-surprising move only shows how hysterical and
desperate Republicans have become as criticism of the government's mishandling of the domestic
coronavirus outbreak increases, experts said.
Following a series of anti-China moves the Trump administration has made when its epidemic
prevention spiraled out of control with more than 1.2 million infections - the world's largest
number - to date, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced on Thursday a proposal to set
up a new "China Task Force" which will develop legislative policies to curtail Chinese
influence. The committee currently consists of 15 Republicans with no Democrats joining.
McCarthy said the pandemic made it apparent "for a national strategy to deal with China."
The task force will hold meetings and briefings on China-related issues, which include China's
influence inside the US, presence on American campuses and control over important supply
chains, the Washington Post reported.
A search for the members in the China Task Force revealed their antagonism toward China. One
of them is Rep. Elise Stefanik, who in late April asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the
attorney general to bring China to the International Court of Justice for the handling of
COVID-19, according to a report by The Adirondack Daily Enterprise.
Analysts said setting up the new China committee is the Republicans' new tactic to fuel
anti-China sentiment, but this won't help stop power from shifting from the West to East, which
was happening before the pandemic. The pandemic is very likely to speed up this process.
Democrats not joining the committee does not mean they are more China-friendly, but they
don't want Republicans to shift the focus of President Donald Trump's failure to handle the
pandemic. Since last year, both parties passed several bills regarding China's Xinjiang and
Hong Kong, interfering in China's internal affairs, Diao Daming, an associate professor at the
Renmin University of China in Beijing, told the Global Times on Friday.
Diao noted the Democrats in the Congress won't endorse the legislation but will support
other anti-China measures that the new committee aims to push forward.
"The pandemic will very likely further weaken the US and strengthen China," he said.
A man covering his face walks in Manhattan, New York on April 6 amid the serious outbreak
of COVID-19 in the US. Photo: AFP
Treating China as equals
In the past months, certain American politicians, including Pompeo, kept passing the buck,
making groundless accusations that China was responsible for the outbreak, and hyped
conspiracy theories by calling it the "China virus" to claim the virus originated from a
Wuhan lab. At Friday's media briefing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying
joked that the press conference was almost all about refuting Pompeo's lies.
The extreme atmosphere has made many people in the US worry for a return of the McCarthy
era, where free speech in the country was curtailed. A former US Ambassador to China pointed
out in a CNN interview the US is now similar to Germany in the 1930s.
Li Haidong, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign
Affairs University, told the Global Times on Friday the task force will fuel the existing
unfriendly atmosphere toward China at the local level in the country.
Trump administration's China policy focuses on conflicts, and the task force could further
aggravate tensions, he said.
Former US Ambassador to China Max Baucus said in an interview with CNN that "The [Trump]
administration's rhetoric is so strong against China. It's over the top. We're entering a
kind of an era which is similar to Joe McCarthy back when he was red-baiting the State
Department, attacking communism."
"A little bit like Hitler in the 30s. A lot of people knew what was going on was wrong.
They knew it was wrong, but they didn't stand up and say anything about it. They felt
intimidated," he said.
Analysts warned that China needs to stay alert as the US is trying to create a new
McCarthy era of international repression on China.
But, on the other hand, we should be aware that most countries won't follow the US, Li
said.
"It's difficult for the US to mobilize the world against China. People know how selfish
and self-centered the US is. So only a few of its allies will join," he told the Global
Times.
The US interception of other countries' anti-virus medical supplies and pointing a finger
at the WHO when international cooperation is urgently needed occupied world headlines.
Meanwhile, the Chinese government had provided over 150 countries and international
organizations with supplies, hosted over 120 video conferences with health experts from more
than 160 members of the international community, and dispatched 19 medical groups to 17
countries, according to the Zhang Ming, Chinese Ambassador to the European Union, at a
Coronavirus Global Response pledging event on Monday.
Li told the Global Times that most countries, including its traditional allies, such as
Germany and France, have different demands from the US. So they won't join this wave.
As early as February 1, the European Union had dispatched tons of medical supplies to
assist China. And in March when the continent was hit hard, China immediately provided more
than 2 million protective masks and sent medical groups. Positive reactions were constantly
heard in Europe on China.
Meanwhile, it has been reported that China faces a rising wave of hostility led by the US
amid the pandemic. The discrimination against Chinese people is growing in some parts of the
world.
Li said "The rising hostility shows some Western countries are not accustomed to a rising
China. It's a challenge for them to learn to see China on an equal footing, which adds to
their anxiety."
He added that they need to learn to respect differences and deal with other countries
equally.
Analysts noted that China should step up efforts to enhance its own capabilities in
high-tech, military and other fields. It should also conduct far-reaching international
cooperation and uphold multilateralism to share its benefits with other countries, rather
than being distracted by the anti-China wave.
Cooperation amid competition
The task force on China is not the first one in the West. On April 24, several UK
Conservative MPs launched a "China Research Group" to promote "factual debate" in dealing
with the "rapidly changing nature of the relationship" between China and the UK. The group
would attempt to look "beyond" the coronavirus pandemic to "examine China's long-term
economic and diplomatic aims," BBC reported.
Kevin Hollinrake, an MP and a member of the group, told the Global Times that the group
will make some inquiries on specific policy areas. The group will look at, for example, how
the Chinese political system and business work.
It will look at certain work streams and develop fact-based reports based on those work
streams. "They may be reported back to parliament or published in the public domain,"
Hollinrake said.
Although the group was set up at a time when the virus was rampant in the UK, "the
pandemic itself is not the underlying issue," Hollinrake noted.
The China Research Group is likely to "lobby for a less cooperative approach to China, and
for the UK to align more with the US on China policy," Tim Summers, senior consulting fellow
on the Asia-Pacific program at Chatham House, told the Global Times.
However, Chris Wood, the British Consul General in Shanghai, told the Global Times that
"We will see continued discussions and collaboration. There is no global challenge that can
be solved without China's participation. We recognize that we very much want to work with
China on these big global issues, and that will continue."
In the post-coronavirus era, China and Europe might continue to seek cooperation amid
competition, analysts said, pointing out that Europe's anxieties are, to a large extent,
provoked by the US.
In the early stages of the pandemic, despite old disputes, cooperation was the mainstream
in China-Europe interactions. But things have changed since the US became the new epicenter,
Sun Keqin, a research fellow at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations,
told the Global Times.
Sun told the Global Times that to reduce the negative influence from the US on European
countries, China needs to make efforts to let its voice heard in international public opinion
and seek cooperation opportunities. What the US is advocating is nothing but rumors and
conspiracy, and China must smash these lies with sound and reasonable evidence and awaken
European countries, Sun said.
The Arioch Casey •
5
hours ago> Also, really, how long would it take to relocate important industries
to the US?
I think it is a preposterous question. The real question how you gonna relocate the
markets for in-USA industries?
Okay, you hired mexicans or turkeys or chineses, they built you a new shiny factory, it
even produced some glomourous box, and...
....and that box is gathering dust in Walmart, because next shelf to it there is the same
box made-in-Far-East at half the price!
What you gonna do about THAT ? ...and it will be going all while USD is kept
overpriced.
As i see it, you have two options, as in "required condition" (but not neccesarily
sufficient one)
1. USSR way: make USD non-convertible and set very strict controls at floodgates, keep
cracking down on any foreign trade except for goverment-vetted bare minimum.
2. Capitalistic way: let USD crash until its true value found and production is USA becomes
competitive with ones in China and Vietnam.
Even this might be not enough, but those are required for even trying.
Both options however would be infringing one way or another on the priviliged American
style of life.
Basically America should be honestly turned into the sceond world or the third world for
some hope (but no waranties) to emerge.
Now, with Trump's crack-down on mexicans Americans got a load of vacant working places
in farmers fields - did they took those? Or were they way too exceptional for such a boring
and lowly work?
Will Trump and GOPs dare to use Coivid excuse to kill American Ponzi economy, before it
collapse on its own?
> Wouldn't that need to be a multi-generational project because you can;t turn
baristas into machinists over night?
First of all those baristas would have to accept that their salary - if measured in
Wallmart off the shelf goods - had shrunk many times. And that they are out for survival in
Wild Wild West, where making one's own 2-3 persons business - and finding any niche for it,
just any - is not a fashion but a chance ast survival.
Did you read Gone With The Wind? North's invasion killed South's economy. Then Scarlett,
never having much of a culture anyway, not being that refined lady, just luckily sees a
demand and uses new slave labor to kick-start her new business, one very few in the whole
city.
In those "holy 1990s" me and dad survived by buying 40kg cement bags, moving them into a
shack (last 30 meters by hands and a cart), and then splitting them into 1kg bags (by kid's
scoop), sealing them with makeshift hot wire, and then hiring our mate with a small truck
to race around Moscow stores and selling them those.
Cement dust all around, primitive work, radio for entertainment.
> at the very sight of your average run-of-the-mill CNC machine
The fuck! I would had seen CNC machine a privileged work, clean and interesting and
rewarding! But sadly there was no market for most anything CNC machines could do.
So that is it, when your nextdoor Americans will start outcompeting illegals in job
market, then there will be a chance for USA to start it all over again.
Good thing, it will not be "multi-generational". Like it was shown in Gone With The
Wind, BTW. Those "who will not fit the market" (c) will just die off, sooner or later. In
gang on gang shootouts, or if alcoholism or of homelessness, that varies. Those who did fit
- will go on. 10-20 years will suffice.
Casey •
19
hours ago So, is it correct that the DNC had some kind of Obama-era "chi-merica" project to
further their globalist, neolib project -- as it became obvious that the US was never going to
be able to pull off the unipolar Empire -- into the new century with a sort of US/China
alliance, with a substantial US aligned fifth-column (if that's the right phrase) working in
China to further the project? Then Trump came in a screwed that all up, trying to pretend to be
friendly to Russia, which the DNC promptly scuttled. And now the net result is Russia and China
growing relations, which is a very real nightmare for the US, the absolute worst possible
outcome for the globalists? Probably I have this all ass-backwards. Also, really, how long
would it take to relocate important industries to the US? Wouldn't that need to be a
multi-generational project because you can;t turn baristas into machinists over night? Also,
what prevents the US from taking over Venezuela right now, militarily, instead of those
apparently poorly organized attempts to infiltrate with mercenaries, as was recently
revealed?
If Uncle Sam defaults on his debts, that would be the biggest own goal ever. The whole
financial system is based on US Treasury bonds, and a default would send their value to zero.
The US Social Security Trust Fund is still worth almost three trillion dollars, most of it in
US Treasury bonds. Default means Goodbye Social Security Pensions, or at least a huge
"haircut".
I think Pompous Ass is bluffing. One reason is that Wall Street parasites have been
salivating over the Social Security trust fund for decades, and GW Bush was working on a plan
to give it to them. I don't think the bankster parasites will sit on their hands and let the
Trump idiots blow up their entire system. I think there would be a palace coup d'etat
first.
The US wants to сut industrial and supply dependence on China amid rising tensions between the two powers. However, not everyone
is eager to pack their bags and leave the lucrative Chinese market in the midst of the previous row.
The Trump administration has long been pushing American firms to get back to US soil, especially when trade tensions were flaring
between the two biggest global economies. Now the US has revived the trade war rhetoric again.
Read more
Asian markets plunge amid escalating US-China tensions
"We've been working on [reducing the reliance of our supply chains in China] over the last few years but we are now
turbo-charging that initiative,"
Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment at the US State Department
Keith Krach told Reuters.
Krach as well as other officials told the agency that some critical and essential manufacturing should be moved from the
country, and the government may take steps on it soon. Apart from the US' seemingly favorite options of tariffs and sanctions,
the plans may include tax incentives and potential reshoring subsidies as well as closer relations with Taiwan – a move which has
always angered Beijing.
Washington is also mulling the creation of what one of the officials called 'Economic Prosperity Network' which would include
companies and groups from some
"trusted partners."
The network is set to share the same standards
"on everything
from digital business, energy and infrastructure to research, trade, education and commerce."
China's vital role in global supply chains was felt sharply amid the coronavirus pandemic as many international giants – from
tech to car industries – are reliant on the country. The pandemic has forced some US companies to seriously consider at least
partial relocation and changing supply chain strategy, according to one of the latest polls conducted by the American Chamber of
Commerce in China and its sister organization in Shanghai. However, the majority of firms said that the outbreak does push them
to turn their backs on China.
Nevertheless, one of the
"China hawks"
told Reuters that the virus created "a perfect
storm" as it
"crystallised all the worries that people have had about doing business with China"
and
the damages from Covid-19 have eclipsed possible profits.
When the trade war showed no signs of abating last year and the US and China were still hitting each other with tariffs,
another AmCham poll showed that the punitive measures were hurting US businesses operating in China. While over forty percent of
the 250 respondents were
"considering or have relocated"
production facilities outside China, some 35 percent of
companies said they would rather source within China and target the domestic market. Fewer than six percent wanted to move or
already shifted their factory operations to the US.
Set aside the enormous relocation costs – which the White House has recently pledged to cover should an American company
decide to ditch China – there is still another massive hurdle in this plan. China is still the world's top producer of rare earth
metals – the group of elements vital for production of multiple devices, from cell phones to some advanced military gear. Should
all the production be moved from China, it could ban exports of these materials. Last year Chinese media said the option was
already being mulled by Beijing, and it could consider the drastic measure again if trade war tensions further escalate.
The new rules will require licenses for US companies to sell certain items to companies
in China that support the military, even if the products are for civilian use. They also do
away with a civilian exception that allows certain US technology to be exported without a
license.
They come as relations between the United States and China have deteriorated amid the
new coronavirus outbreak
####
It's far too late and will be significantly damaging to US companies. No doubt Washington
still expects Beijing to buy Boeing airliners. If Beijing were to pull that plug, then it
would take out Arbus, P&W, GE, CFM all the suppliers, MRO ventures and collapse the whole
western airline supply chain. It would obviously kill any Chinese or Russian airline program
that has any western content . I doubt Beijing will go that far so they'll be looking
at actions, not words.
t-Rump and co need to show something sym-bollox to the American electorate that yet again
they are being 'tough on China' during this erection year but it requires China to play
along. It simply might not. It is reported that China is currently purchasing large
quantities of American LNG to fulfill 'Phase one' of t-Rump's Deal of the Century with
China.
Maybe that is the obvious counter, threatening to pull the whole DoC, starting with
dumping LNG purchases as a direct warning. t-Rump's Administration has pushed itself into a
smaller and smaller box, all of its own making. As I've always said and I still believe to be
true, the biggest threat to t-Rump's re-erection is t-Rump himself.
Paradoxically, the more Trump's belligerence and 'gut-based' trade policies damage
international trade, the more convinced his supporters become that only Trump can handle
increasingly-complicated trade relationships. This probably stems from his going into a
meeting under difficult conditions, emerging to fire off a miracle tweet, "China will now buy
massive quantities of our agricultural products", and ducking out the back without
elaboration. This leads to a misplaced belief that Trump can perform miracles, as much of a
jerk as he can be, because his loyalists rarely pay attention long enough for the rebuttal
which always comes, laying out his serial exaggerations. Remember when U.S. Steel was
building three new steel plants, on the strength of Trump's hard-ass negotiations in the
Canada-Mexico-USA Free Trade deal? Lighthizer's hard-ass negotiations, actually. Anyway,
yeah; totally made it up. He doesn't see anything wrong with making optimistic projections
which have no basis in fact.
Mind you, it would be a bit of a downer to have to explain again to Biden what 'oil' is,
every single time the subject comes up. But I wouldn't be too worried about that.
LNG is pretty cheap right now, like all energy products. I see China behaving much like
Russia; once it strikes an international bargain, it will stick to it until the terms play
out. But Trump might find a different China when he tries to strike the next agreement.
China can also take similar measures, sic (I read that) Alibaba and other gigantic Chinese
companies that rely on server farms are switching over to Chinese made chippery and not
buying foreign. Simply in lost sales for the foreseeable future is gigantic.
I imagine you are too young to remember Victor Kiam (he died in 2001) former president of the
Remington Razor Company. He had a popular line of commercials in the late 80's in which he
would say "I liked it so much, I bought the company".
The Chinese must have heard him, because they took his method to heart; Alibaba doesn't
just buy Chinese-made chips, they bought the company. Right after the United States started
up its
we-have-to-keep-priceless-American-technological-secrets-out-of-the-hands-of-the-thieving-Chinks
policies. Suit yourself, Sam.
Shanghai-based Semiconductor Manufacturing International, a $5.4 Billion company and one
of the largest such companies in China, pulled its listing from the NYSE.
In 2018, Skyworks Solutions had 83% of its business in China. Apple had 20%, but 20% of
Apple's revenue is a shitload of money. I had to laugh at the line, "Investors are
increasingly concerned over the prospect of rising global protectionism." 'Global
protectionism' pretty much covers The Donald's act.
Justin GLyn @ 65 is correct: New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern instituted a Stage
4 lockdown in her country in mid-to-late March with the aim of eliminating the virus from
Kiwi shores. That goal is no longer feasible but
the country has begun relaxing its lockdown to Stage 3 in an effort to revive its
economy.
The US failure to anticipate blowback can be understood in one way: assuming that the US
did indeed seed the virus in Wuhan, then we might speculate that the seeding was timed to
coincide with the flu season in China and with mass preparations for Chinese New Year. The
thinking was that the virus would spread through public transportation networks throughout
the country and Beijing would have a full-time job on its hands just dealing with massive
viral outbreaks all over the country, and fail to deal with them even adequately, leading to
mass riots and eventually widespread resistance to Beijing, and maybe even the eventual
disintegration of the CCP and its overthrow. US and other expatriates would be trapped in the
country, and foreign embassies and consulates might even be torched, prompting a US-led
coalition to invade parts of the country (like the south and the southeast) and take over in
a start to the balkanisation of the country cunningly disguised as foreign help to keep
order.
The US certainly did not anticipate that Chinese people trusted enough in Beijing to be
willing to carry out whatever orders Beijing issued; the US assumption seems to be that
everywhere around the planet, people yearn to be just as individualistic and suspicious of
Big Government as Americans are, and that what they think of their local councils and
regional governments is the same as what they think of their national governments.
The reality is that in many countries, whatever people think of their local councils and
regional (state, provincial) governments may not be true of what they think of their national
governments, because the functions of the three tiers of government in their countries may
not overlap to the extent that they might do in the Anglocentric world.
Neither did the US anticipate that Chinese society could be advanced in its own way
technologically with various functions such as public health, public transport and others
integrated enough that the Chinese could respond to a rapidly spreading crisis in the way
they did. That is in part because US society and values are based on competition, mutual
suspicion and top-down orders among other things, rather than co-operation, collective
behaviour and willingness to consider solutions based on ideas from divergent yet integrated
sources.
That is a very plausible working hypothesis, and I mean it working, the main assumption is
still to be proven but it explains many other observations of fact. But I will append a
variable in the main assumption: we could even replace the initiative's agent with some
non-state actor, ie Big Pharma. I am unable to "decide" between these possibilities. Are the
Imperial forces conflicting to the extent implied? Are we yet at the point that a non-state
actor is bold enough for such an action? I really don't want to stretch a perfectly good
hypothesis but am I?
I was in China at the time when this unfolded and note the following: 1: The Chinese
cultural mindset is totally different from the Western one, and the gap much greater than
most Westerners realise. Look at the videos of the 75th Anniversary of Modern China for a few
clues 2: As the worlds largest atheist nation, death is considered final, rituals
notwithstanding So they are motivated to survive..( and focus on delicious food to this end)
3: They talk. Incessantly. It is no accident that WeChat has grown exponentially.. What
happens in one part of China is pretty quickly spread to other parts And on the Flipside,
there are surveillance cameras everywhere
So when this unfolded, Mid Spring festival when the cities were emptied, the memory of the
SARS epidemic sprang to forefront of the official mind. Xi JingPing appeared on most TV
Channels, making it clear that he was taking responsibility for the government response. And
implicitly, that if he failed, he would be gone, in keeping with the long tradition of
Chinese leadership.
At this point we decided to bail, being prime targets to host the virus. Avoided getting
quarantined in HongKong by 4 hours, and quarantine in Manus Island, Aus by one phone
call.
There were 6 temperature checks and 4 police checks on route to HongKong Airport; arriving
in New Zealand expecting some major medical checks. None. Just 2 nurses at a deck asking if
we felt OK - handed a pamphlet and sent on our way. I did try to follow up but given official
discouragement. So NZ was asleep at the wheel for weeks, and just plain lucky. However, once
NZ woke up, the response was excellent; PM Jacinda Adern's speech was masterful and the
response excellent. We had only two CoVid cases yesterday, as we move into level 3.
There are big problems in economic recovery here, but the alternative scenarios would have
been far worse. And theres got to be a reason why various luxury private jets are turning up
unannounced and often unmarked at the airports here :-)
Each of your explanations are compelling in their own way.
A few things that your explanations left out (this is not meant to be a comprehensive
list):
The strange resignation/firing of John Bolton.
The strangely good timing of the ARAMACO IPO;
Trump's strange reversal of his stated intention to not do partial trade deals with
China - he did a partial deal in January a couple of weeks after the virus became
known;
The strange non-resistance by medical establishment to Trump's failure to respond - no
one resigned as the Trump dragged his feet.
IMO any theory of deliberate release should consider these points.
Bolton's was asked to leave the administration because he was involved in pushing
development of a virus which accidentally escaped the lab -OR- willingly left to give
Trump/Deep State a scapegoat in case it became known that the use of the virus was
deliberate? In either case, the virus was already "in the wild" ...
... which would explain why no medical professional resigned in Feb/March. It was never
going to be possible to contain the virus in the West.
This would also explain why virus discussion were classified.
Trump did a trade deal with China that he knew they would have trouble to satisfy the
terms of. The ARAMACO IPO - which had been delayed several times - came just about 6 weeks
before the new virus was identified. And it was done despite the Houthi attack on ARAMACO
facilities two months before (investors should've been very wary of the continuing war at
the super high valuation).
<> <> <> <> <>
PS I do know that New Zealand had a lock-down but they did that as soon as they found
'community spread' and their vigilance has allowed them to start lifting the lock-down after
only a short period.
As the usual suspects fret over the "stability" of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and
the Xi Jinping administration, the fact is the Beijing leadership has had to deal with an
accumulation of extremely severe issues: a swine-flu epidemic killing half the stock; the
Trump-concocted trade war; Huawei accused of racketeering and about to be prevented from
buying U.S. made chips; bird flu; coronavirus virtually shutting down half of China.
Add to it the incessant United States government Hybrid War propaganda barrage, trespassed
by acute Sinophobia; everyone from sociopathic "officials" to self-titled councilors are
either advising corporate businesses to divert global supply chains out of China or
concocting outright calls for regime change – with every possible demonization in
between.
There are no holds barred in the all-out offensive to kick the Chinese government while
it's down.
A Pentagon cipher at the Munich Security Conference once again declares China as the
greatest
threat , economically and militarily, to the U.S. – and by extension the West,
forcing a wobbly EU already subordinated to NATO to be subservient to Washington on this
remixed Cold War 2.0.
The whole U.S. corporate media complex repeats to exhaustion that Beijing is "lying" and
losing control. Descending to sub-gutter, racist levels, hacks even accuse BRI itself of
being a
pandemic , with China "impossible to quarantine".
All that is quite rich, to say the least, oozing from lavishly rewarded slaves of an
unscrupulous, monopolistic, extractive, destructive, depraved, lawless oligarchy which uses
debt offensively to boost their unlimited wealth and power while the lowly U.S. and global
masses use debt defensively to barely survive. As Thomas Piketty has conclusively shown,
inequality always relies on ideology.
We're deep into a vicious intel war. From the point of view of Chinese intelligence, the
current toxic cocktail simply cannot be attributed to just a random series of coincidences.
Beijing has serial motives to piece this extraordinary chain of events as part of a
coordinated Hybrid War, Full Spectrum Dominance attack on China.
Enter the Dragon Killer working hypothesis: a bio-weapon attack capable of causing immense
economic damage but protected by plausible deniability. The only possible move by the
"indispensable nation" on the New Great Game chessboard, considering that the U.S. cannot win
a conventional war on China, and cannot win a nuclear war on China.
A biological warfare weapon?
On the surface, coronavirus is a dream bio-weapon for those fixated on wreaking havoc
across China and praying for regime change.
Yet it's complicated.
This report is a decent effort trying to track the origins of coronavirus. Now compare it
with the insights by Dr. Francis Boyle, international law professor at the University of
Illinois and author, among others, of Biowarfare and Terrorism . He's the man who
drafted the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 signed into law by George H.
W. Bush.
Dr. Boyle adds, "all these BSL-4 labs by United States, Europe, Russia, China, Israel are
all there to research, develop, test biological warfare agents. There's really no legitimate
scientific reason to have BSL-4 labs." His own research led to a whopping $100 billion, by
2015, spent by the United States government on bio-warfare research: "We have well over
13,000 alleged life science scientists testing biological weapons here in the United States.
Actually this goes back and it even precedes 9/11."
Dr. Boyle directly accuses "the Chinese government under Xi and his comrades" of a cover
up "from the get-go. The first reported case was December 1, so they'd been sitting on this
until they couldn't anymore. And everything they're telling you is a lie. It's
propaganda."
The World Health Organization (WHO), for Dr. Boyle, is also on it: "They've approved many
of these BSL-4 labs ( ) Can't trust anything the WHO says because they're all bought and paid
for by Big Pharma and they work in cahoots with the CDC, which is the United States
government, they work in cahoots with Fort
Detrick ." Fort Detrick, now a cutting-edge bio-warfare lab, previously was a notorious
CIA den of mind control "experiments".
Relying on decades of research in bio-warfare, the U.S. Deep State is totally familiar
with all bio-weapon overtones. From Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Korea, Vietnam and
Fallujah, the historical record shows the United States government does not blink when it
comes to unleashing weapons of mass destruction on innocent civilians.
For its part, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) has spent a
fortune researching bats, coronaviruses and gene-editing bio-weapons. Now, conveniently
– as if this was a form of divine intervention – DARPA's "strategic allies" have
been chosen to develop a genetic vaccine.
The 1996 neocon Bible, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), unambiguously
stated, "advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
There's no question coronavirus, so far, has been a Heaven-sent politically useful tool,
reaching, with minimum investment, the desired targets of maximized U.S. global power –
even if fleetingly, enhanced by a non-stop propaganda offensive – and China relatively
isolated with its economy semi paralyzed.
Yet perspective is in order. The CDC estimated that up to 42.9 million people got sick
during the 2018-2019 flu season in the U.S. No less than 647,000 people were hospitalized.
And 61,200 died.
This report
details the Chinese "people's war" against coronavirus.
It's up to Chinese virologists to decode its arguably synthetic origin. How China reacts,
depending on the findings, will have earth-shattering consequences – literally.
Setting the stage for the Raging Twenties
After managing to reroute trade supply chains across Eurasia to its own advantage and
hollow out the Heartland, American – and subordinated Western – elites are now
staring into a void. And the void is staring back. A "West" ruled by the U.S. is now faced
with irrelevance. BRI is in the process of reversing at least two centuries of Western
dominance.
There's no way the West and especially the "system leader" U.S.
will allow it. It all started with dirty ops stirring trouble across the periphery of Eurasia
– from Ukraine to Syria to Myanmar.
Now it's when the going really gets tough. The targeted assassination of Maj. Gen.
Soleimani plus coronavirus – the Wuhan flu – have really set up the stage for the
Raging Twenties. The designation of choice should actually be WARS – Wuhan Acute
Respiratory Syndrome. That would instantly give the game away as a War against Humanity
– irrespective of where it came from.
The USA has huge geographic advantages over China. We are separated from the world by the
Atlantic and Pacific oceans and bordered by two nations we are at peace with and who are no
threat to us. Our Founding Fathers recognized our geographic advantages from the start and
sought policies that took advantage of this. Today, our geographic situation is even more
secure than it was for much of our history.
China is bordered on all sides by rivals–Russia to the north, India to the south,
Japan and Taiwan boxing it in to the east, and Islamic states to the west. It has a long and
complex border it needs to defend from rivals and a relatively small coastline that offers
complications due to the many nations it shares seaways with. The USA has none of these
disadvantages.
America's current disadvantages and decline stem from policies that have been put in place
over the 20th century by elites who replaced the traditional American policies that made us
the richest and freest nation on Earth with globalist policies that use America's advantages
in ways that harm the average American and people all around the world. These elites usurped
our financial system, government, media and academia and have been trading away our wealth
and freedom for wars and economic imperialism in pursuit of non-American globalist goals.
Reversing American decline and increasing the prosperity and freedom of the average
American is a simple matter in regards to policy:
1. Return to the American System of economics as advocated by Alexander Hamilton, George
Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc., as opposed to the English System of "free trade" that our
elites adopted after WWII. That means ending our current "free trade" policy and replacing it
with high tariffs on imports to protect American industry from overseas competition. Increase
tariffs and end the income tax. That was our trade policy before 1913 and what made us the
richest economy on Earth with the world's highest standard of living.
2. End our current foreign policy of interventionism abroad and replace it with neutrality
in foreign affairs and non-interventionism abroad as advocated by George Washington. End all
foreign wars, shut down American military bases overseas and bring the troops home. End all
entangling alliances like NATO and instead refocus the American military on defending the
North American continent only. We can do this easily with a strong Navy and Air Force based
at home and a small Army made up mostly of reservists. This would bring us greater national
security and enormous savings. "Isolationism" is a slur used by warmongers to brainwash
Americans into dying in overseas wars fought for foreign interests. That word should be
recognized as such. If China wants rocks in the South China Sea or Russia has border
conflicts with Ukraine or Israel has conflicts with its neighbors, that really is none of our
business and not something Americans should die over. That's their business not ours.
3. End mass immigration. America is the third most populous country on Earth after China
and India. We don't need more people. Immigration has lowered wages in the USA, increased
costs for such things as housing and education, increased pollution, increased traffic and
sprawl, etc. Immigration benefits the rich who want cheap labor and harms American citizens,
not to mention fills our country with people who have loyalties to other parts of the world,
not to our nation. End immigration and our standard of living will rise and the American way
of life will be preserved.
4. Kill the Federal Reserve and replace it with a U.S. Monetary Council with members
appointed by Congress. This U.S. Monetary Council should be based on American principles and
the U.S. Constitution with transparency and accountability to the electorate, tasked to
regulate the American money supply to benefit American commerce and the needs of the people,
unlike our current system that benefits a small clique of usurers, speculators and corporate
insiders that the Fed serves today.
These are simple policies that worked in the past. The difficulty is in enacting them due
to the current political climate and the monopoly the globalists have over our financial
system, media and academia. They have an army of think tank propagandists and lobbyists
working relentlessly to keep the current policies of "free trade," mass immigration, foreign
interventionism, overseas wars, and their destructive Federal Reserve in place.
The globalists are highly organized and have infinite monetary resources. The only way to
overcome them is through organization and action.
But America's own societal information system is vastly more skilled and experienced in
shaping reality to meet the needs of business and government leaders, and this very success
does tremendous damage to our country.
This is a very important insight. A hypertrophied media machine in the service of the
"elite" makes them dumber, greedier and less competent with time while the fortress they've
built turns into a house of cards. We need a reset – badly.
It is undeniable that China has made impressive achievements since the Maosits revolution to
date. BUT lets be realistic pre1973 China still a Nation with markedly 3th world living
standards, even today with a soft racist inuendos , people speak about the Chinese must adopt
better hygiene standards personally and privately.
Before 1973 China had mainly 3th world status, eversince Nixon (or Kissinger?) opened
China US Corporate Capitalists inundated Chinas economic landscape, in other words the real,
KEY bases for Chinas economic success remain USA Corporations majority perhaps more than 70%
of their industrial output, although China has wisely constraint, restrain the USA/World
FINANCIAL cartels..(Soros speclation against te yuan, ans Soros Opensociety inflkuence in
HongKong)
Can China remain stable internally with a growing well travel educated savvy middle
class, and a POOR lower working class with meager salaries, slave like labor conditions, and
oppressive political controls, that's a recipe for a social cauldron..
Will the Chinese proletariat demand more "democracy" western/eastern oriented
reforms??..
... ... ...
China has become GREAT because the USA decided to become poor a Spartan, byzantinne,
militaristic, mercenary rogue nation at service of the Globaloists ELITES which do not care
about that cosmological romantic lyrical notion of America.
YOU are completely MISreading the events so yo miss the target by 90% NO it wasnt the
Russians . neither the Chinese..
IT was the FREEtraders NEOcons from Wallstreet and CFR, that transfer all american
manufacturing overseas (china) deabsing the dollar into fiat money, banktupted the USA
traesury The USA is entering its Byzanntyne Empire pahse a Spartan roque millitary nation
while inploding intrenally the Angloamerican zionists already ecided toi amke China de first
world power
@Anonymous How should I describe it? The Chinese Communist Party has formed a plutarchy
and an oligopoly "with Chinese characteristics".
Sometime before the 20th century closed, there was a term coined: the "Princelings". These
were the extravagantly wealthy offspring of many of the leadership of the CCP, and
grandchildren of the men who endured the "Long March".
"Genocide" is a term that is broadly applied to what is more accurately described as
"ethnic cleansing". The Hans have taken over Tibet and Xin Jiang, and have oppressed the
locals in a ruthless manner, that is comparable to what the Jews have done to
Palestinians.
Systematically, the Chinese are converting the indigenous populations of poorer countries
into indentured servants. These countries are so indebted to their Chinese "benefactors" that
they have no hope for redemption, unless the Chinese are prepared to forgive the loans. So
far, the Chinese have not been disposed to do so.
The effect and the consequence of these developments are close enough to warrant the
comparison.
@anon Lets add to the bigger picture. With regards to Israel: Exceptions don't make the
rule.
_______
The forces that off-shored the jobs, to then make wage arbitrage and become masters of the
universe, are the very same ones that are now demonizing China.
They are "international" in outlook, and the only national country that matters to them is
Israel.
In general, it is a "class" of people -sometimes called "Davos Man" who goes by other
names, such as globo-homo, ZOG (zionist world government), Ne0-Con, Neo-Liberal.
Globo-Homo couldn't resist the wage arbitrage that China represented after the Berlin Wall
fell in 1990. Clinton gave China effective MFN status in 1993. Wall Street begins Green Mail
Coercion Techniques against American industry to then off-shore jobs.
China also runs a simultaneous gambit against the U.S. by buying up TBills instead of
goods from U.S. main-street. This then insures that U.S. dollar is propped up against the
Yuan e.g. currency manipulation. The China/Wall Street Gambit is in full swing, and
globo-homo is happy.
Globo-Homo doesn't care about the destruction of American Mainstreet, because only prices
matter, and they are getting rich. China becomes the workshop for the world.
There are still elements within Globo-Homo that like their easy money derived from
ownership of transplanted industry.
If you look at today's propaganda emission center for China psy-ops you will see that it
is another mouthpiece and organ of the "international." They are festooned with neo-liberals
and ne0-cons.
Why the sudden shift, where China is the golden goose, to becoming the enemy?
Summary: There are two main enemies against American Mainstreet Labor. There is the
internal and international enemy of globo homo centered in Wall Street and London, and there
are elements within China that used Mercantile techniques to continue imbalanced trade and
theft of American patrimony and industry.
Globo homo has new marching orders, as they have belatedly realized that they got played.
The jig is up, you cannot operate the usury mechanism, do speculation, and RIG THE WORLD,
forever.
The U.S. military security state has communicated clearly, they don't like their
"international" supply chains and loss of U.S. domestic manufacturing. Globo Homo has long
used the US. military as a Golem which protected movement of ships from China's east
coast.
Atlantacist Method: Raw materials come into China by Ship, and finished Goods leave by
ship. Globo Homo ownership class takes the increment of production and wage arbitrage as
gains. Wall Street/London is a hero, main street is a zero.
In Continental Europe the 'all together' theme is barely holding, and momentum is in the
opposite direction In fact migrant communities are growing afraid of backlash and eventual
anti-migrant campaigns, even eventual quasi-ethnic-cleansing
With social welfare systems strained to the breaking point given lockdown unemployment,
there is regret and anger building about public funds spent on migrant waves in recent
years
The lockdowns are often barely being enforced in migrant communities, for fear of riotous
explosion by youthful troublemakers if enforcement is attempted, as noted in the first
comment above by jbwilson24 re France French officials have explicitly said so, in effect
'just leave migrant areas alone'
Last weekend in Belgium, an age-19 youth of migrant heritage, confronted by police when
with others, tried to speed away on a scooter but in his haste hit a police vehicle head-on
and died, leading to two days of rioting and 100 or so arrests When a police vehicle was
attacked by a mob, at least one police firearm was removed by a rioter
As people watch these videos of migrant-origin youths rioting, whilst local people receive
heavy monetary fines for lockdown violations, emotions run high as lockdowns continue, or
with another wave in the autumn, it may get quite dramatic politically
This is sad for those of us with migrant-heritage friends, who think positively of a
certain degree of 'organic' (not forced or induced or manipulated) immigration
The tectonic shifts and the trajectory of both countries (China and the USA) after this
epidemics end is unpredictable. "Chimerica" type of globalization was in decline before the
epidemic (Huawai, etc) and Trump badly wants decoupling from China. Somebody needs to pay for
those changes. It might well be us. So it is quite probable that those techno Nouveau
riche like us might be soon royally fleeced one way or another.
It might be prudent to have at least 300K in three bank accounts (in the USA only the first
100K are ensured) at 1% or less. Buying TIPs directly from Treasury is another option. I hope
your house is already fully paid.
BTW Marina can get half of your Social Security pension if her own is too small.
I am amazed that how many immigrants who migrated from a nation state, still love their
nation but hate when us nationalist. It's such a hypocrisy. The number one rule of any
migrant is to adapt the new country and culture and not the other way round. This whole PC
culture is going out of hands everywhere. I think every one should be forced to watch the
southpark to understand the irony of what we are becoming.
"... Authored by Joaquin Flores via The Strategic Culture Foundation, ..."
"... the declining rate of profit necessitated by automation, with the increasingly irrational policies, in all spheres, being pursued to salvage the ultimately unsalvageable. ..."
"... Because the present system is premised on a production-consumption and financial model, the solutions to crises are presented as population reduction and what even appears, at least in the case of Europe, as population replacement. As cliché as this may seem, this also appeared to be the policy of the Third Reich when capitalism faced its last major crises culminating in WWII. ..."
The coronavirus pandemic has shown that the twin processes of globalization and planned
obsolescence are deficient and moribund. Globalization was predicated on a number of
assumptions including the perpetuity of consumerism, and the withering away of national
boundaries as transnational corporations so required.
What we see instead is not a globalization process, but instead a process of rising
multipolarity and a rethinking of consumerism itself.
Normally a total market crash and unemployment crisis would usher in a period of militant
labor activity, strikes, walk-outs and community-labor campaigns. We've
seen some of this already . But the 'medical state of emergency' we are in, has effectively
worked like a 'lock-out' . The elites have effectively
flipped-the-script. Instead of workers now demanding a restoration of wages, hours, and
work-place rights, they are clamoring for any chance to work at all, under any conditions
handed down. Elites can 'afford' to do this because they've been given trillions of dollars to
do so. See how that works?
All our lives we've been misinformed over what a growing economy means, what it looks like,
how we identify it. All our lives we've been lied to about what technical improvement literally
means.
A growing economy in fact means that all goods and services become less expensive. That cuts
against inflation. Rather all prices should be deflating – less money ought to buy the
same (or the same money ought to buy more). Technical innovation means that goods should last
longer, not be planned for obsolescence with shorter lifespans.
Unemployment is good if it parallels price deflation. If both reached a zero-point, the
problems we believe we have would be solved.
In a revealing April 2nd article that featured on the BBC's website, Will coronavirus reverse globalisation?
it is proposed that the pandemic exposes the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of a global
supply-chain and manufacturing system, and that this in combination with the over-arching
US-China trade war would see a general tendency towards 're-shoring' of activities. These are
fair points.
But the article misses the point of the underlying problem facing economics in general:
the declining rate of profit necessitated by automation, with the increasingly irrational
policies, in all spheres, being pursued to salvage the ultimately unsalvageable.
The
Karmic Wheel of Production-Consumption
The shut-downs – which seem unnecessary in the numerous widely esteemed experts in
virology and epidemiology – appear to be aimed at stopping the production-consumption
cycle. When we look at the wanton creation of new 'money', to bailout the banks, we are told
that this will not cause inflation/debasement so long as the velocity of money is kept to a minimum.
In other words – so long as there is not a chain reaction of transactions, and the money
'stays still' – this won't cause inflation. It's a specious claim, but one which
justifies the quarantine/lock-down policy which today destroys thousands of small businesses
every day. In the U.S. alone, unemployment claims
will pass 30 million by mid April .
Likewise, this money appears real, it sits digitally as new liquidity on the computer
screens of tran-Atlantic banks – but it cannot be spent, or it tanks the system with
hyper-inflation. More to the point, the BBC piece erroneously continues to assume the necessity
of the production-consumption cycle, spinning wheat into gold forever.
The elites were not wrong to shut-down the cycle per se. The problem is that they cannot
offer the correct hardware in its place – for it puts an end to the very way that they
make money. It is this, which in turn is a major source for the maintenance of their dopamine
equilibrium and narcissist supply.
This is not an economic problem faced by 'the 1%' (the 0.03%) . It is an existential crisis
facing the meaning of their lives, where satisfaction can only be found in ever greater levels
of wealth and control, real or imagined – chasing that dragon, in search of that
ever-elusive high.
So naturally, their solutions are population reduction and other such quasi-genocidal
neo-Malthusian plans. Destruction of humanity – the number one productive-potential force
– resets the hands of time, back to a period where profit levels were higher. The
algorithmically favored coronavirus Instagram campaign of seeing city centers without people
and declaring these 'beautiful' and 'peaceful' is an example of this misanthropic principle at
play.
That the elites have chosen to shut-down the western economy is telling of an historic point
we have reached. And while we are told that production and consumption will return somewhat
'after quarantine', we also hear from the newly-emerged unelected tsars – Bill Gates et
al – that things will never
return to normal .
What we need to end is the entire theory and practice of globalization itself, including
UN
Agenda 21 and the dangerous role of 'book-talking' philanthropists like Gates and his
grossly unbalanced degree of power over policy formation in the Western sphere.
In place of waning globalization, we are seeing the reality of rising multipolarity and
inter-nationalism. With this, the end of the production-consumption cycle, based upon off-shore
production and international assembly, and at the root of it all: planned obsolescence towards
long-term profitability.
The Problem of Globalization Theory
Without a doubt, globalization theory satisfied aspects of descriptive power. But as time
marched forward, its predictive power weakened. Alternate theories began to emerge –
chief among these, multipolarity theory.
The promotion of globalization theory also raises ethical problems. Like a criminologist
'describing' a crime-wave while being invested in new prison construction, globalization theory
was as much theory as it was a policy forced upon the world by the same institutions behind its
popularization in academia and in policy formation. Therefore we should not be surprised with
the rise of solutions like those of Gates. These involve patentable 'vaccines' by for-profit
firms at the expense of buttressing natural human immunities, or using drugs which other
countries are using with effectiveness.
The truth? Globalization is really just a rebrand of the Washington Consensus
– neo-liberal think-tanks and the presumed eternal dominance of institutions like the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which in turn are thinly disguised
conglomerates of the largest trans-Atlantic banking institutions.
So while globalization was often given a humanist veneer that promised global development,
modernization, the end of 'nation-states' which presumably are the source of war; in reality
globalization was premised on continuing and increasing concentration of capital towards the
19th century zones – New York, London, Berlin, and Paris.
'Internationalism' was once rooted in the existence of nations which in turn are only
possible with the existence of culture and peoples, but was hi-jacked by the trans-Atlanticist
project. Before long, the new-left 'internationalists' became champions of the very same
process of imperialism that their forbearers had vehemently opposed. Call it 'globalization'
and show how it's destroying 'toxic nationalism' and creating 'microfinance solutions for women
and girls' –
trot out Malala – and it was bought; hook, line and sinker.
This was not the new era of 'globalization', but rather the usual suspects going back to the
19th century; a 'feel-good' rebranding of the very same 19th century imperialism as described
in J.A Hobson's seminal work from 1902, Imperialism. Its touted 'inevitability' rested not on
the impossibility of alternate models, but on the authority that flows forth from gunboat
diplomacy. But sea power has given way to land power.
In many ways it aligned with the era of de-colonialization and post-colonialism. New nations
could wave their own flags and make their own laws, so long as the traditionally imperialist
western banking institutions controlled the money supply.
But what is emerging is not Washington Consensus 'globalization', but a multipolar model
based in civilizational sovereignty and difference, building products to last – for their
usefulness and not their repeatable retail potential. This cuts against the claims that global
homogenization in all spheres (moral, cultural, economic, political, etc.) was inevitable, as a
consequence of mercantile specialization.
Therefore, inter-nationalism hyphenated as such, reminds us that nations –
civilizations, sovereignty, and their differences – make us stronger as a human species.
Like against viruses, some have stronger natural immunity than others. If people were
identical, one virus could wipe-out all of humanity.
Likewise, an overly-integrated global economy leads to global melt-down and depression when
one node collapses. Rather than independent pillars that could aid each other, the
interdependence is its greatest weakness.
Multipolarity is Reality
This new reality – multipolarity – involves processes which aspects of
globalization theory also suggest and predict for, so there are some honest reasons why experts
could misdiagnose multipolarity as globalization. Overlooked was that the concentration of
capital nodes in various and globally diverse regions by continent, were not exclusively
trans-Atlantic regions as in the standard globalization model of Alpha ++ or Alpha+ cities.
This capital concentration along continental lines was occurring alongside regional economic
development and rising living standards which tended to promote the efficiency of local
transportation as opposed to ocean-travel in the production process. As regional nodes by
continent had increasingly diversified their own domestic production, a general tendency for
transportation costs to increase as individual per capita usage increased, worked against the
viability of an over-reliance on global transit lines.
But among many problems in globalization theory was that the US would always be the primary
consumer of the world's goods, and with it, the trans-Atlantic financial sector. It was also
contingent on the idea that mercantilist conceptions of specialization (by nation or by region)
would always trump autarkic models and ISI (income substitution industrialization). Again, if
middle-class consumer bases are rising in all the world's inhabited continents as multipolarity
explains and predicts, then a global production regimen rationalized towards a trans-Atlantic
consumer base as globalization theory predicts isn't quite as apt.
Because the present system is premised on a production-consumption and financial model,
the solutions to crises are presented as population reduction and what even appears, at least
in the case of Europe, as population replacement. As cliché as this may seem, this also
appeared to be the policy of the Third Reich when capitalism faced its last major crises
culminating in WWII.
Breaking the Wheel
The shutdown reveals the karmic wheel of production-consumption is in truth already broken.
We have already passed the zenith point of what the old paradigm had to offer, and it has long
since entered into a period of decay, economic and moral destruction.
Like the Christ who brings forth a new covenant or the Buddha who emerges to break the wheel
of karma, the new world to be built on the ruins of modernity is a world that liberates the
productive forces, realizing their full potential, and with it the liberation of man from the
machine of the production-consumption cycle.
Planned obsolescence and consumerism (marketing) are the twin evils that have worked towards
the simultaneous
time-wasting enslavement of 'living to work' , and have built globalization based on global
assembly and global mono-culture.
What is important for people and their quality of life is the time to live life, not be
stuck in the grind. We hear politicians and economists talking about 'everyone having a job',
as if what people want is to be away from their families, friends, passions, or hobbies. What's
more – people cannot invent, innovate, or address the greater questions of life and death
– if their nose is to the grindstone.
Now that we are living under an overt system of control, a 'medical state of emergency' with
a frozen economy, we can see that another world is possible. The truth is that most things
which are produced are intentionally made to break at a specific time, so that a re-purchase is
predictable and profits are guaranteed. This compels global supply chains and justifies
artificially induced crashes aimed at upward redistribution and mass expropriations.
Instead of allowing Bill Gates to tour the world to tout a police-state cum population
reduction scheme right after a global virus pandemic struck, one which many believe
he owns the patent for , we can instead address the issues of multipolarity, civilizational
sovereignty, and ending planned obsolescence and the global supply chain, as well as the
off-shoring it necessitates – which the BBC rightly notes, is in question anyhow.
"The vicious virus, the polarization of US politics and deepening international
divergences have plunged humanity into unprecedented uncertainties. A jumbled,
irresponsible and impulsive US greatly enhanced the risks the world is facing.
"What's worse, the US did not engage in any reflection, and the inability of its
government was only attributed to partisanship. The anti-China element in its public
opinion has been brewing with the instigation of the administration and some politicians.
This has greatly crumbled the US' self-correction ability.
"The harm on humanity caused by a virus, no matter how frightening it is, only remains
at the physical level. But the US destruction at the political level is amplifying this
crisis that endangers global governance. Even if the pandemic is put under control,
humanity has to face the turbulence post-pandemic. Such dual uncertainties have gone
beyond the imagination of people even with their decades of living experience."
IMO and contrary to the editorial's conclusion, "populist politics" had nothing to do
with Trump's beyond mediocre response; rather, it's all been ideological beginning with
the utter lack of preparation.
A policy that US allies in Europe have recently slammed as 'piracy' is set
to continue, as Washington unabashedly and unapologetically continues blocking shipments from
US soil of personal protective equipment (PPE) -- such as gowns, gloves, and N95 face masks --
which hospitals and health workers desperately need in the fight against COVID-19.
The Hill
reports that "The federal government will begin seizing exports of personal protective
equipment, or PPE, until it decides if the tools should be kept in the country to fight the
coronavirus."
The announcement was made Wednesday by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), formalizing
an existing controversial practice under Defense Production Act (DPA) which has
recently blocked millions of masks from being exported from Minnesota-based 3M to Canada.
US customs will block all respirators, surgical masks and surgical gloves from going
abroad.
Canadian leaders blasted the move as putting lives in danger, while Germany and France
described the US policy, which has seen recent interventions against shipments from China bound
for Europe, as 'piracy'.
"FEMA and CBP are working together to prevent domestic brokers, distributors, and other
intermediaries from diverting these critical medical resources overseas,"
a joint statement indicated.
"Today's order is another step in our ongoing fight to prevent hoarding, price gouging, and
profiteering by preventing the harmful export of critically needed PPE," the White House also
said in a statement. "It will help ensure that needed PPE is kept in our country and gets to
where it is needed to defeat the virus."
It appears Trump's 'America First' policy in action at a crucial time of crisis , as the US
is the global epicenter for COVID-19, now with over 430,000 confirmed cases - most in New York
state - which has witnessed hospitals running desperately low on supplies, including
ventilators.
However, foreign governments have of late essentially warned 'what goes around comes around'
. Berlin Interior Minister Andreas Geisel at the start of the week stated bluntly of
Washington's brazen policy that it
constitutes a Wild West tactic - essentially warning Europe can play dirty too.
Japan
has allocated $2.2 billion (US) of its $993 billion emergency stimulus package to help
manufacturers relocate production out of China amid the COVID-19 pandemic which began in the
communist nation. According to SCMP , $2 billion (US) will be set aside for companies shifting
production back to Japan , while roughly $223.5 million will be spent on helping companies move
production to other countries, according to
SCMP .
Under normal circumstances, China is Japan's largest trading partner - however imports from
China plummeted nearly 50% in February as the coronavirus pandemic resulted in closed factories
and unfilled orders. Meanwhile, a planned visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Japan early
this month - the first such trip in a decade - was postponed with no date rescheduled.
It remains to be seen how the policy will affect Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's years-long
effort to restore relations with China.
" We are doing our best to resume economic development ," Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao
Lijian told a briefing Wednesday in Beijing, when asked about the move. " In this process, we
hope other countries will act like China and take proper measures to ensure the world economy
will be impacted as little as possible and to ensure that supply chains are impacted as
little as possible ." -
SCMP
China's production trainwreck has revived discussion among Japanese firms over reducing
their reliance on China as a manufacturing base - while the government's panel on future
investment recommended last month that manufacturing of high-value products should shift back
to Japan - while other goods should be diversified across Southeast Asia.
"There will be something of a shift," according to Japan Research Institute economist
Shinichi Seki, who noted that Japanese companies were already considering moving out of China.
"Having this in the budget will definitely provide an impetus." That said, certain industries
such as automotive will likely stay put.
Japan exports a far larger share of parts and partially finished goods to China than other
major industrial nations, according to data compiled for the panel. A February survey by
Tokyo Shoko Research found 37 per cent of the more than 2,600 companies that responded were
diversifying procurement to places other than China amid the coronavirus crisis. -
SCMP
Is the troop deployment along the Canadian border is to stop anyone interfering in the
coming chaos?
Posted by: Ian2 | Mar 26 2020 20:34 utc | 36
You have a point there --the coming chaos after the COVID-19 Health crisis.
Wondering if Trudeau knows about the fences that were erected this morning?
Maybe I missed Trump's tweet on his declaration of War.
- He has imposed more sanctions on Iranians.
- Indicted Maduro of Venezuela on narco trafficking, sponsor of terrorism; placed a $15
million bounty on his head --straight from the Panama playbook.
and this beauty - continues his trade war on China because -----
(Reuters) - Senior officials in the Trump administration agreed to new measures to
restrict the global supply of chips to China's Huawei Technologies, sources familiar with
the matter said, as the White House ramps up criticism of China over coronavirus.
The move comes as ties between Washington and Beijing grow more strained, with both
sides trading barbs over who is to blame for the spread of the disease and an escalating
tit-for-tat over the expulsion of journalists from both countries.
Under the proposed rule change, foreign companies that use U.S. chipmaking equipment
would be required to obtain a U.S. license before supplying certain chips to Huawei. The
Chinese telecoms company was blacklisted last year, limiting the company's
suppliers.[.]
"This is going to have a far more negative impact on U.S. companies than it will on Huawei,
because Huawei will develop their own supply chain," trade lawyer Doug Jacobson said.
"Ultimately, Huawei will find alternatives."[.]
Huawei has been doing just that - finding alternatives. Trade wars have been proven to end
badly. They end up going hot.
@Divine
Right American conflicts with Russia are based partly on self-serving fictions of the
military industrial complex that need an enemy for their continued existence, as well as some
more realistic conflicts involving Eastern Europe and rival interests over oil prices. The US
need for hegemony, which is highly tied to the value of the dollar as a reserve currency,
further thrusts this forward and center(and indeed, into conflict with China as well). This
all is intermingled with a [fake and hypocritical] generalized rejection of "authoritarian"
governments.
China, on the other hand, has no real current conflicts with Russia – most conflicts
involve sales of weaponry and political influence over central Asian states, nothing of vast
importance at least compared to being their the target of an enormous world-spanning
sanctions order or a dedicated trade war.
Your argument has the weird self-contradiction that the CCP both is supposedly the
mind-controlling alien brain of all Asians, while at the same time, not actually benefiting
from any specific conflict with Russia. This also ignores the fact that Asians tend to
assimilate the highest by any population(at nearly 40% intermarriage
in some segments, that Chinese students in particularly no longer tend to stay in the US(
only
20% by 2017 ), and that a overwhelming part of the demographic increase by
immigration is
Indian with long historical and cultural rivalries with China. And far more than Chinese
Americans, who often engage in racial masochism(witness Gordan Chang ), Indian Americans are vastly
more active and influential in American
politics both due to cultural reasons as well as higher verbal IQ. This isn't even
hypothetical: Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing
for more hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China
Seas conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."
I do agree that the US has long since crippled its resource base. But there's no evidence
that Trump, or anyone else, is demonstrating the barest inkling of trying to resolve it(or
that it is even possible, given the bueaucratic overload and red tape of regulations). Gould
once described evolution as a "drunkard's walk" between complexity, where organisms sometimes
fall trapped inside rail tracks, unable to stumble out.
Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing for more
hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China Seas
conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."
@Anatoly
Karlin There is apparently a large colony (100.000) of Chinese workers in Lombardy, with
direct flights between Lombardy and Wuhan, so this Italian outbreak is not a coincidence.
Many Italians in Northern Italy sold their leather goods and textiles companies to
China. Italy then allowed 100,000 Chinese from Wuhan/Wenzhou to move to Italy to work in
these factories, with direct Wuhan flights. Result: Northern Italy is Europe's hotspot for
Wuhan Coronavirus
UK had a "herd immunity" strategy from the beginning. They made no real effort at
containment. British government allowed their people to become infected, and only
began to change course after public outrage.
@Felix
Keverich The large Chinese population in Italy has been completely ignored by the media,
in fact China itself seems to have been let completely off the hook. The focus is now on how
terrible Britain and the native British people are.
Someone even posted a Tweet above by a Vietnamese person trying to claim that BRITAIN of
all countries is responsible for the outbreak in Vietnam, I mean what kind of ridiculous
logic is that? Vietnam bloody BORDERS China, the origin and epicentre of the Coronavirus
outbreak, and the Vietnamese are trying to say Britain is the cause? It beggars belief.
less globalization outside North America/Europe/Japan/Australia
You are missing the point of globalization: manufacturing in cheap Third World countries
and rewarding the local compradors with a permission to migrate to the West. That's the deal,
that's what globalization is.
With NA-Europe-Japan all you get is tourism and travel. I would be surprised if we can at
this point convince Chinese and the other cheap labor countries to do the work and forgo the
hope of migration. It was a Faustian deal and those as we know end in hell.
@AP
Calm down, man and stop the stupid blaming game. It seems that your Banderite spin also
includes bashing Chinese which, on the second thought, should not be surprising as there is
only one paymaster. Perhaps you should specialize in Ukraine only and leave China to more
competent haters.
Compare Canada and Italy on Chinese residents: Canada has 5 times more Chinese than Italy
but 62 times less infection cases and 539 times less fatalities than Italy (as of March 16).
Furthermore France and UK have more Chinese than Italy.
What about tourists: In Canada 0.75 mil Chinese tourist but in Italy 3.5 mil Chinese
tourists. So it must be the tourists, right?
So compare Japan with Italy on Chinese tourists: 8.4 mil Chinese tourist in Japan vs. 3.5
mil Chinese tourists in Italy. How many cases in Japan?
So what I am trying to convey is that the expression of the epidemic in different
countries is not congruent with the number of Chinese residents or Chinese tourist.
We will never know where the patients zero (yes plural, there are many patients zero)
really came from. For various political reasons we will not be told and what we will be told
we must be skeptical about. I found interesting data about the first infected in British
Columbia that has huge rather affluent Chinese population. There were as many Iranians as
non-Iranians on the list.
In British Columbia cases 1 to 5 were from China though it does not appear they infected
others while cases 6, 7, , 12 and 14, 15, 19 were traced to Iran. Then the case 22 was from
Iran and also case 31. Case 32 was from Italy, case 35 was from Egypt and case 37 was from
Germany. So out of first 37 cases over 50% were people came form Iran, Egypt, Germany and
Italy. My point is that while Canada has huge Chinese population (1.7 mil) and gets 700,000
Chinese visitors per year it does not look like China was the main vector. In BC it is Iran
and Europe.
One should consider a possibility whether virus introduction to Iran and the Middle East
did precede its introduction in China.
Now let's return to Italy. Most Chinese tourists go to Rome, Florence and Venice. These
cities were not affected as much as Lombardy where there is not that many tourists. So we are
told that Chinese workers could carry the virus. So look at Prato (in Tuscany near Florence)
which has the highest density of Chinese population in Italy. Wiki lists 11,882 (6.32%) for
Prato while the highest absolute number is Milan 18,918 (1.43%). The numbers are probably
outdated as most likely they do not include illegal residents.
"In a single day the positive cases of coronavirus in the province of Prato have
tripled: from 7 to 21 . It is the darkest day since the outbreak began. According to
what was announced in the afternoon of today, March 11, by the bulletin of the regional
council "
"Therefore, 314 patients are currently positive in Tuscany. This is the subdivision by
signaling areas: 71 Florence, 32 Pistoia, 21 Prato (total Asl center: 124), 43 Lucca, 40
Massa Carrara, 34 Pisa, 16 Livorno (total North West Asl: 133), 12 Grosseto, 37 Siena , 14
Arezzo (total Asl southeast: 63)."
So clearly the 2nd largest Chinese community in Italy (and first in density) with 21 cases
(out of 12,246 cases in Italy) did not contribute a lot to the corona virus outbreak in
Italy.
@AP
Calm down, man and stop the stupid blaming game. It seems that your Banderite spin also
includes bashing Chinese which, on the second thought, should not be surprising as there is
only one paymaster. Perhaps you should specialize in Ukraine only and leave China to more
competent haters.
Compare Canada and Italy on Chinese residents: Canada has 5 times more Chinese than Italy
but 62 times less infection cases and 539 times less fatalities than Italy (as of March 16).
Furthermore France and UK have more Chinese than Italy.
What about tourists: In Canada 0.75 mil Chinese tourist but in Italy 3.5 mil Chinese
tourists. So it must be the tourists, right?
So compare Japan with Italy on Chinese tourists: 8.4 mil Chinese tourist in Japan vs. 3.5
mil Chinese tourists in Italy. How many cases in Japan?
So what I am trying to convey is that the expression of the epidemic in different
countries is not congruent with the number of Chinese residents or Chinese tourist.
We will never know where the patients zero (yes plural, there are many patients zero)
really came from. For various political reasons we will not be told and what we will be told
we must be skeptical about. I found interesting data about the first infected in British
Columbia that has huge rather affluent Chinese population. There were as many Iranians as
non-Iranians on the list.
In British Columbia cases 1 to 5 were from China though it does not appear they infected
others while cases 6, 7, , 12 and 14, 15, 19 were traced to Iran. Then the case 22 was from
Iran and also case 31. Case 32 was from Italy, case 35 was from Egypt and case 37 was from
Germany. So out of first 37 cases over 50% were people came form Iran, Egypt, Germany and
Italy. My point is that while Canada has huge Chinese population (1.7 mil) and gets 700,000
Chinese visitors per year it does not look like China was the main vector. In BC it is Iran
and Europe.
One should consider a possibility whether virus introduction to Iran and the Middle East
did precede its introduction in China.
Now let's return to Italy. Most Chinese tourists go to Rome, Florence and Venice. These
cities were not affected as much as Lombardy where there is not that many tourists. So we are
told that Chinese workers could carry the virus. So look at Prato (in Tuscany near Florence)
which has the highest density of Chinese population in Italy. Wiki lists 11,882 (6.32%) for
Prato while the highest absolute number is Milan 18,918 (1.43%). The numbers are probably
outdated as most likely they do not include illegal residents.
"In a single day the positive cases of coronavirus in the province of Prato have
tripled: from 7 to 21 . It is the darkest day since the outbreak began. According to
what was announced in the afternoon of today, March 11, by the bulletin of the regional
council "
"Therefore, 314 patients are currently positive in Tuscany. This is the subdivision by
signaling areas: 71 Florence, 32 Pistoia, 21 Prato (total Asl center: 124), 43 Lucca, 40
Massa Carrara, 34 Pisa, 16 Livorno (total North West Asl: 133), 12 Grosseto, 37 Siena , 14
Arezzo (total Asl southeast: 63)."
So clearly the 2nd largest Chinese community in Italy (and first in density) with 21 cases
(out of 12,246 cases in Italy) did not contribute a lot to the corona virus outbreak in
Italy.
If this started in the USA and spread elsewhere the world would have good cause to
condemn the USA and to judge any subsequent efforts by Americans to help others as "the
least they could do."
Chinese shipments of medical goods are actually to the risk of the own population, where
hospitals are still recovering. While in some ways it is a blatant PR play, its quite a
significant cost amd self-risk that goes beyond "the least they could do."
The Chinese are showing an unprecedented amount of humanity, morality and basic decency
by giving medical aid to more than half the world in genuinely useful forms despite almost
everyone shitting on them by calling this a "Chinese virus" and other garbage.
... ... ...
Here is an article about them in the New York Times. Written soon before the onset of the
plague. It would not be written now – there's too obvious a connection between open
borders, multiculturalism, and death:
As Prato's factories went dark, people began arriving from China to exploit an
opportunity.
Most were from Wenzhou, a coastal city famed for its entrepreneurial spirit. They took
over failed workshops and built new factories. They imported fabric from China, sewing it
into clothing. They cannily imitated the styles of Italian fashion brands, while affixing a
valuable label to their creations -- "Made in Italy."
Chinese groceries and restaurants have emerged to serve the local population. On the
outskirts of the city, Chinese-owned warehouses overflow with racks of clothing destined for
street markets in Florence and Paris.
Among Italian textile workers who have veered to the right, the arrival of the Chinese
tends to get lumped together with African migration as an indignity that has turned Prato
into a city they no longer recognize.
"I don't think it's fair that they come to take jobs away from Italians," says Ms.
Travaglini, the laid-off textile worker. She claims that Chinese companies don't pay taxes
and violate wage laws, reducing pay for everyone.
Since losing her job at a textile factory nearly three years ago, Ms. Travaglini has
survived by fixing clothes for people in her neighborhood. "There are no jobs, not even for
young people," she says.
Chinese-owned factories have jobs, she acknowledges, but she will not apply. "That's all
Chinese people," she says, with evident distaste. "I don't feel at ease."
:::::::::::
Lots of Ukrainians there also. They don't bring such a virus to Italy, but they bring the
virus back to Ukraine.
::::::::::
So nice PR move after killing lots of European old people. One of the sacrificed in Milan
to this virus, Vittorio Gregotti, was an architect who helped build the city. Killed by the
Chinese virus. A symbol of native Italy replaced by migration.
@Kim
The Chinese have internal natural resources and have been vigorously working world wide to
obtain rights to, develop, and extract mineral and energy resources in order to keep
production going. See the documentary Empire of Dust about Chinese getting the rights to
African resources and developing the infrastructure to extract them. Also following the
supposed "war for oil" in Iraq the oil contracts went almost entirely to China. China has a
lot of the mines for the rare earths needed in modern technological products. The largest
single mine used to be in California. A Chinese company bought and re-opened it.
In effect they already own or have contracts for what they need and are much less leveraged
than we are.
As to whether their customers can continue to pay for it, that is a different kettle of fish.
The rest of us have been running up our credit card with them. We have been paying it off by
selling off our countries piece by piece through Chinese purchases of real estate,
businesses, port facilities etc. As China has grown economically they have been developing
their internal market to reduce dependence on Wal-Mart so that might reduce the impact of
poorer foreign markets.
In any event they own a huge infrastructure in plants tooling and human expertise for making
things. Our leaders have deliberately hollowed ours out for profits and cheaper consumer
goods.
Here was me thinking the Western elites wanted to continue making money on Chinese
growth.
Much of the US elite is sinecured in the media, foreign policy, and national security
state establishments, whose status depends on the relative power and prestige of the US
state. The relative power and prestige of the US state is jeopardized by the continued growth
of China.
If you follow US coverage of China in the US, you'll find that this US elite is generally
critical of China, although style and presentation vary. The liberal "China watchers" among
the US elite in the media and foreign policy establishment tend to focus on human rights,
democracy promotion, and liberalism as vectors to attack the Chinese state. They tend to be
polished and more subtle rather than explicitly hostile.
The US elite in the national security establishment tend to be more overt about military
containment and or confrontation with China, and on developing an anti-China coalition in the
Pacific.
"Perhaps this will finally burst the out-of-control asset price bubble and drop-kick the
Outlaw US Empire's economy into the sewer as the much lower price will rapidly slow the
recycling of what remains of the petrodollar. Looks like Trump's reelection push just fell
into a massive sinkhole as the economy will tank."
Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 9 2020 1:29 utc | 49
....
Call me crazy- but this Virus provides great cover as to why the economy plummets, the
Murikan sheeple will eat it up. Prepare for the double media blitz on the virus AND the
economy tanking as its result.
Don't worry...just continue to go shopping and take those selfies.
It will be hard for the American people to swallow that one. From day 1 I've read a lot of
"articles" and "papers" from know-it-all Western doctors and researchers from commenters here
in this blog, all of them claiming to have very precise and definitive data on what was
happening. A lot of bombastic conclusions I've read here (including one that claimed R0 was
through the roof - it's funny how the R0 is being played down after it begun to infect the
West; suddenly, it's all just a stronger cold...).
And that's just here, in MoA's comment section. Imagine what was being published in the
Western MSM. I wouldn't be surprised there was a lot of rednecks popping their beers
celebrating the fall of China already.
Since China allegedly had a lot of idle industrial capacity - that is, if we take the
Western MSM theories seriously (including the fabled "ghost towns" stories) - then boosting
production wouldn't be a problem to China.
Disclaimer: it's normal for any kind of economy - socialist or capitalist - to have a
certain percentage of idle capacity. That's necessary in order to insure the economy against
unexpected oscillations in demand and to give space of maneuvre for future technological
progress. Indeed, that was one of the USSR's mistakes with its economy: they instinctly
thought unemployment should be zero, and waste should also be zero, so they planned in a way
all the factories always sought to operate at 100% capacity. That became a problem when
better machines and better methods were invented, since the factory manager wouldn't want to
stop production so that his factory would fall behind the other factories in the five-year
plan's goals. So, yes, China indeed has idle capacity - but it is mainly proposital, not a
failure of its socialist planning.
By the latest count, in addition to yuan loans worth 113 billion U.S. dollars granted by
financial institutions and more than 70 billion U.S. dollars paid out by insurance companies,
the Chinese government has allocated about 13 billion U.S. dollars to counter fallout from
the outbreak.
The numbers could look abstract. However, breaking the data down reveals how the money is
being carefully targeted. The government is allocating the money based on a thorough
evaluation of the system's strengths.
...
Local governments are equipped with more local knowledge that allows them to surgically
support key manufacturers or producers that are struggling.
Together, they have borne the bulk of the financial responsibility with an allocation of
equivalently more than nine billion U.S. dollars. It is carefully targeted, divided into
hundreds of thousands of individual grants that are tailor-made by and for each county, town,
city and business.
This is the mark of a socialist system.
The affected capitalist countries will simply use monetary devices (so the private sector
can offset the losses) and burn their own reserves with non-profitable palliatives such as
masks, tests, other quarantine infrastructure etc.
Sounds like US socialism. Basically corporate socialism. Loans are just dollars created out
of thin air, same as in US. Insurance payouts come from premiums, nothing socialist about
that, pure capitalism. Government hand outs to provinces, cities, state owned
corporations,well all of these are run by the party elite, its called pork. US handed out a
lot of pork during the last financial crisis. None of it trickled down to the little people.
I doubt it does in China either.
All crisis are opportunities for the elite to get richer. Those Biolake firms in Wuhan
will make out like bandits. Chinese firms will double the price of API's sold to India and
US. China will knock out the small farmer in the wake of concurrent chicken and swine flu so
the big enterprises take over, a mimicry of the US practice over the last century. China tech
firms will double up on surveillance apps, censoring tools, surveillance and toughen up
social credit restrictions. 5G will allow China to experiment with nanobots to monitor
citizens health from afar (thanks to Harvards Dr Leiber).
Oh yes, socialism with Chinese characteristics is a technocratic capitalists dream. Thats
why the West has never imposed sanctions on China since welcoming them to the global elites
club. Sanctions are reserved for those with true socialism, especially those who preach
equality and god forbid, democracy.
Call me crazy- but this Virus provides great cover as to why the economy plummets, the
Murikan sheeple will eat it up. Prepare for the double media blitz on the virus AND the
economy tanking as its result.
Don't forget the Russians.. They have to be to blame. See they just kept the price of oil low
so now the rest of the world gets gas cheaper than the USA. The USA motorist now has to bail
out the dopey frackers and shale oil ponzis.
Global envy will eat murica. Maybe they will just pull out all their troops and go home.
;)
As far as I know, no one here has mentioned that because of the
globalization drive by Clinton, Bush, and Obama, 85% of the medicines
used in the United States are manufactured in China. Even U.S. troops
depend on medicines from China! China could bring the entire health
system in the U.S. to a stop in a matter of months. This is what our inept
elites have done to America – they gave away the shop. People are beginning
to realize that manufacturing our own medicines is a matter of national
security but it'll take years to bring the factories back to the U.S. So
much for globalization.
Rod Dreher's blog IMHO is the best source for quick info on the coronavirus
because he is in touch with American M.D.'s who are married to women
from China who in turn are in contact with relatives at home and the Chinese
media. Of course, Rod himself can be hysterical at times but, apparently,
that's what it takes to have a successful blog. The M.D.'s are reporting
that the U.S. is already beginning to run out of certain medications, and
recommend stocking up on the basic necessities, i.e., recommend assuming
the mental framework of the survivalists – have plenty of canned goods, etc
and refill your prescriptions ASAP. This is what many people here seem to
forget – the coronavirus's indirect effects due to having no access to medications
may be much worse than the direct pathogenic effects.
The term Globalism has been around from at least the 1960's but its origins come from Cecil
Rhodes Round Tables which were set up around 1900 as a mechanism for Rhodes and his allies from
the British and South African Oligarchs to take over the world. Globalism is another term for
Neoliberalism, which is another term for Corporatism. It is principally pushed by Fake Liberals
who pretend to be lefties, but are actually Corporatists or Corporate Fascists.
Globalism
The aim of Globalism is to transfer all power and wealth from ordinary people to a handful
of Banking Elites, Oligarchs and major Corporate CEO's. The ultimate aim is to set up an anti
democratic, authoritarian one world government where ordinary people are effectively serfs and
have no say, in a system of Neo-Feudalism. We are very nearly already there.
This is being constantly carried out by transferring ever increasing powers from elected
local governments to massive governmental Super States, such as the EU or the Federal
government in Washington DC.
A great example of a Globalist policy was Obama's Corporate Power Grab TPP and TTIP,
Corporate protectionist deals, which transferred power from elected legislatures to
transnational tribunals staffed by Corporate lawyers acting as Judge and Jury.
"Neo-libs" are NOT Centrists. They are extremist supporters of Perpetual War, Corruption,
Corporatism, Authoritarianism & the Transfer of all wealth & power from ordinary ppl to
the Oligarchs & CEOs in the top 0.01%.
"... the American-led takedown of the post-World War II international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. ..."
"... The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices that the political system does not. ..."
I think this would be very informative for anybody seriously interested in the USA foreign
policy. Listening to him is so sad to realize that instead of person of his caliber we have
Pompous Pompeo, who forever is frozen on the level of a tank repair mechanical engineer, as
the Secretary of State.
Published on Feb 24, 2020
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior.
The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly
disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job,
there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of
international best practices that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson
Institute for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of
Defense, ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm),
acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at
both Bangkok and Beijing. He began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in
Chinese affairs. (He was the principal American interpreter during President Nixon's visit
to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several
well-received books on statecraft and diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing
Misadventures in the Middle East was published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China,
America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige, appeared in March 2013. America's
Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the most recent revision of The
Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. He
was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on "diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the
Harvard Law School.
He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than three
decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions,
joint ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other
countries.
He is the author of several books including the most recent
Interesting times: China, America, and the shifting balance of prestige
(2013)
"... Corbyn's weakness was always the elephant in the room but was fully revealed when he had to step up to plate and fight. No leader can survive without being able to fight his enemies and no country should be led by such a person. Saddly he squandered the enormous opportunity handed to him in the last election: in hindsight, that opportunity was handed to him by an electorate steeped in wishful thinking ..."
"... Of course it's criticism of the state of Israel. And of course that's not anti-Semitism. But the label "anti-Semitism" is the kiss of death to the executive class i.e. that middle layer who "inform" the masses. If you are one of them and you get called "anti-Semitic", it's the equivalent of your boss saying, "I want a word – and bring your coat!" ..."
"... Corbyn seems like a nice enough guy, an honest, yet unremarkable footsoldier MP, but the idea he was suited to leading the Labour Party into an epic struggle with a revitalised Tory Party under a strong leader like Boris Johnson, is a fantastic notion. Johnson had to be cut down to size, before the election. ..."
"... And, finally, Corbyn could have turned the media bias against him to his advantage, only he's not suited to the strategy that's required. That strategy is the one Donald Trump employed, taking on the media and identifying them as the enemy and explaining why they publish lies. Corbyn should have publically taken on both the Guardian and the BBC, rather than appeasing them, unsuccessfully, because appeasing them isn't possible. ..."
"... Why didn't Corbyn express anger and shock when he was accused of being a paedophile, sorry, an anti-Semite? Those MPs who went along with that sordid narrative, should have been kicked out of Labour immediately by Corbyn himself. ..."
"... "A big part of why Labor and Corbyn lost so badly is the complete abdication of "the Left" on Brexit. The left were supposed to be anti-globalists, in which case their task was to join battle offering an egalitarian, left-populist version of Brexit which would have benefited the people. Instead, faced with a real decision and a real opportunity they punted and ran home to globalist mama. This removed one of the main reasons to bother supporting them. ..."
"... The point about the EU not being directly responsible for Tory austerity is technically true but it is nonetheless a neo liberal monster crushing the shit out of the most vulnerable ..."
"... Especially when it comes to countries like Greece. I don't understand the constant veneration of the EU. By design, our membership did nothing to protect us from the carnage of this Tory crime wave. The EUs constitutional arrangements contains baked in obligations to maintain permanent austerity in the service of ever greater corporate profit. ..."
No one feels like recalling, for example, that more people voted against the Tories than for them (13.9mn for and 16.2mn against).
Or that 10.3 million people still voted Labour despite the entirety of the unprecedentedly vicious and Stalinist hate campaign
conducted against them – and Corbyn in particular – since the latter became leader in 2015.
Which fact, along with Labour's near-win in 2017 and the surprise Brexit victory in 2016, implies the mainstream media's ability
to direct and manipulate public opinion is a lot less wholesale and guaranteed than we oftentimes assume, and that this is unlikely
to be a single explanation for yesterday's result.
More importantly, no one – even those who are boggling at the implausibility – is questioning the validity of the result.
No one.
It's as if even suggesting election fraud can happen in a nice majority-white western country like the UK is improper and disrespectful.
Election fraud is – as every good racist knows – done by brown people or Orientals, or 'corrupt' eastern European nations, not by
fine upstanding empire builders like the British.
This seems to be so much of a given that the results of any vote are simply accepted as 100% valid – no matter how improbable
they may seem.
And apparently even in the face of clear evidence for at least some level of shady activity.
Remember this? It only happened on Wednesday but it's already some way down the Memory Hole.
There's been a lot of effort expended in
minimising the significance of this in social media and in the mainstream press – and indeed by resident trolls on OffG. There
have been claims it's 'routine' – as if that somehow makes it ok. Or that Kuenssberg was misinformed, or 'tired'.
And after all this, Labour heartlands – red since World War 2, through Thatcher and Foot and every anti-Labour hate campaign the
media could muster – all voted Conservative?
Does that seem likely?
I don't know, all I do know is I think that discussion needs to start. I think it's time to think the unthinkable, and at least
open the prospect of electoral fraud up for real discussion.
How secure is our electoral process? Can results be stage-managed, massaged or even rigged? What guarantees do we have that this
can't happen here? In an age of growing corruption and decay at the very top, do the checks and balances placed to safeguard our
democracy sill work well, or even at all?
This Friday the Thirteenth, with BoJo the Evil Clown back in Downing Street, looks like a good moment to get it going.
aspnaz ,
Corbyn's weakness was always the elephant in the room but was fully revealed when he had to step up to plate and fight. No
leader can survive without being able to fight his enemies and no country should be led by such a person. Saddly he squandered
the enormous opportunity handed to him in the last election: in hindsight, that opportunity was handed to him by an electorate
steeped in wishful thinking. Should he apologise to his supporters, probably not, they backed the wrong horse but the limp
was visible from day one.
That inequality and poverty will continue increasing under neoliberal economic policies, and the majority of us will continue
being ground into the dirt, or that Julian Assange will end up in the U.S for certain to face a Stalinesque show trial, or the
observation about George Galloway.
George Mc ,
I know it's bad for my health but oh I just can't stop myself. Had another Groan trip. Here's one from that good time gal Jess
Phillips:
I only supply the link to see if anyone can see any actual content in this. I suppose it must be a real cushy number to get
paid for pitching in a lot of foaming waffle that feels purposeful but remains totally non-commital. That and those nice cheques
rolling in from that Hyslop and Merton quiz fluff.
George Mc ,
You have to understand that it's all showbiz. Why did the Tories prefer Boris to Jeremy Hunt? Because Hunt looked and sounded
like the oily little tyke everyone wanted to kick. Whereas Boris was the cutesie country womble from a Two Ronnies sketch. When
Boris appeared on his test outing as host for Hignfy, all he had to do was to be incompetent i.e. all he had to do was turn up.
Oh how we all laughed.
As for Jess – well, she's the ballsy fake prole tomboy – like a WOKE verson of Thatcha. I doubt anyone is "buying this" (to
use one of the Americanisms we'll all be spouting as we become the 51st state) but it's all part of "the movie".
ricked by its sharp thorn anywhere near the heart. Don't know what the street name will be for it but it has two current codewords
i heard 'stellar' & 'jessa'.
George Mc ,
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=When+I+said+%26%238220%3Bcome+clean%26%238221%3B+I+meant+as+...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F12%2F13%2Fboris-johnsons-incredible-landslide%2F%23comment-106199">
When I said "come clean" I meant as in "reveal yourself". I really think you should calm down. Take some deep breaths. Have a
nice cup of tea.
By all means comment, but when you slander those who actually felt it important that their vote counted, that their opinion
mattered and then were told to fuck off by the very people asking them for their opinion, its expected you get blow back, which
is what has happened.
Now, may i enquire, do you have a belief in democracy and upholding democratic outcomes, do you believe that Russian interference
actually resulted in the Brexit vote itself, and do you believe that the working class is so fucking pig ignorant that it should
never be allowed to vote.
In summation, are you a Blairite by any chance as they way you communicate shows an utter contempt for those poor sods slagged
off by Remainiacs for so long to just fuck off.
As for economic decline, strange, but the UK is one of the top 10 wealthy nations globally, much of said wealth now from the
FIRE Economy, which means its extractive and put to no real purpose, whilst the break-up of the Union is up to the constituent
parts itself – as i support Irish reunification, i don't weep for Northern Ireland, whilst the Scots have every right o be free
of Westminster, its not as if they held an actual Referedum on it prior to the signing of the Act of Union is it.
And as for wales, well, here's a small country who's political establishment are incapable of recognising it elected to Leave
the EU, which sometimes has aspirations itself to Independence, an Independence it will never gain due to the fact nearly 800K
English live within our lands, but the fantasists persist none the less.
Now, as the EU, via the Treaty named after Lisbon is very much a neoliberal organisation, one that puts monetary union above
the welfare of its own citizens, please explain why I must support such an Institution that does not benefit the average Joe in
most member States?
Alan Tench ,
What you must remember is that a democratic decision isn't always a good one. In my view, the current one concerning Brexit, is
a bad one. The fact that a majority support it doesn't make it good or right. We just have to live with it. Consider the death
penalty. I'm sure the vast majority of voters in this country would vote in favour of it. Would that might it right?
Ruth ,
Don't blame them. In all likelihood they had their votes hijacked by MI5
Alan Tench ,
All this anti-Semitism stuff – anyone know what it's about? I assume it had zero influence on the electorate. Just how does it
manifest itself? Is most of it – maybe nearly all of it – concerned with criticism of the state of Israel? If so, it's not anti-Semitism
.
George Mc ,
Of course it's criticism of the state of Israel. And of course that's not anti-Semitism. But the label "anti-Semitism" is
the kiss of death to the executive class i.e. that middle layer who "inform" the masses. If you are one of them and you get called
"anti-Semitic", it's the equivalent of your boss saying, "I want a word – and bring your coat!"
MichaelK ,
I think the Labour Party's election strategy, and long before, was fatally flawed. I'm shocked by it. How bad it was. First they
should never have agreed to an election at this time. Wait, at least until Spring. The idea, surely, was to keep weakening Johnson's
brand and splitting the Tories apart. Johnson wanted an election for obvious reasons, that alone should have meant that one did
everything in one's power not to give him what he wanted. Labour did the exact opposite of what they should have done, march onto
a battleground chose by Johnson.
Of course one can argue that the liberals and the SNP had already hinted that they would support Johnson's demand, but Labour
could have 'bought them off' with a little effort. Give the SNP a pledge on a second referendum and give the Liberals a guarantee
of electoral reform, whatever.
The Liberals actually had an even more stupid and incompetent leadership than Labour and suffered a terrible defeat too. Why
is it that it's only the Tories who know how to play the election game, usually?
Corbyn seems like a nice enough guy, an honest, yet unremarkable footsoldier MP, but the idea he was suited to leading
the Labour Party into an epic struggle with a revitalised Tory Party under a strong leader like Boris Johnson, is a fantastic
notion. Johnson had to be cut down to size, before the election.
Allowing the Tories to become the People's Party, the Brexit Party in all but name; was a catastrohic mistake by Labour; unforegivabel
really.
And, finally, Corbyn could have turned the media bias against him to his advantage, only he's not suited to the strategy
that's required. That strategy is the one Donald Trump employed, taking on the media and identifying them as the enemy and explaining
why they publish lies. Corbyn should have publically taken on both the Guardian and the BBC, rather than appeasing them, unsuccessfully,
because appeasing them isn't possible.
Why didn't Corbyn express anger and shock when he was accused of being a paedophile, sorry, an anti-Semite? Those MPs who
went along with that sordid narrative, should have been kicked out of Labour immediately by Corbyn himself. He needed to
be far more aggressive and proactive, taking the fight to his enemies and using his position to crush them at once. Call me a
kiddy fiddler and I'll rip your fucking throat out! Only Corbyn was passive, defencesive, apathetic and totally hopeless when
smeared so terribly. People don't respect a coward, they do respect someone who fights back and sounds righteously angry at being
smeared so falsely. Corbyn looked and sounded like someone who had something to hide and appologise about, which only encouraged
the Israeli lobby to attack him even more! Un-fuckin' believable.
What's tragic is that the right understood Corbyn's weaknesses and character far better than his supporters, and how to destroy
him.
Ruth ,
I agree with you about the election timing
Derek ,
And, finally, Corbyn could have turned the media bias against him to his advantage, only he's not suited to the strategy that's
required.
Yes you are absolutely right, he should have stolen a journalists phone or hid in a fridge, maybe stare at the ground when
shown a picture of a child sleeping on a hospital floor. Now that's turning turning events to your advantage right?
He made many mistakes and you are right, but caving into "remain" the perceived overturning of the referendum by the Labour
party is what dunnit, the final nail in his coffin. I am sorry to see him go.
tonyopmoc ,
Judging by the spelling of "Labour", I guess an American wrote this on The Moon of Alabama's blog. It is however very accurate
and I know that MOA is a German man, running his blog from Germany. His analyses, are some of the best in the world.
Tony
"A big part of why Labor and Corbyn lost so badly is the complete abdication of "the Left" on Brexit. The left were supposed
to be anti-globalists, in which case their task was to join battle offering an egalitarian, left-populist version of Brexit which
would have benefited the people. Instead, faced with a real decision and a real opportunity they punted and ran home to globalist
mama. This removed one of the main reasons to bother supporting them.
Posted by: Russ | Dec 13 2019 7:09 utc | 33″
MichaelK ,
I thought the left were supposed to be internationalists too? I dunno. I think they should never have supported the referendum
scam in the first place. If the Tories wanted it, that alone should have made them oppose it. Look at what's happened, the referendum
and Brexit have massively benefitted the Tories and crushed everyone else. Isn't that an objective fact, or am I missing something;
seriously?
What does 'anti-globalist' really mean? The tragedy was allowing the Tories to blame Europe for the devastating consequences
of their own 'austerity' policies which hit the North so hard. These policies originated in London, not Bruxelles!
The truth is harsh. Corbyn was a terrible leader with awfully confused policies that he couldn't articulate properly and a
team around him that were just as bad.
Pam Ryan ,
The point about the EU not being directly responsible for Tory austerity is technically true but it is nonetheless a neo liberal
monster crushing the shit out of the most vulnerable.
Especially when it comes to countries like Greece. I don't understand the constant veneration of the EU. By design, our
membership did nothing to protect us from the carnage of this Tory crime wave. The EUs constitutional arrangements contains baked
in obligations to maintain permanent austerity in the service of ever greater corporate profit.
Thom ,
'Incredible' is the word. We're expected to believe that for all his personal and intellectual flaws, Johnson achieved a landslide
on the scale of Blair and Thatcher; that he drew in Leave supporters from traditional Labour voters while holding on to Remain
Tories; that all three major UK opposition parties flopped, including the one party pushing for outright Remain; and that turnout
fell even though millions registered just before the election. Sorry, but it doesn't add up.
nottheonly1 ,
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=What+just+happened+was+an+inverted+U.S.+selectio...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F12%2F13%2Fboris-johnsons-incredible-landslide%2F%23comment-106262">
What just happened was an inverted U.S. selection. In the U.S., a confused rich man got elected, because the alternative was a
psychopathic war criminal. In the U.K. a confused upper class twat got elected, because the alternative was too good to be true.
Something like that?
tonyopmoc ,
Something strange going on in Sedgefield. What the hell is Boris Johnson doing there today? Tony Blair Labour, Boris Johnson
Tory. What's the difference? Same neocons. Same sh1t?
tonyopmoc ,
Dungroanin, Jeremy Corbyn is 70 now. He's done his bit. Now its time for him to take it easy.
Incidentally "Viscount Palmerston was over 70 when he finally became Prime Minister: the most advanced age at which anyone
has ever become Prime Minister for the first time."
George Mc ,
The Groan is keen to highlight the sheer thanklessness of the BBC's undying fight to objectively bring The Truth to the masses:
And for all the tireless work they do, they are open to accusations of "conspiracy theory" and worse:
"The conspiracy theories that abound are frustrating. And let's be clear – some of the abuse which is directed at our journalists
who are doing their best for audiences day in, day out is sickening. It shouldn't happen. And I think it's something social
media platforms really need to do more about."
Sickening social media abuse? Echoes of all those frightfully uncivil – and never verified – messages that wrecked poor little
Ruth Smeeth's delicate health.
Thom ,
The only way the BBC and Guardian will understand if people don't pay the licence fee and don't click on their articles (and obviously
don't contribute!). Hit them in the pockets.
George Mc ,
It didn't take long for the Groaniad to "dissect" the Labour defeat. Here we get THE FIVE REASONS Labour lost the election:
Interesting. Note the space given to Blairite toadies Ruth Smeeth and Caroline Flint. Note the disingenuousness of this:
"In London, antisemitism and what people perceived as the absence of an apology appeared to be a key issue."
It's always suspicious when we get that expression "what people perceived". What "people"? And note that the dubiousness relates
to the absence of an apology for anti-Semitism – not the anti-Semitism itself which is, of course, taken for granted.
Also note the conclusion:
"With a new Conservative government led by Boris Johnson poised for office, the Guardian's independent, measured, authoritative
reporting has never been so vital."
Yes – The Groaniad is yer man, yer champion, yer hero!
"... Neoliberalism and its usual prescriptions – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion of mainstream economics. ..."
"... The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation, privatisation or fiscal austerity. Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash. ..."
"... The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated with two developments, neither of which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008 financial crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle . The second was economic globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious type of trade agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world. ..."
"... That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders, does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that centre-left politicians – Democrats in the US, socialists and social democrats in Europe – enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatisation, financial liberalisation and individual enterprise? Much of our contemporary policy discussion remains infused with principles supposedly grounded in the concept of homo economicus , the perfectly rational human being, found in many economic theories, who always pursues his own self-interest. ..."
Neoliberalism and its usual prescriptions – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion of
mainstream economics.
As even its harshest critics concede, neoliberalism is hard to pin down. In broad terms, it
denotes a preference for markets over government, economic incentives over cultural norms, and
private entrepreneurship over collective action. It has been used to describe a wide range of
phenomena – from Augusto Pinochet to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, from the
Clinton Democrats and the UK's New Labour to the economic opening in China and the reform of
the welfare state in Sweden.
The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation,
privatisation or fiscal austerity. Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas
and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of
our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash.
We live in the age of neoliberalism, apparently. But who are neoliberalism's adherents and
disseminators – the neoliberals themselves? Oddly, you have to go back a long time to
find anyone explicitly embracing neoliberalism. In 1982, Charles Peters, the longtime editor of
the political magazine Washington Monthly, published an essay titled
A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto . It makes for interesting reading 35 years later, since the
neoliberalism it describes bears little resemblance to today's target of derision. The
politicians Peters names as exemplifying the movement are not the likes of Thatcher and Reagan,
but rather liberals – in the US sense of the word – who have become disillusioned
with unions and big government and dropped their prejudices against markets and the
military.
The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated
with two developments, neither of which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was
financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008
financial crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle . The second was economic
globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious
type of trade agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt
manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world.
That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders,
does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a
decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that centre-left politicians –
Democrats in the US, socialists and social democrats in Europe – enthusiastically adopted
some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatisation,
financial liberalisation and individual enterprise? Much of our contemporary policy discussion
remains infused with principles supposedly grounded in the concept of homo
economicus , the perfectly rational human being, found in many economic theories, who
always pursues his own self-interest.
But the looseness of the term neoliberalism also means that criticism of it often misses the
mark. There is nothing wrong with markets, private entrepreneurship or incentives – when
deployed appropriately. Their creative use lies behind the most significant economic
achievements of our time. As we heap scorn on neoliberalism, we risk throwing out some of
neoliberalism's useful ideas.
The real trouble is that mainstream economics shades too easily into ideology, constraining
the choices that we appear to have and providing cookie-cutter solutions. A proper
understanding of the economics that lie behind neoliberalism would allow us to identify –
and to reject – ideology when it masquerades as economic science. Most importantly, it
would help us to develop the institutional imagination we badly need to redesign capitalism for
the 21st century.
N eoliberalism is typically understood as being based on key tenets of mainstream economic
science. To see those tenets without the ideology, consider this thought experiment. A
well-known and highly regarded economist lands in a country he has never visited and knows
nothing about. He is brought to a meeting with the country's leading policymakers. "Our country
is in trouble," they tell him. "The economy is stagnant, investment is low, and there is no
growth in sight." They turn to him expectantly: "Please tell us what we should do to make our
economy grow."
The economist pleads ignorance and explains that he knows too little about the country to
make any recommendations. He would need to study the history of the economy, to analyse the
statistics, and to travel around the country before he could say anything.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest Tony Blair and Bill Clinton: centre-left politicians who enthusiastically
adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism. Photograph: Reuters
But his hosts are insistent. "We understand your reticence, and we wish you had the time for
all that," they tell him. "But isn't economics a science, and aren't you one of its most
distinguished practitioners? Even though you do not know much about our economy, surely there
are some general theories and prescriptions you can share with us to guide our economic
policies and reforms."
The economist is now in a bind. He does not want to emulate those economic gurus he has long
criticised for peddling their favourite policy advice. But he feels challenged by the question.
Are there universal truths in economics? Can he say anything valid or useful?
So he begins. The efficiency with which an economy's resources are allocated is a critical
determinant of the economy's performance, he says. Efficiency, in turn, requires aligning the
incentives of households and businesses with social costs and benefits. The incentives faced by
entrepreneurs, investors and producers are particularly important when it comes to economic
growth. Growth needs a system of property rights and contract enforcement that will ensure
those who invest can retain the returns on their investments. And the economy must be open to
ideas and innovations from the rest of the world.
But economies can be derailed by macroeconomic instability, he goes on. Governments must
therefore pursue a sound
monetary policy , which means restricting the growth of liquidity to the increase in
nominal money demand at reasonable inflation. They must ensure fiscal sustainability, so that
the increase in public debt does not outpace national income. And they must carry out
prudential regulation of banks and other financial institutions to prevent the financial system
from taking excessive risk.
Now he is warming to his task. Economics is not just about efficiency and growth, he adds.
Economic principles also carry over to equity and social policy. Economics has little to say about how
much redistribution a society should seek. But it does tell us that the tax base should be as
broad as possible, and that social programmes should be designed in a way that does not
encourage workers to drop out of the labour market.
By the time the economist stops, it appears as if he has laid out a fully fledged neoliberal
agenda. A critic in the audience will have heard all the code words: efficiency, incentives,
property rights, sound money, fiscal prudence. And yet the universal principles that the
economist describes are in fact quite open-ended. They presume a capitalist economy – one
in which investment decisions are made by private individuals and firms – but not much
beyond that. They allow for – indeed, they require – a surprising variety of
institutional arrangements.
So has the economist just delivered a neoliberal screed? We would be mistaken to think so,
and our mistake would consist of associating each abstract term – incentives, property
rights, sound money – with a particular institutional counterpart. And therein lies the
central conceit, and the fatal flaw, of neoliberalism: the belief that first-order economic
principles map on to a unique set of policies, approximated by a Thatcher/Reagan-style
agenda.
Consider property rights. They matter insofar as they allocate returns on investments. An
optimal system would distribute property rights to those who would make the best use of an
asset, and afford protection against those most likely to expropriate the returns. Property
rights are good when they protect innovators from free riders, but they are bad when they
protect them from competition. Depending on the context, a legal regime that provides the
appropriate incentives can look quite different from the standard US-style regime of private
property rights.
This may seem like a semantic point with little practical import; but China's phenomenal
economic success is largely due to its orthodoxy-defying institutional tinkering. China turned
to markets, but did not copy western practices in property rights. Its reforms produced
market-based incentives through a series of unusual institutional arrangements that were better
adapted to the local context. Rather than move directly from state to private ownership, for
example, which would have been stymied by the weakness of the prevailing legal structures, the
country relied on mixed forms of ownership that provided more effective property rights for
entrepreneurs in practice. Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), which spearheaded Chinese
economic growth during the 1980s, were collectives owned and controlled by local governments.
Even though TVEs were publicly owned, entrepreneurs received the protection they needed against
expropriation. Local governments had a direct stake in the profits of the firms, and hence did
not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
China relied on a range of such innovations, each delivering the economist's higher-order
economic principles in unfamiliar institutional arrangements. For instance, it shielded its
large state sector from global competition, establishing special economic zones where foreign
firms could operate with different rules than in the rest of the economy. In view of such
departures from orthodox blueprints, describing China's economic reforms as neoliberal –
as critics are inclined to do – distorts more than it reveals. If we are to call this
neoliberalism, we must surely look more kindly on the ideas behind the most dramatic
poverty reduction in history.
One might protest that China's institutional innovations were purely transitional. Perhaps
it will have to converge on western-style institutions to sustain its economic progress. But
this common line of thinking overlooks the diversity of capitalist arrangements that still
prevails among advanced economies, despite the considerable homogenisation of our policy
discourse.
What, after all, are western institutions? The size of the public sector in OECD countries
varies, from a third of the economy in Korea to nearly 60% in Finland. In Iceland, 86% of
workers are members of a trade union; the comparable number in Switzerland is just 16%. In the
US, firms can fire workers almost at will;
French labour laws have historically required employers to jump through many hoops first.
Stock markets have grown to a total value of nearly one-and-a-half times GDP in the US; in
Germany, they are only a third as large, equivalent to just 50% of GDP.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest 'China turned to markets, but did not copy western practices ... '
Photograph: AFP/Getty
The idea that any one of these models of taxation, labour relations or financial
organisation is inherently superior to the others is belied by the varying economic fortunes
that each of these economies have experienced over recent decades. The US has gone through
successive periods of angst in which its economic institutions were judged inferior to those in
Germany, Japan, China, and now possibly Germany again. Certainly, comparable levels of wealth
and productivity can be produced under very different models of capitalism. We might even go a
step further: today's prevailing models probably come nowhere near exhausting the range of what
might be possible, and desirable, in the future.
The visiting economist in our thought experiment knows all this, and recognises that the
principles he has enunciated need to be filled in with institutional detail before they become
operational. Property rights? Yes, but how? Sound money? Of course, but how? It would perhaps
be easier to criticise his list of principles for being vacuous than to denounce it as a
neoliberal screed.
Still, these principles are not entirely content-free. China, and indeed all countries that
managed to develop rapidly, demonstrate the utility of those principles once they are properly
adapted to local context. Conversely, too many economies have been driven to ruin courtesy of
political leaders who chose to violate them. We need look no further than
Latin American populists or eastern European communist regimes to appreciate the practical
significance of sound money, fiscal sustainability and private incentives.
O f course, economics goes beyond a list of abstract, largely common-sense principles. Much
of the work of economists consists of developing
stylised models of how economies work and then confronting those models with evidence.
Economists tend to think of what they do as progressively refining their understanding of the
world: their models are supposed to get better and better as they are tested and revised over
time. But progress in economics happens differently.
Economists study a social reality that is unlike the physical universe. It is completely
manmade, highly malleable and operates according to different rules across time and space.
Economics advances
not by settling on the right model or theory to answer such questions, but by improving our
understanding of the diversity of causal relationships. Neoliberalism and its customary
remedies – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion
of mainstream economics. Good economists know that the correct answer to any question in
economics is: it depends.
Does an increase in the minimum wage depress employment? Yes, if the labour market is really
competitive and employers have no control over the wage they must pay to attract workers; but
not necessarily otherwise. Does trade liberalisation increase economic growth? Yes, if it
increases the profitability of industries where the bulk of investment and innovation takes
place; but not otherwise. Does more government spending increase employment? Yes, if there is
slack in the economy and wages do not rise; but not otherwise. Does monopoly harm innovation?
Yes and no, depending on a whole host of market circumstances.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest 'Today [neoliberalism] is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas
that have produced growing economic inequality and precipitated our current populist backlash'
Trump signing an order to take the US out of the TPP trade pact. Photograph: AFP/Getty
In economics, new models rarely supplant older models. The basic competitive-markets model
dating back to Adam Smith has been modified over time by the inclusion, in rough historical
order, of monopoly, externalities, scale economies, incomplete and asymmetric information,
irrational behaviour and many other real-world features. But the older models remain as useful
as ever. Understanding how real markets operate necessitates using different lenses at
different times.
Perhaps maps offer the best analogy. Just like economic models, maps are highly
stylised representations of reality . They are useful precisely because they abstract from
many real-world details that would get in the way. But abstraction also implies that we need a
different map depending on the nature of our journey. If we are travelling by bike, we need a
map of bike trails. If we are to go on foot, we need a map of footpaths. If a new subway is
constructed, we will need a subway map – but we wouldn't throw out the older maps.
Economists tend to be very good at making maps, but not good enough at choosing the one most
suited to the task at hand. When confronted with policy questions of the type our visiting
economist faces, too many of them resort to "benchmark" models that favour the
laissez-faire approach. Kneejerk solutions and hubris replace the richness and humility of
the discussion in the seminar room. John Maynard Keynes once defined economics as the "science
of thinking in terms of models, joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant".
Economists typically have trouble with the "art" part.
This, too, can be illustrated with a parable. A journalist calls an economics professor for
his view on whether free trade is a good idea. The professor responds enthusiastically in the
affirmative. The journalist then goes undercover as a student in the professor's advanced
graduate seminar on international trade. He poses the same question: is free trade good? This
time the professor is stymied. "What do you mean by 'good'?" he responds. "And good for whom?"
The professor then launches into an extensive exegesis that will ultimately culminate in a
heavily hedged statement: "So if the long list of conditions I have just described are
satisfied, and assuming we can tax the beneficiaries to compensate the losers, freer trade has
the potential to increase everyone's wellbeing." If he is in an expansive mood, the professor
might add that the effect of free trade on an economy's longterm growth rate is not clear
either, and would depend on an altogether different set of requirements.
This professor is rather different from the one the journalist encountered previously. On
the record, he exudes self-confidence, not reticence, about the appropriate policy. There is
one and only one model, at least as far as the public conversation is concerned, and there is a
single correct answer, regardless of context. Strangely, the professor deems the knowledge that
he imparts to his advanced students to be inappropriate (or dangerous) for the general public.
Why?
The roots of such behaviour lie deep in the culture of the economics profession. But one
important motive is the zeal to display the profession's crown jewels – market
efficiency, the invisible hand, comparative advantage – in untarnished form, and to
shield them from attack by self-interested barbarians, namely
the protectionists . Unfortunately, these economists typically ignore the barbarians on the
other side of the issue – financiers and multinational corporations whose motives are no
purer and who are all too ready to hijack these ideas for their own benefit.
As a result, economists' contributions to public debate are often biased in one direction,
in favour of more trade, more finance and less government. That is why economists have
developed a reputation as cheerleaders for neoliberalism, even if mainstream economics is very
far from a paean to laissez-faire. The economists who let their enthusiasm for free markets run
wild are in fact not being true to their own discipline.
H ow then should we think about globalisation in order to liberate it from the grip of
neoliberal practices? We must begin by understanding the positive potential of global markets.
Access to world markets in goods, technologies and capital has played an important role in
virtually all of the economic miracles of our time. China is the most recent and powerful
reminder of this historical truth, but it is not the only case. Before China, similar miracles
were performed by South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and a few non-Asian countries such as Mauritius
. All of these countries embraced globalisation rather than turn their backs on it, and they
benefited handsomely.
Defenders of the existing economic order will quickly point to these examples when
globalisation comes into question. What they will fail to say is that almost all of these
countries joined the world economy by violating neoliberal strictures. South Korea and Taiwan,
for instance, heavily subsidised their exporters, the former through the financial system and
the latter through tax incentives. All of them eventually removed most of their import
restrictions, long after economic growth had taken off.
But none, with the sole exception of Chile in the 1980s under Pinochet, followed the
neoliberal recommendation of a rapid opening-up to imports. Chile's
neoliberal experiment eventually produced the worst economic crisis in all of Latin
America. While the details differ across countries, in all cases governments played an active
role in restructuring the economy and buffering it against a volatile external environment.
Industrial policies, restrictions on capital flows and currency controls – all prohibited
in the neoliberal playbook – were rampant.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest Protest against Nafta in Mexico City in 2008: since the reforms of the
mid-90s, the country's economy has underperformed. Photograph: EPA
By contrast, countries that stuck closest to the neoliberal model of globalisation were
sorely disappointed. Mexico provides a particularly sad example. Following a series of
macroeconomic crises in the mid-1990s, Mexico embraced macroeconomic orthodoxy, extensively
liberalised its economy, freed up the financial system, sharply reduced import restrictions and
signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). These policies did produce
macroeconomic stability and a significant rise in foreign trade and internal investment. But
where it counts – in overall productivity and economic growth – the
experiment failed . Since undertaking the reforms, overall productivity in Mexico has
stagnated, and the economy has underperformed even by the undemanding standards of Latin
America.
These outcomes are not a surprise from the perspective of sound economics. They are yet
another manifestation of the need for economic policies to be attuned to the failures to which
markets are prone, and to be tailored to the specific circumstances of each country. No single
blueprint fits all.
A s Peters's 1982 manifesto attests, the meaning of neoliberalism has changed considerably
over time as the label has acquired harder-line connotations with respect to deregulation,
financialisation and globalisation. But there is one thread that connects all versions of
neoliberalism, and that is the
emphasis on economic growth . Peters wrote in 1982 that the emphasis was warranted because
growth is essential to all our social and political ends – community, democracy,
prosperity. Entrepreneurship, private investment and removing obstacles that stand in the way
(such as excessive regulation) were all instruments for achieving economic growth. If a similar
neoliberal manifesto were penned today, it would no doubt make the same point.
Critics often point out that this emphasis on economics debases and sacrifices other
important values such as equality, social inclusion, democratic deliberation and justice. Those
political and social objectives obviously matter enormously, and in some contexts they matter
the most. They cannot always, or even often, be achieved by means of technocratic economic
policies; politics must play a central role.
Still, neoliberals are not wrong when they argue that our most cherished ideals are more
likely to be attained when our economy is vibrant, strong and growing. Where they are wrong is
in believing that there is a unique and universal recipe for improving economic performance, to
which they have access. The fatal flaw of neoliberalism is that it does not even get the
economics right. It must be rejected on its own terms for the simple reason that it is bad
economics.
A version of this article first appeared in Boston
Review
In unusually blunt statements, top Chinese officials hit back during last weekend's Munich Security Conference at Washington's
confrontational stance toward Beijing on a range of issues, including the Chinese tech giant Huawei and China's response to the coronavirus.
Trump administration officials, supported to the hilt by top Democrats, took a particularly aggressive attitude at the conference,
warning European powers that intelligence sharing could end if Huawei equipment were used in building 5G telecommunications networks.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo branded "Huawei and other Chinese state-backed tech companies" as "Trojan horses for Chinese
intelligence." In his speech, US Defence Secretary Mark Esper accused Beijing of carrying out a "nefarious strategy" through Huawei.
In a bid to intensify its pressure on its European allies, the US last week announced new charges of racketeering and theft of
trade secrets against Huawei. These follow the arrest of the company's chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, in Canada last year
after the US filed charges of fraud and sanctions evasion, and sought her extradition.
Esper made clear that the US attack on China was across the board. He declared that under President Xi Jinping's rule, "the Chinese
Communist Party is heading even faster and further in the wrong direction -- more internal repression, more predatory economic practices,
more heavy-handedness, and most concerning for me, a more aggressive military posture."
Asked about the speeches by Pompeo and Esper, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi did not mince words, branding the US allegations
as "lies." He said their remarks were part of "a common scenario" everywhere they went. "I don't want to waste our time responding
to each and every thing they've said. The thing I want to say is that all these accusations against China are lies and not based
on facts."
Wang pointed to the driving force behind the confrontation -- the US drive to ensure its continued global domination by every
available means. "The root cause of all these problems and issues is that the US does not want to see the rapid development and rejuvenation
of China, still less would they want to accept the success of a socialist country, but that is not fair, China has the right to develop."
China, with its burgeoning markets, stock exchanges, billionaires and deep social divide, is not a socialist country. In fact,
Huawei, as Wang said in countering US criticism, is a privately-owned company: the world's largest telecommunications equipment provider
with nearly 200,000 employees.
Wang described the US attack on Huawei as "immoral" and asked: "Why can't America accept that other countries' companies can also
display their talent in the economy, in technology? Perhaps deep down, it doesn't hope to see other countries develop." He accused
the US of resorting to rumours to defame Huawei and declared there was no credible evidence that the company has a so-called back
door that harms US security.
The US accusations against China and Huawei are utterly hypocritical. The revelations by the whistleblower Edward Snowden demonstrated
that the US routinely spies electronically on the world's population, including governments and government leaders, allies and rivals
alike, as well as its own citizens.
The US intelligence establishment has long relied on electronic "back doors" provided by American tech corporations to gather
intelligence. The use of Huawei equipment not only threatens the economic position of US companies, but could undermine US spying
operations.
China's forthright push back against heavy US criticism in Munich stems firstly from the relentless campaign by Washington, not
only in propaganda, but through trade war measures and a huge military build-up in Asia against Beijing. Secondly, the Chinese regime
is seeking support from the European powers. Wang's comments gained traction in Munich amid deepening conflicts between the US and
its erstwhile European allies.
Britain has given the go-ahead for the inclusion of Huawei components in non-core aspects of its 5G rollout, while Germany and
France have signaled they will do the same. The European decisions are largely driven by technical and economic factors, as Huawei
is a leader in 5G technology and produces at a lower cost.
Washington's threats to end intelligence-sharing arrangements with the European powers could end up affecting US spying operations
as much as those of its European rivals. The New York Times
The US has sought to exploit the coronavirus outbreak in China to add to the barrage of criticism against Beijing. Trump's
economic adviser Larry Kudlow last week complained about the lack of Chinese transparency over the disease. He declared that Washington
was disappointed that American health experts had not been allowed into China, and questioned Chinese statistics.
A considerable portion of Wang's speech to the Munich Security Conference was devoted to defending China's handling of the
outbreak. He said the coronavirus largely had been confined to the city of Wuhan and Hubei Province, and the number of cases outside
China was a small percentage of the total. Wang said this was the outcome of the rapid development of a test for the virus, the dispatch
of 20,000 health workers to the area and the building of new health facilities.
Wang said: "In the spirit of openness and transparency, we promptly notified the world about the outbreak and shared the genetic
sequence of the virus. We have been working closely with WHO [World Health Organisation], invited international experts to join our
ranks, and provided assistance and facilitation to foreign nationals in China."
In comments to Reuters, the Chinese foreign minister effectively criticised the harsh travel restrictions imposed by the US
on any foreign nationals coming from China. "Some countries have stepped up measures, including quarantine measures, which are reasonable
and understandable, but for some countries they have overreacted which has triggered unnecessary panic," he said.
If Washington expected European support on the issue, its hopes were dashed. Conference chairman Wolfgang Ischinger praised
China's response to the epidemic and declared it was "not getting a very fair deal I think China deserves a little bit of compassion
and cooperation, and encouragement rather than only criticism."
China's reaction to the US criticisms in Munich underscores again the sharpening geo-political rivalries and break-up of longstanding
alliances being fueled by worsening global economic conditions. Far from responding to the lack of support from Europe against China
by moderating its confrontation, the US will intensify its provocative campaign, not just against Beijing, but any threat to its
global position, including from its European allies.
So here we are, with a global economy that's very cost-efficient but not resilient. It's wonderful that Walmart has worked
out how to order a new tube of toothpaste from China the second one is pulled off a shelf in Topeka, KS. But that means there is
no deep storage to draw upon in times of disruption to the status quo. No warehouses stocked with 12 months of future goods.
Just a brilliantly-complicated supply chain thousands of miles long that has to work perfectly for things to keep running.
As an example that drives home this point: we learned during the 2011 earthquake in Japan
that there was just one single
factory making a necessary polymer gel for the odd-shaped lithium batteries used in
smartphones and iPods. There was no backup factory.
We watched closely during that enormous crisis (which also spawned the Fukushima nuclear
disaster) as electronics companies scrambled to triage their remaining supplies and attempt to
find new sources. It was very touch and go. Vast portions of the battery-fueled electronic
industry came within a whisker of simply shutting down production -- all for want of an
esoteric polymer gel.
Yes, the most cost-effective way to make that gel was to house it all in a single plant. But
it made no sense from a redundancy and resilience standpoint.
And did 'we' learn from that experience? Nope.
Supply Chain Armageddon
The global economy is more interdependent than ever. Its supply chains are built on a huge
network of dependencies with many 'single points of failure' strung along its many
branches.
Can anybody predict what will happen next? No.
But we're already seeing early failures as Chinese plants, factories and ports sit idle from
the country's massive quarantine efforts:
China set to lose out on production of 1M vehicles as coronavirus closes car plants
China exports about $70 billion worth of car parts and accessories globally, with roughly
20 percent going to the U.S.
Feb. 5, 2020, 4:32 PM EST
By Paul A. Eisenstein
China could suffer the loss of a million vehicles worth of production as factories in its
crucial automotive industry remain shuttered until at least next week -- and likely longer in
Wuhan, the "motor city" at the center of the coronavirus outbreak.
With more than 24,000 people infected, the impact of the highly contagious disease is also
beginning to be felt by automakers in other parts of the world. Hyundai is suspending
production in its South Korean plants because of a shortage of Chinese-made parts, and even
European car manufacturers could be hit: Volkswagen and BMW could see a dip of 5 percent in
their earnings for the first half of 2020, according to research firm Bernstein.
We're predicting that these auto shutdowns are just beginning. All it takes is a single
component to be unavailable and the entire line has to be shut down.
Is China the sole source for many critical components in the auto industry? Absolutely.
Here's an inside view:
On Monday, Steve Banker and I had the opportunity to speak with Razat Gaurav, CEO of
Llamasoft. Razat had some interesting takes on the outbreak, especially as it relates to the
automotive and pharmaceutical supply chains. On average it takes 30,000 parts to make a
finished automobile.
Due to the virus, production facilities have already indicated that they will have lower
than normal parts volumes. This has left companies scrambling to make contingency plans.
During my conversation with Razat, he mentioned that inventories for most of these automotive
parts are managed on a lean just-in-time basis.
This means that, on average, companies have anywhere between two and twelve weeks of
buffer inventory on-hand for automotive parts. As production volumes are decreasing, this has
the potential to cause quite the global shortage of parts. The buffer inventory will only
last so long, and once the pre-holiday supply runs dry, the industry is going to be in
serious trouble. According to Gaurav: " Most OEMs single source components for new vehicles
and China is a large supplier of those."
"Single sourcing" is exactly what it implies. There's a single factory somewhere churning
out a single component that is absolutely vital to make a motorized vehicle. If that factory
goes away for any length of time, a new source has to be identified or – worse, from a
time and cost standpoint – built from scratch.
But this vulnerability to China-dependent supply chains is by no means unique to the auto
industry:
Last month, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission held a hearing on the
United States' growing reliance on China's pharmaceutical products. The topic reminded me of
a spirited discussion described in Bob Woodward's book, Fear: Trump in the White House.
In the discussion, Gary Cohn, then chief economic advisor to President Trump, argued
against a trade war with China by invoking a Department of Commerce study that found that 97
percent of all antibiotics in the United States came from China.
That's as close to a 'sole source' as you can get.
And to put the cherry on top: guess the name of the region in China responsible for
producing all if these antibiotics? Yep, Hubei province. With Wuhan its most important
production hub.
Can we find another source for our generic drugs and antibiotics? India, possibly. But here
again we run into the same global interdependency issue:
Another industry that is feeling the impact of the coronavirus is the pharmaceutical
industry. The average buffer inventory for the pharmaceutical industry is between three and
six months. However, this does not tell the full story. Gaurav mentioned that China is
responsible for producing 40 percent of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for the
pharmaceutical world.
Additionally, China supplies 80 percent of key starting materials (KSM's), which are the
chemicals in APIs, to India . Put together, this represents 70 percent of all APIs across the
world.
India's production is directly tied to uninterrupted supply from China:
Indian generic drugmakers may face supply shortages from China if coronavirus drags on
Feb 13 (Reuters) – Shortages and potential price increases of generic drugs from
India loom if the coronavirus outbreak disrupts suppliers of pharmaceutical ingredients in
China past April , according to industry experts.
An important supplier of generic drugs to the world, Indian companies procure almost 70%
of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for their medicines from China.
India's generic drugmakers say they currently have enough API supplies from China to cover
their operations for up to about three months.
"We are comfortably placed with eight to 10 weeks of key inventory in place," said
Debabrata Chakravorty, head of global sourcing and supply chain for Lupin Ltd, adding that
the company does have some local suppliers for ingredients.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd said it has sufficient inventory of API and raw
materials for the short term and has not seen any major disruption in supplies at the
moment.
The Indian drugmaker, however, said supply has been impacted for a few API products and
the company is closely monitoring the situation. It did not identify the products.
India supplies nearly a third of medicines sold in the United States , the world's largest
and most lucrative healthcare market.
If you're dependent in any way on prescription drugs, it would be entirely rational to chase
down whether those come from China or India and, if they are, begin talks with your doctor
about alternatives or what to do if supplies get pinched.
A Fast-Moving Situation
Look, we entirely get why the authorities and media are downplaying the covid-19 pandemic.
We really do. They feel the need to manage the crisis, which means managing the public
narrative.
But c'mon. Does it make any sense for Apple's stock price to be up while its main Foxconn
manufacturing facility is all but completely shuttered?
Fewer iPhones and Airpods being made should equate with lower future earnings and thus a
lower stock price. But no, AAPL is up handily over the past month:
And this is even crazier. Does it make ANY sense for Boeing's stock to be up $12 over the
past month? As it reported its first year (2019) of NEGATIVE orders and a completely order-free
January (2020)? No, of course not.
But those are the sorts of 'signals' that the officials believe have to be sent in order to
keep the masses from catching on that something really concerning is happening.
Unfortunately, such signals work on the masses. Higher stock prices send a powerful
comforting message that "all is well".
But prudent critical thinkers, which defines those in the Peak Prosperity tribe, can readily
see through the ruse and get busy preparing themselves for what's coming.
It's Time For
Action
The situation with covid-19 is fluid, and fast-moving. Staying on top of the breaking
developments and making sense of them for you is our primary job.
But information without informed action is useless.
After all, knowing something concerning but then doing nothing about it is merely cause for
anxiety if not alarm.
The only ways to remain calm and protect your loved ones from the threat of this pandemic
are rooted in taking smart action.
Yes, we can all hope this blows over. We sincerely wish the macro-planners all the best in
shaping the narrative and keeping the macro economy somehow functioning and glued together.
But we're going to prepare as best we can, here at our micro level because that's our duty
to ourselves, to our families, and to our communities.
Creating A Resilient Defense
Against The Coronavirus
This is a huge moment in history. The first global pandemic at a time when the world economy
is sole-sourced and completely interdependent.
Nobody can predict what will happen next. Autos, drugs who knows what the next industry to
stumble will be?
Given the ridiculously high rate of infectivity of covid-19 there's really no chance of
stopping its spread. The rate is now just a equation of time, luck, and official actions to
aggressively isolate and quarantine infected individuals and communities.
Our position affords us many experienced contacts with experts throughout the world, and
those we know with deep medical training are preparing the most aggressively right now. This
outbreak has their full attention; and that informs us that it should have ours, too.
Which is why our advice is to get busy preparing yourself now.
Particularly useful for those who have recently found their way to PeakProsperity.com, it
offers both a valuable framework to use in preparing for any disaster (including pandemics) and
then details out specific action steps to take today across all aspects of your life (i.e., not
just health & hygiene) against a coronavirus outbreak in your local area.
That such cynicism was wholly justified became evident when Edward Snowden revealed the NSA
machinations. Soon thereafter Juniper Networks, a provider of large backbone equipment, was
found to
have at least two NSA backdoors in its operation system. Other 'western' telecommunication
equipment companies were similarly manipulated :
Even neutral countries firms are not off-limits to NSA manipulations. A former Crypto AG
employee confirmed that high-level US officials approached neutral European countries and
argued that their cooperation was essential to the Cold War struggle against the Soviets. The
NSA allegedly received support from cryptographic companies Crypto AG and Gretag AG in
Switzerland, Transvertex in Sweden, Nokia in Finland, and even newly-privatized firms in
post-Communist Hungary. In 1970, according to a secret German BND intelligence paper,
supplied to the author, the Germans planned to "fuse" the operations of three cryptographic
firms-Crypto AG, Grattner AG (another Swiss cipher firm), and Ericsson of Sweden.
So why was the allegedly secret CIA history of an already known story leaked right now? And
why was it also leaked to a German TV station?
If you want to understand why the US intelligence community is so freaked out about Huawei,
it's because they've been playing the same game for decades.
The warmed up Crypto AG story is a subtle smear piece against Huawei and Kapersky.
The U.S. wants to convince European countries to not buy Huawei products for their 5G
networks. It wants to remind them that telecommunication products can be manipulated. It wants
to instill fear that China would use Huawei to spy on foreign countries just like the U.S. used
Crypto AG.
This is also the reason for this recent misleading Reuters headline which the story
itself debunked:
"At the end of 2019, intelligence was passed to us by the U.S., according to which Huawei is
proven to have been cooperating with China's security authorities," the newspaper quoted a
confidential foreign ministry document as saying.
'U.S. intelligence' that is handed over to manipulate someone is of course not 'proof' for
anything.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared the Chinese Communist Party "the central threat of
our times" on Thursday, even as he sought to talk up the prospects of a United States trade
deal with Britain, which rebuffed American pressure to ban a Chinese company from future
telecommunications infrastructure.
The scathing criticism of the Chinese government was the strongest language Mr. Pompeo has
used as the Trump administration seeks to convince American allies of the risks posed by
using equipment from Huawei, a Chinese technology giant.
A week after Pompeo's panic message Trump took to the phone to convince Boris Johnson who
was
not impressed :
Donald Trump's previously close relationship with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson looks close
to collapse, following new revelations that the president slammed down the phone on him.
Trump's behaviour during last week's call was described by officials as
„apoplectic," and Johnson has now reportedly shelved plans for an imminent visit to
Washington.
...
The call, which one source described to the Financial Times as „very difficult," came
after Johnson defied Trump and allowed Chinese telecoms company Huawei the rights to develop
the UK's 5G network.
Trump's fury was triggered by Johnson backing Huawei despite multiple threats by Trump and
his allies that the United States would withdraw security co-operation with the UK if the
deal went ahead.
Trump's threats reportedly „irritated" the UK government, with Johnson frustrated at
the president's failure to suggest any alternatives to the deal.
Huawei products are pretty good, relatively cheap and readily available. They are just as
buggy as the products of other equipment providers. The real reason why the U.S. does not want
anyone to buy Huawei products is that it is the one large network company the U.S. can not
convince to provide it with backdoors.
European countries do not fear China or even Chinese spying. They know that the U.S. is
doing similar on a much larger scale. Europeans do not see China as a threat and they do not
want to get involved in the escalating U.S.-China spat:
"Whose side should your country take in a conflict between the US and China?" Source - bigger
The U.S. just
indicted four Chinese military officers for the 2017 hacking of Equifax during which
millions of addresses and financial data were stolen. The former CIA Director General Michael
Hayden
had defended such pilfering as "honorable espionage" and Equifax had made it laughably easy
to
get into its systems :
[J]ust five days after Equifax went public with its breach -- KrebsOnSecurity broke the news
that the administrative account for a separate Equifax dispute resolution portal catering to
consumers in Argentina was wide open, protected by perhaps the most easy-to-guess password
combination ever: "admin/admin."
To indict foreign military officers for spying when they simply pilfered barely protected
servers is seen as offensive. What will the U.S. do when China does likewise?
Every nation spies. It is one of the oldest trades in this world. That the U.S. is making
such a fuss about putative Chinese spying when it itself is the biggest sinner is unbecoming.
Posted by b on February 11, 2020 at 18:52 UTC |
Permalink
thanks b...no shortage of hypocrisy in all this...
regarding @ 4 mike r which @8 ian2 linked properly to, i enjoyed the last paragraph which
i think sums it up well.. here it is..
"I continue to believe that the United States cannot effectively restrict the spread of a
technology under Chinese leadership without offering a superior product of its own. The fact
that the United States has attempted to suppress Huawei's market leadership in the absence of
any American competitor in this field is one of the oddest occurrences in the history of US
foreign policy. If the US were to announce something like a Manhattan Project for 5G
broadband and solicit the cooperation of its European and Asian allies, it probably would get
an enthusiastic response. As matters stand, America's efforts to stop Huawei have become an
embarrassment."
The reason European customers trust Huawei is because Huawei uses open-source software or at
least makes their code available for inspection by customers.
Closed-source software cannot provide secrecy or security. This was vividly demonstrated
last month when
NSA revealed a critical vulnerability in Windows 10 that rendered any cryptographic
security worthless.
Rashid's simulated attack exploits CVE-2020-0601, the critical vulnerability that
Microsoft patched on Tuesday after receiving a private tipoff from the NSA. As Ars
reported, the flaw can completely break certificate validation for websites, software
updates, VPNs, and other security-critical computer uses. It affects Windows 10 systems,
including server versions Windows Server 2016 and Windows Server 2019. Other versions of
Windows are unaffected.
The flaw involves the way the new versions of Windows check the validity of certificates
that use elliptic-curve cryptography. While the vulnerable Windows versions check three ECC
parameters, they fail to verify a fourth, crucial one, which is known as a base point
generator and is often represented in algorithms as 'G.' This failure is a result of
Microsoft's implementation of ECC rather than any flaw or weakness in the ECC algorithms
themselves.
The attacker examines the specific ECC algorithm used to generate the root-certificate
public key and proceeds to craft a private key that copies all of the certificate
parameters for that algorithm except for the point generator. Because vulnerable Windows
versions fail to check that parameter, they accept the private key as valid. With that, the
attacker has spoofed a Windows-trusted root certificate that can be used to mint any
individual certificate used for authentication of websites, software, and other sensitive
properties.
I do not believe this vulnerability was a bug. It is more likely a backdoor intentionally
left in the code for NSA to utilize. Whatever the case, NSA must have known about it for
years. Why did they reveal it now? Most likely someone else had discovered the back door and
may have been about to publish it.
(I
commented on these same issues on Sputnik a few weeks ago.)
The other possible US objection is that Huawei will only let their customers spy, not third
countries.
Posted by: Paul Cockshott | Feb 11 2020 21:57 utc | 24
It reminds me a joke about Emperor Napoleon arriving in a town. The population, the
notables and the mayor are greeting him, and the Emperor says "No gun salute, hm?". Mayor
replies "Sire, we have twenty reasons. Fist, we have canons", "Enough", replied Napoleon.
Isn't the "other possible US objection" exactly "Enough"? Of course, USA is not a mere
"third country", USA is the rule maker of rule based international order.
"... The thoughtless people who constructed " globalism " overlooked that interdependence is dangerous and can have massive unintended consequences . With or without an epidemic, supplies can be cut off for a number of reasons. For example, strikes, political instability, natural catastrophes, sanctions and other hostilities such as wars, and so forth. Clearly, these dangers to the system are not justified by the lower labor cost and consequent capital gains to shareholders and bonuses to corporate executives. Only the one percent benefits from globalism. ..."
"... Globalism was constructed by people motivated by short-term greed. None of the promises of globalism have been delivered. Globalism is a massive mistake. Yet, almost everywhere political leaders and economists are protective of globalism. So much for human intelligence. ..."
If the coronavirus proves to be serious, as it does not appear to be at the present time,
many economies could be adversely affected. China is the source of many parts supplied to
producers in other countries, and China is the source of the finished products of many US firms
such as Apple. If shipments cannot be made, sales and production outside of China are affected.
Without revenues, employees cannot be paid. Unlike the financial crisis of 2008, this would be
an unemployment crisis and bankruptcy of large manufacturing and marketing corporations.
This is the danger to which globalism makes us vulnerable. If US corporations produced in
the US the products that they market in the US and the world, an epidemic in China would affect
only their Chinese sales, not threaten the companies' revenues.
The thoughtless people who constructed " globalism " overlooked that interdependence is
dangerous and can have massive unintended consequences . With or without an epidemic, supplies
can be cut off for a number of reasons. For example, strikes, political instability, natural
catastrophes, sanctions and other hostilities such as wars, and so forth. Clearly, these
dangers to the system are not justified by the lower labor cost and consequent capital gains to
shareholders and bonuses to corporate executives. Only the one percent benefits from
globalism.
Globalism was constructed by people motivated by short-term greed. None of the promises
of globalism have been delivered. Globalism is a massive mistake. Yet, almost everywhere
political leaders and economists are protective of globalism. So much for human
intelligence.
At this point of time, it is difficult to understand the hysteria over coronavirus and
predictions of global pandemic. In China there are about 24,000 infections and 500 deaths in a
population of 1.3 billion people. This is an inconsequential illness. Compared to the ordinary
seasonal flu that infects millions of people worldwide and kills 600,000, the coronavirus so
far amounts to nothing. Infections outside of China are miniscule and appear to be limited to
Chinese people. It is difficult to know for certain, because of the reluctance to identify
people by race.
Perhaps the coronavirus is just warming up and much worse is to come. If so, world Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) will take a hit. Quarantines prevent work. Finished products and parts
cannot be made and shipped. Sales cannot take place without products to sell. Without revenues
companies cannot pay employees and other expenses. Incomes decline across the world. Companies
go bankrupt.
You can take it from here.
If a deadly coronavirus pandemic or some other one does erupt and there is a world
depression, we should be very clear in our mind that globalism was the cause. Countries whose
governments are so thoughtless or corrupt as to make their populations vulnerable to disruptive
events abroad are medically, economically, socially, and politically unstable.
The consequence of globalism is world instability.
It makes sense for rich countries elites to leverage poor backwards shithole countries to
manufacture the things they need because the elites then don't have to worry about anyone but
themselves. Globalism is wonder as it bypasses all that crazy western nonsense like jobs and
wages and society and hope and such.
Globalism is nothing more than the major central banks finding ways to dump off their
inflation which is the deflation of an ever increasing number countries which the major cb's
used to deflate their currencies. The older the cb you are the worse off yo are. From a since
A.D. perspective only the Sterling is what you have to worry. From my last fiat currency
perspective its the Venisthaler that is un doing everything.
To get more zero's you have to add more nine's. They can not be added as nausem like
people think zero's are. The compensation pool has been shrinking for centuries on end now.
Globalism is an attempt to keep the pool growing at all cost which results relentless asset
appreciation. We are out of nine's. The end result of that is hyper deflation for the man and
hyper reflation for the people. Easily provable at a store named Vons owned by the treasury
retired.
That ladies and gents is your simplified street fed explanation. I am not trying to even
remotely write out the longer technical version.
Having said that meet me at what is known as the small walmart around here, which is the
home of what does MU do, what does MU do at walmart it never gets old fame for a real life
walk thru of what globalism is and looks like. We will then progress to the "Big Walmart" not
even a mile away and I will show you what an out of control system looks like.
So we are clear of what I just said. I live in the only place in the world where when a
tourist ask you where Wal Mart is, you get your choice of size. Whats the difference you
ask??? The small Wal Mart has one main entrance, the big one has three. The lady almost
smacked the **** out of the guy I got that from when she asked what the difference was. The
hand came up. You really had to be there.
Regional trade blocks with relatively balanced resource and production capabilities make
more sense. Globalisation just lead to one country seeking to 'DOMINATE' in every sphere of
global activity, raising the threats of economic and military conflict, as clearly
demonstrated and this with the aim of global enslavement to multinational corporations, the
aim of Globalism, really sick psychopathic stuff.
Regional trade blocks relatively balanced for resource and production, provide stability
within each block and lesson competition for outside resource and commercial competitiveness,
and represents a far more long term stable structure.
Within each trade block, as it is economic rather than socio-political the original
identities of each distinct region can be preserved for the long term, so that future
generations can enjoy and share in the different cultures. Race ******** is race ********,
there is only one race and all of it's people are free to share in which ever culture they
choose or combinations there of. Whether you get to move to those regions and enjoy those
cultures will be done to your personal worth, character and ability to contribute to those
societies, just the way it will be.
Some economic blocks will be far more preferable to others and will attract higher worth
individuals (character and ability to contribute to society), the least and most desirable
will become more so as higher worth individuals move to the most preferable away from the
least preferable and make the most preferable more preferable by their active presence.
I would tip the Japan Australia one to be the most preferable for this century, the next
hard to tell (there are real deep problems in the Americas caused by the USA, the EU had an
bad immigrant problem as in they let in too many bad unvetted immigrants, Africa will be what
Africa will be corrupt and Russia China it depends upon how quickly the modernise and
socially advance, the middle of the middles south east to mid east it depends how long it
takes them to come together and religion is a real problem for them).
I've been wondering if this might be some kind of Globalist Drill. It doesn't make sense,
although there is always the potential it could become worse than it is.
I thought so, too. Strangely enough, Wuhan Chinese are now repatriated from Bali back to
Wuhan?!
Instability is a necessary condition to get more conflicts and then wars going. Weapons
production must be kept up; peace and stability would make make weapons production an
expensive hobby.
...if nothing had happened in the US-China trade war. Well, me might have gotten to where we
are supposed to be with the deal
..a honest question. In terms of the environment and global climate, is it a good thing that
farmers will be producing more monoculture grains, dairy, beef and pork for export?
"If minorities prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the
state law.
Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special
privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell
"discrimination"
This is a Marxist critique of neoliberalism. Not necessary right but they his some relevant
points.
Notable quotes:
"... The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. ..."
"... The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world output. ..."
"... While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy? The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in the latter and meet global demand. ..."
"... The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5 ..."
"... This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state, the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse , causing a financial crisis. ..."
"... The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument, as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6 ..."
"... If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment. ..."
"... The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their home market ..."
"... In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people ..."
"... In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop and finds fascism. ..."
"... The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their support. ..."
"... The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions, imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of neoliberalism. ..."
"... And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more. ..."
"... Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11 Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against it. ..."
The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth.
But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this
ideological prop.
Harry Magdoff's The Age of
Imperialism is a classic work that shows how postwar political decolonization does not
negate the phenomenon of imperialism. The book has two distinct aspects. On the one hand, it
follows in V. I. Lenin's footsteps in providing a comprehensive account of how capitalism at
the time operated globally. On the other hand, it raises a question that is less frequently
discussed in Marxist literature -- namely, the need for imperialism. Here, Magdoff not only
highlighted the crucial importance, among other things, of the third world's raw materials for
metropolitan capital, but also refuted the argument that the declining share of raw-material
value in gross manufacturing output somehow reduced this importance, making the simple point
that there can be no manufacturing at all without raw materials. 1
Magdoff's focus was on a period when imperialism was severely resisting economic
decolonization in the third world, with newly independent third world countries taking control
over their own resources. He highlighted the entire armory of weapons used by imperialism. But
he was writing in a period that predated the onset of neoliberalism. Today, we not only have
decades of neoliberalism behind us, but the neoliberal regime itself has reached a dead end.
Contemporary imperialism has to be discussed within this setting.
Globalization and
Economic Crisis
There are two reasons why the regime of neoliberal globalization has run into a dead end.
The first is an ex ante tendency toward global overproduction; the second is that the
only possible counter to this tendency within the regime is the formation of asset-price
bubbles, which cannot be conjured up at will and whose collapse, if they do appear, plunges the
economy back into crisis. In short, to use the words of British economic historian Samuel
Berrick Saul, there are no "markets on tap" for contemporary metropolitan capitalism, such as
had been provided by colonialism prior to the First World War and by state expenditure in the
post-Second World War period of dirigisme . 2
The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages
across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector
of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world
output. As Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy argued in Monopoly Capital , following the lead of
Michał Kalecki and Josef Steindl, such a rise in the share of economic surplus, or a shift
from wages to surplus, has the effect of reducing aggregate demand since the ratio of
consumption to income is higher on average for wage earners than for those living off the
surplus. 3
Therefore, assuming a given level of investment associated with any period, such a shift would
tend to reduce consumption demand and hence aggregate demand, output, and capacity utilization.
In turn, reduced capacity utilization would lower investment over time, further aggravating the
demand-reducing effect arising from the consumption side.
While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous
phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an
explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy?
The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the
first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the
metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in
the latter and meet global demand.
Historically, while labor has not been, and is still not, free to migrate from the third
world to the metropolis, capital, though juridically free to move from the latter to the
former, did not actually do so , except to sectors like mines and plantations, which
only strengthened, rather than broke, the colonial pattern of the international division of
labor. 4
This segmentation of the world economy meant that wages in the metropolis increased with labor
productivity, unrestrained by the vast labor reserves of the third world, which themselves had
been caused by the displacement of manufactures through the twin processes of
deindustrialization (competition from metropolitan goods) and the drain of surplus (the
siphoning off of a large part of the economic surplus, through taxes on peasants that are no
longer spent on local artisan products but finance gratis primary commodity exports to
the metropolis instead).
The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to
the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and
take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of
the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the
third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the
real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was
marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5
At the same time, such relocation of activities, despite causing impressive growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) in many third world countries, does not lead to the exhaustion of
the third world's labor reserves. This is because of another feature of contemporary
globalization: the unleashing of a process of primitive accumulation of capital against petty
producers, including peasant agriculturists in the third world, who had earlier been protected,
to an extent, from the encroachment of big capital (both domestic and foreign) by the
postcolonial dirigiste regimes in these countries. Under neoliberalism, such protection
is withdrawn, causing an income squeeze on these producers and often their outright
dispossession from their land, which is then used by big capital for its various so-called
development projects. The increase in employment, even in countries with impressive GDP growth
rates in the third world, falls way short of the natural growth of the workforce, let alone
absorbing the additional job seekers coming from the ranks of displaced petty producers. The
labor reserves therefore never get used up. Indeed, on the contrary, they are augmented
further, because real wages continue to remain tied to a subsistence level, even as
metropolitan wages too are restrained. The vector of real wages in the world economy as a whole
therefore remains restrained.
Although contemporary globalization thus gives rise to an ex ante tendency toward
overproduction, state expenditure that could provide a counter to this (and had provided a
counter through military spending in the United States, according to Baran and Sweezy) can no
longer do so under the current regime. Finance is usually opposed to direct state intervention
through larger spending as a way of increasing employment. This opposition expresses itself
through an opposition not just to larger taxes on capitalists, but also to a larger fiscal
deficit for financing such spending. Obviously, if larger state spending is financed by taxes
on workers, then it hardly adds to aggregate demand, for workers spend the bulk of their
incomes anyway, so the state taking this income and spending it instead does not add any extra
demand. Hence, larger state spending can increase employment only if it is financed either
through a fiscal deficit or through taxes on capitalists who keep a part of their income
unspent or saved. But these are precisely the two modes of financing state expenditure that
finance capital opposes.
Its opposing larger taxes on capitalists is understandable, but why is it so opposed to a
larger fiscal deficit? Even within a capitalist economy, there are no sound economic
theoretical reasons that should preclude a fiscal deficit under all circumstances. The root of
the opposition therefore lies in deeper social considerations: if the capitalist economic
system becomes dependent on the state to promote employment directly , then this fact
undermines the social legitimacy of capitalism. The need for the state to boost the animal
spirits of the capitalists disappears and a perspective on the system that is epistemically
exterior to it is provided to the people, making it possible for them to ask: If the state can
do the job of providing employment, then why do we need the capitalists at all? It is an
instinctive appreciation of this potential danger that underlies the opposition of capital,
especially of finance, to any direct effort by the state to generate employment.
This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as
finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state,
the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second
World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is
globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a
nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large
fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse ,
causing a financial crisis.
The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews
direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since
that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their
social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument,
as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the
pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6
It may be thought that this compulsion on the part of the state to accede to the demand of
finance to eschew fiscal intervention for enlarging employment should not hold for the United
States. Its currency being considered by the world's wealth holders to be "as good as gold"
should make it immune to capital flight. But there is an additional factor operating in the
case of the United States: that the demand generated by a bigger U.S. fiscal deficit would
substantially leak abroad in a neoliberal setting, which would increase its external debt
(since, unlike Britain in its heyday, it does not have access to any unrequited colonial
transfers) for the sake of generating employment elsewhere. This fact deters any fiscal effort
even in the United States to boost demand within a neoliberal setting. 7
Therefore, it follows that state spending cannot provide a counter to the ex ante
tendency toward global overproduction within a regime of neoliberal globalization, which makes
the world economy precariously dependent on occasional asset-price bubbles, primarily in the
U.S. economy, for obtaining, at best, some temporary relief from the crisis. It is this fact
that underlies the dead end that neoliberal capitalism has reached. Indeed, Donald Trump's
resort to protectionism in the United States to alleviate unemployment is a clear recognition
of the system having reached this cul-de-sac. The fact that the mightiest capitalist
economy in the world has to move away from the rules of the neoliberal game in an attempt to
alleviate its crisis of unemployment/underemployment -- while compensating capitalists
adversely affected by this move through tax cuts, as well as carefully ensuring that no
restraints are imposed on free cross-border financial flows -- shows that these rules
are no longer viable in their pristine form.
Some Implications of This Dead End
There are at least four important implications of this dead end of neoliberalism. The first
is that the world economy will now be afflicted by much higher levels of unemployment than it
was in the last decade of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first, when
the dot-com and the housing bubbles in the United States had, sequentially, a pronounced
impact. It is true that the U.S. unemployment rate today appears to be at a historic low, but
this is misleading: the labor-force participation rate in the United States today is lower than
it was in 2008, which reflects the discouraged-worker effect . Adjusting for this lower
participation, the U.S. unemployment rate is considerable -- around 8 percent. Indeed, Trump
would not be imposing protection in the United States if unemployment was actually as low as 4
percent, which is the official figure. Elsewhere in the world, of course, unemployment
post-2008 continues to be evidently higher than before. Indeed, the severity of the current
problem of below-full-employment production in the U.S. economy is best illustrated by capacity
utilization figures in manufacturing. The weakness of the U.S. recovery from the Great
Recession is indicated by the fact that the current extended recovery represents the first
decade in the entire post-Second World War period in which capacity utilization in
manufacturing has never risen as high as 80 percent in a single quarter, with the resulting
stagnation of investment. 8
If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a
beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the
United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen
the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the
United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already
appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be
because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping
unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we
look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment.
There has been some discussion on how global value chains would be affected by Trump's
protectionism. But the fact that global macroeconomics in the early twenty-first century will
look altogether different compared to earlier has not been much discussed.
In light of the preceding discussion, one could say that if, instead of individual
nation-states whose writ cannot possibly run against globalized finance capital, there was a
global state or a set of major nation-states acting in unison to override the objections of
globalized finance and provide a coordinated fiscal stimulus to the world economy, then perhaps
there could be recovery. Such a coordinated fiscal stimulus was suggested by a group of German
trade unionists, as well as by John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
9
While it was turned down then, in the present context it has not even been discussed.
The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large
over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with
protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even
spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world
market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the
ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their
home market.
Such a transition will not be easy; it will require promoting domestic peasant agriculture,
defending petty production, moving toward cooperative forms of production, and ensuring greater
equality in income distribution, all of which need major structural shifts. For smaller
economies, it would also require their coming together with other economies to provide a
minimum size to the domestic market. In short, the dead end of neoliberalism also means the
need for a shift away from the so-called neoliberal development strategy that has held sway
until now.
The third implication is the imminent engulfing of a whole range of third world economies in
serious balance-of-payments difficulties. This is because, while their exports will be sluggish
in the new situation, this very fact will also discourage financial inflows into their
economies, whose easy availability had enabled them to maintain current account deficits on
their balance of payments earlier. In such a situation, within the existing neoliberal
paradigm, they would be forced to adopt austerity measures that would impose income deflation
on their people, make the conditions of their people significantly worse, lead to a further
handing over of their national assets and resources to international capital, and prevent
precisely any possible transition to an alternative strategy of home market-based growth.
In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over
third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits
in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or
that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even
domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people.
The fourth implication is the worldwide upsurge of fascism. Neoliberal capitalism even
before it reached a dead end, even in the period when it achieved reasonable growth and
employment rates, had pushed the world into greater hunger and poverty. For instance, the world
per-capita cereal output was 355 kilograms for 1980 (triennium average for 1979–81
divided by mid–triennium population) and fell to 343 in 2000, leveling at 344.9 in 2016
-- and a substantial amount of this last figure went into ethanol production. Clearly, in a
period of growth of the world economy, per-capita cereal absorption should be expanding,
especially since we are talking here not just of direct absorption but of direct and indirect
absorption, the latter through processed foods and feed grains in animal products. The fact
that there was an absolute decline in per-capita output, which no doubt caused a decline in
per-capita absorption, suggests an absolute worsening in the nutritional level of a substantial
segment of the world's population.
But this growing hunger and nutritional poverty did not immediately arouse any significant
resistance, both because such resistance itself becomes more difficult under neoliberalism
(since the very globalization of capital makes it an elusive target) and also because higher
GDP growth rates provided a hope that distress might be overcome in the course of time.
Peasants in distress, for instance, entertained the hope that their children would live better
in the years to come if given a modicum of education and accepted their fate.
In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with
neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological
prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop
and finds fascism. This changes the discourse away from the material conditions of people's
lives to the so-called threat to the nation, placing the blame for people's distress not on the
failure of the system, but on ethnic, linguistic, and religious minority groups, the
other that is portrayed as an enemy. It projects a so-called messiah whose sheer
muscularity can somehow magically overcome all problems; it promotes a culture of unreason so
that both the vilification of the other and the magical powers of the supposed leader
can be placed beyond any intellectual questioning; it uses a combination of state repression
and street-level vigilantism by fascist thugs to terrorize opponents; and it forges a close
relationship with big business, or, in Kalecki's words, "a partnership of big business and
fascist upstarts." 10
Fascist groups of one kind or another exist in all modern societies. They move center stage
and even into power only on certain occasions when they get the backing of big business. And
these occasions arise when three conditions are satisfied: when there is an economic crisis so
the system cannot simply go on as before; when the usual liberal establishment is manifestly
incapable of resolving the crisis; and when the left is not strong enough to provide an
alternative to the people in order to move out of the conjuncture.
This last point may appear odd at first, since many see the big bourgeoisie's recourse to
fascism as a counter to the growth of the left's strength in the context of a capitalist
crisis. But when the left poses a serious threat, the response of the big bourgeoisie typically
is to attempt to split it by offering concessions. It uses fascism to prop itself up only when
the left is weakened. Walter Benjamin's remark that "behind every fascism there is a failed
revolution" points in this direction.
Fascism Then and Now
Contemporary fascism, however, differs in crucial respects from its 1930s counterpart, which
is why many are reluctant to call the current phenomenon a fascist upsurge. But historical
parallels, if carefully drawn, can be useful. While in some aforementioned respects
contemporary fascism does resemble the phenomenon of the 1930s, there are serious differences
between the two that must also be noted.
First, we must note that while the current fascist upsurge has put fascist elements in power
in many countries, there are no fascist states of the 1930s kind as of yet. Even if the fascist
elements in power try to push the country toward a fascist state, it is not clear that they
will succeed. There are many reasons for this, but an important one is that fascists in power
today cannot overcome the crisis of neoliberalism, since they accept the regime of
globalization of finance. This includes Trump, despite his protectionism. In the 1930s,
however, this was not the case. The horrors associated with the institution of a fascist state
in the 1930s had been camouflaged to an extent by the ability of the fascists in power to
overcome mass unemployment and end the Depression through larger military spending, financed by
government borrowing. Contemporary fascism, by contrast, lacks the ability to overcome the
opposition of international finance capital to fiscal activism on the part of the government to
generate larger demand, output, and employment, even via military spending.
Such activism, as discussed earlier, required larger government spending financed either
through taxes on capitalists or through a fiscal deficit. Finance capital was opposed to both
of these measures and it being globalized made this opposition decisive . The
decisiveness of this opposition remains even if the government happens to be one composed of
fascist elements. Hence, contemporary fascism, straitjacketed by "fiscal rectitude," cannot
possibly alleviate even temporarily the economic crises facing people and cannot provide any
cover for a transition to a fascist state akin to the ones of the 1930s, which makes such a
transition that much more unlikely.
Another difference is also related to the phenomenon of the globalization of finance. The
1930s were marked by what Lenin had earlier called "interimperialist rivalry." The military
expenditures incurred by fascist governments, even though they pulled countries out of the
Depression and unemployment, inevitably led to wars for "repartitioning an already partitioned
world." Fascism was the progenitor of war and burned itself out through war at, needless to
say, great cost to humankind.
Contemporary fascism, however, operates in a world where interimperialist rivalry is far
more muted. Some have seen in this muting a vindication of Karl Kautsky's vision of an
"ultraimperialism" as against Lenin's emphasis on the permanence of interimperialist rivalry,
but this is wrong. Both Kautsky and Lenin were talking about a world where finance capital and
the financial oligarchy were essentially national -- that is, German, French, or British. And
while Kautsky talked about the possibility of truces among the rival oligarchies, Lenin saw
such truces only as transient phenomena punctuating the ubiquity of rivalry.
In contrast, what we have today is not nation-based finance capitals, but
international finance capital into whose corpus the finance capitals drawn from
particular countries are integrated. This globalized finance capital does not want the world
to be partitioned into economic territories of rival powers ; on the contrary, it wants the
entire globe to be open to its own unrestricted movement. The muting of rivalry between major
powers, therefore, is not because they prefer truce to war, or peaceful partitioning of the
world to forcible repartitioning, but because the material conditions themselves have changed
so that it is no longer a matter of such choices. The world has gone beyond both Lenin and
Kautsky, as well as their debates.
Not only are we not going to have wars between major powers in this era of fascist upsurge
(of course, as will be discussed, we shall have other wars), but, by the same token, this
fascist upsurge will not burn out through any cataclysmic war. What we are likely to see is a
lingering fascism of less murderous intensity , which, when in power, does not
necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically
annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally.
But since its successor government, as long as it remains within the confines of the neoliberal
strategy, will also be incapable of alleviating the crisis, the fascist elements are likely to
return to power as well. And whether the fascist elements are in or out of power, they will
remain a potent force working toward the fascification of the society and the polity, even
while promoting corporate interests within a regime of globalization of finance, and hence
permanently maintaining the "partnership between big business and fascist upstarts."
Put differently, since the contemporary fascist upsurge is not likely to burn itself out as
the earlier one did, it has to be overcome by transcending the very conjuncture that produced
it: neoliberal capitalism at a dead end. A class mobilization of working people around an
alternative set of transitional demands that do not necessarily directly target neoliberal
capitalism, but which are immanently unrealizable within the regime of neoliberal capitalism,
can provide an initial way out of this conjuncture and lead to its eventual transcendence.
Such a class mobilization in the third world context would not mean making no truces with
liberal bourgeois elements against the fascists. On the contrary, since the liberal bourgeois
elements too are getting marginalized through a discourse of jingoistic nationalism typically
manufactured by the fascists, they too would like to shift the discourse toward the material
conditions of people's lives, no doubt claiming that an improvement in these conditions is
possible within the neoliberal economic regime itself. Such a shift in discourse is in
itself a major antifascist act . Experience will teach that the agenda advanced as part of
this changed discourse is unrealizable under neoliberalism, providing the scope for dialectical
intervention by the left to transcend neoliberal capitalism.
Imperialist
Interventions
Even though fascism will have a lingering presence in this conjuncture of "neoliberalism at
a dead end," with the backing of domestic corporate-financial interests that are themselves
integrated into the corpus of international finance capital, the working people in the third
world will increasingly demand better material conditions of life and thereby rupture the
fascist discourse of jingoistic nationalism (that ironically in a third world context is not
anti-imperialist).
In fact, neoliberalism reaching a dead end and having to rely on fascist elements revives
meaningful political activity, which the heyday of neoliberalism had precluded, because most
political formations then had been trapped within an identical neoliberal agenda that appeared
promising. (Latin America had a somewhat different history because neoliberalism arrived in
that continent through military dictatorships, not through its more or less tacit acceptance by
most political formations.)
Such revived political activity will necessarily throw up challenges to neoliberal
capitalism in particular countries. Imperialism, by which we mean the entire economic and
political arrangement sustaining the hegemony of international finance capital, will deal with
these challenges in at least four different ways.
The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation
that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even
before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby
denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only
increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may
well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from
a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers
and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their
support.
Even if capital controls are put in place, where there are current account deficits,
financing such deficits would pose a problem, necessitating some trade controls. But this is
where the second instrument of imperialism comes into play: the imposition of trade sanctions
by the metropolitan states, which then cajole other countries to stop buying from the
sanctioned country that is trying to break away from thralldom to globalized finance capital.
Even if the latter would have otherwise succeeded in stabilizing its economy despite its
attempt to break away, the imposition of sanctions becomes an additional blow.
The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the
sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the
local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of
civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection
generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions,
imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political
elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of
neoliberalism.
And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic
warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military
warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third
world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when
revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more.
Two aspects of such intervention are striking. One is the virtual unanimity among the
metropolitan states, which only underscores the muting of interimperialist rivalry in the era
of hegemony of global finance capital. The other is the extent of support that such
intervention commands within metropolitan countries, from the right to even the liberal
segments.
Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing
for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First
World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state
intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only
occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11
Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize
itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist
intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against
it.
Samuel Berrick Saul, Studies in British Overseas Trade, 1870–1914
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960).
Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1966).
One of the first authors to recognize this fact and its significance was Paul Baran in
The Political Economy of
Growth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957).
For the role of such colonial transfers in sustaining the British balance of payments and the
long Victorian and Edwardian boom, see Utsa Patnaik, "Revisiting the 'Drain,' or Transfers
from India to Britain in the Context of Global Diffusion of Capitalism," in Agrarian
and Other Histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri , ed. Shubhra Chakrabarti and
Utsa Patnaik (Delhi: Tulika, 2017), 277-317.
Federal Reserve Board of Saint Louis Economic Research, FRED, "Capacity Utilization:
Manufacturing," February 2019 (updated March 27, 2019), http://fred.stlouisfed.org .
This issue is discussed by Charles P. Kindleberger in The World in Depression,
1929–1939 , 40th anniversary ed. (Oakland: University of California Press,
2013).
Joseph Schumpeter had seen Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace as
essentially advocating such state intervention in the new situation. See his essay, "John
Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)," in Ten Great Economists (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1952).
Utsa Patnaik is Professor Emerita at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her books include Peasant Class Differentiation (1987),
The Long Transition (1999), and The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays (2007). Prabhat Patnaik
is Professor Emeritus at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. His books include Accumulation and Stability Under Capitalism (1997),
The Value of Money(2009), and Re-envisioning Socialism(2011).
Looks like the world order established after WWIII crumbed with the USSR and now it is again the law if jungles with the US as the
biggest predator.
Notable quotes:
"... The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet. ..."
"... Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure, dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence, not democracy ..."
"... A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism" (meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest. ..."
"... For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.) to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness. ..."
"... Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II. ..."
"... Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards. ..."
"... Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations' International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity." ..."
"... This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago, and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer. ..."
"... England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank." ..."
"... But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium. ..."
"... On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas, this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions attack on Europe ..."
"... The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above. In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945. ..."
"... By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands. ..."
"... It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either. ..."
"... But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3 billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid. ..."
"... It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. ..."
"... Anticipating just such a double-cross, President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe. ..."
"... It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence. ..."
"... Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs, but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and settle for being a dominant minority. ..."
"... Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change. ..."
"... Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms". Interesting times. ..."
"... Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. ..."
"... To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles. ..."
"... Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet again. Nothing to see here, actually. ..."
"... So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change. ..."
"... Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. ..."
"... I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. ..."
"... If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be" to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing. ..."
"... In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3. ..."
"... Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble." ..."
"... He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas. ..."
"... The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run. ..."
"... Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics" on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners. ..."
"... Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence. There will be fierce competition to fill the gap. ..."
"... On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top. I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect. ..."
"... Former US ambassador, Chas Freeman, gets to the nub of the problem. "The US preference for governance by elected and appointed officials, uncontaminated by experience in statecraft and diplomacy, or knowledge of geography, history and foreign affairs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_882041135&feature=iv&src_vid=Ge1ozuXN7iI&v=gkf2MQdqz-o ..."
"... Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT. ..."
"... The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy. ..."
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected, thanks to the very same Neocons
who gave the world the Iraq, Syria and the dirty wars in Latin America. Just as the Vietnam War drove the United States off gold
by 1971, its sponsorship and funding of violent regime change wars against Venezuela and Syria – and threatening other countries
with sanctions if they do not join this crusade – is now driving European and other nations to create their alternative financial
institutions.
This break has been building for quite some time, and was bound to occur. But who would have thought that Donald Trump would become
the catalytic agent? No left-wing party, no socialist, anarchist or foreign nationalist leader anywhere in the world could have achieved
what he is doing to break up the American Empire. The Deep State is reacting with shock at how this right-wing real estate grifter
has been able to drive other countries to defend themselves by dismantling the U.S.-centered world order. To rub it in, he is using
Bush and Reagan-era Neocon arsonists, John Bolton and now Elliott Abrams, to fan the flames in Venezuela. It is almost like a black
political comedy. The world of international diplomacy is being turned inside-out. A world where there is no longer even a pretense
that we might adhere to international norms, let alone laws or treaties.
The Neocons who Trump has appointed are accomplishing what seemed unthinkable not long ago: Driving China and Russia together
– the great nightmare of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They also are driving Germany and other European countries into
the Eurasian orbit, the "Heartland" nightmare of Halford Mackinder a century ago.
The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution
of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported
even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States
is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet.
Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign
policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure,
dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank
to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence,
not democracy.
In the Devil's Dictionary that U.S. diplomats are taught to use as their "Elements of Style" guidelines for Doublethink, a "democratic"
country is one that follows U.S. leadership and opens its economy to U.S. investment, and IMF- and World Bank-sponsored privatization.
The Ukraine is deemed democratic, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries that act as U.S. financial and military protectorates
and are willing to treat America's enemies are theirs too.
A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public
relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism"
(meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest.
This trajectory could be seen 50 years ago (I described it in Super Imperialism [1972] and Global Fracture [1978].) It had to
happen. But nobody thought that the end would come in quite the way that is happening. History has turned into comedy, or at least
irony as its dialectical path unfolds.
For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that
opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties
that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.)
to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners
and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness.
The reality is that right-wing parties want to get elected, and a populist nationalism is today's road to election victory in
Europe and other countries just as it was for Donald Trump in 2016.
Trump's agenda may really be to break up the American Empire, using the old Uncle Sucker isolationist rhetoric of half a century
ago. He certainly is going for the Empire's most vital organs. But it he a witting anti-American agent? He might as well be – but
it would be a false mental leap to use "quo bono" to assume that he is a witting agent.
After all, if no U.S. contractor, supplier, labor union or bank will deal with him, would Vladimir Putin, China or Iran be any
more naďve? Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible
to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal
to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II.
Dismantling International Law and Its Courts
Any international system of control requires the rule of law. It may be a morally lawless exercise of ruthless power imposing
predatory exploitation, but it is still The Law. And it needs courts to apply it (backed by police power to enforce it and punish
violators).
Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country
have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy
years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which
let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards.
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their equity
share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy. Without such power, the United States would not join
any international organization. Yet at the same time, it depicted its nationalism as protecting globalization and internationalism.
It was all a euphemism for what really was unilateral U.S. decision-making.
Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international
court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations'
International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture
policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable
basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity."
[1]
Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton erupted in fury, warning in September that: "The United States will use any
means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," adding that
the UN International Court must not be so bold as to investigate "Israel or other U.S. allies."
That prompted a senior judge, Christoph Flügge from Germany, to resign in protest. Indeed, Bolton told the court to keep out of
any affairs involving the United States, promising to ban the Court's "judges and prosecutors from entering the United States." As
Bolton spelled out the U.S. threat: "We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and we will prosecute them in the
U.S. criminal system. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We
will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us."
What this meant, the German judge spelled out was that: "If these judges ever interfere in the domestic concerns of the U.S. or
investigate an American citizen, [Bolton] said the American government would do all it could to ensure that these judges would no
longer be allowed to travel to the United States – and that they would perhaps even be criminally prosecuted."
The original inspiration of the Court – to use the Nuremburg laws that were applied against German Nazis to bring similar prosecution
against any country or officials found guilty of committing war crimes – had already fallen into disuse with the failure to indict
the authors of the Chilean coup, Iran-Contra or the U.S. invasion of Iraq for war crimes.
Dismantling Dollar Hegemony from the IMF to SWIFT
Of all areas of global power politics today, international finance and foreign investment have become the key flashpoint. International
monetary reserves were supposed to be the most sacrosanct, and international debt enforcement closely associated.
Central banks have long held their gold and other monetary reserves in the United States and London. Back in 1945 this seemed
reasonable, because the New York Federal Reserve Bank (in whose basement foreign central bank gold was kept) was militarily safe,
and because the London Gold Pool was the vehicle by which the U.S. Treasury kept the dollar "as good as gold" at $35 an ounce. Foreign
reserves over and above gold were kept in the form of U.S. Treasury securities, to be bought and sold on the New York and London
foreign-exchange markets to stabilize exchange rates. Most foreign loans to governments were denominated in U.S. dollars, so Wall
Street banks were normally name as paying agents.
That was the case with Iran under the Shah, whom the United States had installed after sponsoring the 1953 coup against Mohammed
Mosaddegh when he sought to nationalize Anglo-Iranian Oil (now British Petroleum) or at least tax it. After the Shah was overthrown,
the Khomeini regime asked its paying agent, the Chase Manhattan bank, to use its deposits to pay its bondholders. At the direction
of the U.S. Government Chase refused to do so. U.S. courts then declared Iran to be in default, and froze all its assets in the United
States and anywhere else they were able.
This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago,
and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might
be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally
got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult
that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer.
But then came Venezuela. Desperate to spend its gold reserves to provide imports for its economy devastated by U.S. sanctions
– a crisis that U.S. diplomats blame on "socialism," not on U.S. political attempts to "make the economy scream" (as Nixon officials
said of Chile under Salvador Allende) – Venezuela directed the Bank of England to transfer some of its $11 billion in gold held in
its vaults and those of other central banks in December 2018. This was just like a bank depositor would expect a bank to pay a check
that the depositor had written.
England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo.
As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster
his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign
reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank."
Turkey seemed to be a likely destination, prompting Bolton and Pompeo to warn it to desist from helping Venezuela, threatening
sanctions against it or any other country helping Venezuela cope with its economic crisis. As for the Bank of England and other European
countries, the Bloomberg report concluded: "Central bank officials in Caracas have been ordered to no longer try contacting the Bank
of England. These central bankers have been told that Bank of England staffers will not respond to them."
This led to rumors that Venezuela was selling 20 tons of gold via a Russian Boeing 777 – some $840 million. The money probably
would have ended up paying Russian and Chinese bondholders as well as buying food to relieve the local famine.
[4] Russia denied this report, but Reuters has confirmed is that Venezuela has sold 3 tons of a planned 29 tones of gold to the
United Arab Emirates, with another 15 tones are to be shipped on Friday, February 1.
[5] The U.S. Senate's Batista-Cuban hardliner Rubio accused this of being "theft," as if feeding the people to alleviate the
U.S.-sponsored crisis was a crime against U.S. diplomatic leverage.
If there is any country that U.S. diplomats hate more than a recalcitrant Latin American country, it is Iran. President Trump's
breaking of the 2015 nuclear agreements negotiated by European and Obama Administration diplomats has escalated to the point of threatening
Germany and other European countries with punitive sanctions if they do not also break the agreements they have signed. Coming on
top of U.S. opposition to German and other European importing of Russian gas, the U.S. threat finally prompted Europe to find a way
to defend itself.
Imperial threats are no longer military. No country (including Russia or China) can mount a military invasion of another major
country. Since the Vietnam Era, the only kind of war a democratically elected country can wage is atomic, or at least heavy bombing
such as the United States has inflicted on Iraq, Libya and Syria. But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the
connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium.
Russia and China have already moved to create a shadow bank-transfer system in case the United States unplugs them from SWIFT.
But now, European countries have come to realize that threats by Bolton and Pompeo may lead to heavy fines and asset grabs if they
seek to continue trading with Iran as called for in the treaties they have negotiated.
On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran
and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument
in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored
Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas,
this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions
attack on Europe.
I have just returned from Germany and seen a remarkable split between that nation's industrialists and their political leadership.
For years, major companies have seen Russia as a natural market, a complementary economy needing to modernize its manufacturing and
able to supply Europe with natural gas and other raw materials. America's New Cold War stance is trying to block this commercial
complementarity. Warning Europe against "dependence" on low-price Russian gas, it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from the United
States (via port facilities that do not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required). President Trump also is insisting that NATO
members spend a full 2 percent of their GDP on arms – preferably bought from the United States, not from German or French merchants
of death.
The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above.
In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to
bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945.
The World Bank, for instance, traditionally has been headed by a U.S. Secretary of Defense. Its steady policy since its inception
is to provide loans for countries to devote their land to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves. That is
why its loans are only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive. By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food
blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands.
It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to
become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically
to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports
from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees
across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either.
Likewise, the IMF has been forced to admit that its basic guidelines were fictitious from the beginning. A central core has been
to enforce payment of official inter-government debt by withholding IMF credit from countries under default. This rule was instituted
at a time when most official inter-government debt was owed to the United States. But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3
billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country
deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption
to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid.
It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. Europe has taken
notice that its own international monetary trade and financial linkages are in danger of attracting U.S. anger. This became clear
last autumn at the funeral for George H. W. Bush, when the EU's diplomat found himself downgraded to the end of the list to be called
to his seat. He was told that the U.S. no longer considers the EU an entity in good standing. In December, "Mike Pompeo gave a speech
on Europe in Brussels -- his first, and eagerly awaited -- in which he extolled the virtues of nationalism, criticised multilateralism
and the EU, and said that "international bodies" which constrain national sovereignty "must be reformed or eliminated."
[5]
Most of the above events have made the news in just one day, January 31, 2019. The conjunction of U.S. moves on so many fronts,
against Venezuela, Iran and Europe (not to mention China and the trade threats and moves against Huawei also erupting today) looks
like this will be a year of global fracture.
It is not all President Trump's doing, of course. We see the Democratic Party showing the same colors. Instead of applauding democracy
when foreign countries do not elect a leader approved by U.S. diplomats (whether it is Allende or Maduro), they've let the mask fall
and shown themselves to be the leading New Cold War imperialists. It's now out in the open. They would make Venezuela the new Pinochet-era
Chile. Trump is not alone in supporting Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi terrorists acting, as Lyndon Johnson put it, "Bastards, but they're
our bastards."
Where is the left in all this? That is the question with which I opened this article. How remarkable it is that it is only right-wing
parties, Alternative for Deutschland (AFD), or Marine le Pen's French nationalists and those of other countries that are opposing
NATO militarization and seeking to revive trade and economic links with the rest of Eurasia.
The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed observer like
me. It took a colossal level of arrogance, short-sightedness and lawlessness to hasten its decline -- something that only crazed
Neocons like John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Mike Pompeo could deliver for Donald Trump.
[2] Patricia Laya, Ethan Bronner and Tim Ross,
"Maduro Stymied in Bid to Pull $1.2 Billion of Gold From U.K.," Bloomberg, January 25, 2019. Anticipating just such a double-cross,
President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe.
Well, if the StormTrumpers can tear down all the levers and institutions of international US dollar strength, perhaps they
can also tear down all the institutions of Corporate Globalonial Forced Free Trade. That itself may BE our escape . . . if there
are enough millions of Americans who have turned their regionalocal zones of habitation into economically and politically armor-plated
Transition Towns, Power-Down Zones, etc. People and places like that may be able to crawl up out of the rubble and grow and defend
little zones of semi-subsistence survival-economics.
If enough millions of Americans have created enough such zones, they might be able to link up with eachother to offer hope
of a movement to make America in general a semi-autarchik, semi-secluded and isolated National Survival Economy . . . . much smaller
than today, perhaps likelier to survive the various coming ecosystemic crash-cramdowns, and no longer interested in leading or
dominating a world that we would no longer have the power to lead or dominate.
We could put an end to American Exceptionalism. We could lay this burden down. We could become American Okayness Ordinarians.
Make America an okay place for ordinary Americans to live in.
If Populists, I assume that's what you mean by "Storm Troopers", offer me M4A and revitalized local economies, and deliver
them, they have my support and more power to them.
That's why Trump was elected, his promises, not yet delivered, were closer to that then the Democrats' promises. If the Democrats
promised those things and delivered, then they would have my support.
If the Democrats run a candidate, who has a no track record of delivering such things, we stay home on election day. Trump
can have it, because it won't be any worse.
I don't give a damn about "social issues." Economics, health care and avoiding WWIII are what motivates my votes, and I think
more and more people are going to vote the same way.
Good point about Populist versus StormTrumper. ( And by the way, I said StormTRUMper, not StormTROOper). I wasn't thinking
of the Populists. I was thinking of the neo-etc. vandals and arsonists who want us to invade Venezuela, leave the JCPOA with Iran,
etc. Those are the people who will finally drive the other-country governments into creating their own parallel payment systems,
etc.
And the midpoint of those efforts will leave wreckage and rubble for us to crawl up out of. But we will have a chance to crawl
up out of it.
My reason for voting for Trump was mainly to stop the Evil Clinton from getting elected and to reduce the chance of near immediate
thermonuclear war with Russia and to save the Assad regime in Syria from Clintonian overthrow and replacement with an Islamic
Emirate of Jihadistan.
Much of what will be attempted " in Trump's name" will be de-regulationism of all kinds delivered by the sorts of basic Republicans
selected for the various agencies and departments by Pence and Moore and the Koch Brothers. I doubt the Populist Voters wanted
the Koch-Pence agenda. But that was a risky tradeoff in return for keeping Clinton out of office.
The only Dems who would seek what you want are Sanders or maybe Gabbard or just barely Warren. The others would all be Clinton
or Obama all over again.
I couldn't really find any details about the new INSTEX system – have you got any good links to brush up on? I know they made
an announcement yesterday but how long until the new payment system is operational?
arguably wouldn't it be better if for USD hegemony to be dismantled? A strong USD hurts US exports, subsidizes American consumption
(by making commodities cheaper in relative terms), makes international trade (aka a 8,000-mile+ supply chain) easier.
For the sake of the environment, you want less of all three. Though obviously I don't like the idea of expensive gasoline,
natural gas or tube socks either.
It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive
Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence.
Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs,
but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and
settle for being a dominant minority.
Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast
their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change.
What this change would consist of, and how it would manifest, remained an open question. Would he pursue rapprochement with
Russia and pull troops out of the Middle East as he claimed to want to do during his 2016 campaign, would he doggedly pursue corruption
charges against Clinton and attempt to reform the FBI and CIA, or would he do both, neither, or something else entirely?
Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international
order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment
desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms".
Interesting times.
Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery
going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. Whether or not he ever had or has a coherent plan for the havoc he has
wrought, he has certainly been the agent for change many of us hoped he would be, in stark contrast to the criminal duopoly parties
who continue to oppose him, where the daily no news is always bad news all the same. To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you
don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the
best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles.
Look on some bright sides. Here is just one bright side to look on. President Trump has delayed and denied the Clinton Plan
to topple Assad just long enough that Russia has been able to help Assad preserve legitimate government in most of Syria and defeat
the Clinton's-choice jihadis.
That is a positive good. Unless you are pro-jihadi.
Clinton wasn't going to "benefit the greater good" either, and a very strong argument, based on her past behavior, can be made
that she represented the greater threat. Given that the choice was between her and Trump, I think voters made the right decision.
Hudson's done us a service in pulling these threads together. I'd missed the threats against the ICC judges. One question:
is it possible for INSTEX-like arrangements to function secretly? What is to be gained by announcing them publicly and drawing
the expected attacks? Does that help sharpen conflicts, and to what end?
Maybe they're done in secret already – who knows? The point of doing it publicly is to make a foreign-policy impact, in this
case withdrawing power from the US. It's a Declaration of Independence.
It certainly seems as though the 90 percent (plus) are an afterthought in this journey to who knows where? Like George C.Scott
said while playing Patton, "The whole world at economic war and I'm not part of it. God will not let this happen." Looks like
we're on the Brexit track (without the vote). The elite argue with themselves and we just sit and watch. It appears to me that
the elite just do not have the ability to contemplate things beyond their own narrow self interest. We are all deplorables now.
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected
Is not supported by this (or really the rest of the article). The past tense here, for example, is unwarranted:
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their
equity share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy.
And this
So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. Germany agreed
to slow down the transfer.
Doesn't show Germany as breaking free at all, and worse it is followed by the pregnant
But then came Venezuela.
Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet
again. Nothing to see here, actually.
So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change.
"So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change."
I'm surprised more people aren't recognizing this. I read the article waiting in vain for some evidence of "the end of our
monetary imperialism" besides some 'grumbling and foot dragging' as you aptly put it. There was some glimmer of a buried lede
with INTEX, created to get around U.S. sanctions against Iran ─ hardly a 'dam-breaking'. Washington is on record as being annoyed.
Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD
as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. World bond market flows are 10X the size
of world stock market flows even though the price of the Dow and Facebook shares etc get all of the headlines.
And foreign exchange flows are 10-50X the flows of bond markets, they're currently on the order of $5 *trillion* per day. And
since forex is almost completely unregulated it's quite difficult to get the data and spot reserve currency trends. Oh, and buy
gold. It's the only currency that requires no counterparty and is no one's debt obligation.
That's not what Hudson claims in his swaggering final sentence:
"The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed
observer like me."
Which is risible as not only did he fail to show anything of the kind, his opening sentence stated a completely different reality:
"The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected" So if we hold him to his first
declaration, his evidence is feeble, as I mentioned. As a scholar, his hyperbole is untrustworthy.
No, gold is pretty enough lying on the bosom of a lady-friend but that's about its only usefulness in the real world.
Always bemusing that gold bugs never talk about gold being in a bubble . yet when it goes south of its purchase price speak
in tongues about ev'bal forces.
thanks Mr. Hudson. One has to wonder what has happened when the government (for decades) has been shown to be morally and otherwise
corrupt and self serving. It doesn't seem to bother anyone but the people, and precious few of them. Was it our financial and
legal bankruptcy that sent us over the cliff?
Indeed! It is to say the least encouraging to see Dr. Hudson return so forcefully to the theme of 'monetary imperialism'.
I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you
haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. You can
find any number of articles on his web site that return periodically to the theme of monetary imperialism. I remember one in particular
that described how the rest of the world was brought on board to help pay for its good old-fashioned military imperialism.
If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt
status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long
as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington
neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be"
to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing.
Until the US returns to the path of genuine wealth creation, it is past time for the rest of the world to go its own way with
its banking and financial institutions.
In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same
pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3.
UK withholding Gold may start another Brexit? IE: funds/gold held by BOE for other countries in Africa, Asian, South America,
and the "stans" with start to depart, slowly at first, perhaps for Switzerland?
Where is the left in all this? Pretty much the same place as Michael Hudson, I'd say. Where is the US Democratic Party in all
this? Quite a different question, and quite a different answer. So far as I can see, the Democrats for years have bombed, invaded
and plundered other countries 'for their own good'. Republicans do it 'for the good of America', by which the ignoramuses mean
the USA. If you're on the receiving end, it doesn't make much difference.
Agreed! South America intervention and regime change, Syria ( Trump is pulling out), Iraq, Middle East meddling, all predate
Trump. Bush, Clinton and Obama have nothing to do with any of this.
" So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. "
What proof is there that the gold is still there? Chances are it's notional. All Germany, Venezuela, or the others have is
an IOU – and gold cannot be printed. Incidentally, this whole discussion means that gold is still money and the gold standard
still exists.
What makes you think that the gold in Fort Knox is still there? If I remember right, there was a Potemkin visit back in the
70s to assure everyone that the gold was still there but not since then. Wait, I tell a lie. There was another visit about two
years ago but look who was involved in that visit-
And I should mention that it was in the 90s that between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were manufactured in the
US under Clinton. Since then gold-coated tungsten bars have turned up in places like Germany, China, Ethiopia, the UK, etc so
who is to say if those gold bars in Fort Knox are gold all the way through either. More on this at --
http://viewzone2.com/fakegoldx.html
It wasn't last year that Germany brought back its Gold. It has been ongoing since 2013, after some political and popular pressure
build up. They finished the transaction in 2017. According to an article in Handelblatt (but it was widely reported back then)
they brought back pretty much everything they had in Paris (347t), left what they had in London (perhaps they should have done
it in reverse) and took home another 300t from the NY Fed. That still leaves 1236t in NY. But half of their Gold (1710t) is now
in Frankfurt. That is 50% of the Bundesbanks holdings.
They made a point in saying that every bar was checked and weighed and presented some bars in Frankfurt. I guess they didn't
melt them for assaying, but I'd expect them to be smart enough to check the density.
Their reason to keep Gold in NY and London is to quickly buy USD in case of a crisis. That's pretty much a cold war plan, but
that's what they do right now.
Regarding Michal Hudsons piece, I enjoyed reading through this one. He tends to write ridiculously long articles and in the
last few years with less time and motivation at hand I've skipped most of his texts on NC as they just drag on.
When I'm truly fascinated I like well written, long articles but somehow he lost me at some point. But I noticed that some
long original articles in US magazines, probably research for a long time by the journalist, can just drag on for ever as well
I just tune out.
This is making sense. I would guess that tearing up the old system is totally deliberate. It wasn't working so well for us
because we had to practice too much social austerity, which we have tried to impose on the EU as well, just to stabilize "king
dollar" – otherwise spread so thin it was a pending catastrophe.
Now we can get out from under being the reserve currency – the currency that maintains its value by financial manipulation
and military bullying domestic deprivation. To replace this old power trip we are now going to mainline oil. The dollar will become
a true petro dollar because we are going to commandeer every oil resource not already nailed down.
When we partnered with SA in Aramco and the then petro dollar the dollar was only backed by our military. If we start monopolizing
oil, the actual commodity, the dollar will be an apex competitor currency without all the foreign military obligations which will
allow greater competitive advantages.
No? I'm looking at PdVSA, PEMEX and the new "Energy Hub for the Eastern Mediterranean" and other places not yet made public.
It looks like a power play to me, not a hapless goofball president at all.
So sand people with sociological attachment to the OT is a compelling argument based on antiquarian preferences with authoritarian
patriarchal tendencies for their non renewable resource . after I might add it was deemed a strategic concern after WWII .
Considering the broader geopolitical realities I would drain all the gold reserves to zero if it was on offer . here natives
have some shiny beads for allowing us to resource extract we call this a good trade you maximize your utility as I do mine .
Hay its like not having to run C-corp compounds with western 60s – 70s esthetics and letting the locals play serf, blow back
pay back, and now the installed local chiefs can own the risk and refocus the attention away from the real antagonists.
Indeed. Thanks so much for this. Maybe the RICS will get serious now – can no longer include Brazil with Bolsonaro. There needs
to be an alternate system or systems in place, and to see US Imperialism so so blatantly and bluntly by Trump admin –
"US
gives Juan Guaido control over some Venezuelan assets" – should sound sirens on every continent and especially in the developing
world. I too hope there will be fracture to the point of breakage. Countries of the world outside the US/EU/UK/Canada/Australia
confraternity must now unite to provide a permanent framework outside the control of imperial interests. The be clear, this must
not default to alternative forms of imperialism germinating by the likes of China.
" such criticism can't begin to take in the full scope of the damage the Trump White House is inflicting on the system of global
power Washington built and carefully maintained over those 70 years. Indeed, American leaders have been on top of the world for
so long that they no longer remember how they got there.
Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it
now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's
inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of
a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble."
I read something like this and I am like, some of these statements need to be qualified. Like: "Driving China and Russia together".
Like where's the proof? Is Xi playing telephone games more often now with Putin? I look at those two and all I see are two egocentric
people who might sometimes say the right things but in general do not like the share the spotlight. Let's say they get together
to face America and for some reason the later gets "defeated", it's not as if they'll kumbaya together into the night.
This website often points out the difficulties in implementing new banking IT initiatives. Ok, so Europe has a new "payment
system". Has it been tested thoroughly? I would expect a couple of weeks or even months of chaos if it's not been tested, and
if it's thorough that probably just means that it's in use right i.e. all the kinks have been worked out. In that case the transition
is already happening anyway. But then the next crisis arrives and then everyone would need their dollar swap lines again which
probably needs to cleared through SWIFT or something.
Anyway, does this all mean that one day we'll wake up and a slice of bacon is 50 bucks as opposed to the usual 1 dollar?
Driving Russia and China together is correct. I recall them signing a variety of economic and military agreement a few years
ago. It was covered in the media. You should at least google an issue before making silly comments. You might start with the report
of Russia and China signing 30 cooperation agreements three years ago. See
https://www.rbth.com/international/2016/06/27/russia-china-sign-30-cooperation-agreements_606505
. There are lots and lots of others.
He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and
WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas.
The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical
foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed
the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run.
Whilst the far right factions fight over the rudder the only new game in town is AOC, Sanders, Warren, et al which Trumps supporters
hate with Ideological purity.
Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On
US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics"
on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners.
On a household level it fits, but there no "loser" household that in infinity can print money that the "winners" can accumulate
in exchange for their resources and fruits of labor.
One wonder what are Trumps idea of US being a winner in trade (surplus)? I.e. sending away their resources and fruits of labor
overseas in exchange for what? A pile of USD? That US in the first place created out of thin air. Or Chinese Yuan, Euros, Turkish
liras? Also fiat-money. Or does he think US trade surplus should be paid in gold?
When the US political and economic hegemony will unravel it will come "unexpected". Trump for sure are undermining it with
his megalomaniac ignorance. But not sure it's imminent.
Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash
will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence.
There will be fierce competition to fill the gap.
On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and
austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top.
I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect.
Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the
rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT.
The trade deficit required a large Government deficit to cover it and the US government could just create the money to cover
it.
Then ideological neoliberals came in wanting balanced budgets and not realising the Government deficit covered the trade deficit.
The US has been destabilising its own economy by reducing the Government deficit. Bill Clinton didn't realize a Government surplus is an indicator a financial crisis is about to hit. The last US Government surplus occurred in 1927 – 1930, they go hand-in-hand with financial crises.
Richard Koo shows the graph central bankers use and it's the flow of funds within the economy, which sums to zero (32-34 mins.).
The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy.
It should be remembered Bill Clinton's early meeting with Rubin, where in he was informed that wages and productivity had diverged –
Rubin did not blink an eye.
"... When tariffs went up from 0 to 10% on some product categories last year, many suppliers agreed to absorb half that amount (5%) in exchange for larger orders. The logic was as follows: higher orders lead to better deals with component suppliers and to higher production efficiencies, which means lower costs. ..."
"... Do you ship American wood for processing in China and re-exporting to the US? You might have issues getting that material into China as smoothly as before. And then, the US Customs office might give you a hard time when you bring the goods in, too! ..."
"... Who knows what non-monetary barriers the Chinese will erect. One can count on their creativity ..."
"... Several US companies asked our company to look for assembly plants in Vietnam and, in those cases where we found some options, they were much more expensive than China. There is a reason why China's share of hard goods production in Asia has kept growing in recent years -- competition is often non-existent. ..."
"... Now, with China's products suddenly much more expensive, what are these competing countries going to do? Won't they take advantage of it and push wages further up, at least for the export manufacturing sector? ..."
"... Mexico should be the clear winner of this trade war. They are next to the US, their labor cost is comparable to that of China, and many American companies have long had extensive operations there. ..."
Based on
allthe
articles I have read about the current geopolitical situation, I am not optimistic about
the affect of the US-China trade war on American importers. Dan Harris, who wrote "
the US-China Cold War start now, " announced that a "mega-storm" might be coming, and he
may be right.
Now, if things turn out as bad as predicted, and if tariffs apply on more goods imported
from China to the US -- and at higher rates -- what does it mean for US importers?
What
will the damage from the US-China trade war look like?
These are my thoughts about who or what is going to be hit hard by the ongoing 'trade
war:'
1. Small importers will be hit much harder than larger ones
If you work with very large Chinese manufacturers, many of them have already started to set
up operations outside of mainland China, for the simple reason that most of their customers
have been pushing for that.
They are in Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. And this is true in most industries -- from apparel to
electronics.
Do they still have to import most of their components from China? It depends on their
footprints. As I wrote before :
You set up a mammoth plant and you don't want your high-value component suppliers to be
more than 1 hour away from you, for just-in-time inventory replenishment? They can be
requested to set up a new manufacturing facility next to you.
2. A higher total cost of goods purchased from China
This one is obvious. If you have orders already in production, they will cost you more than
expected.
The RMB might slide quite a bit, and that might alleviate the total cost. I hope you have
followed my advice and started paying your suppliers in RMB , to benefit
from it automatically.
Beijing might also give other forms of subsidies to their exporters. They might be quite
visible (e.g. a higher VAT rebate) or totally 'under the table'.
3. Difficult
negotiations with Chinese suppliers
Can you say the tariffs are Beijing's fault, and so your suppliers should absorb the
tariffs? That's not going to work.
When tariffs went up from 0 to 10% on some product categories last year, many suppliers
agreed to absorb half that amount (5%) in exchange for larger orders. The logic was as follows:
higher orders lead to better deals with component suppliers and to higher production
efficiencies, which means lower costs.
When tariffs go from 10% to 35%, what else can US buyers give their counter-parties?
Payments in advance? Lower quality standards? I don't believe that.
4. Difficulties at
several levels in the supply chain
Do you ship American wood for processing in China and re-exporting to the US? You might have
issues getting that material into China as smoothly as before. And then, the US Customs office
might give you a hard time when you bring the goods in, too!
Who knows what non-monetary barriers the Chinese will erect. One can count on their
creativity
5. Short-term non-elasticity of alternative sources
There are a finite number of Vietnamese export-ready manufacturers that can make your
orders. And, chances are, their capacity is already full. If you haven't prepared this move for
months (or years), other US companies have. The early bird gets the worm
Same thing with Thailand, Indonesia, India, and so on, with the exception of apparel and
(maybe) footwear.
Several US companies asked our company
to look for assembly plants in Vietnam and, in those cases where we found some options, they
were much more expensive than China. There is a reason why China's share of
hard goods production in Asia has kept growing in recent years -- competition is often
non-existent.
6. Faster cost increases in other low-cost Asian countries
Now, with China's products suddenly much more expensive, what are these competing countries
going to do? Won't they take advantage of it and push wages further up, at least for the export
manufacturing sector?
There could be some 'silver linings' due to the trade war
It is not all bad news though. We may see these benefits caused by China and the USA
slugging it out too:
7. Many opportunities for Mexico
Mexico should be the clear winner of this trade war. They are next to the US, their labor
cost is comparable to that of China, and many American companies have long had extensive
operations there.
8. Rapid consolidation in the Chinese manufacturing sector
The fittest will survive. Many uncompetitive manufacturers and traders will fold. Consolidation
will accelerate. I often look at what happened in Japan and South Korea . Each of these countries
developed very fast and, when the going got tough, the export manufacturing sector got
devastated. Only the most competitive survived.
9. Relaxed enforcement of anti-pollution
regulations in China?
I'd bet that, if the tariffs hit hard, far fewer operations will get closed for
environmental reasons. Preserving employment and social peace will prevail.
Over the last two years, a different, in some ways unrecognizable Larry Summers has been appearing in newspaper editorial pages.
More circumspect in tone, this humbler Summers has been arguing that economic opportunities in the developing world are slowing,
and that the already rich economies are finding it hard to get out of the crisis. Barring some kind of breakthrough, Summers says,
an era of slow growth is here to stay.
In Summers's recent writings, this sombre conclusion has often been paired with a surprising political goal: advocating for a
"responsible nationalism". Now he argues that politicians must recognise that "the basic responsibility of government is to maximise
the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good".
One curious thing about the pro-globalisation consensus of the 1990s and 2000s, and its collapse in recent years, is how closely
the cycle resembles a previous era. Pursuing free trade has always produced displacement and inequality – and political chaos, populism
and retrenchment to go with it. Every time the social consequences of free trade are overlooked, political backlash follows. But
free trade is only one of many forms that economic integration can take. History seems to suggest, however, that it might be the
most destabilising one.
... ... ...
The international systems that chastened figures such as Keynes helped produce in the next few years – especially the Bretton
Woods agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) – set the terms under which the new wave of globalisation
would take place.
The key to the system's viability, in Rodrik's view, was its flexibility – something absent from contemporary globalisation,
with its one-size-fits-all model of capitalism. Bretton Woods stabilised exchange rates by pegging the dollar loosely to gold, and
other currencies to the dollar. Gatt consisted of rules governing free trade – negotiated by participating countries in a series
of multinational "rounds" – that left many areas of the world economy, such as agriculture, untouched or unaddressed. "Gatt's purpose
was never to maximise free trade," Rodrik writes. "It was to achieve the maximum amount of trade compatible with different nations
doing their own thing. In that respect, the institution proved spectacularly successful."
Partly because Gatt was not always dogmatic about free trade, it allowed most countries to figure out their own economic objectives,
within a somewhat international ambit. When nations contravened the agreement's terms on specific areas of national interest, they
found that it "contained loopholes wide enough for an elephant to pass", in Rodrik's words. If a nation wanted to protect its steel
industry, for example, it could claim "injury" under the rules of Gatt and raise tariffs to discourage steel imports: "an abomination
from the standpoint of free trade". These were useful for countries that were recovering from the war and needed to build up their
own industries via tariffs – duties imposed on particular imports. Meanwhile, from 1948 to 1990, world trade grew at an annual average
of nearly 7% – faster than the post-communist years, which we think of as the high point of globalisation. "If there was a golden
era of globalisation," Rodrik has written, "this was it."
Gatt, however, failed to cover many of the countries in the developing world. These countries eventually created their own system,
the United Nations conference on trade and development (UNCTAD). Under this rubric, many countries – especially in Latin America,
the Middle East, Africa and Asia – adopted a policy of protecting homegrown industries by replacing imports with domestically produced
goods. It worked poorly in some places – India and Argentina, for example, where the trade barriers were too high, resulting in
factories that cost more to set up than the value of the goods they produced – but remarkably well in others, such as east Asia,
much of Latin America and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where homegrown industries did spring up. Though many later economists and
commentators would dismiss the achievements of this model, it theoretically fit Larry Summers's recent rubric on globalisation:
"the basic responsibility of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global
good."
The critical turning point – away from this system of trade balanced against national protections – came in the 1980s. Flagging
growth and high inflation in the west, along with growing competition from Japan, opened the way for a political transformation.
The elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were seminal, putting free-market radicals in charge of two of the world's
five biggest economies and ushering in an era of "hyperglobalisation". In the new political climate, economies with large public
sectors and strong governments within the global capitalist system were no longer seen as aids to the system's functioning, but
impediments to it.
Not only did these ideologies take hold in the US and the UK; they seized international institutions as well. Gatt renamed itself
as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the new rules the body negotiated began to cut more deeply into national policies. Its
international trade rules sometimes undermined national legislation. The WTO's appellate court intervened relentlessly in member
nations' tax, environmental and regulatory policies, including those of the United States: the US's fuel emissions standards were
judged to discriminate against imported gasoline, and its
ban on imported shrimp caught without turtle-excluding
devices was overturned. If national health and safety regulations were stricter than WTO rules necessitated, they could only
remain in place if they were shown to have "scientific justification".
The purest version of hyperglobalisation was tried out in Latin America in the 1980s. Known as the "Washington consensus", this
model usually involved loans from the IMF that were contingent on those countries lowering trade barriers and privatising many of
their nationally held industries. Well into the 1990s, economists were proclaiming the indisputable benefits of openness. In an
influential 1995 paper, Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner wrote: "We find no cases to support the frequent worry that a country might
open and yet fail to grow."
But the Washington consensus was bad for business: most countries did worse than before. Growth faltered, and citizens across
Latin America revolted against attempted privatisations of water and gas. In Argentina, which followed the Washington consensus
to the letter, a grave crisis resulted in
2002 , precipitating an economic collapse and massive street protests that forced out the government that had pursued privatising
reforms. Argentina's revolt presaged a left-populist upsurge across the continent: from 1999 to 2007, leftwing leaders and parties
took power in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, all of them campaigning against the Washington consensus on globalisation.
These revolts were a preview of the backlash of today.
Rodrik – perhaps the contemporary economist whose views have been most amply vindicated by recent events – was himself a beneficiary
of protectionism in Turkey. His father's ballpoint pen company was sheltered under tariffs, and achieved enough success to allow
Rodrik to attend Harvard in the 1970s as an undergraduate. This personal understanding of the mixed nature of economic success may
be one of the reasons why his work runs against the broad consensus of mainstream economics writing on globalisation.
"I never felt that my ideas were out of the mainstream," Rodrik told me recently. Instead, it was that the mainstream had lost
touch with the diversity of opinions and methods that already existed within economics. "The economics profession is strange in
that the more you move away from the seminar room to the public domain, the more the nuances get lost, especially on issues of trade."
He lamented the fact that while, in the classroom, the models of trade discuss losers and winners, and, as a result, the necessity
of policies of redistribution, in practice, an "arrogance and hubris" had led many economists to ignore these implications. "Rather
than speaking truth to power, so to speak, many economists became cheerleaders for globalisation."
In his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox
, Rodrik concluded that "we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalisation." The
results of the 2016 elections and referendums provide ample testimony of the justness of the thesis, with millions voting to push
back, for better or for worse, against the campaigns and institutions that promised more globalisation. "I'm not at all surprised
by the backlash," Rodrik told me. "Really, nobody should have been surprised."
But what, in any case, would "more globalisation" look like? For the same economists and writers who have started to rethink
their commitments to greater integration, it doesn't mean quite what it did in the early 2000s. It's not only the discourse that's
changed: globalisation itself has changed, developing into a more chaotic and unequal system than many economists predicted. The
benefits of globalisation have been largely concentrated in a handful of Asian countries. And even in those countries, the good
times may be running out.
Statistics from Global Inequality
, a 2016 book by the development economist Branko Milanović, indicate that in relative terms the greatest benefits of globalisation
have accrued to a rising "emerging middle class", based preponderantly in China. But the cons are there, too: in absolute terms,
the largest gains have gone to what is commonly called "the 1%" – half of whom are based in the US. Economist Richard Baldwin has
shown in his recent book, The Great Convergence, that nearly all of the gains from globalisation have been concentrated in six countries.
Barring some political catastrophe, in which rightwing populism continued to gain, and in which globalisation would be the least
of our problems – Wolf admitted that he was "not at all sure" that this could be ruled out – globalisation was always going to slow;
in fact, it already has. One reason, says Wolf, was that "a very, very large proportion of the gains from globalisation – by no
means all – have been exploited. We have a more open world economy to trade than we've ever had before." Citing The Great Convergence,
Wolf noted that supply chains have already expanded, and that future developments, such as automation and the use of robots, looked
to undermine the promise of a growing industrial workforce. Today, the political priorities were less about trade and more about
the challenge of retraining workers , as technology renders old jobs obsolete and transforms the world of work.
Rodrik, too, believes that globalisation, whether reduced or increased, is unlikely to produce the kind of economic effects it
once did. For him, this slowdown has something to do with what he calls "premature deindustrialisation". In the past, the simplest
model of globalisation suggested that rich countries would gradually become "service economies", while emerging economies picked
up the industrial burden. Yet recent statistics show the world as a whole is deindustrialising. Countries that one would have expected
to have more industrial potential are going through the stages of automation more quickly than previously developed countries did,
and thereby failing to develop the broad industrial workforce seen as a key to shared prosperity.
For both Rodrik and Wolf, the political reaction to globalisation bore possibilities of deep uncertainty. "I really have found
it very difficult to decide whether what we're living through is a blip, or a fundamental and profound transformation of the world
– at least as significant as the one that brought about the first world war and the Russian revolution," Wolf told me. He cited
his agreement with economists such as Summers that shifting away from the earlier emphasis on globalisation had now become a political
priority; that to pursue still greater liberalisation was like showing "a red rag to a bull" in terms of what it might do to the
already compromised political stability of the western world.
Rodrik pointed to a belated emphasis, both among political figures and economists, on the necessity of compensating those displaced
by globalisation with retraining and more robust welfare states. But pro-free-traders had a history of cutting compensation: Bill
Clinton passed Nafta, but failed to expand safety nets. "The issue is that the people are rightly not trusting the centrists who
are now promising compensation," Rodrik said. "One reason that Hillary Clinton didn't get any traction with those people is that
she didn't have any credibility."
Rodrik felt that economics commentary failed to register the gravity of the situation: that there were increasingly few avenues
for global growth, and that much of the damage done by globalisation – economic and political – is irreversible. "There is a sense
that we're at a turning point," he said. "There's a lot more thinking about what can be done. There's a renewed emphasis on compensation
– which, you know, I think has come rather late."
"... The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance. They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following Margaret Thatcher's lead. ..."
"... Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. ..."
"... But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations, councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and apathetic insouciance. ..."
"... With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes! ..."
This is a very good article on UK politics, but I would have put more emphasis on the
background. Where we are today has everything to do with how we got here.
The UK has this basic left/right split (Labour/Conservative) reaching far back into its
class based history. Sad to say, but within 5 seconds a British person can determine the
class of the person they are dealing with (working/ middle/ upper) and act accordingly
– referencing their own social background.
Margaret Thatcher was a lower middle class grocer's daughter who gained a rare place at
Oxford University (on her own high intellectual merits), and took on the industrial wreckers
of the radical left (Arthur Scargill etc.). She consolidated her power with the failure of
the 1984-85 Miner's Strike. She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless
and open to the talents, adopting free market Neoliberalism along with Ronald Reagan. A large
section of the aspirational working class went for this (many already had middle class
salaries) and wanted that at least their children could join the middle class through the
university system.
The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities
were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the
internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance.
They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party,
creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following
Margaret Thatcher's lead.
The story now, is that the UK public realize that the Globalist/Zionist/SJW/Open
Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends . So they (the public) are backtracking
fast to find solid ground. In practice this means 1) Leave the Neoliberal/Globalist EU (which
has also been hijacked) using Brexit 2) Recover the traditional Socialist Labour Party of
working people through Jeremy Corbyn 3) Recover the traditional Conservative Party ( Britain
First) through Nigel Farage and his Brexit movement.
Hence the current and growing gulf that is separating the British public from its
Zio-Globalist elite + their media propagandists (BBC, Guardian etc.).
She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless …
Or just plain anti-working class.
It was actually Thatcher who started the neo-liberal revolution in Britain. To the extent
that she refused to finish it, the elites had Tony Blair in the wings waiting to go.
Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the
political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse
under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. Under this system if
anyone steps out of line is indeed sidelined for the “anti-semitic” treatment,
demonized, vilified and, virtually hanged and quartered on the public square of the
mendacious media.
In the good old days, when there was a militant working class and revolting (!) unionism,
we would get together at meetings, organize protests and strikes and confront bosses and
officialdom. There was camaraderie, solidarity, loyalty and confident defiance that we were
fighting for a better world for ourselves and our children – and also for people less
fortunate than us in other countries.
But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were
already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations,
councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead
uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and
apathetic insouciance.
... ... ... .
With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring
from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has
shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their
face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes!
@Miro23
ic get pissed off and vote in the conservatives who then privatise everything. And this game
continues on and on. The British public are literally headless chickens running around not
knowing what on earth is going on. They’re not interested in getting to the bottom of
why society is the way it is. They’re all too comfortable with their mortgages, cars,
holidays twice a year, mobile phones, TV shows and football.
When all of this disappears,
then certainly, they will start asking questions, but when that time comes they will be
utterly powerless to do anything, as a minority in their own land. Greater Israel will be
built when that time comes.
No one at the time had much idea about Neoliberalism and none at all about Globalization.
This was all in the future.
And it was the British working class who were really cutting their own throats, by
wrecking British industry (their future employment), with constant political radicalism and
strikes.
"... Across-the-board rivalry with China is becoming an organising principle of US economic, foreign and security policies. ..."
"... An effort to halt China's economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives might still win out. But that is far less likely if China's natural rise is threatened. ..."
"... The tragedy in what is now happening is that the administration is simultaneously launching a conflict between the two powers, attacking its allies and destroying the institutions of the postwar US-led order. ..."
The disappearance of the Soviet Union left a big hole. The "war on terror" was an inadequate replacement. But China ticks all boxes.
For the US, it can be the ideological, military and economic enemy many need. Here at last is a worthwhile opponent. That was the
main conclusion I drew from this year's Bilderberg meetings.
Across-the-board
rivalry with China is becoming
an organising principle of US economic, foreign and security policies.
Whether it is Donald Trump's organizing principle is less important. The US president has the gut instincts of a nationalist and
protectionist. Others provide both framework and details. The aim is US domination. The means is control over China, or separation
from China.
Anybody who believes a rules-based multilateral order, our globalised economy, or even harmonious international relations, are
likely to survive this conflict is deluded. The astonishing
white paper on the
trade conflict
, published on Sunday by China, is proof. The -- to me, depressing -- fact is that on many points Chinese positions are right.
The US focus on
bilateral imbalances is economically illiterate. The view that theft of intellectual property has caused huge damage to the US
is
questionable . The proposition that China has grossly violated its commitments under its 2001 accession agreement to the World
Trade Organization is hugely exaggerated.
Accusing China of cheating is hypocritical when almost all trade policy actions taken by the Trump administration are in breach
of WTO rules, a fact implicitly conceded by its determination
to destroy the
dispute settlement system .
A dispute over the terms of market opening or protection of intellectual property might be settled with careful negotiation. Such
a settlement might even help China, since it would lighten the heavy hand of the state and promote market-oriented reform.
But the issues are now too vexed for such a resolution. This is partly because of the bitter breakdown in negotiation. It is still
more because the US debate is increasingly over whether integration with China's state-led economy is desirable. The fear over Huawei
focuses on national security and technological autonomy.
[Neo]liberal commerce is increasingly seen as "trading with the enemy".
A framing of relations with China as one of zero-sum conflict is emerging. Recent remarks by Kiron Skinner, the US state department's
policy planning director (a job once held by cold war strategist George Kennan) are revealing. Rivalry with Beijing,
she suggested at a
forum organised
by New America , is "a fight with a really different civilisation and a different ideology, and the United States hasn't had
that before".
She added that this would be "the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian". The war with Japan
is forgotten.
But the big point is her framing of this as a civilizational and racial war and so as an insoluble conflict. This cannot be accidental.
She is also still in her job. Others present the conflict as one over ideology and power.
Those emphasising the former point to President Xi Jinping's Marxist rhetoric and the reinforced role of the
Communist party . Those emphasising the latter point to China's rising economic might. Both perspectives suggest perpetual conflict.
This is the most important geopolitical development of our era. Not least, it will increasingly force everybody else to take sides
or fight hard for neutrality. But it is not only important. It is dangerous. It risks turning a manageable, albeit vexed, relationship
into all-embracing conflict, for no good reason. China's ideology is not a threat to liberal democracy in the way the Soviet Union's
was. Rightwing demagogues are far more dangerous.
An effort to halt China's economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the
Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives
might still win out. But that is far less likely if China's natural rise is threatened.
Moreover, the rise of China is not an important cause of western malaise. That reflects far more the indifference and incompetence
of domestic elites. What is seen as theft of intellectual property reflects, in large part, the inevitable attempt of a rising economy
to master the technologies of the day. Above all, an attempt to preserve the domination of 4 per cent of humanity over the rest is
illegitimate.
This certainly does not mean accepting everything China does or says. On the contrary, the best way for the west to deal with
China is to insist on the abiding values of freedom, democracy, rules-based multilateralism and global co-operation. These ideas
made many around the globe supporters of the US in the past.
They still captivate many Chinese people today. It is quite possible to uphold these ideas, indeed insist upon them far more strongly,
while co-operating with a rising China where that is essential, as over protecting the natural environment, commerce and peace.
A blend of competition with co-operation is the right way forward. Such an approach to managing China's rise must include co-operating
closely with like-minded allies and treating China with respect.
The tragedy in what is now happening is that the administration is simultaneously launching a conflict between the two powers,
attacking its allies and destroying the institutions of the postwar US-led order.
Today's attack on China is the wrong war, fought in the wrong way, on the wrong terrain. Alas, this is where we now are.
It has become a cliché to quote William Butler Yeats’s poem “The
Second Coming,” written almost 100 years ago in the aftermath of World War I. But no one has said it better: “Things fall
apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world . . . And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, /
Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?”
Donald Trump's decision to raise duties on Chinese goods from ten to 25 percent of additional $200 billion of China exports
came into force. It is unclear how this will work and how much the US consumers will pay. Probably half of this raise
so from 5% to 10% which might be not very noticeable outside such items as shoes and clothing. The cost of Chinese's shoes already
is quite high -- plastic regular $60-30 with discounts on holiday. Leather -- $100-$50 and almost no discounts.
Trump uses his favorite "bully in the schoolyard" style, a typical the American foreign policy tactic to direct, lawless
pressure. First, they accuse partners of violations, to introduce restrictions on this basis (and at the same time to plunge world
markets into panic), and then to agree on the resumption of negotiations. But the previous decisions about tariffs were left, of
course, in force.
His gambit to conclude a deal with North Korea collapsed in failure in Hanoi in February, and
it is a huge blow to his self-styled image of a master dealmaker. Trump also faces a flurry
of congressional subpoenas at home from Democrats who now control the House of
Representatives. Hence with mounting legal and political troubles, Trump is cornered and
desperately needs a conclusion to the prolonged trade war with China, which has netted zero
benefits for him.
The prospect of a trade deal with China remains as elusive as ever, despite Trump's
increased tariffs to pressure China to come to the negotiating table with the list of
concession that he wants. It is highly unlikely that China will grant Trump the concessions
he wants. China remembers clearly the deal that Tokyo concluded with Washington in the 1990s
that caused Japan to slip into economic stagnation for many years. That period has now been
dubbed Japan's "lost decade."
China is not dumb and it will not concede to Trump.
Worse still, the move to increase tariffs took place while Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He was
in Washington to negotiate with the Trump administration.
It is a blunder by Trump and will be perceived by the Chinese as a cheap shot against
President Xi Jinping. The tariffs hike came despite Xi's
"beautiful letter" to Trump, and it is a massive loss of face for the Chinese leader to
see his group of officials return home from Washington with no deal to conclude the trade
war.
Xi could not afford to look weak in front of his people and he knows that millions of
Chinese netizens access information about the outside world by using virtual private networks
(VPNs) to circumvent the Great Firewall. Many ordinary Chinese know about the trade war's
latest developments and should any deal with Trump infringe on China's core interests, it
will be political suicide for Xi.
One of the main reasons the US-China trade talks broke down was that Washington's demands
were unpalatable to China. Some of the demands from the US, such as an end to government
support for state companies in specific industries and a streamlined approval process for
genetically engineered US crops, are a direct challenge to the Communist Party of China's
control of the economy.
Since Xi took office, he has extended the party's reach into every corner of Chinese
society, and every businessman in China who aspires to reach the top of the hierarchy knows
that they must receive the blessing of the party. It is not surprising that even Jack Ma, who
is one of China's most internationally recognizable figures, has been revealed to be a member
of the CPC after years of denial.
Hence in the face of renewed pressure from Trump, Xi and the Chinese government have
reached the conclusion that it is better to bear the consequences of increased tariffs than
to concede to US demands.
Xi is in for the long haul and can well afford to ride out the storm. And based on Trump's
past negotiations such as his failed bid to pressure House Democrats to fund his wall on the
Mexican border, which led to the longest government shutdown in US history, Xi knows that the
chances are good that Trump will blink first.
"... Yang promises a universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a value added tax , Yang claims that it would reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also notes that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally." ..."
"... Yang is justifying the need for such a program because of automation . Again, VDARE.com has been exploring how automation may necessitate such a program for many years . Yang also discussed this problem on Tucker Carlson's show , which alone shows he is more open to real discussion than many progressive activists. ..."
"... Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. ..."
"... it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard are giving up on him. ..."
Yang is a businessman who has worked in several fields, but was best known for founding
Venture for America , which helps college graduates become entrepreneurs.
However, he is now gaining recognition for his signature campaign promise -- $1,000 a month for every American.
Yang promises a
universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a
value added tax , Yang claims that it would
reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also
notes
that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally."
As Yang himself notes, this is not a new idea, nor one particularly tied to the Left. Indeed, it's been proposed by several prominent
libertarians because it would replace the far more inefficient welfare system.
Charles Murray called for
this policy in 2016. [ A
guaranteed income for every American, AEI, June 3, 2016]
Milton
Friedman suggested a similar policy in a 1968 interview with William F. Buckley, though
Friedman called it a
"negative income tax."
It's also been proposed by many nationalists, including, well, me. At the January 2013 VDARE.com Webinar, I
called for a "straight-up minimum income for citizens only" among other policies that would build a new nationalist majority
and deconstruct Leftist power. I've
retained that belief ever since and argued for it here for years.
However, I've also made the argument that it only works if it is for
citizens
only and is combined with a restrictive immigration policy. As I previously
argued in a piece attacking Jacobin'sdisingenuous
complaints about the "reserve army of the unemployed," you simply can't support high wages, workers' rights, and a universal
basic income while still demanding mass immigration.
Yang is also directly addressing the crises that the Trump Administration has seemly forgotten. Unlike Donald Trump himself, with
his endless boasting about "low black and Hispanic unemployment," Yang
has directly spoken about the demographic
collapse of white people because of "low birth rates and white men dying from
substance
abuse and suicide ."
Significantly, President Trump himself has never once specifically recognized the plight of white Americans.
...He wants to make
Puerto Rico a state . He
supports a path to citizenship for illegal
aliens, albeit with an 18-year waiting period and combined with
pledges to secure the border
and deport illegals who don't enroll in the citizenship program. He
wants to create a massive bureaucratic system to track
gun owners, restrict
gun ownership , and require various "training" programs for licenses. He wants to
subsidize local journalists with taxpayer
dollars...
... ... ...
Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to
Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. (Sample meme at right.) And because many of these online activists are
"far right" by Main Stream Media standards, or at least Politically Incorrect, there is much hand-waving and wrist-flapping about
the need for Yang to decry "white nationalists." So of course, the candidate has dutifully done so, claiming "racism and white nationalism
[are] a threat to the core ideals of what it means to be an American". [
Presidential candidate
Andrew Yang has a meme problem, by Russell Brandom, The Verge, March 9, 2019]
But what does it mean to be an American? As more and more of American history is described as racist, and even national
symbols and the national anthem are targets for protest, "America" certainly doesn't seem like a real country with a real identity.
Increasingly, "America" resembles a continent-sized shopping mall, with nothing holding together the warring tribes that occupy it
except money.
President Trump, of course, was elected because many people thought he could reverse this process, especially by limiting mass
immigration and taking strong action in the culture wars, for example by promoting official English. Yet in recent weeks, he has
repeatedly endorsed more legal immigration. Rather than fighting, the president is content to brag about the economy and whine about
unfair press coverage and investigations. He already seems like a lame duck.
The worst part of all of this is that President Trump was elected as a response not just to the Left, but to the failed Conservative
Establishment. During the 2016 campaign, President Trump specifically
pledged to protect
entitlements , decried foreign wars, and argued for a massive infrastructure plan. However, once in office, his main legislative
accomplishment is a tax cut any other Republican president would have pushed. Similarly, his latest budget contains the kinds of
entitlement cuts that are guaranteed to provoke Democrat attack ads. [
Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare . His 2020 budget cuts all 3, by Tara
Golshan, Vox, March 12, 2019] And the president has already backed down on withdrawing all troops from Syria, never mind Afghanistan.
Conservatism Inc., having learned nothing from candidate Donald Trump's scorched-earth path to the Republican nomination, now
embraces Trump as a man but ignores his campaign message. Instead, the conservative movement is still promoting the same tired slogans
about "free markets" even as they have appear to have lost an
entire
generation to socialism. The most iconic moment was Charlie Kirk, head of the free market activist group Turning Point USA, desperately
trying to tell his followers not to cheer for Tucker Carlson because
Carlson had suggested a nation should be treated like a
family, not simply a marketplace .
Thus, especially because of his cowardice on immigration, many of President Trump's most fervent online supporters have turned
on him in recent weeks. And the embrace of Yang seems to come out of a great place of despair, a sense that the country really is
beyond saving.
Yang has Leftist policies on many issues, but many disillusioned Trump supporters feel like those policies are coming anyway.
If America is just an economy, and if everyone in the world is a simply an American-in-waiting, white Americans might as well get
something out of this System before the bones are picked clean.
National Review ' s Theodore Kupfer just claimed the main importance of Yang's candidacy is that it will prove meme-makers
ability to affect the vote count "has been overstated" [
Rise of the pink hats,
March 12, 2019].
Time will tell, but it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard
are giving up on him.
"... Trump's "opposition" in the Democratic Party is no less hostile to democratic rights. They have focused their anti-Trump campaign on bogus allegations that he is a Russian agent, while portraying the emergence of social divisions within the United States as the consequence of Russian "meddling," not the crisis of capitalism, and pushing for across-the-board internet censorship. ..."
"The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its pleasures, is nothing
but the rebirth of the lumpenproletariat on the heights of bourgeois society ." -- Karl
Marx, The Class Struggles in France
What Marx described, in his analysis of the corruption of the bourgeoisie in France
leading up to the 1848 revolution, applies with even greater force to the United States of
2019, where the bourgeoisie faces its own rendezvous with social upheaval and explosive class
battles.
That is how a Marxist understands the spectacle of Wednesday's hearing before the House
Oversight Committee, in which Michael Cohen, the former attorney and "fixer" for Donald Trump
for more than a decade, testified for six hours about how he and his boss worked to defraud
business partners and tax collectors, intimidate critics and suppress opposition to Trump's
acitvities in real estate, casino gambling, reality television and, eventually, electoral
politics.
What Cohen described was a seedier version of an operation that most Americans would
recognize from viewing films like The Godfather: Trump as the capo di tutti capi, the
unquestioned authority who must be consulted on every decision ; the children, Donald Jr.,
Ivanka and Eric, each now playing significant roles in the ongoing family criminal enterprise;
Allen Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization, the consigliere in charge of finance,
mentioned by Cohen more than 20 times in the course of six hours of testimony as the man who
facilitated Trump's schemes to evade taxes, deceive banks or stiff business partners.
Cohen himself was an enforcer. By his own account, he threatened people on Trump's behalf at
least 500 times in a ten-year period, including business associates, politicians, journalists
and anyone seeking to file complaints or gain reimbursement after being defrauded by one or
another Trump venture. The now-disbarred lawyer admitted to tape recording clients -- including
Trump among many others -- more than 100 times during this period.
The incidents recounted by Cohen range from the farcical (Trump browbeating colleges and
even his military prep school not to release his grades or test scores), to the shabby (Trump
having his own "charitable" foundation buy a portrait of himself for $60,000), to the brazenly
criminal (deliberately inflating the value of properties when applying for bank loans while
deflating the value of the same properties as much as twenty-fold in order to evade
taxation).
One of the most remarkable revelations was Cohen's flat assertion that Trump himself did
not enter the presidential race with the expectation that he could win either the Republican
nomination or the presidency. Instead, the billionaire reality television "star" regularly told
his closest aides, the campaign would be the "greatest infomercial in political history," good
for promoting his brand and opening up business opportunities in previously closed
markets.
These unflattering details filled the pages of the daily newspapers Thursday and occupied
many hours on the cable television news. But in all that vast volume of reporting and
commentary, one would look in vain for any serious assessment of what it means, in terms of the
historical development and future trajectory of American society, that a family like the Trumps
now occupies the highest rung in the US political system.
The World Socialist Web Site rejects efforts by the Democrats and the corporate media
to dismiss Trump as an aberration, an accidental figure whose unexpected elevation to the
presidency in 2016 will be "corrected" through impeachment, forced resignation or electoral
defeat in 2020. We insist that the Trump administration is a manifestation of a protracted
crisis and breakdown of American democracy, whose course can be traced back at least two
decades to the failed impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998-99, followed by the stolen
presidential election of 2000.
The US political system, always dominated by the interests of the capitalist ruling class
that controls both of the major parties, the Democrats as much as the Republicans, is breaking
down under the burden of mounting social tensions, driven above all by skyrocketing economic
inequality. It is impossible to sustain the pretense that elections at two-year and four-year
intervals provide genuine popular influence over the functioning of a government so completely
subordinated to the financial aristocracy.
The figures are familiar but require restating: over the past three decades, virtually all
the increase in wealth in American society has gone to a tiny layer at the top. Three
mega-billionaires -- Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates -- now control more wealth than
half the American population. This process of social polarization is global: according to the
most recent Oxfam report, 26 billionaires control more wealth than the poorer half of the human
race.
These billionaires did not accumulate their riches by devising new technologies or making
new scientific discoveries that increased the wealth and happiness of humanity as a whole. On
the contrary, their enrichment has come at the expense of society. Bezos has become the world's
richest man through the emergence of Amazon as the greatest sweatshop enterprise in history,
where every possible second of labor power is extracted from a brutally exploited
workforce.
The class of billionaires as a whole, having precipitated the global financial collapse of
2008 through reckless speculation and swindling in the sale of derivatives and other obscure
financial "products," was bailed out, first by the Republican Bush, then by the Democrat Obama,
to the tune of trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, the jobs, living standards and social
conditions for the great mass of working people sharply declined.
As for Donald Trump, the real estate swindler, casino con man and reality television mogul
is a living demonstration of the truth of Balzac's aphorism: "Behind every great fortune is a
great crime."
Trump toyed with running for president on the ultra-right Reform Party ticket in 2000 after
a long stint as a registered Democrat and donor to both capitalist parties. When he decided to
run for president as a Republican in 2016, however, he had shifted drastically to the right.
His candidacy marked the emergence of a distinctly fascistic movement, as he spewed
anti-immigrant prejudice and racism more generally, while making a right-wing populist appeal
to working people, particularly in de-industrialized areas in the Midwest and Appalachia, on
the basis of economic nationalism.
As World Socialist Web Site editorial board Chairman David North explained even
before the 2016 elections:
The Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States did not emerge from an
American version of a Munich beer hall. Donald Trump is a billionaire, who made his money in
Manhattan real estate swindles, the semi-criminal operations of casino gambling, and the
bizarre world of "reality television," which entertains and stupefies its audience by
manufacturing absurd, disgusting and essentially fictional "real life" situations. The
candidacy of Donald Trump could be described as the transfer of the techniques of reality
television to politics.
The main development in the two years since Trump entered the White House is the emergence
of the American working class into major struggles, beginning with the wave of teachers'
strikes in 2018, initiated by the rank and file in defiance of the bureaucratic unions. The
reaction in the American ruling elite is a panic-stricken turn to authoritarian methods of
rule.
The billionaire in the White House is now engaged in a systematic assault on the foundations
of American democracy. He has declared a national emergency in order to bypass Congress, which
holds the constitutional "power of the purse," and divert funds from the military and other
federal departments to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.
Whether or not he is immediately successful in this effort, it is clear that Trump is
moving towards the establishment of an authoritarian regime, with or without the sanction of
the ballot box. As Cohen observed in his closing statement -- in remarks generally downplayed
by the media and ignored by the Democrats -- he is worried that if Trump loses the 2020
election, "there will never be a peaceful transition of power."
Trump's "opposition" in the Democratic Party is no less hostile to democratic rights. They
have focused their anti-Trump campaign on bogus allegations that he is a Russian agent, while
portraying the emergence of social divisions within the United States as the consequence of
Russian "meddling," not the crisis of capitalism, and pushing for across-the-board internet
censorship.
The defense of democratic rights and genuine resistance to Trump's drive toward
authoritarian rule must come through the development of an independent political movement of
the working class, directed against both big business parties, the Democrats as much as the
Republicans, and against the profit system which they both defend.
Voters around the world revolt against leaders who won't improve their lives.
Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post
that savaged Donald Trump's character and leadership. Romney's attack and Trump's response
Wednesday morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the
two men. It's even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican
nomination in 2020. We'll see.
But for now, Romney's piece is fascinating on its own terms. It's well-worth reading. It's a
window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.
Romney's main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive
leader. That's true, of course. But beneath the personal slights, Romney has a policy critique
of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian
civil war. Romney doesn't explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn't appear
to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We
know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.
Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington, and Romney is strongly on board with
those, too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year
ago.
That's not surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain
Capital. Bain Capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy: Take over an
existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt,
extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions.
Romney became fantastically rich doing this.
Meanwhile, a remarkable number of the companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the
private equity model. Our ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It's how they run the
country.
Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist
foreign policy as the "mainstream Republican" view. And he's right about that. For generations,
Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while
simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those
goals enthusiastically.
There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In
countries around the world -- France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others
-- voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a
decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you're watching is entire populations revolting
against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.
Something like this has been in happening in our country for three years. Donald Trump rode
a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political
revolution that he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are
destroying America? Those are open questions.
But they're less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest
of us will be gone, too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How
do we want our grandchildren to live? These are the only questions that matter.
The answer used to be obvious. The overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning
cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones,
or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They
haven't so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. And yet drug addiction and suicide
are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be
summed up in GDP is an idiot.
The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It's happiness.
There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence.
Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your
children. They're what our leaders should want for us, and would want if they cared.
But our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to
the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through.
They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can't solve our problems. They don't even
bother to understand our problems.
One of the biggest lies our leaders tell us that you can separate economics from everything
else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate. Family and faith and culture,
meanwhile, those are personal matters. Both parties believe this.
Members of our educated upper-middle-classes are now the backbone of the Democratic Party
who usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. In other words,
functionally libertarian. They don't care how you live, as long as the bills are paid and the
markets function. Somehow, they don't see a connection between people's personal lives and the
health of our economy, or for that matter, the country's ability to pay its bills. As far as
they're concerned, these are two totally separate categories.
Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to the debate from the opposite perspective, and yet
reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem, you'll hear them say, is that the
American family is collapsing. Nothing can be fixed before we fix that. Yet, like the
libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct.
The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They
refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy.
Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined.
Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies
possible. You can't separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this. Not anymore. The
evidence is now overwhelming. How do we know? Consider the inner cities.
Thirty years ago, conservatives looked at Detroit or Newark and many other places and were
horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor
neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock. Single mothers were the rule.
Crime and drugs and disorder became universal.
What caused this nightmare? Liberals didn't even want to acknowledge the question. They were
benefiting from the disaster, in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives, though, had a ready
explanation for inner-city dysfunction and it made sense: big government. Decades of
badly-designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what conservatives
called a "culture of poverty" that trapped people in generational decline.
There was truth in this. But it wasn't the whole story. How do we know? Because virtually
the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways,
rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.
This is striking because rural Americans wouldn't seem to have much in common with anyone
from the inner city. These groups have different cultures, different traditions and political
beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives,
mostly.
Yet, the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown
Baltimore in the 1980s: Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male unemployment. A
terrifying drug epidemic. Two different worlds. Similar outcomes. How did this happen? You'd
think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They
don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of
native-born Americans who are slipping behind.
But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here's a big part
of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but
disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many places were the schools
and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made
more than men.
Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after
study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them.
Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don't. Over big populations, this causes a drop
in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably
follow -- more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the
next generation.
This isn't speculation. This is not propaganda from the evangelicals. It's social science.
We know it's true. Rich people know it best of all. That's why they get married before they
have kids. That model works. But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in
America can afford.
And yet, and here's the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married
people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much
nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight
malaria in Congo. But working to raise men's wages in Dayton or Detroit? That's crazy.
This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our
mindless cultural leaders act like it's still 1961, and the biggest problem American families
face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or
Facebook executives.
For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it's more
virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own
kids.
Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our
first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is
one of America's biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich.
We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.
They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in
this game, and it shows.
What's remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn't question why Sandberg was
saying this. We didn't laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media
celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean
In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. Republicans
should say so.
They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all
commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can't possibly repay? Or
charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect
400 percent annual interest.
We're OK with that? We shouldn't be. Libertarians tell us that's how markets work --
consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it's also
disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans,
whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.
And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans, as our leaders should, if it
would break your heart to see them high all the time. Which they are. A huge number of our
kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that, because new
technology has made it odorless. But it's everywhere.
And that's not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana,
marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax-hungry politicians have legalized or
decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner now lobbies for the marijuana
industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. "Oh, but it's better for you than
alcohol," they tell us.
Maybe. Who cares? Talk about missing the point. Try having dinner with a 19-year-old who's
been smoking weed. The life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want
that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the
reason. Because they don't care about us.
When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don't even
try. They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities
based purely on how we look. There's nothing less fair than that, though our tax code comes
close.
Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate
as someone who's living off inherited money and doesn't work at all. We tax capital at half of
what we tax labor. It's a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.
In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He
paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners,
the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But
for everyone else, it's infuriating.
Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on
the principles of the free market. Please. It's based on laws that the Congress passed, laws
that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for
those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a
big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids
don't hate you. They hate each other.
That happens in countries, too. It's happening in ours, probably by design. Divided
countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are
getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special
treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive
country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own
profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you're old.
A country that listens to young people who don't live in Brooklyn. A country where you can
make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as
important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting
outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And
above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up in no place
special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that
actually cares about families, the building block of everything.
What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will
have to be Republicans. There's no option at this point.
But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a
religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool
to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do
not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys
families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Internalizing all this will not be easy for Republican leaders. They'll have to unlearn
decades of bumper sticker-talking points and corporate propaganda. They'll likely lose donors
in the process. They'll be criticized. Libertarians are sure to call any deviation from market
fundamentalism a form of socialism.
That's a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It doesn't work. It's what we should be working
desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a
group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that
protects normal people.
If you want to put America first, you've got to put its families first.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 2,
2019.
"... America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society." ..."
"... He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement." ..."
"... The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher wrote of Carlson's monologue, "A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president. ..."
"... The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke ..."
"... Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites -- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people." ..."
"... "What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?" ..."
"... Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald Trump, whose populist-lite presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it." ..."
"... Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative, thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment. ..."
"... Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax. ..."
"... "I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not." ..."
"... Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed." ..."
"... But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left. ..."
"... Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin. ..."
"... Hillbilly Elegy ..."
"... Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a function or raw nature." ..."
"All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God."
Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged
monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.
America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking
marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families
is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society."
He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate
the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement."
The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, "Republicans
have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars." More
broadly, though, Carlson's position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative
politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.
Moreover, in Carlson's words: "At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone too. The country will remain.
What kind of country will be it be then?"
The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher
wrote of Carlson's monologue,
"A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would
be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president." Other conservative commentators scoffed. Ben Shapiro wrote in
National Review that Carlson's monologue sounded far more like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren than, say, Ronald Reagan.
I spoke with Carlson by phone this week to discuss his monologue and its economic -- and cultural -- meaning. He agreed that his
monologue was reminiscent of Warren, referencing her 2003
bookThe Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke . "There were parts of the book that I disagree
with, of course," he told me. "But there are parts of it that are really important and true. And nobody wanted to have that conversation."
Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank
fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any
policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites
-- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people."
But whether or not he likes it, Carlson is an important voice in conservative politics. His show is among the
most-watched television programs in America. And his raising questions about market capitalism and the free market matters.
"What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put
these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?"
Populism on the right is gaining, again
Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald
Trump, whose populist-lite
presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless
you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it."
Populism is a rhetorical approach that separates "the people" from elites. In the
words of Cas
Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, it divides the country into "two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people
on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other." Populist rhetoric has a long history in American politics, serving as the focal
point of numerous presidential campaigns and powering William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic nomination for president in 1896.
Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative,
thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment.
When right-leaning pundit Ann Coulter
spoke with Breitbart Radio about Trump's Tuesday evening Oval Office address to the nation regarding border wall funding, she
said she wanted to hear him say something like, "You know, you say a lot of wild things on the campaign trail. I'm speaking to big
rallies. But I want to talk to America about a serious problem that is affecting the least among us, the working-class blue-collar
workers":
Coulter urged Trump to bring up overdose deaths from heroin in order to speak to the "working class" and to blame the fact
that working-class wages have stalled, if not fallen, in the last 20 years on immigration. She encouraged Trump to declare, "This
is a national emergency for the people who don't have lobbyists in Washington."
Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax.
These sentiments have even pitted popular Fox News hosts against each other.
Sean Hannity warned his audience that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's economic policies would mean that "the rich people
won't be buying boats that they like recreationally, they're not going to be taking expensive vacations anymore." But Carlson agreed
when I said his monologue was somewhat reminiscent of Ocasio-Cortez's
past comments on the economy , and how even a strong economy was still leaving working-class Americans behind.
"I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home
an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not."
Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent
a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that
labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and
figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed."
"I think populism is potentially really disruptive. What I'm saying is that populism is a symptom of something being wrong," he
told me. "Again, populism is a smoke alarm; do not ignore it."
But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current
state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are
its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson
railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation
of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left.
Carlson's argument that "market capitalism is not a religion" is of course old hat on the left, but it's also been bubbling on
the right for years now. When National Review writer Kevin Williamson
wrote
a 2016 op-ed about how rural whites "failed themselves," he faced a massive backlash in the Trumpier quarters of the right. And
these sentiments are becoming increasingly potent at a time when Americans can see both a booming stock market and perhaps their
own family members struggling to get by.
Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense
of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin.
At the Federalist, writer Kirk Jing
wrote of Carlson's
monologue, and a
response
to it by National Review columnist David French:
Our society is less French's America, the idea, and more Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth" (involving a very different
French). The lowest are stripped of even social dignity and deemed
unworthy of life . In Real America, wages are stagnant, life expectancy is crashing, people are fleeing the workforce, families
are crumbling, and trust in the institutions on top are at all-time lows. To French, holding any leaders of those institutions
responsible for their errors is "victimhood populism" ... The Right must do better if it seeks to govern a real America that exists
outside of its fantasies.
J.D. Vance, author of
Hillbilly Elegy
, wrote that the [neoliberal] economy's victories -- and praise for those wins from conservatives -- were largely meaningless
to white working-class Americans living in Ohio and Kentucky: "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago? Many would say, unequivocally, 'no.'"
Carlson's populism holds, in his view, bipartisan possibilities. In a follow-up email, I asked him why his monologue was aimed
at Republicans when many Democrats had long espoused the same criticisms of free market economics. "Fair question," he responded.
"I hope it's not just Republicans. But any response to the country's systemic problems will have to give priority to the concerns
of American citizens over the concerns of everyone else, just as you'd protect your own kids before the neighbor's kids."
Who is "they"?
And that's the point where Carlson and a host of others on the right who have begun to challenge the conservative movement's orthodoxy
on free markets -- people ranging from occasionally mendacious bomb-throwers like Coulter to writers like
Michael Brendan Dougherty -- separate
themselves from many of those making those exact same arguments on the left.
When Carlson talks about the "normal people" he wants to save from nefarious elites, he is talking, usually, about a specific
group of "normal people" -- white working-class Americans who are the "real" victims of capitalism, or marijuana legalization, or
immigration policies.
In this telling, white working-class Americans who once relied on a manufacturing economy that doesn't look the way it did in
1955 are the unwilling pawns of elites. It's not their fault that, in Carlson's view, marriage is inaccessible to them, or that marijuana
legalization means more teens are smoking weed (
this probably isn't true ). Someone,
or something, did this to them. In Carlson's view, it's the responsibility of politicians: Our economic situation, and the plight
of the white working class, is "the product of a series of conscious decisions that the Congress made."
The criticism of Carlson's monologue has largely focused on how he deviates from the free market capitalism that conservatives
believe is the solution to poverty, not the creator of poverty. To orthodox conservatives, poverty is the result of poor decision
making or a
lack of virtue that can't be solved by government programs or an anti-elite political platform -- and they say Carlson's argument
that elites are in some way responsible for dwindling marriage rates
doesn't make sense .
But in French's response to Carlson, he goes deeper, writing that to embrace Carlson's brand of populism is to support "victimhood
populism," one that makes white working-class Americans into the victims of an undefined "they:
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic cultural changes -- civil rights, women's
rights, a technological revolution as significant as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual
revolution, etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of what they are
doing to you .
And that was my biggest question about Carlson's monologue, and the flurry of responses to it, and support for it: When other
groups (say, black Americans) have pointed to systemic inequities within the economic system that have resulted in poverty and family
dysfunction, the response from many on the right has been, shall we say,
less than
enthusiastic .
Really, it comes down to when black people have problems, it's personal responsibility, but when white people have the same
problems, the system is messed up. Funny how that works!!
Yet white working-class poverty receives, from Carlson and others, far more sympathy. And conservatives are far more likely to
identify with a criticism of "elites" when they believe those elites are responsible for the
expansion of trans
rights or creeping secularism
than the wealthy and powerful people who are investing in
private prisons or an expansion
of the
militarization of police . Carlson's network, Fox News, and Carlson himself have frequently blasted leftist critics of market
capitalism and efforts to
fight
inequality .
I asked Carlson about this, as his show is frequently centered on the turmoils caused by "
demographic change
." He said that for decades, "conservatives just wrote [black economic struggles] off as a culture of poverty," a line he
includes in his monologue .
He added that regarding black poverty, "it's pretty easy when you've got 12 percent of the population going through something
to feel like, 'Well, there must be ... there's something wrong with that culture.' Which is actually a tricky thing to say because
it's in part true, but what you're missing, what I missed, what I think a lot of people missed, was that the economic system you're
living under affects your culture."
Carlson said that growing up in Washington, DC, and spending time in rural Maine, he didn't realize until recently that the same
poverty and decay he observed in the Washington of the 1980s was also taking place in rural (and majority-white) Maine. "I was thinking,
'Wait a second ... maybe when the jobs go away the culture changes,'" he told me, "And the reason I didn't think of it before was
because I was so blinded by this libertarian economic propaganda that I couldn't get past my own assumptions about economics." (For
the record, libertarians have
critiqued Carlson's
monologue as well.)
Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an
economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a
function or raw nature."
And clearly, our market economy isn't driven by God or nature, as the stock market soars and unemployment dips and yet even those
on the right are noticing lengthy periods of wage stagnation and dying little towns across the country. But what to do about those
dying little towns, and which dying towns we care about and which we don't, and, most importantly, whose fault it is that those towns
are dying in the first place -- those are all questions Carlson leaves to the viewer to answer.
"... Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble, which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible without 2008 events. ..."
Barkley insists on a left-right split for his analysis of political parties and their attachment to vague policy tendencies
and that insistence makes a mess of the central issue: why the rise of right-wing populism in a "successful" economy?
Naomi Klein's book is about how and why centrist neoliberals got control of policy. The rise of right-wing populism is often
supposed (see Mark Blyth) to be about the dissatisfaction bred by the long-term shortcomings of or blowback from neoliberal policy.
Barkley Rosser treats neoliberal policy as implicitly successful and, therefore, the reaction from the populist right appears
mysterious, something to investigate. His thesis regarding neoliberal success in Poland is predicated on policy being less severe,
less "shocky".
In his left-right division of Polish politics, the centrist neoliberals -- in the 21st century, Civic Platform -- seem to disappear
into the background even though I think they are still the second largest Party in Parliament, though some seem to think they
will sink in elections this year.
Electoral participation is another factor that receives little attention in this analysis. Politics is shaped in part by the
people who do NOT show up. And, in Poland that has sometimes been a lot of people, indeed.
Finally, there's the matter of the neoliberal straitjacket -- the flip-side of the shock in the one-two punch of "there's no
alternative". What the policy options for a Party representing the interests of the angry and dissatisfied? If you make policy
impossible for a party of the left, of course that breeds parties of the right. duh.
Likbez,
Bruce,
Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming. I would consider the current situation in the USA as the starting point of this
"slow-motion collapse of the neoliberal garbage truck against the wall." Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 1945 has no future,
only the past. That does not mean that it will not limp forward in zombie (and pretty bloodthirsty ) stage for another 50 years.
But it is doomed, notwithstanding recently staged revenge in countries like Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil.
Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble,
which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible
without 2008 events.
At least half of Americans now hate soft neoliberals of Democratic Party (Clinton wing of Bought by Wall Street technocrats),
as well as hard neoliberal of Republican Party, which created the " crisis of confidence" toward governing neoliberal elite in
countries like the USA, GB, and France. And that probably why the intelligence agencies became the prominent political players
and staged the color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate ) in the USA.
The situation with the support of neoliberalism now is very different than in 1994 when Bill Clinton came to power. Of course,
as Otto von Bismarck once quipped "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America." and another
turn of the technological spiral might well save the USA. But the danger of never-ending secular stagnation is substantial and
growing. This fact was admitted even by such dyed- in-the-wool neoliberals as Summers.
This illusion that advances in statistics gave neoliberal access to such fine-grained and timely economic data, that now it
is possible to regulate economy indirectly, by strictly monetary means is pure religious hubris. Milton Friedman would now be
laughed out the room if he tried to repeat his monetarist junk science now. Actually he himself discarded his monetarist illusions
before he died.
We probably need to the return of strong direct investments in the economy by the state and nationalization of some assets,
if we want to survive and compete with China. Australian politicians are already openly discussing this, we still are lagging
because of "walking dead" neoliberals in Congress like Pelosi, Schumer, and company.
But we have another huge problem, which Australia and other countries (other than GB) do not have: neoliberalism in the USA
is the state religion which completely displaced Christianity (and is hostile to Christianity), so it might be that the lemming
will go off the cliff. I hope not.
The only thing that still keeps neoliberalism from being thrown out to the garbage bin of history is that it is unclear what
would the alternative. And that means that like in 1920th far-right nationalism and fascism have a fighting chance against decadent
neoliberal oligarchy.
Previously financial oligarchy was in many minds associated with Jewish bankers. Now people are more educated and probably
can hang from the lampposts Anglo-Saxon and bankers of other nationalities as well ;-)
I think that in some countries neoliberal oligarchs might soon feel very uncomfortable, much like Soros in Hungary.
As far as I understood the level of animosity and suppressed anger toward financial oligarchy and their stooges including some
professors in economics departments of the major universities might soon be approaching the level which existed in the Weimar
Republic. And as Lenin noted, " the ideas could become a material force if they got mass support." This is true about anger as
well.
No-deal Brexit: Disruption at Dover 'could
last six months' BBC. I have trouble understanding why six months. The UK's customs IT
system won't be ready and there's no reason to think it will be ready even then. I could
see things getting less bad due to adaptations but "less bad" is not normal
The
Great Brexit Breakdown Wall Street Journal. Some parts I quibble with, but generally
good and includes useful historical detail.
"... It was Bolton who a week ago intentionally damaged U.S. relations with China. ..."
"... Meng Wanzhou is a daughter of the founder and main owner of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, and was groomed to be his successor. The company is extremely well regarded in China. It is one its jewel pieces and, with 170,000 employees and $100 billion in revenues, an important political actor. ..."
"... The arrest on December 1 happened while president Trump was negotiating with president Xi of China about trade relations. Trump did not know about the upcoming arrest but Bolton was informed of it ..."
"... It was a trap. The arrest is a public slap in the face of China and to Xi personally. It will not be left unanswered. Whatever Trump may have agreed upon with Xi is now worthless. John Bolton intentionally sabotaged the talks and the U.S. relations with China. ..."
"... Having read this in context with the comments (especially those by Denk and others) previous on this topic, I would ask if anyone can provide a time line of US clandestine negative (and sometimes fatal) actions against high level Chinese engineers and telecoms. Again, the above summary is outstanding. ..."
"... The terrifying aspect is Bolton, Pompeo - puppets both for shadow power players - have no constraints whatsoever, and obviously operate without any constraint or regard for our severely (cognitively and emotionally) challenged president ..."
"... The timing of this arrest - while Trump and Xi are dining and Sabrina Meng is on her way to the G-20 conference gives a loud message that Trump is serves at the pleasure of his neocon staff - and son in law, the latter being instrumental in the firing of Rex Tillerson, the hiring of Bolton, Pompeo and the impending firing of Gen. Kelly. ..."
"... Trump is a global front for a different approach to maintaining global hegemony but make no mistake, Trump is not fronting for you ..."
"... Arresting US business execs by China is a mistake that would be cheered by Bolton and Navarro. The provocation of arresting Meng is designed by the Trump team to provoke China to arrest US business leaders and thus destroy their direct investment into China. ..."
"... The enemy of China is not US businesses but rather the neocon dominated US govt. To impact this group, China needs to cut off their drug supply(their financing) thru no longer buying their USTs to finance and enable their massive military spending and financial aggression. ..."
"... Canada's role in this is shocking. It is all of a piece with the surrender to the USA in the Trade negotiations whereby, inter alia, Canada is not allowed to enter into Trade agreements with 'non-market' economies. The non-market formulation being code for unapproved by Uncle Sam. No doubt the Nazi Freeland is running this show. In this she is ably seconded by the 'opposition' Tories and the social fascist NDP which is as enthusiastic for war against China as it is for an attack on the Donbas. ..."
"... Those who talk about Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, etc. direct our attention to a shell game. They are all in on the scam. How better to say it? There is one party: the war party. Trump is a member of TEAM USA. US political maestros dance to the tune of the Deep State/neolibcon. ..."
"... With respect to Foreign Policy, how much real difference is there between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? They have all supported MIC, Israel, and expanding the Empire - aka Job #1 ..."
"... Bolton works for Adelson probably Pompeo does too. So Trump can't fire their crazy asses any time he chooses. ..."
"... Adelson has made millions with his gambling dens. In some ways it's a bit like what the East India Company did with opium. ..."
"... I think we can assume that the arrest was not an unwelcome surprise for Trump, or he would have reversed it. He knew, and accepts it. It's total asymmetric war on China. The arrest was on December 1. Trump twitter, Dec 7 China talks are going very well! here ..."
"... Does the fact that Huawei recently passed Apple for the number 2 phone sales have anything to do with this ..."
"... CNN: A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22, it was revealed at the hearing Friday here . She was arrested on December 1. Meng didn't know about this "issued warrant?" How does this 'system of laws' work, anyhow? Perhaps the warrant issue was classified secret, for US national security? ..."
"... The problem with Iran is (as was with Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and even Syria) that a country with an independent/non-aligned foreign policy has control of a large quantity of valuable natural resources for which there is a constant and relatively insatiable demand. If they cannot be controlled they they should be destroyed so they cannot pursue their own agenda and ignore the dictates of the west. China and Russia are this problem writ large, and they have nukes and a means of delivery to all corners of the globe... ..."
Neocons Sabotage Trump's Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail ChinaWilly2 , Dec 7, 2018 2:30:00
PM |
link
CNN reports that White House chief of staff John Kelly is
expected
to resign soon . There have been similar rumors before, but this time the news may actually be true. That is bad for Trump
and U.S. policies. Kerry is one a the few counterweights to national security advisor John Bolton. His replacement will likely
be whoever Bolton chooses. That will move control over Trump policies further into the hands of the neo-conservatives.
It was Bolton who a week ago intentionally damaged U.S. relations with China.
The U.S. Justice Department arranged for Canada to arrest the chief financial officer of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, over alleged
U.S. sanctions violations with regards to Iran. The case is not over the sanction Trump recently imposed, but over an alleged
collision with the sanction regime before the nuclear deal with Iran. The details are still unknown.
Meng Wanzhou is a daughter of the founder and main owner of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, and was groomed to be his successor.
The company is extremely well regarded in China. It is one its jewel pieces and, with 170,000 employees and $100 billion in revenues,
an important political actor.
The arrest on December 1 happened while president Trump was negotiating with president Xi of China about trade relations.
Trump did not know about the upcoming arrest but
Bolton was informed of it:
While the Justice Department did brief the White House about the impending arrest, Mr. Trump was not told about it. And the
subject did not come up at the dinner with Mr. Xi. Mr. Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said on NPR that
he knew about the arrest in advance, ..
Bolton surely should have informed Trump before his dinner with Xi, in which Bolton took part, but he didn't.
It was a trap. The arrest is a public slap in the face of China and to Xi personally. It will not be left unanswered. Whatever
Trump may have agreed upon with Xi is now worthless. John Bolton intentionally sabotaged the talks and the U.S. relations with
China.
Posted by b at
02:00 PM |
Comments (76) - I almost starting to feel sorry for D.A.A.D. Trump.
- We have seen in the last years that the US has been (deliberately) ratcheting up tensions in the Far East. And the summit between
Trump & Kim Jung Un was a severe threat for that (deliberate) increase of tensions. But the US & european media have told their
readers/listener/watchers that China was to blame for the increase of tensions.
The death of Shoucheng Zhang, by falling from a building, supposedly due to depression, reminded me of an incident I had read
about years ago, of another scientist's death in 1953 in vaguely similar circumstances. I had forgotten the fellow's name but
I remembered the incident had something to do with the CIA and the administration of LSD so I used those two terms along with
"fall" and "window" and was able to dig up the details.
In 1953, CIA researcher Frank Olson was administered LSD without his consent by researchers working in the Project MK Ultra
program. Olson became severely depressed and resigned from the CIA. He was later found dead, apparently after falling out of a
motel building through a window, and his death was ruled a suicide. In the 1970s, his family ordered an autopsy and the autopsy
showed that Olson had died from head injury trauma before falling through the window. A CIA agent was found to have been staying
at the same motel in a separate room at the time Olson died. The family sued the US government and received $750,000 in compensation
and an apology from the CIA. https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2018/08/mkultra-conspiracy/
One wonders if Zhang's death had been, ahem, "arranged" according to that template. The description of Zhang from the Stanford
University News website's obituary that B linked to in his post does not sound like a profile of someone who suffered depression
on and off.
This has to be embarrassing as hell to Trump - he should be absolutely furious with Bolton and Pompeo. And all this for violating
sanctions on Iran? I feel like on crazy pills. We live in interesting times.
So, if Bolton sabotaged Trump's efforts to do some sort of deal with China, in whose interest is Bolton working. You'd think that
a trade deal with China would be good for the US. Is Bolton working against US interest.
If we accept the Globalist/Nationalist
framework, then does this not mean that Bolton is helping the nationalists against US interests. And what are the implications
of that.
Trump's rapid departure from Argentina may well have been motivated by receiving the information about the arrest after the well
hyped dinner. If that is the case, Bolton should have been fired on the spot. The lack of any statement about this affair from
Trump is curious. There may be an element of blackmail at play here too, related to Mueller's machinations ahead of the G20. A
malignancy is loose, no doubt.
Thank you for this excellent column. Having read this in context with the comments (especially those by Denk and others) previous
on this topic, I would ask if anyone can provide a time line of US clandestine negative (and sometimes fatal) actions against
high level Chinese engineers and telecoms. Again, the above summary is outstanding.
The terrifying aspect is Bolton, Pompeo - puppets both for shadow power players - have no constraints whatsoever, and obviously
operate without any constraint or regard for our severely (cognitively and emotionally) challenged president, as this report
makes clear.
The timing of this arrest - while Trump and Xi are dining and Sabrina Meng is on her way to the G-20 conference gives a
loud message that Trump is serves at the pleasure of his neocon staff - and son in law, the latter being instrumental in the firing
of Rex Tillerson, the hiring of Bolton, Pompeo and the impending firing of Gen. Kelly.
I can't believe that Trump did not know about the detention of Meng Wanzhou before hand. Trump is a TV actor and he is apprenticing
for a higher spot for himself and family is the elite pecking order.
While we might want to give Trump credit for being who
he is, the elite that fronted him know exactly what his style and penchants are. Trump is a global front for a different approach
to maintaining global hegemony but make no mistake, Trump is not fronting for you nor I
From the perspective of China, their most appropriate response in this complicated situation IMO, should be to accelerate their
gradual reduction of USTs.
All those articles about how China will hurt itself if it gradually sells down USTs are nonsense articles placed into the media
to throw off attention to what is already happening. Russia and Turkey have alrdy done it on a smaller scale, it's a no-brainer
that China can do it also. Why should China finance the US govt to wage war on itself?
If China and other countries gradually stop buying USTs, actual demand will collapse and many other holders will sell or reduce
likewise. Mnuchin is fantasizing when he says there will still be strong demand. Any demand will be from the US Treasury buying
its own USTs, like a dog licking its own rear quarters.
Arresting US business execs by China is a mistake that would be cheered by Bolton and Navarro. The provocation of arresting
Meng is designed by the Trump team to provoke China to arrest US business leaders and thus destroy their direct investment into
China.
The enemy of China is not US businesses but rather the neocon dominated US govt. To impact this group, China needs to cut
off their drug supply(their financing) thru no longer buying their USTs to finance and enable their massive military spending
and financial aggression.
How to do that without crashing the markets n decreasing China's own assets? Sell and reduce USTs gradually. And pretend
u r not doing it. Eventually the lack of buying will force the Fed to raise rates or force the US Treasury to buy its own USTs,
further debasing the US dollar.
In history, all empires fall this way, they keep on printing or taking out the silver content until their currency gets debased
into nothing, and nobody wants it.
Looks like Bolton wants war with China. I recall he was hired during the North Korea talks to add a bit of muscle and now Trump
is stuck with him whether he likes it or not.
Re. Meng....apparently she faces fraud charges related to the Skycom affair. Of course that is just what we're told. Who knows
what kind of pressure she will come under once they get her in the US.
1959, CIA disobeyed Pres Eisenhower's ban on further overflights of USSR until after his summit meeting with Khrushchev. Then
the U-2 was brought down over USSR and the live pilot captured. The US officially denied it happened.
The USSR cancelled the summit meeting.
At first, Eisenhower claimed to have no knowledge of the operation and was outraged when the truth revealed. UN Ambassador
Stevenson made a vehement speech at the UN denying it happened, followed immediately with USSR producing both the plane's wreckage
and its pilot.
Then USSR showed the pilot and wreckage was publicly displayed. Pilot F G Powers had safely bailed-out and was put on-trial
in Moscow, convicted and then allowed to return to the US.
Mission Accomplished! by the unelected leaders of the US [who were certain their man Nixon would be the next President, followed
by quick re-capture of Cuba and then war in Vietnam. Both those operations already directly involved Nixon, who was fully "in"
on The Bay of Pigs and, earlier, plans for US "support" of Saigon leaders in "South" Vietnam with whom he established communications
during his 1953 visit as Ike's new Vice-President.]
...that data on this is more shocking then i realized.. the death of prof zhang - apparent suicide, is bizarre here..
i agree that the usa has been taken over by small minded neo cons that would try to use meng wanzhou as leverage.. the fact
Bolton knew and Trump didn't.. i am not buying that, or Bolton is more manipulative then i realized.. they are all that stupid
though.. i hope Canada doesn't allow this, but under the wuss Justin Trudeau, i am not holding my breath..
@ 12 dh... wanted for ignoring us sanctions on iran from 2009 to 2014... what the fuck has that to do with canada?? is canada
now doing book keeping, and everything else for the usa? the usa can go fuck themselves.. if Canada wasn't a 2 bit vassal state,
that is what we would tell the usa..
Today is Dec.7, a day in 1941 that Pres. Roosevelt aptly called "A Day of Infamy," as the Japanese military attacked Pearl
Harbor.
We now know that the very top echelons of US government first correctly anticipated and then knew precisely when and how the
attack would occur. The 3,000 (+/-) GI's who were sacrificed were considered "acceptable losses." (The 3,000 civilians who were
sacrificed on 9/11 were also considered "acceptable losses.") "Infamy" is an accurate word for US .gov conduct.
(Pls, do not comment to this OT. Wait for the next open thread, if you must.)
Looks like Trump was out of the loop. Trudeau is mainly photo-op material only. This would have been Chrystia Freeland, the
Nazi grand-daughter's file.
In Australia - endless media trumpeting the closed door to Chinese telcos from Australia and New Zealand but one has to go out
of one's way to discover our neighbor Papua New GUINEA has continued using HuaHwei products albeit under U S pressure not to do
so
1/ "... the rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism."
Has Islam, in fact, been in opposition
to imperialism? For the most part, as in India/Pakistan, it has been a very useful imperialist foil against nationalism and socialism.
There have been sincere and effective muslim campaigns against imperialism but equally there have been imperialist financed 'islamic'
campaigns against enemies of the Empire.
2/ Canada's role in this is shocking. It is all of a piece with the surrender to the USA in the Trade negotiations whereby,
inter alia, Canada is not allowed to enter into Trade agreements with 'non-market' economies. The non-market formulation being
code for unapproved by Uncle Sam. No doubt the Nazi Freeland is running this show. In this she is ably seconded by the 'opposition'
Tories and the social fascist NDP which is as enthusiastic for war against China as it is for an attack on the Donbas.
I used to be a member of this, once mildly socialist party. I am proud to say that I was expelled.
Washington has asked Ottawa to arrest Meng Wanzhou and to extradite her. The motive for the war undertaken by Washington against
Huawei is deep-rooted and spurious are the justifications.
The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications.
A number of governments and secret services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei materials,
and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications.
The covers/excuses for this war are theft of intellectual property or in the alternative, trade with Iran and North Korea,
and violating rules of competition by benefitting from national subsidies.
The Five Eyes is a system of electronic espionage by Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
They have begun to exclude Huawei from their auctions.
Those who talk about Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, etc. direct our attention to a shell game. They are all in on the scam.
How better to say it? There is one party: the war party. Trump is a member of TEAM USA. US political maestros dance to the tune
of the Deep State/neolibcon.
Fine distinctions between senior US govt officials make me want to tear my hair out. In US
govt only whistle-blowers are white knights. Everyone else is engaging in good guy/bad guy bullshit and controlled opposition.
With respect to Foreign Policy, how much real difference is there between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? They have all
supported MIC, Israel, and expanding the Empire - aka Job #1.
- Bolton was appointed under pressure from one Sheldon Adelson, who was a (large) donor to the Trump campaign. In that regard,
it was (nearly) impossible for Trump to fire Bolton.
In terms of Frank Olsen, there is a very good six part documentary series on Netflix called "Wormwood". Most important are
the interviews with Olsen's son. His search for the truth took many years (too many years) and he finally uncovered the final
levels of deceit. Worth the time.
@14 ".. wanted for ignoring us sanctions on iran from 2009 to 2014... what the fuck has that to do with canada?? "
Absolutely nothing james. I suspect they are using that charge, rather than getting into 5G backdoor whatever, to make the
extradition process go faster. They don't want it to drag on for years.
Surely it's Bolton who must go. That was an enormous betrayal. The one thing that Trump had going for him was the performance
of the stock market. His neocon enemies in the form of Bolton, managed to strike two blows simultaneously; increase conflict with
China and tank the market.
Too many posters letting Trump off the hook here. He's a brilliant 4D chess master but at the same time he's also a vulnerable
naif who lets neocons, ziofascists and other hostile entities keep hijacking his administration for their own ends? Bit of a problem
there. You can't have it both ways.
Occam's Razor says the Trump administration's foreign policy, possibly with Russia as an exception, is run with the full approval
of Donald John Trump. He's no friend of China, remember, and Steve Bannon's plan to befriend Russia was designed to keep it from
partnering with China against the United States.
It's almost 2019 and like the Obots of 2010 it's time to accept that your man is a busted flush, a fraud, an American exceptionalist
through and through.
The "fraud" charge goes back to 2009/10, and concerns an alleged misrepresentation over the relationship between a company called
SkyComm and Huawei. The alleged sanction violation by SkyComm had nothing to do with Iran's nuclear or military programs, and
may not have even proceeded beyond a negotiation phase. The alleged "fraud", or misrepresentation, rests on a technical interpretation
of complicated interlocking corporate structures. The prosecutors and the defence will likely both be correct in their presentations,
as it is a muddle, but the well has already been poisoned by the now well-publicized accusations that Huawei is a Communist trojan
horse. It's very thin gruel to proceed with such a high profile arrest.
The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications.
A number of governments and secret services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei
materials, and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications.
And not only the governments and secret services, Huawei is widely popular all along EU amongst the common working class user
( which means millions and millions of users....) especially because of its advantageous price and great capabilities.... I myself
own a Huawei device, my friends own Huaweis....Glad to hear that "Five Eyes" can not spy on us....I am very fidel to marks/services
who do not deceive me, but after knowing this new "capability", I am thinking in keeping Huawei as my header mark....Just waiting
for them to launch the laptop "Five Eyes" waterproof and I will be throwing this old one to the trash bin....
@32,36
I wonder how Adelson would react to a Chinese boycott of his casinos in Macau and Singapore? A lot of his wealth has come from
Chinese gamblers. Given Adelson's connections to Bolton and Trump, it would seem like an obvious pressure point.
@38 lili... denk was discussing this on the open thread yesterday.. see his links @68 / 76 and etc
on this page.. no one is discussing
this..
@48 peter au.. it certainly appears that way.. funny thing how trump sold himself on a number of topics, but not that one..
meanwhile, i guess the loot from adelson is quite good... stick with me and you don't need any stickin russian oligarch.. what
is quite amazing is how blind the average amerikkkan is to all this.. they are still stuck on the mueller investigation which
has been running on empty for some time... they would never do an investigation on isreal, or zionists influence on us elections,
as it is too friggin' obvious for anyone looking... better to skip that and continue to serve israel.. thus the constant fixation
with iran..
or russia and china, as the case may be... the top 3 evil countries, according to obama, or was that north korea.. i guess trump
will have to revise it.. the usa is pathetic.. canada is not far behind..
Trump didn't know b/c the NYTimes said so?
I've got this bridge....
China's response may not be immediate, but it will come.
I'm reminded of the sudden death of Vice Adm. Scott Stearney, commander of the Navy's 5th Fleet, Persian Gulf, discovered inside
his home in Bahrain last weekend, a "suspected suicide."
Iran always gets even.
To those of us that understand that all/most of the politicians are working for the same team, it should be easy to see the good
cop/bad cop dynamic being used here.
If b thinks Trump is a good cop, as he presents him here (yes, b has written that he disagrees with all/most of what Trump
does) as do other commenters that post here, I would posit that "they" are being successful in working that meme at this time.
China will not back down and now will play hardball back, but in a globalist sense I expect them to continue to take the high
road as the West mires itself further in the muck of its religion of private finance.
Another commenter mentioned the strategy of China dumping its massive amount of US Treasuries. I think we are getting to that
moment and the response of the US is to default on whomever is holding its debt...............
and then the war we have been in for some time turns serious.
The problem the elite have is making the public have the fervor to slaughter themselves for the purpose of continuing a society
run by and only servicing the elite. I don't understand how they have managed all these centuries but here we are, a bit still
in the dark ages of a thousand years ago.
I think we can assume that the arrest was not an unwelcome surprise for Trump, or he would have reversed it. He knew, and
accepts it. It's total asymmetric war on China. The arrest was on December 1. Trump twitter, Dec 7 China talks are going
very well! here
This is a 100% neocon clusterfuck. It is vital to the success of Trump's Drain The Swamp strategy that The Swampers be given every
opportunity to put their anti-US influence on public display. At least now we know which weirdos are responsible for the US policy
of "Let's do SOMETHING, even it it's stupid."
I've been scouring the 'News' and the www for evidence that China agreed to uphold US sanctions on Iran to an extent that would
invite the US to punish China for disregarding US whims. No luck, so far.
What makes this story entertaining is that the US has not only surrendered its lead in Military Tech, from the Good Old Days,
but Computer and Communications Tech too. You have to be pretty desperate to admit a blunder of that magnitude, albeit obliquely,
as in this case.
Unlikely that few in Trump's cabinet or Senate Foreign Relations committee could even pass the physics section of a college entrance
exam, and have little idea what quantum encryption even is (Chinese published on it first a couple of years ago).
That presumption alone suggests Pompeo Bolton etc are just finger puppets ... which oligarch has all those cia contracts again?
They are in well over their heads. They can't even keep up with the Russians. They will likely get stung by Chinese scorpions
without even knowing what hit them!
Another 'unintended consequence' of the neocon gambit to embarrass Trump by by-passing him, will be renewed interest in something
Vlad said in one of Oliver Stone's Putin's Interviews.
In the context of Vlad's feelings about POTUS Trump, Vlad said words to the effect that it's too soon to say. Everyone knows
that AmeriKKKa has been run by the Permanent Bureaucracy (not the POTUS). A lot of people would have been 'too busy' to watch
the Putin Interviews but World Leaders, everywhere, would not have been among them. So as of December 1, 2018, that cat is well
and truly out of the bag and all eyes, as usual, are on Trump. Again.
CNN: A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22,
it was revealed at the hearing Friday
here . She was arrested on December
1. Meng didn't know about this "issued warrant?" How does this 'system of laws' work, anyhow? Perhaps the warrant issue was classified
secret, for US national security?
Actually, I fear, it's a conspiracy of intel agencies, security advisors and courts to conduct domestic and foreign policy.
It's a non-elected "government" which elected politicians can't touch. For those that doubt it, check out this important interview
with intel whistleblowers Shipp, Binney and Kiriakou which describes Washington corruption is
here . (h/t Carlton Meyer)
Politicians can't touch this secret government lest their security clearances be removed.
@70
In the two-hour interview John Kiriakou points out that the intel agencies have their favorite courts. His delayed case, resurrected
by Obama, was heard by a court in eastern Virginia, which had a 98% conviction rate. They got him for a couple years in prison.
General Petraeus, however, who did much worse, had his case heard in a court in western Virginia, and he got probation. It appears
that the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York is good for anti-China warrants.
D B@70 I read that she was aware of the warrant and avoided traveling to the USA because of it as she had been doing to ?" visit
her son who was in school here"? but likely thought Canada safe. Wrong.
So China seems fearful to me - detaining the head of INTERPOL for instance and re-educating the Uyghurs en mass, plus the heavy
internet censorship. But they cannot disengage from the west economically without risking social upheaval. Nor can the US afford
to disengage from China for roughly the same reason (unlike Russia from whom the US gets rocket engines but little else they cannot
obtain from other sources).
In a few years time (2, or perhaps 3) both Russia and China will have deployed weapons that can deter anything but a full on
nuclear attack, and their military capability will continue to advance. US strategy seems to be to disrupt, slow, and sabotage
both to the extent it is able using economic and political weapons and military posturing. I don't believe it can catch up and
this creates extra danger - the longer it waits the greater the gap will be - economic and military. Many of the responses seem
borderline hysterical to me - not a good thing.
The problem with Iran is (as was with Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and even Syria) that a country with an independent/non-aligned
foreign policy has control of a large quantity of valuable natural resources for which there is a constant and relatively insatiable
demand. If they cannot be controlled they they should be destroyed so they cannot pursue their own agenda and ignore the dictates
of the west. China and Russia are this problem writ large, and they have nukes and a means of delivery to all corners of the globe...
It has become all too easy for democracy to be turned on its head and popular nationalist
mandates, referenda and elections negated via instant political hypocrisy by leaders who show
their true colours only after the public vote. So it has been within the two-and-a-half year
unraveling of the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 that saw the subsequent negotiations now provide
the Brexit voter with only three possibilities. All are a loss for Britain.
One possibility, Brexit, is the result of Prime Minister, Theresa May's negotiations- the
"deal"- and currently exists in name only. Like the PM herself, the original concept of Brexit
may soon lie in the dust of an upcoming UK Parliament floor vote in exactly the same manner as
the failed attempt by the Greeks barely three years ago. One must remember that Greece on June
27, 2015 once voted to leave the EU as well and to renegotiate its EU existence as well in
their own "Grexit" referendum. Thanks to their own set of underhanded and treasonous
politicians, this did not go well for Greece. Looking at the Greek result, and understanding
divisive UK Conservative Party control that exists in the hearts of PMs on both sides of the
House of Commons, this new parliamentary vote is not looking good for Britain. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek! "deal" -- would thus reveal the life-long scars of their true
national allegiance gnawed into their backs by the lust of their masters in Brussels. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
Ironically, like a cluster bomb of white phosphorous over a Syrian village, Cameron's Brexit
vote blew up spectacularly in his face. Two decades of ongoing political submission to the EU
by the Cons and "new" labour had them arrogantly misreading the minds of the UK
voter.
So on that incredible night, it happened. Prime Minister David Cameron the Cons New Labour
The Lib- Dems and even the UK Labour Party itself, were shocked to their core when the
unthinkable nightmare that could never happen, did happen . Brexit had passed by popular
vote!
David Cameron has been in hiding ever since.
After Brexit passed the same set of naïve UK voters assumed, strangely, that Brexit
would be finalized in their national interest as advertised. This belief had failed to
read
Article 50 - the provisos for leaving the EU- since, as much as it was mentioned, it was
very rarely linked or referenced by a quotation in any of the media punditry. However, an
article published four days after the night Brexit passed,
" A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," provided
anyone thus reading Article 50, which is only eight pages long and double-spaced, the info to
see clearly that this never before used EU by-law would be the only route to a UK exit.
Further, Article 50 showed that Brussels would control the outcome of exit negotiations along
with the other twenty-seven member nations and that effectively Ms May and her Tories
would be playing this game using the EU's ball and rules, while going one-on-twenty-seven
during the negotiations.
In the aftermath of Brexit, the real game began in earnest. The stakes: bigger than
ever.
Forgotten are the hypocritical defections of political expediency that saw Boris Johnson and
then Home Secretary Theresa May who were, until that very moment, both vociferously and very
publicly against the intent of Brexit. Suddenly they claimed to be pro- Brexit in their quest
to sleep in Cameron's now vacant bed at No. 10 Downing Street. Boris strategically dropped out
to hopefully see, Ms May, fall on her sword- a bit sooner. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by
Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
So, the plucky PM was left to convince the UK public, daily, as the negotiations moved on,
that "Brexit means Brexit!" A UK media that is as pro-EU as their PM chimed in to help
her sell distortions of proffered success at the negotiating table, while the rise of "old"
Labour, directed by Jeremy Corbyn, exposed her "soft" Brexit negotiations for the
litany of failures that ultimately equaled the "deal" that was strangely still called
"Brexit."
Too few, however, examined this reality once these political Chameleons changed their
colours just as soon as the very first results shockingly came in from Manchester in the wee
hours of the morning on that seemingly hopeful night so long ago: June 23, 2016. For thus would
begin a quiet, years-long defection of many more MPs than merely these two opportunists.
What the British people also failed to realize was that they and their Brexit victory would
also be faced with additional adversaries beyond the EU members: those from within their own
government. From newly appointed PM May to Boris Johnson, from the Conservative Party to the
New Labour sellouts within the Labour Party and the Friends of Israel , the
quiet internal political movement against Brexit began. As the House of Lords picked up their
phones, too, for very quiet private chats within House of Commons, their minions in the British
press began their work as well.
Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley -
The Unz Review
This article by Brett Redmayne is certainly right re the horrific sell-out by the Greek
government of Tsipras the other year, that has left the Greek citizenry in enduring political
despair the betrayal of Greek voters indeed a model for UK betrayal of Brexit voters
But Redmayne is likely very mistaken in the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn as the 'genuine
real deal' for British people
Ample evidence points to Corbyn as Trojan horse sell-out, as covered by UK researcher
Aangirfan on her blogs, the most recent of which was just vapourised by Google in their
censorship insanity
Jeremy Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's
father David Corbyn working for ultra-powerful Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific
projects during World War 2
Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals
including Corbyn's Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints
from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst "child abuse rings were
operating within all 12 of the borough's children's homes" in Corbyn's district not very
decent of him
And of course Corbyn significantly cucked to the Israel lobby in their demands for purge
of the Labour party alleged 'anti-semites'
The Trojan Horse 'fake opposition', or fake 'advocate for the people', is a very classic
game of the Powers That Be, and sadly Corbyn is likely yet one more fake 'hero'
My theory is, give "capitalism" and financial interests enough time, they will consume any
democracy. Meaning: the wealth flows upwards, giving the top class opportunity to influence
politics and the media, further improving their situation v.s. the rest, resulting in ever
stronger position – until they hold all the power. Controlling the media and therefore
the narrative, capable to destroy any and all opposition. Ministers and members of
parliaments, most bought and paid for one way or the other. Thankfully, the 1% or rather the
0.1% don't always agree so the picture can be a bit blurred.
You can guess what country inspired this "theory" of mine. The second on the list is
actually the U.K. If a real socialist becomes the prime minister of the U.K. I will be very
surprised. But Brexit is a black swan like they say in the financial sector, and they tend to
disrupt even the best of theories. Perhaps Corbin is genuine and will become prime minister!
I am not holding my breath.
However, if he is a real socialist like the article claims. And he becomes prime minister
of the U.K the situation will get really interesting. Not only from the EU side but more
importantly from U.K. best friend – the U.S. Uncle Sam will not be happy about this
development and doesn't hesitate to crush "bad ideas" he doesn't like.
Case in point – Ireland's financial crisis in 2009;
After massive expansion and spectacular housing bubble the Irish banks were in deep
trouble early into the crisis. The EU, ECB and the IMF (troika?) met with the Irish
government to discuss solutions. From memory – the question was how to save the Irish
banks? They were close to agreement that bondholders and even lenders to the Irish banks
should take a "haircut" and the debt load should be cut down to manageable levels so the
banks could survive (perhaps Michael Hudson style if you will). One short phone call from
the U.S Secretary of the treasury then – Timothy Geithner – to the troika-Irish
meeting ended these plans. He said: there will be no haircut! That was the end of it.
Ireland survived but it's reasonable to assume this "guideline" paved the road for the
Greece debacle.
I believe Mr. Geithner spoke on behalf of the financial power controlling – more or
less-our hemisphere. So if the good old socialist Corbin comes to power in the U.K. and
intends to really change something and thereby set examples for other nations – he is
taking this power head on. I think in case of "no deal" the U.K. will have it's back against
the wall and it's bargaining position against the EU will depend a LOT on U.S. response. With
socialist in power there will be no meaningful support from the U.S. the powers that be will
to their best to destroy Corbin as soon as possible.
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This
article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals
(even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax
havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's
estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that
off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages
because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes
(even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions
by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems.
MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much
desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked
against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that
struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread
communist. Hopeless ideas!
" This is because the deal has a provision that would still keep the UK in the EU Customs
Union (the system setting common trade rules for all EU members) indefinitely. This is an
outrageous inclusion and betrayal of a real Brexit by Ms May since this one topic was the
most contentious in the debate during the ongoing negotiations because the Customs Union is
the tie to the EU that the original Brexit vote specifically sought to terminate. "
Here I stopped reading, maybe later more.
Nonsense.
What USA MSM told in the USA about what ordinary British people said, those who wanted to
leave the EU, I do not know, one of the most often heard reasons was immigration, especially
from E European countries, the EU 'free movement of people'.
"Real' Britons refusing to live in Poland.
EP member Verhofstadt so desperate that he asked on CNN help by Trump to keep this 'one of
the four EU freedoms'.
This free movement of course was meant to destroy the nation states
What Boris Johnson said, many things he said were true, stupid EU interference for example
with products made in Britain, for the home market, (he mentioned forty labels in one piece
of clothing), no opportunity to seek trade without EU interference.
There was irritation about EU interference 'they even make rules about vacuum cleaners', and,
already long ago, closure, EU rules, of village petrol pumps that had been there since the
first cars appeared in Britain, too dangerous.
In France nonsensical EU rules are simply ignored, such as countryside private sewer
installations.
But the idea that GB could leave, even without Brussels obstruction, the customs union,
just politicians, and other nitwits in economy, could have such ideas.
Figures are just in my head, too lazy to check.
But British export to what remains of the EU, some € 60 billion, French export to GB,
same order of magnitude, German export to GB, far over 100 billion.
Did anyone imagine that Merkel could afford closing down a not negligible part of Bayern car
industry, at he same time Bayern being the Land most opposed to Merkel, immigration ?
This Brexit in my view is just the beginning of the end of the illusion EU falling
apart.
In politics anything is connected with anything.
Britons, again in my opinion, voted to leave because of immigration, inside EU
immigration.
What GB will do with Marrakech, I do not know.
Marrakech reminds me of many measures that were ready to be implemented when the reason to
make these measures no longer existed.
Such as Dutch job guarantees when enterprises merged, these became law when when the merger
idiocy was over.
The negative aspects of immigration now are clear to many in the countries with the imagined
flesh pots, one way or another authorities will be obliged to stop immigration, but at that
very moment migration rules, not legally binding, are presented.
As a Belgian political commentator said on Belgian tv 'no communication is possible
between French politicians and French yellow coat demonstrators, they live in completely
different worlds'.
These different worlds began, to pinpoint a year, in 2005, when the negative referenda about
the EU were ignored. As Farrage reminded after the Brexit referendum, in EP, you said 'they
do not know what they're doing'
But now Macron and his cronies do not know what to do, now that police sympathises with
yellow coat demonstrators.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance
cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
@Digital
Samizdat Corbyn, in my opinion one of the many not too bright socialists, who are caught
in their own ideological prison: worldwide socialism is globalisation, globalisation took
power away from politicians, and gave it to multinationals and banks.
@niceland The
expression class war is often used without realising what the issue is, same with tax
evasion.
The rich of course consume more, however, there is a limit to what one can consume, it takes
time to squander money.
So the end of the class war may make the rich poor, but alas the poor hardly richer.
About tax evasion, some economist, do not remember his name, did not read the article
attentively, analysed wealth in the world, and concluded that eight % of this wealth had
originated in evading taxes.
Over what period this evasion had taken place, do not remember this economist had reached a
conclusion, but anyone understands that ending tax evasion will not make all poor rich.
There is quite another aspect of class war, evading taxes, wealth inequality, that is
quite worrying: the political power money can yield.
Soros is at war with Hungary, his Open University must leave Hungary.
USA MSM furious, some basic human right, or rights, have been violated, many in Brussels
furious, the 226 Soros followers among them, I suppose.
But since when is it allowed, legally and/or morally, to try to change the culture of a
country, in this case by a foreigner, just by pumping money into a country ?
Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of
imperialist, I suppose.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures
manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
Well , I am reading " The occult renaissance church of Rome " by Michael Hoffman ,
Independent History and research . Coeur d`Alene , Idaho . http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
I saw about this book in this Unz web .
I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with
catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usury
This whole affair illustrates beautifully the real purpose of the sham laughingly known as
"representative democracy," namely, not to "empower" the public but to deprive it of
its power.
With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in
large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate
all legislative powers to elected "representatives." These are nothing more than consenting
hostages of those with the real power, who control and at the same time hide behind those
"representatives." The more this becomes obvious, the lower the calibre of the people willing
to be used in this manner – hence, the current crop of mental gnomes and opportunist
shills in European politics.
I would only shout this rambling ignoramus a beer in the pub to stop his mouth for a while.
Some of his egregious errors have been noted. and Greece, anyway, is an irrelevance to the
critical decisions on Brexit.
Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side.
Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate
for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground
has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article 50. And that's assuming
that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign
nation without adult supervision.
As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which
says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a
referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better
informed view.
@Digital
Samizdat Hypothesis: The British masses would fare better without a privatized
government.
"Corbyn may prove to be real .. .. old-time Labour platform [leadership, capable to]..
return [political, social and financial] control back to the hands of the UK worker".. [but
the privateers will use the government itself and mass media to defeat such platforms and to
suppress labor with new laws and domestic armed warfare]. Why would a member of the British
masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political
interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution?
.. ..
[Corbyn's Labour platform challenges ] privatized capitalist because the PCs use the
British government to keep imprisoned in propaganda and suppressed in opportunity, the
masses. The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to
maintain rule making and enforcement control (via the government) over the masses; such
privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic
monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the
Privateers (monopoly thieves) will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in
favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.
Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce
asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts
the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He (Corbyn) is a very dangerous
man, so too was Jesus Christ."
There is a similar call in France, but it is not yet so well led.
Every working Dutch person is "owed" 50k euro from the bailout of Greece, not that Greece
will ever pay this back, and not as if Greece ever really got the money as it just went
straight to northern European banks to bail them out. Then we have the fiscal policy creating
more money by the day to stimulate the economy, which also doesn't reach the countries or
people just the banks. Then we have the flirting with East-European mobsters to pull them in
the EU sphere corrupting top EU bureaucrats. Then we have all of south Europe being extremely
unstable, including France, both its populations and its economy.
It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be
cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so
unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.
@Brabantian
Thank you for your comment and addition to my evaluation of Corbyn. I do agree with you that
Corbyn has yet to be tested for sincerity and effectiveness as PM, but he will likely get his
chance and only then will we and the Brits find out for sure. The main point I was hoping to
make was that: due to the perceived threat of Labour socialist reform under Corbyn, he has
been an ulterior motive in the negotiations and another reason that the EU wants PM May to
get her deal passed. Yes, I too am watching Corbyn with jaundiced optimism. Thank you.
"... But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States' geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike. ..."
"... But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it. ..."
"... In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it ..."
"But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked
in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded
by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it
launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States'
geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike.
The character of world economy has undergone a major transformation in the past decade in
which economic growth, to the extent it that it occurs, is not driven by the development of
production and new investments but by the flow of money from one source of speculative and
parasitic activity to the next."
"But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the
capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the
ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means
considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it.
This is the lesson from the past decade which, in every country, has seen a deepening
attack on wages, social conditions and living standards as wealth is redistributed up the
income scale, raising social inequality to unprecedented heights.
In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous
benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the
parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of
parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it."
Decimation of anti-war forces and flourishing of Russophobia are two immanent features of the US neoliberalism. As long as
the maintinace fo the US global neoliberal empire depends of weakening and, possibly, dismembering Russia it is naive to expect any
change. Russian version of soft "national neoliberalism" is not that different, in principle form Trump version of hard
"netional neoliberalism" so those leaders might have something to talk about. In other words as soon as the USA denounce
neoliberal globalization that might be some openings.
Ten ways the new US-Russian Cold War is increasingly becoming more dangerous than the one we survived.
The political epicenter of the new Cold War is not in far-away Berlin, as it was from the late 1940s on, but directly on
Russia's borders, from the Baltic states and Ukraine to the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Each of these new Cold War fronts
is, or has recently been, fraught with the possibly of hot war. US-Russian military relations are especially tense today in the Baltic
region, where a large-scale NATO buildup is under way, and in Ukraine, where a US-Russian proxy war is intensifying. The "Soviet
Bloc" that once served as a buffer between NATO and Russia no longer exists. And many imaginable incidents on the West's new Eastern
Front, intentional or unintentional, could easily trigger actual war between the United States and Russia. What brought about this
unprecedented situation on Russia's borders -- at least since the Nazi German invasion in 1941 -- was, of course, the exceedingly
unwise decision, in the late 1990s, to expand NATO eastward. Done in the name of "security," it has made all the states involved
only more insecure.
Proxy wars were a feature of the old Cold War, but usually small ones in what was called the "Third World" -- in Africa,
for example -- and they rarely involved many, if any, Soviet or American personnel, mostly only money and weapons. Today's US-Russian
proxy wars are different, located in the center of geopolitics and accompanied by too many American and Russian trainers, minders,
and possibly fighters. Two have already erupted: in Georgia in 2008, where Russian forces fought a Georgian army financed, trained,
and minded by American funds and personnel; and in Syria, where in February
scores
of Russians were killed by US-backed anti-Assad forces . Moscow did not retaliate, but it has pledged to do so if there is "a
next time," as there very well may be. If so, this would in effect be war directly between Russia and America. Meanwhile, the risk
of such a direct conflict continues to grow in Ukraine, where the country's US-backed but politically failing President Petro Poroshenko
seems increasingly tempted to launch another all-out military assault on rebel-controlled Donbass, backed by Moscow. If he does so,
and the assault does not quickly fail as previous ones have, Russia will certainly intervene in eastern Ukraine with a truly tangible
"invasion." Washington will then have to make a fateful war-or-peace decision. Having already reneged on its commitments to the Minsk
Accords, which are the best hope for ending the four-year Ukrainian crisis peacefully, Kiev seems to have an unrelenting impulse
to be a tail wagging the dog of war. Certainly, its capacity for provocations and disinformation are second to none, as evidenced
again last week by the faked "assassination and resurrection" of the journalist Arkady Babchenko.
The Western, but especially American, years-long demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin, is also unprecedented. Too
obvious to reiterate here, no Soviet leader, at least since Stalin, was ever subjected to such prolonged, baseless, crudely derogatory
personal vilification. Whereas Soviet leaders were generally regarded as acceptable negotiating partners for American presidents,
including at major summits, Putin has been made to seem to be an illegitimate national leader -- at best "a KGB thug," at worst a
murderous "mafia boss."
Still more, demonizing Putin has generated a
widespread Russophobic vilification
of Russia itself , or what The New York Times and other mainstream-media outlets have taken to calling "
Vladimir Putin's Russia ." Yesterday's enemy was Soviet Communism. Today it is increasingly Russia, thereby also delegitimizing
Russia as a great power with legitimate national interests. "The Parity Principle," as Cohen termed it during the preceding Cold
War -- the principle that both sides had legitimate interests at home and abroad, which was the basis for diplomacy and negotiations,
and symbolized by leadership summits -- no longer exists, at least on the American side. Nor does the acknowledgment that both sides
were to blame, at least to some extent, for that Cold War. Among influential American observers
who at least
recognize the reality of the new Cold War , "Putin's Russia" alone is to blame. When there is no recognized parity and shared
responsibility, there is little space for diplomacy -- only for increasingly militarized relations, as we are witnessing today.
Meanwhile, most of the Cold War safeguards -- cooperative mechanisms and mutually observed rules of conduct that evolved
over decades in order to prevent superpower hot war -- have been vaporized or badly frayed since the Ukrainian crisis in 2014,
as the
UN General Secretary António Guterres, almost alone, has recognized : "The Cold War is back -- with a vengeance but with a difference.
The mechanisms and the safeguards to manage the risks of escalation that existed in the past no longer seem to be present." Trump's
recent missile strike on Syria carefully avoided killing any Russians there, but here too Moscow has vowed to retaliate against US
launchers or other forces involved if there is a "next time," as, again, there may be. Even the decades-long process of arms control
may, we are told by an
expert , be coming to an "end." If so, it will mean an unfettered new nuclear-arms race but also the termination of an ongoing
diplomatic process that buffered US-Soviet relations during very bad political times. In short, if there are any new Cold War rules
of conduct, they are yet to be formulated and mutually accepted. Nor does this semi-anarchy take into account the new warfare technology
of cyber-attacks. What are its implications for the secure functioning of existential Russian and American nuclear command-and-control
and early-warning systems that guard against an accidental launching of missiles still on high alert?
Russiagate allegations that the American president has been compromised by -- or is even an agent of -- the Kremlin are
also without precedent. These allegations have had profoundly dangerous consequences, among them the nonsensical but mantra-like
warfare declaration that "Russia attacked America" during the 2016 presidential election; crippling assaults on President Trump every
time he speaks with Putin in person or by phone; and making both Trump and Putin so toxic that even most politicians, journalists,
and professors who understand the present-day dangers are reluctant to speak out against US contributions to the new Cold War.
Mainstream-media outlets have, of course, played a woeful role in all of this. Unlike in the past, when pro-détente
advocates had roughly equal access to mainstream media, today's new Cold War media enforce their orthodox narrative that Russia is
solely to blame. They practice not diversity of opinion and reporting but "confirmation bias." Alternative voices (with, yes, alternative
or opposing facts) rarely appear any longer in the most influential mainstream newspapers or on television or radio broadcasts. One
alarming result is that "disinformation" generated by or pleasing to Washington and its allies has consequences before it can be
corrected. The fake Babchenko assassination (allegedly ordered by Putin, of course) was quickly exposed, but not the alleged Skripal
assassination attempt in the UK, which led to the largest US expulsion of Russian diplomats in history before London's official version
of the story began to fall apart. This too is unprecedented: Cold War without debate, which in turn precludes the frequent rethinking
and revising of US policy that characterized the preceding 40-year Cold War -- in effect, an enforced dogmatization of US policy
that is both exceedingly dangerous and undemocratic.
Equally unsurprising, and also very much unlike during the 40-year Cold War, there is virtually no significant opposition
in the American mainstream to the US role in the new Cold War -- not in the media, not in Congress, not in the two major political
parties, not in the universities, not at grassroots levels. This too is unprecedented, dangerous, and contrary to real democracy.
Consider only the thunderous silence of scores of large US corporations that have been doing profitable business in post-Soviet Russia
for years, from fast-food chains and automobile manufacturers to pharmaceutical and energy giants. And contrast their behavior to
that of CEOs of PepsiCo, Control Data, IBM, and other major American corporations seeking entry to the Soviet market in the 1970s
and 1980s, when they publicly supported and even funded pro-détente organizations and politicians. How to explain the silence of
their counterparts today, who are usually so profit-motivated? Are they too fearful of being labeled "pro-Putin" or possibly "pro-Trump"?
If so, will this Cold War continue to unfold with only very rare profiles of courage in any high places? 9. And then there is the
widespread escalatory myth that today's Russia, unlike the Soviet Union, is too weak -- its economy too small and fragile, its leader
too "isolated in international affairs" -- to wage a sustained Cold War, and that eventually Putin, who is "punching above his weight,"
as the cliché has it, will capitulate. This too is a dangerous delusion.
As Cohen has shown previously ,
"Putin's Russia" is hardly isolated in world affairs, and is becoming even less so, even in Europe, where at least five governments
are tilting away from Washington and Brussels and perhaps from their economic sanctions on Russia. Indeed, despite the sanctions,
Russia's energy industry and agricultural exports are flourishing. Geopolitically, Moscow has many military and related advantages
in regions where the new Cold War has unfolded. And no state with Russia's modern nuclear and other weapons is "punching above its
weight." Above all, the great majority of Russian people have rallied behind Putin because t
hey believe
their country is under attack by the US-led West . Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Russia's history understands it is
highly unlikely to capitulate under any circumstances.
Finally (at least as of now), there is the growing war-like "hysteria" often commented on in both Washington and Moscow. It
is driven by various factors, but television talk/"news" broadcasts, which are as common in Russia as in the United States, play
a major role. Perhaps only an extensive quantitative study could discern which plays a more lamentable role in promoting this frenzy
-- MSNBC and CNN or their Russian counterparts. For Cohen, the Russian dark witticism seems apt: "Both are worst" ( Oba khuzhe
). Again, some of this American broadcast extremism existed during the preceding Cold War, but almost always balanced, even
offset, by truly informed, wiser opinions, which are now largely excluded.
Is this analysis of the dangers inherent in the new Cold War itself extremist or alarmist? Even SOME usually reticent specialists
would seem to agree with Cohen's general assessment. Experts gathered by a centrist Washington think tank
thought that on a scale of 1 to 10,
there is a 5 to 7 chance of actual war with Russia. A former head of British M16 is
reported as saying
that "for the first time in living memory, there's a realistic chance of a superpower conflict." And a respected retired Russian
general tells
the same think tank that any military confrontation "will end up with the use of nuclear weapons between the United States and
Russia."
In today's dire circumstances, one Trump-Putin summit cannot eliminate the new Cold War dangers. But US-Soviet summits traditionally
served three corollary purposes. They created a kind of security partnership -- not a conspiracy -- that involved each leader's limited
political capital at home, which the other should recognize and not heedlessly jeopardize. They sent a clear message to the two leaders'
respective national-security bureaucracies, which often did not favor détente-like cooperation, that the "boss" was determined and
that they must end their foot-dragging, even sabotage. And summits, with their exalted rituals and intense coverage, usually improved
the media-political environment needed to enhance cooperation amid Cold War conflicts. If a Trump-Putin summit achieves even some
of those purposes, it might result in a turning away from the precipice that now looms
"... And, quoting his colleague Archon Fung from the Harvard Kennedy School, " American politics is no longer characterized by the rule of the median voter, if it ever was. Instead, in contemporary America the median capitalist rules as both the Democratic and Republican parties adjust their policies to attract monied interests." And finally Mr. Ringen adds, "American politicians are aware of having sunk into a murky bog of moral corruption but are trapped." ..."
"... Trump merely reflects the dysfunctionality and internal contradictions of American politics. He is the American Gorbachev, who kicked off perestroika at the wrong time. ..."
"... Global financial services exercise monopolistic power over national policies, unchecked by any semblance of global political power. Trust is haemorrhaging. The European Union, the greatest ever experiment in super-national democracy, is imploding ..."
"... Probably this is because the Western model of neoliberalism does not provide any real freedom of commerce, speech, or political activity, but rather imposes a regime of submission within a clearly defined framework. ..."
"... america is going through withdraw from 30 years of trickledown crap. the young are realizing that the shithole they inherit does not have to be a shithole, and the old pathetic white old men who run the show will be dead soon. ..."
"... The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators. ..."
"... However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front. ..."
"... So the US Imperialists are being eclipsed by the Sino-Russo Alliance and wants us to believe this is a great tragedy. Meanwhile the same crew of Liberal -neoCon Deep Staters presses on with wars and tensions that are slipping out of control. ..."
Haass writes: " Liberalism is in retreat. Democracies are feeling the effects of growing populism. Parties of the political extremes
have gained ground in Europe. The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the EU attested to the loss of elite influence.
Even the US is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its own president on the country's media, courts, and law-enforcement institutions.
Authoritarian systems, including China, Russia, and Turkey, have become even more top-heavy. Countries such as Hungary and Poland
seem uninterested in the fate of their young democracies
"We are seeing the emergence of regional orders. Attempts to build global frameworks are failing."
Haass has previously made alarmist statements , but this
time he is employing his rhetoric to point to the global nature of this phenomenon. Although between the lines one can easily read,
first of all, a certain degree of arrogance -- the idea that only we liberals and globalists really know how to administer foreign
policy -- and second, the motifs of conspiracy.
"Today's other major powers, including the EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan, could be criticized for what they are doing,
not doing, or both."
Probably this list could be expanded by adding a number of Latin American countries, plus Egypt, which signs arms deals with North
Korea while denying any violation of UN sanctions, and the burgeoning Shiite axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
But Haass is crestfallen over the fact that it is Washington itself that is changing the rules of the game and seems completely
uninterested in what its allies, partners, and clients in various corners of the world will do.
" America's decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades thus marks a turning point. The liberal
world order cannot survive on its own, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be
a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike."
Richard Haass's colleague at the CFR, Stewart Patrick, quite agrees with the claim that it is
the US itself that is burying the liberal world order . However, it's not doing it on its own, but alongside China. If the US
had previously been hoping that the process of globalization would gradually transform China (and possibly destroy it, as happened
to the Soviet Union earlier), then the Americans must have been quite surprised by how it has actually played out. That country modernized
without being Westernized, an idea that had once been endorsed by the leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini.
Now China is expanding its influence in Eurasia in its own way, and this is for the most part welcomed by its partner countries.
But this has been a painful process for the US, as it is steadily and irrevocably undermining its hegemony.
"Its long-term ambition is to dismantle the U.S. alliance system in Asia, replacing it with a more benign (from Beijing's perspective)
regional security order in which it enjoys pride of place, and ideally a sphere of influence commensurate with its power.
China's Belt and Road initiative is part and parcel of this effort, offering not only (much-needed) infrastructure investments
in neighboring countries but also the promise of greater political influence in Southeast, South, and Central Asia. More aggressively,
China continues to advance outrageous jurisdictional claims over almost the entirety of the South China Sea , where it continues
its island-building activities, as well as engaging in provocative actions against Japan in the East China Sea," writes Patrick.
And as for the US:
"The United States, for its part, is a weary titan, no longer willing to bear the burdens of global leadership, either economically
or geopolitically.
Trump treats alliances as a protection racket, and the world economy as an arena of zero-sum competition. The result is a fraying
liberal international order without a champion willing to invest in the system itself. "
One can agree with both authors' assessments of the changed behavior of one sector of the US establishment, but this is about
more than just Donald Trump (who is so unpredictable that he has
staffed his own team with a member of the very swamp he was preparing to drain) and North American populism. One needs to look
much deeper.
"Today, American democratic exceptionalism is defined by a system that is dysfunctional in all the conditions that are needed
for settlement and loyalty...
Capitalism has collapsed into crisis in an orgy of deregulation. Money is transgressing into politics and undermining democracy
itself ."
And, quoting his colleague Archon Fung from the Harvard Kennedy School, " American politics is no longer characterized by
the rule of the median voter, if it ever was. Instead, in contemporary America the median capitalist rules as both the Democratic
and Republican parties adjust their policies to attract monied interests." And finally Mr. Ringen adds, "American politicians are
aware of having sunk into a murky bog of moral corruption but are trapped."
Trump merely reflects the dysfunctionality and internal contradictions of American politics. He is the American Gorbachev,
who kicked off perestroika at the wrong time. Although it must be conceded that if Hillary Clinton had become president, the
US collapse would have been far more painful, particularly for the citizens of that country. We would have seen yet more calamitous
reforms, a swelling influx of migrants, a further decline in the nation's manufacturing base, and the incitement of new conflicts.
Trump is trying to keep the body of US national policy somewhat alive through hospice care, but what's really needed is a major restructuring,
including far-reaching political reforms that would allow the country's citizens to feel that they can actually play a role in its
destiny.
These developments have spread to many countries in Europe, a continent that, due to its transatlantic involvement, was already
vulnerable and susceptible to the current geopolitical turbulence. The emergence of which, by the way, was largely a consequence
of that very policy of neoliberalism.
Stein Ringen continues on that score:
"Global financial services exercise monopolistic power over national policies, unchecked by any semblance of global political
power. Trust is haemorrhaging. The European Union, the greatest ever experiment in super-national democracy, is imploding
"
It is interesting that panic has seized Western Europe and the US -- the home of transatlanticism, although different versions
of this recipe for liberalism have been employed in other regions -- suffice it to recall the experience of Singapore or Brazil.
But they don't seem as panicked there as in the West.
Probably this is because the Western model of neoliberalism does not provide any real freedom of commerce, speech, or political
activity, but rather imposes a regime of submission within a clearly defined framework. Therefore, the destruction of the current
system entails the loss of all those dividends previously enjoyed by the liberal political elites of the West that were obtained
by speculating in the stock market, from the mechanisms of international foreign-exchange payments (the dollar system), and through
the instruments of supranational organizations (the UN, WTO, and World Bank). And, of course, there are the fundamental differences
in the cultural varieties of societies.
In his book The Hidden God, Lucien Goldmann draws some interesting conclusions, suggesting that the foundations of Western culture
have rationalistic and tragic origins, and that a society immersed in these concepts that have "abolish[ed] both God and the community
[soon sees] the disappearance of any external norm which might guide the individual in his life and actions." And because by its
very nature liberalism must carry on, in its mechanical fashion, "liberating" the individual from any form of structure (social classes,
the Church, family, society, and gender, ultimately liberating man from his very self), in the absence of any standards of deterrence,
it is quite logical that the Western world was destined to eventually find itself in crisis. And the surge of populist movements,
protectionist measures, and conservative policies of which Haass and other liberal globalists speak are nothing more than examples
of those nations' instinct for self-preservation. One need not concoct conspiracy theories about Russia or Putin interfering in the
US election (which Donald Trump has also denied, noting only that support was seen for Hillary Clinton, and it is entirely true that
a portion of her financial backing did come from Russia). The baseline political decisions being made in the West are in step with
the current crisis that is evident on so many levels. It's just that, like always, the Western elites need their ritual whipping
boy(although it would be more accurate to call it a human sacrifice). This geopolitical shake-up began in the West as a result of
the implicit nature of the very project of the West itself.
But since alternative development scenarios exist, the current system is eroding away. And other political projects are starting
to fill the resultant ideological void -- in both form as well as content.
Thus it's fairly likely that the current crisis of liberalism will definitively bury the unipolar Western system of hegemony.
And the budding movements of populism and regional protectionism can serve as the basis for a new, multipolar world order.
Oh, Wicked Witch of the West Wing, the cleansing fire awaits thy demise! Those meds can only keep you standing for so long.
Keep tripping. Keep stumbling. Satan calls you to him. The day approacheth. Tick tock tick tock. 👹😂
Democracy ultimately melts down into chaos. We have a perfectly good US Constitution, why don't we go back to using it as written?
That said, I am for anything that makes the elites become common.
Democracy is a form of government. Populism is a movement. Populist movements come about when the current form of government
is failing ... historically it seems they seldom choose wisely.
Ridiculous cunt Hillary thinks after getting REJECTED by the voters in the USA that somehow being asked to "go the fuck away
and shut the fuck up" makes her a women's leader. The cocksucker Soros and some of these other non-elected globalist should keep
in mind that while everybody has a right to an opinion: it took the Clinton Crime Family and lots of corruption to create the
scandals that sets a Clinton Crime Family member aside, and why Soros was given a free pass on election meddling and not others
requires congressional investigation and a special prosecutor. And then there is that special kind of legal and ignorant opinion
like David Hogg who I just disagree with, making him in my opinion and many fellow NRA members a cocksucker and a cunt. I'd wish
shingles on David Hogg, Hillary Clinton, and Soros.
america is going through withdraw from 30 years of trickledown crap. the young are realizing that the shithole they inherit
does not have to be a shithole, and the old pathetic white old men who run the show will be dead soon.
all i see is a bunch of fleeting old people who found facebook 10 years late are temporarily empowered since they can now connect
with other equally impotent old people.
The usual self-serving swill from the Best and the Brightest of the Predator Class out of the CFR via Haas.
The liberal order aka the New British Empire, was born 70 years ago by firebombing and nuking undefended civilian targets.
It proceeded to launch serial genocidal rampages in the Koreas, SE Asia, Latin America until finally burning down a large portion
of the Middle East.
The fact that there has not been a catastrophic nuclear war is pure dumb luck. The Deep State came within seconds of engineering
a nuclear cataclysm off the waters of Cuba in 1962. When JFK started dismantling the CIA Deep State and ending the Cold War with
the USSR, Dulles dispatched a CIA hit-squad to gun down the President. (RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination
was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past).
The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created
political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators.
However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically
support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front.
So the US Imperialists are being eclipsed by the Sino-Russo Alliance and wants us to believe this is a great tragedy. Meanwhile
the same crew of Liberal -neoCon Deep Staters presses on with wars and tensions that are slipping out of control.
Liberalism is anything but liberal... and I suppose that is the problem with it. It aims to do to the western world what Mao
did to China and Stalin did to Russia. Many people were murdered or imprisoned and people had no rights, just obligations to dictators
and their cronies.
I think this world is past the point where any benefit is gained from having "owners of the people", benevolent or otherwise.
And we certainly do not benefit from perverted demonic entities even if they come bearing technology. The price is too high.
Populism goes along with essential freedoms for the human race.-
As I told the idiotic retards who argued with me on Prodigy fucking 27 years ago, China will not change because of increased
trading and the West making them wealthier. In fact, just the opposite. I wonder if they have caught on yet?
Money quote: "And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War
3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real.
And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage,
to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation."
Notable quotes:
"... And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation. ..."
"... Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times ..."
"... Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy ..."
"... What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf. ..."
"... You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran. ..."
"... The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican opponents will not let him. ..."
"... That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not withstanding. ..."
"... The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard. ..."
"... The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems .missing ..."
"... Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago. ..."
"... I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this. I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US? ..."
"... The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest. ..."
"... The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer. ..."
"... Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them. ..."
"... There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals. ..."
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
"... Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that. ..."
"... Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance. ..."
"... And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country. ..."
"... The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans. ..."
It is one of the great ironies that the United States, a land mass protected by two broad oceans while also benefitting from the
world's largest economy and most powerful military, persists in viewing itself as a potential victim, vulnerable and surrounded by
enemies. In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the
second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World
War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative
than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or
no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating
their cooperation.
Also, I would characterize international terrorism as a faux threat at a national level, though one that has been exaggerated
through the media and fearmongering to such an extent that it appears much more dangerous than it actually is. It has been observed
that more Americans are killed by falling furniture than by terrorists in a year but terrorism has a particularly potency due to
its unpredictability and the fear that it creates. Due to that fear, American governments and businesses at all levels have been
willing to spend a trillion dollars per annum to defeat what might rationally be regarded as a relatively minor problem.
So if the United States were serious about dealing with or deflecting the actual threats against the American people it could
first of all reduce its defense expenditures to make them commensurate with the actual threat before concentrating on three things.
First, would be to establish a solid modus vivendi with Russia and China to avoid conflicts of interest that could develop
into actual tit-for-tat escalation. That would require an acceptance by Washington of the fact that both Moscow and Beijing have
regional spheres of influence that are defined by their interests. You don't have to like the governance of either country, but their
national interests have to be appreciated and respected just as the United States has legitimate interests within its own hemisphere
that must be respected by Russia and China.
Second, Washington must, unfortunately, continue to spend on the Missile Defense Agency, which supports anti-missile defenses
if the search for a modus vivendi for some reason fails. Mutual assured destruction is not a desirable strategic doctrine
but being able to intercept incoming missiles while also having some capability to strike back if attacked is a realistic deterrent
given the proliferation of nations that have both ballistic missiles and nukes.
Third and finally, there would be a coordinated program aimed at international terrorism based equally on where the terror comes
from and on physically preventing the terrorist attacks from taking place. This is the element in national defense that is least
clear cut. Dealing with Russia and China involves working with mature regimes that have established diplomatic and military channels.
Dealing with terrorist non-state players is completely different as there are generally speaking no such channels.
It should in theory be pretty simple to match threats and interests with actions since there are only a handful that really matter,
but apparently it is not so in practice. What is Washington doing? First of all, the White House is deliberately turning its back
on restoring a good working relationship with Russia by insisting that Crimea be returned to Kiev, by blaming Moscow for the continued
unrest in Donbas, and by attacking Syrian military targets in spite of the fact that Russia is an ally of the legitimate government
in Damascus and the United States is an interloper in the conflict. Meanwhile congress and the media are poisoning the waters through
their dogged pursuit of Russiagate for political reasons even though nearly a year of investigation has produced no actual evidence
of malfeasance on the part of U.S. officials and precious little in terms of Moscow's alleged interference.
Playing tough to the international audience has unfortunately become part of the American Exceptionalism DNA. Upon his arrival
in Warsaw last week, Donald Trump doubled down on the
Russia-bashing, calling on Moscow to "cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes
including Syria and Iran." He then recommended that Russia should "join the community of responsible nations in our fight against
common enemies and in defense of civilization itself."
The comments in Warsaw were unnecessary, even if the Poles wanted to hear them, and were both highly insulting and ignorant. It
was not a good start for Donald's second overseas trip, even though the speech has otherwise been interpreted as a welcome defense
of Western civilization and European values. Trump also followed up with a two hour plus discussion with President Vladimir Putin
in which the two apparently agreed to differ on the alleged Russian hacking of the American election. The Trump-Putin meeting indicated
that restoring some kind of working relationship with Russia is still possible, as it is in everyone's interest to do so.
Fighting terrorism is quite another matter and the United States approach is the reverse of what a rational player would be seeking
to accomplish. The U.S. is rightly assisting in the bid to eradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq but it is simultaneously attacking the
most effective fighters against that group, namely the Syrian government armed forces and the Shiite militias being provided by Iran
and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that at least some in the Trump Administration are seeking to use the Syrian
engagement as a stepping stone to war with Iran.
As was the case in the months preceding the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003, all buttons are being pushed to vilify Iran. Recent
reports suggest that two individuals in the White House in particular have been pressuring the Trump administration's generals to
escalate U.S. involvement in Syria to bring about a war with Tehran sooner rather than later. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek
Harvey, reported to be holdovers from the team brought into the White House by the virulently anti-Iranian former National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn.
Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and
has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council.
But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times
that "wants to use American spies to help oust the Iranian government," a comment that reflects complete ignorance, both regarding
Iran and also concerning spy agency capabilities. His partner in crime Harvey, a former military officer who advised General David
Petraeus when he was in Iraq, is the NSC advisor on the Middle East.
Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need
to be confronted by force,
an opportunity described by Foreign Policy magazine as having developed into "a pivotal moment that will determine whether
Iran or the United States exerts influence over Iraq and Syria." Other neocon promoters of conflict with Iran have described their
horror at a possible Shiite "bridge" or "land corridor" through the Arab heartland, running from Iran itself through Iraq and Syria
and connecting on the Mediterranean with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery
but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar
sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make
a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not
wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's
number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument
on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf.
The problem with the Trump analysis is that he has his friends and enemies confused. He is actually supporting Saudi Arabia, the
source of most of the terrorism that has convulsed Western Europe and the United States while also killing hundreds of thousands
of fellow Muslims. Random terrorism to kill as many "infidels and heretics" as possible to create fear is a Sunni Muslim phenomenon,
supported financially and doctrinally by the Saudis. To be sure, Iran has used terror tactics to eliminate opponents and select targets
overseas, to include several multiple-victim bombings, but it has never engaged in anything like the recent series of attacks in
France and Britain. So the United States is moving seemingly inexorably towards war with a country that itself constitutes no actual
terrorist threat, unless it is attacked, in support of a country that very much is part of the threat and also on behalf of Israel,
which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.
Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very hard
on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's
armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go. Saudi
financing and Washington's propensity to go to war and thereby create a deep well of hatred just might be the principal causative
elements in the rise of global terrorism. Do I think that Donald Trump's White House has the courage to take such a step and change
direction? Unfortunately, no.
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic. And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud. So,
our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled by
WASP Elites.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at YouTube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Besides what Priss Factor said above the following is to be reinforced with every real American man, woman and child.
Israel , which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its
own sons and daughters.
Israel, the REAL enemy! ,
@K India is looking to unload hindus to U.S? Quite the opposite. India is 'losing' its best brains to the U.S so its
trying to attract them back to their country. For eg: The chief- architect of IBM's Watson is a Hindu Indian and so is the
head of IBM's neuro-morphic computing. These people are advancing western technology.... civilian and also defense (IBM
is collaborating with the American defense organization DARPA) instead of helping India achieve technological competence.
And most of other super intelligent Indians also India is losing them to the west.
(i dont hate the west for doing that. Any country in amercia's place would have done the same. It is india's job to keep
its best brains working for it and not for others. And india is trying its best to do that albeit unsuccessfully.)
100 Words #UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG – Robert David Steele Weekly Update
@Durruti Nice action approach
to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed - with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet - both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort
to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran.
The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand
the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal,
the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his
republican opponents will not let him.
That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given
so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence
Agencies to the contrary not withstanding.
The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel
will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard.
The western world is dependent on oil, especially ME oil. Saudi Arabia was made the USA's main oil supplier at the end of 1944.
The Saud dynasty depends on the USA. That the Saudis would sponsor terrorism, why would they ? And which terrorism is Muslim terrorism
?
Sept 11 not, Boston not, Madrid and London very questionably. We then are left with minor issues, the Paris shooting the biggest.
That Saudi Arabia is waging war in Yemen certainly is with USA support. The Saudi army does what the USA wants them to do.
Mr. Giraldi, you forgot to mention Israel as one of America's biggest liabilities besides Saudi Arabia. But with such amateur
dramatics in the White House and on the Security Council, the US is destined for war but only against the wrong enemy such as
Iran. If the Saudis and the right-wing Netanyahu regime want to get after Iran they should do it alone. They surely will get a
bloody nose. Americans have shed enough blood for these rascal regimes. President Trump should continue with his rapprochement
towards Russia because both nation states have more in common than expected.
I'm a little disappointed in this article. Not that it's a bad article per se: perfectly rational, reasonable, academic even.
But unfortunately, it's simply naive.
"Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very
hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which
America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have
a go."
Realize who the real enemy is ? Come down hard on the Saud's ? No -- really ?
The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems
.missing. Israel, the Saudi's themselves, the MIC & so on & so forth ARE the special interests who literally "realise" US Policy.
Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag.
Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle
east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.)
I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies.
So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? ,
"The White House is targeting Iran but should instead focus on Saudi Arabia"
Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for
him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies
never work and ours quit long ago.
I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy',
the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia
population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves.
USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The
operation was by and large very successful btw.
It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world.
Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first
country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so
much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood – "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud,
Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal
tendencies of Mexicans.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at youtube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Replies: @Sowhat And what grudge
is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural
resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast and the decades
long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that
bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting
her wars of conquest.
You won't see Israeli troops in the streets, since their confederates control the economy thru their control of the FED and
US Treasury and most of those TBTF banks, which we always bail out, no matter the cost.
The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them
a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer.
The WH is also Israeli territory, especially now with a Jew NYC slumlord now Trump's top adviser and his fashion model faux
Jew daughter egging Daddy on to kill more Arab babies, since she can't stand the sight of dead babies
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some
people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if
any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?
@eah The WH should focus on
the USA. And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization
of their natural resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast
and the decades long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others
to do their "dirty work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely
argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"
-- goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses
Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend her interests just
as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and
Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians--except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they
acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity)
or they can go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture,
Drama and Music or blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try
to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
, @bjondo Jews/Judaism
bring death, destruction, misery.
Muslims/Islam (minus Western creation of "Muslim"terrorists) brought golden ages to many areas.
Christianity and Islam elevate the human spirit. Judaism degrades.
June 7, 2017 We Have Met the Evil Empire and It Is Us
Life in America was pure injustice, the lash and the iron boot, despite the version of history we have been given by the Ford
and Rockefeller Foundations who "re-invented" America and its history through taking control of public education in the late 1940s.
You see, the multi-generational ignorance we bask in today is not unplanned. The threat represented by advances in communications
and other technology was recognized and dealt with, utterly quashed at birth.
@anarchyst Israel's current
"agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty
work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely argue
that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"--goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran...you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses... Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend
her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and Judaism.
In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians–except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they acknowledge
that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can
go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture, Drama and Music or
blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try to act
like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
Trump is torn between Israel's permanent need to weaken its powerful neighbors (Iraq, Iran) and the necessity to protect the USA
from terrorists attacks.
Iran is an hypothetical threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia has proven to be a threat to the world.
In Tehran and other Iranian cities including Iran's holiest, that is, most conservative cities like Mashad. there are taxi
companies owned and run by women.
Tehran traffic makes NYC look like Mayberry RFD; many Iranians use small motorcycles to commute and take care of daily chores.
It's not at all uncommon to see an Iranian woman in full chador driving a motorcycle with a child and parcels in tow.
Iranian women could offer to teach the women of Saudi Arabia to drive.
@Wizard of Oz I am beginning
to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening
question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? A better question: Have YOU read
The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?
There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming
there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've
spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way
of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems.
They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance
of US goals.
They live the royal life thanks to being able to use the money from their nation's resource wealth as their own personal kitty,
living in palaces, buying obscene amounts of jewelry and other luxury goods, and so on. They'll never give that up and being a
close ally of the US affords them protection which of course they pay for. They may be seen as an enemy by the average person
but not at the elite level with whom they all consort and roll around in the money with.
Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has
good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.
Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also
because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial
political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration
to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that.
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) "Well, the real enemy of the people are the
real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag."
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic.
And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud.
So, our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled
by WASP Elites. SECOND worst,my friend.
@Chad I fully agree that attacking
Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less,
in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security.
Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority
Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands
this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large
very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across
the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran
became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became
the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher
so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood - "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Bingo. Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it
wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.
1,000 Words @RobinG#UNRIG
adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
..................."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG - Robert David Steele Weekly Update Nice action approach to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed – with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet – both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
are studying US states and ranking them according to financial stability measures. The states with biggest problems -- Illinois,
California, New Jersey, Connecticut -- are in the mess they are in largely because of pension liability issues: some pensions
are unfunded or underfunded.
I recall that ten years ago about a dozen Jewish organizations formed the "Iran Task Force," ** whose primary activity was
to persuade managers of State pension funds to divest from Iran-connected companies; that is, corporations & banks, etc. that
did business with Iran. I recall very clearly that Arnold Schwartznegger was the poster child for California's vanguard role in
divesting from such nasty nasty companies, in accord with the wishes of Jewish Israel-firsters.
Perhaps the Mercatus scholars could prepare an exercise in alternative financial history: What shape would the US economy,
and the various States's economies, be in if the US were NOT so overwhelmingly influenced by Israel firsters, and were NOT persuaded,
Against Our Better Judgment, to entangle themselves in Israel's nefarious activities?
____
** The 2007 Iran Task Force is NOT the same as the group formed in 2015 or so, embedded in US House/Senate, with Joe Lieberman
and Michael Hayden playing prominent roles in attempting to influence the Iran Deal.
The 2007 initiative was sponsored by groups such as ZOA, RJC, AIPAC, etc., and / or spun off groups such as Foundation for
Defense of Democracy, United Against Nuclear Iran.
Petras did not mention that it was Carter who started neoliberalization of the USA. The subsequent election of Reagan signified
the victory of neoliberalism in this country or "quite coup". The death of New Deal from this point was just a matter
of time. Labor relations drastically changes and war on union and atomization of workforce are a norm.
Welfare state still exists but only for corporation and MIC. Otherwise the New Deal society is almost completely dismanted.
It is true that "The ' New Deal' was, at best, a de facto ' historical compromise' between the capitalist class
and the labor unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition
while the capitalists retained their executive prerogatives." But the key factor in this compromise was the existence of the USSR as
a threat to the power of capitalists in the USA. when the USSR disappeared cannibalistic instincts of the US elite prevailed over caution.
Notable quotes:
"... The earlier welfare 'reforms' and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East. ..."
"... In the 1940's through the 1960's, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program – a form of ' social imperialism' , which 'buy off' the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity and poor health. ..."
"... modern welfare state' ..."
"... Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections, collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility. ..."
"... Social Security legislation was approved along with workers' compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace shop steward councils organized 'on the spot' job action to protect safe working conditions. ..."
"... World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers' collective bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number were also killed or wounded in the war. ..."
"... So-called ' right to work' ..."
"... Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses. Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing hours (" thirty hours work for forty hours pay ..."
"... Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers' incomes, increased, inequalities, especially in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans' access to high-quality subsidized education declined ..."
"... With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the " Volker Plan " – freezing workers' wages as a means to combat inflation. ..."
"... Guns without butter' became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based on politically fragile foundations. ..."
"... The anti-labor offensive from the ' Oval Office' intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization, capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor's share of national income. ..."
"... The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression, at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its control of the commanding heights of the economy ..."
"... Hand in bloody glove' with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home. The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers. Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas and turned their backs on labor at home. ..."
"... President 'Bill' Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard 'Bernie' Madoff. ..."
"... Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor 'workfare', exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families ravaged the urban communities. ..."
"... President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush's two overseas wars to Obama's seven. ..."
"... Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued to moralize to black families about ' values' . ..."
"... Obama's war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa. The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of Africans flooding Europe. ..."
"... Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump ..."
"... Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. The remains of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society -- are on the chopping block. ..."
"... The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the 'Great Society's' gravediggers, while wailing at Trump's allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave. ..."
"... Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ' labor movement' has contributed to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ' strike-breaker' Reagan, ' workfare' Clinton, ' Wall Street crash' Bush, ' Wall Street savior' Obama and ' Trickle-down' Trump. ..."
"... Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from the 'Great Financial Meltdown' of the 21 st century. ..."
"... The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class polarized social system in history ..."
"... "The collaboration of liberals and unions in promoting endless wars opened the door to Trump's mirage of a stateless, tax-less, ruling class." ..."
"... Corporations [now] are welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up ..."
"... Corporations not only continuously seek monopolies (with the aid and sanction of the state) but they steadily fine tune the welfare state for their benefit. In fact, in reality, welfare for prols and peasants wouldn't exist if it didn't act as a money conduit and ultimate profit center for the big money grubbers. ..."
"... The article is dismal reading, and evidence of the failings of the "unregulated" society, where the anything goes as long as you are wealthy. ..."
"... Like the Pentagon. Americans still don't readily call this welfare, but they will eventually. Defense profiteers are unions in a sense, you're either in their club Or you're in the service industry that surrounds it. ..."
The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period, the
capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.
Between the mid 1970's to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies for
affordable housing have been gutted. ' Workfare' (under President 'Bill' Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced
workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits to an
astronomical degree.
What started as incremental reversals during the 1990's under Clinton has snowballed over the last two decades decimating welfare
legislation and institutions.
The earlier welfare 'reforms' and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a
series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East.
In the 1940's through the 1960's, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program
– a form of ' social imperialism' , which 'buy off' the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized
by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity
and poor health.
New Deals and Big Wars
The 1930's witnessed the advent of social legislation and action, which laid the foundations of what is called the ' modern
welfare state' .
Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections,
collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and
benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class
and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility.
Social Security legislation was approved along with workers' compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through
federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace
shop steward councils organized 'on the spot' job action to protect safe working conditions.
World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers' collective
bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number
were also killed or wounded in the war.
The post-war period witnessed a contradictory process: wages and salaries increased while legislation curtailed union rights via
the Taft Hartley Act and the McCarthyist purge of leftwing trade union activists. So-called ' right to work' laws effectively
outlawed unionization mostly in southern states, which drove industries to relocate to the anti-union states.
Welfare reforms, in the form of the GI bill, provided educational opportunities for working class and rural veterans, while federal-subsidized
low interest mortgages encourage home-ownership, especially for veterans.
The New Deal created concrete improvements but did not consolidate labor influence at any level. Capitalists and management still
retained control over capital, the workplace and plant location of production.
Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses.
Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing
hours (" thirty hours work for forty hours pay "). Dissident local unions were seized and gutted by the trade union bosses
– sometimes through violence.
Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the
will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist
class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers' incomes, increased, inequalities, especially
in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans' access to high-quality subsidized education declined.
While a new wave of social welfare legislation and programs began in the 1960's and early 1970's it was no longer a result of
a mass trade union or workers' "class struggle". Moreover, trade union collaboration with the capitalist regional war policies led
to the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of workers in two wars – the Korean and Vietnamese wars.
Much of social legislation resulted from the civil and welfare rights movements. While specific programs were helpful, none of
them addressed structural racism and poverty.
The Last Wave of Social Welfarism
The 1960'a witnessed the greatest racial war in modern US history: Mass movements in the South and North rocked state and federal
governments, while advancing the cause of civil, social and political rights. Millions of black citizens, joined by white activists
and, in many cases, led by African American Viet Nam War veterans, confronted the state. At the same time, millions of students and
young workers, threatened by military conscription, challenged the military and social order.
Energized by mass movements, a new wave of social welfare legislation was launched by the federal government to pacify mass opposition
among blacks, students, community organizers and middle class Americans. Despite this mass popular movement, the union bosses at
the AFL-CIO openly supported the war, police repression and the military, or at best, were passive impotent spectators of the drama
unfolding in the nation's streets. Dissident union members and activists were the exception, as many had multiple identities to represent:
African American, Hispanic, draft resisters, etc.
Under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, the EPA and multiple poverty programs were implemented.
A national health program, expanding Medicare for all Americans, was introduced by President Nixon and sabotaged by the Kennedy Democrats
and the AFL-CIO. Overall, social and economic inequalities diminished during this period.
The Vietnam War ended in defeat for the American militarist empire. This coincided with the beginning of the end of social welfare
as we knew it – as the bill for militarism placed even greater demands on the public treasury.
With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were
accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the " Volker Plan " – freezing workers' wages as a means to combat inflation.
Guns without butter' became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based
on politically fragile foundations.
The Debacle of Welfarism
Private sector trade union membership declined from a post-world war peak of 30% falling to 12% in the 1990's. Today it has sunk
to 7%. Capitalists embarked on a massive program of closing thousands of factories in the unionized North which were then relocated
to the non-unionized low wage southern states and then overseas to Mexico and Asia. Millions of stable jobs disappeared.
Following the election of 'Jimmy Carter', neither Democratic nor Republican Presidents felt any need to support labor organizations.
On the contrary, they facilitated contracts dictated by management, which reduced wages, job security, benefits and social welfare.
The anti-labor offensive from the ' Oval Office' intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention
firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush
and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was
astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization,
capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor's share of national income.
The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression,
at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its
control of the commanding heights of the economy.
The ' New Deal' was, at best, a de facto ' historical compromise' between the capitalist class and the labor
unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition while the capitalists
retained their executive prerogatives.
The Second World War secured the economic recovery for capital and subordinated labor through a federally mandated no strike
production agreement. There were a few notable exceptions: The coal miners' union organized strikes in strategic sectors and some
leftist leaders and organizers encouraged slow-downs, work to rule and other in-plant actions when employers ran roughshod with special
brutality over the workers. The recovery of capital was the prelude to a post-war offensive against independent labor-based political
organizations. The quality of labor organization declined even as the quantity of trade union membership increased.
Labor union officials consolidated internal control in collaboration with the capitalist elite. Capitalist class-labor official
collaboration was extended overseas with strategic consequences.
The post-war corporate alliance between the state and capital led to a global offensive – the replacement of European-Japanese
colonial control and exploitation by US business and bankers. Imperialism was later 're-branded' as ' globalization' . It
pried open markets, secured cheap docile labor and pillaged resources for US manufacturers and importers.
US labor unions played a major role by sabotaging militant unions abroad in cooperation with the US security apparatus: They worked
to coopt and bribe nationalist and leftist labor leaders and supported police-state regime repression and assassination of recalcitrant
militants.
' Hand in bloody glove' with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home.
The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers.
Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas
and turned their backs on labor at home.
Labor union officials had laid the groundwork for the demise of stable jobs and social benefits for American workers. Their collaboration
increased the rate of capitalist profit and overall power in the political system. Their complicity in the brutal purges of militants,
activists and leftist union members and leaders at home and abroad put an end to labor's capacity to sustain and expand the welfare
state.
Trade unions in the US did not use their collaboration with empire in its bloody regional wars to win social benefits for the
rank and file workers. The time of social-imperialism, where workers within the empire benefited from imperialism's pillage, was
over. Gains in social welfare henceforth could result only from mass struggles led by the urban poor, especially Afro-Americans,
community-based working poor and militant youth organizers.
The last significant social welfare reforms were implemented in the early 1970's – coinciding with the end of the Vietnam War
(and victory for the Vietnamese people) and ended with the absorption of the urban and anti-war movements into the Democratic Party.
Henceforward the US corporate state advanced through the overseas expansion of the multi-national corporations and via large-scale,
non-unionized production at home.
The technological changes of this period did not benefit labor. The belief, common in the 1950's, that science and technology
would increase leisure, decrease work and improve living standards for the working class, was shattered. Instead technological changes
displaced well-paid industrial labor while increasing the number of mind-numbing, poorly paid, and politically impotent jobs in the
so-called 'service sector' – a rapidly growing section of unorganized and vulnerable workers – especially including women and minorities.
Labor union membership declined precipitously. The demise of the USSR and China's turn to capitalism had a dual effect: It eliminated
collectivist (socialist) pressure for social welfare and opened their labor markets with cheap, disciplined workers for foreign manufacturers.
Labor as a political force disappeared on every count. The US Federal Reserve and President 'Bill' Clinton deregulated financial
capital leading to a frenzy of speculation. Congress wrote laws, which permitted overseas tax evasion – especially in Caribbean tax
havens. Regional free-trade agreements, like NAFTA, spurred the relocation of jobs abroad. De-industrialization accompanied the decline
of wages, living standards and social benefits for millions of American workers.
The New Abolitionists: Trillionaires
The New Deal, the Great Society, trade unions, and the anti-war and urban movements were in retreat and primed for abolition.
Wars without welfare (or guns without butter) replaced earlier 'social imperialism' with a huge growth of poverty and homelessness.
Domestic labor was now exploited to finance overseas wars not vice versa. The fruits of imperial plunder were not shared.
As the working and middle classes drifted downward, they were used up, abandoned and deceived on all sides – especially by the
Democratic Party. They elected militarists and demagogues as their new presidents.
President 'Bill' Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the
prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard 'Bernie' Madoff.
Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor 'workfare', exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next
generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families
ravaged the urban communities.
Provoked by an act of terrorism (9/11) President G.W. Bush Jr. launched the 'endless' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and deepened
the police state (Patriot Act). Wages for American workers and profits for American capitalist moved in opposite directions.
The Great Financial Crash of 2008-2011 shook the paper economy to its roots and led to the greatest shakedown of any national
treasury in history directed by the First Black American President. Trillions of public wealth were funneled into the criminal banks
on Wall Street – which were ' just too big to fail .' Millions of American workers and homeowners, however, were '
just
too small to matter' .
The Age of Demagogues
President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion
to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush's two overseas wars to Obama's seven.
Obama's electoral 'donor-owners' stashed away two trillion dollars in overseas tax havens and looked forward to global free trade
pacts – pushed by the eloquent African American President.
Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while
swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama
completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued
to moralize to black families about ' values' .
Obama's war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa.
The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of
Africans flooding Europe.
'Obamacare' , his imitation of an earlier Republican governor's health plan, was formulated by the private corporate
health industry (private insurance, Big Pharma and the for-profit hospitals), to mandate enrollment and ensure triple digit profits
with double digit increases in premiums. By the 2016 Presidential elections, ' Obama-care' was opposed by a 45%-43% margin
of the American people. Obama's propagandists could not show any improvement of life expectancy or decrease in infant and maternal
mortality as a result of his 'health care reform'. Indeed the opposite occurred among the marginalized working class in the old 'rust
belt' and in the rural areas. This failure to show any significant health improvement for the masses of Americans is in stark contrast
to LBJ's Medicare program of the 1960's, which continues to receive massive popular support.
Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump
Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
The remains of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society -- are on the chopping block.
The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare
state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the 'Great Society's' gravediggers, while wailing
at Trump's allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave.
Conclusion
Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ' labor movement' has contributed
to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ' strike-breaker' Reagan, ' workfare' Clinton, ' Wall Street crash' Bush,
' Wall Street savior' Obama and ' Trickle-down' Trump.
Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions
into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in
the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from
the 'Great Financial Meltdown' of the 21 st century.
The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and
among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off
state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class
polarized social system in history. The first trillionaire and multi-billionaire tax evaders rose on the backs of a miserable
standing army of tens of millions of low-wage workers, stripped of rights and representation. State subsidies eliminate virtually
all risk to capital. The end of social welfare coerced labor (including young mother with children) to seek insecure low-income employment
while slashing education and health – cementing the feet of generations into poverty. Regional wars abroad have depleted the Treasury
and robbed the country of productive investment. Economic imperialism exports profits, reversing the historic relation of the past.
Labor is left without compass or direction; it flails in all directions and falls deeper in the web of deception and demagogy.
To escape from Reagan and the strike breakers, labor embraced the cheap-labor predator Clinton; black and white workers united to
elect Obama who expelled millions of immigrant workers, pursued 7 wars, abandoned black workers and enriched the already filthy rich.
Deception and demagogy of the labor-
If the welfare state in America was abolished, major American cities would burn to the ground. Anarchy would ensue, it would be
magnitudes bigger than anything that happened in Ferguson or Baltimore. It would likely be simultaneous.
I think that's one of the only situations where preppers would actually live out what they've been prepping for (except for
a natural disaster).
I've been thinking about this a little over the past few years after seeing the race riots. What exactly is the line between
our society being civilized and breaking out into chaos. It's probably a lot thinner than most people think.
I don't know who said it but someone long ago said something along the lines of, "Democracy can only work until the people
figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury." We are definitely in this situation today.
I wonder how long it can last.
While I agree with Petras's intent (notwithstanding several exaggerations and unnecessary conflations with, for example, racism),
I don't agree so much with the method he proposes. I don't mind welfare and unions to a certain extent, but they are not going
to save us unless there is full employment and large corporations that can afford to pay an all-union workforce. That happened
during WW2, as only wartime demand and those pesky wage freezes solved the Depression, regardless of all the public works programs;
while the postwar era benefited from the US becoming the world's creditor, meaning that capital could expand while labor participation
did as well.
From then on, it is quite hard to achieve the same success after outsourcing and mechanization have happened all over the world.
Both of these phenomena not only create displaced workers, but also displaced industries, meaning that it makes more sense to
develop individual workfare (and even then, do it well, not the shoddy way it is done now) rather than giving away checks that
probably will not be cashed for entrepreneurial purposes, and rather than giving away money to corrupt unions who depend on trusts
to be able to pay for their benefits, while raising the cost of hiring that only encourages more outsourcing.
The amount of welfare given is not necessarily the main problem, the problem is doing it right for the people who truly need
it, and efficiently – that is, with the least amount of waste lost between the chain of distribution, which should reach intended
targets and not moochers.
Which inevitably means a sound tax system that targets unearned wealth and (to a lesser degree) foreign competition instead
of national production, coupled with strict, yet devolved and simple government processes that benefit both business and individuals
tired of bureaucracy, while keeping budgets balanced. Best of both worlds, and no military-industrial complex needed to drive
up demand.
The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period,
the capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Corporations [now] are welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up, and welfare for
them started before 1935. In fact, it started in America before there was a USA. I do not have time to elaborate, but what were
the various companies such as the British East India Company and the Dutch West India Companies but state pampered, welfare based
entities? ~200 years ago, Herbert Spencer, if memory serves, pointed out that the British East India Company couldn't make a profit
even with all the special, government granted favors showered upon it.
Corporations not only continuously seek monopolies (with the aid and sanction of the state) but they steadily fine tune
the welfare state for their benefit. In fact, in reality, welfare for prols and peasants wouldn't exist if it didn't act as a
money conduit and ultimate profit center for the big money grubbers.
Well, the author kind of nails it. I remember from my childhood in the 50-60 ties in Scandinavia that the US was the ultimate
goal in welfare. The country where you could make a good living with your two hands, get you kids to UNI, have a house, a telly
ECT. It was not consumerism, it was the American dream, a chicken in every pot; we chewed imported American gum and dreamed.
In the 70-80 ties Scandinavia had a tremendous social and economic growth, EQUALLY distributed, an immense leap forward. In the
middle of the 80 ties we were equal to the US in standards of living.
Since we have not looked at the US, unless in pity, as we have seen the decline of the general income, social wealth fall way
behind our own.
The average US workers income has not increased since 90 figures adjusted for inflation. The Scandinavian workers income in the
same period has almost quadrupled. And so has our societies.
The article is dismal reading, and evidence of the failings of the "unregulated" society, where the anything goes as long
as you are wealthy.
Between the mid 1970's to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies
for affordable housing have been gutted. 'Workfare' (under President 'Bill' Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced
workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits
to an astronomical degree.
What does Hollywood "elite" JAP and wannabe hack-stand-up-comic Sarah Silverman think about the class struggle and problems
facing destitute Americans? "Qu'ils mangent de la bagels!", source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
Like the Pentagon. Americans still don't readily call this welfare, but they will eventually. Defense profiteers are unions
in a sense, you're either in their club Or you're in the service industry that surrounds it.
As other commenters have pointed out, it's Petras curious choice of words that sometimes don't make too much sense. We can probably
blame the maleable English language for that, but here it's too obvious. If you don't define a union, people might assume you're
only talking about a bunch of meat cutters at Safeway.
The welfare state is alive and well for corporate America. Unions are still here – but they are defined by access and secrecy,
you're either in the club or not.
The war on unions was successful first by co-option but mostly by the media. But what kind of analysis leaves out the role
of the media in the American transformation? The success is mind blowing.
America has barely literate (white) middle aged males trained to spout incoherent Calvinistic weirdness: unabased hatred for
the poor (or whoever they're told to hate) and a glorification of hedge fund managers as they get laid off, fired and foreclosed
on, with a side of opiates.
There is hardly anything more tragic then seeing a web filled with progressives (management consultants) dedicated to disempowering,
disabling and deligitimizing victims by claiming they are victims of biology, disease or a lack of an education rather than a
system that issues violence while portending (with the best media money can buy) that they claim the higher ground.
""Democracy can only work until the people figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public
treasury." We are definitely in this situation today."
Quite right: the 0.01% have worked it out & US democracy is a Theatre for the masses.
I don't know who said it but someone long ago said something along the lines of, "Democracy can only work until the people
figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury."
Some French aristocrat put it as, once the gates to the treasury have been breached, they can only be closed again with gunpowder.
Anyone recognize the author?
The author doesn't get it. What we have now IS the welfare state in an intensely diverse society. We have more transfer spending
than ever before and Obamacare represents another huge entitlement.
Intellectuals continue to fantasize about the US becoming a Big Sweden, but Sweden has only been successful insofar as it has
been a modest nation-state populated by ethnic Swedes. Intense diversity in a huge country with only the remnants of federalism
results in massive non-consensual decision-making, fragmentation, increased inequality, and corruption.
The welfare state is alive and well for corporate America. Unions are still here – but they are defined by access and
secrecy, you're either in the club or not.
They are largely defined as Doctors, Lawyers, and University Professors who teach the first two. Of course they are not called
unions. Access is via credentialing and licensing. Good Day
Bernie Sanders, speaking on behalf of the MIC's welfare bird: "It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and
of NATO."
Elizabeth Warren, referring to Mossad's Estes Rockets: "The Israeli military has the right to attack Palestinian hospitals
and schools in self defense"
Barack Obama, yukking it up with pop stars: "Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming."
It's not the agitprop that confuses the sheep, it's whose blowhole it's coming out of (labled D or R for convenience) that
gets them to bare their teeth and speak of poo.
What came first, the credentialing or the idea that it is a necessary part of education? It certainly isn't an accurate indication
of what people know or their general intelligence – although that myth has flourished. Good afternoon.
For an interesting projection of what might happen in total civilizational collapse, I recommend the Dies the Fire series of
novels by SM Stirling.
It has a science-fictiony setup in that all high-energy system (gunpowder, electricity, explosives, internal combustion, even
high-energy steam engines) suddenly stop working. But I think it does a good job of extrapolating what would happen if suddenly
the cities did not have food, water, power, etc.
Spoiler alert: It ain't pretty. Those who dream of a world without guns have not really thought it through.
It has been pointed out repeatedly that Sweden does very well relative to the USA. It has also been noted that people of Swedish
ancestry in the USA do pretty well also. In fact considerably better than Swedes in Sweden
Actually it was the West, especially the USA which created political Islam to fight Soviets. They essentially created Osama bin
Laden as a political figure. The USA is also the main protector of Saudi Arabia were Wahhabism is the official religion. Then
they tried to partition Russia by supporting Chechen islamists and financed the jihadist groups in Russia (especially in Dagestan).
Obama administration flirted with Muslim Brotherhood and unleashed the wars in Lybia and Siria were islamists were trying to
take down the legitimate governments.
So Political Islam despite its anti-Western message used as a tool as a patsy for the destabilization of "unfriendly", the dogs
that could be unleashed when weapons and money started to flow.
Now it looks like boomerang returns home.
Notable quotes:
"... I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development. ..."
"... Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. ..."
"... The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. ..."
"... To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. ..."
"... If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. ..."
FPR:Your book
The Sword of the Prophet was published back in 2002, yet here we are-15 years later-still scratching our heads over this problem.
Defeating Jihad you wrote ten years ago, and yet we are still fumbling around in the dark. It seems like we don't have the
ability to say what is right and what is wrong. We've lost the ability we had had during the Cold War to say out way is better than
their way . . .
ST: I'm afraid the problem is deeper than that. It is in the unwillingness of the ruling elite in the Western world to come to
grips with the nature of Islam-as-such. There is this constant tendency by the politicians, the media and the academia to treat jihadism
as some sort of aberration which is alien to "true" Islam. We had an example of that in 2014, when President Obama went so far as
to say that ISIS was "un-Islamic"! It is rather curious that the President of the United States assumes the authority of a theologian
who can pass definite judgments on whether a certain phenomenon is "Islamic" or not. Likewise we have this constant repetition of
the mantra of the "religion of peace and tolerance," which is simply not supported by 14 centuries of historical experience. What
I've tried to emphasize in both those books you've mentioned, and in my various other writings and public appearances, is that the
problem of Islam resides in the core texts, in the Kuran and the Hadith , the "Traditions" of the prophet of Islam,
Muhammed. This is the source from which the historical practice has been derived ever since. The problem is not in the jihadists
misinterpreting Islam, but rather in interpreting it all too well. This mythical "moderate Islam," for which everybody seems to be
looking these days, is an exception and not the rule.
In answer to your question, I'd say that "scratching one's head" is-by now-only the phenomenon of those who refuse to face reality.
Reasonable people who are capable of judging phenomena on their merits and on the basis of ample empirical evidence, are no longer
in doubt. They see that the problem is not in the alleged misinterpretation of the Islamic teaching, but rather in its rigorous application
and literal understanding. I'm afraid things will not get better, because with each and every new jihadist attack, such as the
Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris a year ago, or again in Paris last November, or the New Year's Eve violence in Germany, we are
witnessing-time and over again-the same problem. The Islamic mindset, the Islamic understanding of the world, the Muslim Weltanschauung
, world outlook, is fundamentally incompatible with the Western value system and the Western way of life.
FPR:. . . It seems obvious, regarding Islam, that its "freedom of religion" is impacting other people, and it's dictated to
do so-it must go out and fight the infidels. And that's where we have the disconnect. Maybe there is some traction to the statement,
as you put it, that fundamentalism reflects a far more thorough following of Islam, and that it is simply incompatible with the Constitution?
ST: It is inevitable, because if you are an orthodox, practicing, mainstream Muslim, then you necessarily believe in the need
to impose Sharia as the law of the land. Sharia is much more than a legal code. It is also a political program, it is a code of social
behavior, it is the blueprint for the totality of human experience. That's why it is impossible to make Sharia compatible with the
liberal principle of "live and let live": it is inherently aggressive to non-Islam. In the Islamic paradigm, the world is divided
in the Manichean manner, black-and-white, into "the World of Faith," Dar al-Islam , literally "the world of submission," and
"the World of War, Dar al-Harb .
It is the divine duty of each and every Muslim to seek the expansion of Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb
until the one true faith is triumphant throughout the world. In this sense the Islamic mindset is very similar to Bolshevism.
The Bolsheviks also believed that "the first country of Socialism" should expand its reach and control until the whole world has
undergone the proletarian revolution and has become one in the march to the Utopia of communism. There is constant inner tension
in the Islamic world, in the sense that for as long as non-Islam exists, it is inherently perceived as "the other," as an abomination.
In that sense, Muslims perceive any concession made by the West-for instance in allowing mass immigration into Western Europe-not
as a gesture of good will and multicultural tolerance, but as a sign of weakness that needs to be exploited and used as a means to
an end.
FPR:The Roman Catholic Church has its Catechism which decides the issues of doctrine. Until there's an Islamic "catechism"
which can say "no, this is no longer the right interpretation, this is not what it means any more"-and I don't think this would be
a short-term thing, because you'd still have the splinter groups dissenting against the "traitors"-but is this the only way to go
to the center of theological jurisprudence in the Islamic world?
ST: The problem is twofold. First of all, there is no "interpretation" of the Kuran . Classical Islamic sources are adamant
that the Kuran needs to be taken at face value, literally. If it says in Sura 9, verse 5, "fight the infidels wherever you find them,
and let them go if they convert," or if it says time and over again that the choice for a non-Muslim is to accept Islam, or to live
as a second-class citizen-the dhimmi -under Islamic supremacy, or else to be killed it is very hard to imagine what sort of
authority in the Islamic world would be capable of saying "now we are going to relativize and soften the message."
The second part of the problem is that there is no single authority in Islam. It is not organized in a hierarchical way like the
Roman Catholic Church, where if the Pope speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are obligatory for all Catholics everywhere.
Islam is a diffused religion, with various centers of learning and various ullema who may or may not agree on certain peripheral
details. Yet any any one of them who'd dare say "look, now we rally need to reinterpret the fundamental sources, the Kuran
and the Hadith, so as to make it compatible with the pluralist society"-they'd immediately be condemned as heretics. We've seen attempts
at reform in the past. In the end the orthodox interpretation always prevails, because it is-sadly-the right interpretation of the
core texts. With neither the hierarchy capable of imposing a new form of teaching on the faithful, nor the existence of alternative
core texts which would provide grounds for such reinterpretation, it is very hard to see how it could be done.
FPR:How do we go forward? . . . How does the end-game play out?
ST:I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French
weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie
out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's
National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went
via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used
by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form
of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development.
But if we look at the past 14 centuries, time and over again we see the same phenomenon. The first time they tried to conquer
Europe was across the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Iberian Peninsula, today's Spain. Then they crossed the Pyrinees and were
only stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel in 732AD. Then they were gradually being pushed back, and the Reconquista -- the reconquest
of Spain-lasted 800 years, until 1492, when Cordoba finally fell to the Christian forces. Then came the second, Ottoman onslaught,
in the XIVth century, which went across the Dardanelles into the Balkan Peninsula. The Turks were only finally stopped at the gates
of Vienna in 1683. Pushing Turkey out of Europe went all the way to 1912, to the First Balkan War.
So we may say that we are now witnessing the third Islamic conquest of Europe. This time it is not using armed janissaries,
it is using so-called refugees. In fact most of them are healthy young men, and the whole process is obviously a strategic exercise
-- a joint venture between Ankara and Riyadh, who are logistically and financially helping this mass transfer of people from the
Turkish and Middle Eastern refugee camps to the heart of Europe. The effect may be the same, but this time it is far more dangerous
because, on the European side-unlike in 732, or 1683-there is no political will and there is no moral strength to resist. This is
happening because the migrants, the invaders, see Europe as the candy store with a busted lock and they are taking advantage of that
fact.
FPR: When you see the horrors of rapes and sexual assaults that took place across Germany, and now we see the Germans' response
. . . vigilantes on their streets . . . this is something that we either control politically and with leadership, or else it falls
apart into anarchy, Prof. Trifkovic?
ST: Instead of anarchy I think we will have a form of postmodern totalitarianism. The elite class, the government of Germany etc,
and the media, will demonize those who try to resist. In fact we already have the spectacle of the minister of the interior of one
of the German states saying that "hate speech" on the social networks and websites was far worse than the "incidents" in Cologne.
And the Mayor of Cologne-an ultra-feminist who is also a pro-immigration enthusiast-said that in order to prevent such events in
the future women should observe a "code of conduct" and keep distance "at an arm's length" from men. It's a classic example of blaming
the victim. The victims of Islamic violence should change their behavior in order to adapt themselves to the code of conduct and
values of the invaders. This is truly unprecedented.
Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government
has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally
accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade
by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized.
The same applies to Marine Le Pen in France and to her party, the Front National , or to Geert Wilders in Holland, or to Strache
in Austria. Whoever tries to articulate a coherent plan of action that includes a ban or limits on Islamic immigration is immediately
demonized as a right-wing fanatic or a fascist. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, that you have a multi-million Islamic
diaspora in Europe which is not assimilating, which refuses even to accept a code of conduct of the host population, the reaction
is always the same: blame the victim, and demonize those who try to articulate some form of resistance.
FPR: Dr. Trifkovic, how does a country such as ours, the United States, fix this problem . . .
ST: The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers.
It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive
political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. In both cases we have a committed, highly motivated group
of people who want to effect a fundamental transformation of the United States in a way that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution,
to the American way of life, and to the American values. It is time to stop the Islamists from hiding behind the "freedom of religion"
mantra. What they are seeking is not some "freedom of religion" but the freedom to organize in order to pursue political subversion.
They do not accept the U.S. Constitution.
To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or
her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States.
None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while
the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. I happen to know the oath because I am myself a naturalized U.S. citizen. They can
do it "in good faith" from their point of view by practicing taqqiya . This is the Arab word for the art of dissimulation,
when the Muslim lies to the infidel in order to protect the faith. For them to lie to investigators or to immigration officials about
their beliefs and their objectives does not create any conflict of conscience. The prophet of Islam himself has mandated the use
of taqqiya if it serves the objective of spreading the faith.
FPR: Can a civil war come out of this? Is it conceivable?
ST: If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism
and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted
in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably
lost. I do not believe that there will be many people fighting on the side of the multiculturalists' suicide, but nevertheless we
still have very effective forces of coercion and control on the government side which can be deployed to prevent the articulation
of any long-term, coherent plan of resistance.
FPR: Where can people continue to read you writings, Dr. Trifkovic?
ST: On Chroniclesmagazine.org where I publish weekly
online commentaries, and also in the print edition of Chronicles where I have my regular column.
"... Google is algorithmically burying leftist news and opinion sources such as Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News, and Truthout, among others. ..."
"... my political essays are often reposted by right-wing and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists, socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin Luther Jesus-on-a-stick. ..."
"... What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature. They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism, and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment). ..."
"... Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary. ..."
"... Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy," as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural). ..."
"... Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies, mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war, like any other victorious force, it has been "clear-and-holding" the conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map, and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of extremism" propagated by the corporate media. ..."
"... Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism" will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology will be systematically marginalized and pathologized. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
"... That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening. ..."
"... Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what also the EU is, I would be worried. ..."
"... This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing & are infinitely flexible is central to their power. ..."
Back in October of 2016, I wrote
a somewhat divisive essay in which I suggested that political dissent is being systematically
pathologized. In fact, this process has been ongoing for decades, but it has been significantly accelerated
since the Brexit referendum and the Rise of Trump (or, rather, the Fall of Hillary Clinton, as it
was Americans' lack of enthusiasm for eight more years of corporatocracy with a sugar coating of
identity politics, and not their enthusiasm for Trump, that mostly put the clown in office.)
In the twelve months since I wrote that piece, we have been subjected to a concerted campaign
of corporate media propaganda for which there is no historical precedent. Virtually every major organ
of the Western media apparatus (the most powerful propaganda machine in the annals of powerful propaganda
machines) has been relentlessly churning out variations on a new official ideological narrative designed
to generate and enforce conformity. The gist of this propaganda campaign is that "Western democracy"
is under attack by a confederacy of Russians and white supremacists, as well as "the terrorists"
and other "extremists" it's been under attack by for the last sixteen years.
I've been writing about this campaign for a year now, so I'm not going to rehash all the details.
Suffice to say we've gone from
Russian operatives hacking the American elections to "Russia-linked" persons "apparently" setting
up "illegitimate" Facebook accounts, "likely operated out of Russia," and publishing ads that are
"indistinguishable from legitimate political speech" on the Internet. This is what the corporate
media is presenting as evidence of
"an unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy," a handful of political ads on Facebook.
In addition to the Russian hacker propaganda, since August, we have also been treated to relentless
white supremacist hysteria and daily reminders from the corporate media that
"white nationalism is destroying the West." The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been
blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably slouching its way towards the White House to officially
launch the Trumpian Reich.
At the same time, government and corporate entities have been aggressively restricting (and in
many cases eliminating) fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of expression, freedom of the
press, the right of assembly, the right to privacy, and the right to due process under the law. The
justification for this curtailment of rights (which started in earnest in 2001, following the September
11 attacks) is protecting the public from the threat of "terrorism," which apparently shows no signs
of abating. As of now, the United States has been in
a State of Emergency for over sixteen years. The UK is in
a virtual State of Emergency . France is now in the process of enshrining
its permanent State of Emergency into law. Draconian counter-terrorism measures have been
implemented throughout the EU . Not just
the notorious American police but
police
throughout the West have been militarized . Every other day we learn of some
new emergency security measure designed to keep us safe from "the terrorists," the "lone wolf
shooters," and other "extremists."
Conveniently, since the Brexit referendum and unexpected election of Trump (which is when the
capitalist ruling classes first recognized that they had a widespread nationalist backlash on their
hands), the definition of "terrorism" (or, more broadly, "extremism") has been expanded to include
not just Al Qaeda, or ISIS, or whoever we're calling "the terrorists" these days, but anyone else
the ruling classes decide they need to label "extremists." The FBI has designated Black Lives Matter
"Black Identity Extremists." The FBI and the DHS have designated Antifa
"domestic terrorists."
Whatever your opinion of these organizations and "extremist" persons is beside the point. I'm
not a big fan of neo-Nazis, personally, but neither am I a fan of Antifa. I don't have much use for
conspiracy theories, or a lot of the nonsense one finds on the Internet, but I consume a fair amount
of alternative media, and I publish in CounterPunch, The Unz Review, ColdType, and other non-corporate
journals.
I consider myself a leftist, basically, but my political essays are often reposted by right-wing
and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists,
socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately
agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none
of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and
looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on
effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin
Luther Jesus-on-a-stick.
What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power
in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature.
They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump
them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable
category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism,
and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment).
As I wrote in that essay a year ago, "a line is being drawn in the ideological sand." This line
cuts across both Left and Right, dividing what the capitalist ruling classes designate "normal" from
what they label "extremist." The traditional ideological paradigm, Left versus Right, is disappearing
(except as a kind of minstrel show), and is being replaced, or overwritten, by a pathological
paradigm based upon the concept of "extremism."
* * *
Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as
we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three
decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain
old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary.
In the early 1990s, as the U.S.S.R. disintegrated, and globalized Western capitalism became the
unrivaled global-hegemonic ideological system that it is today, a new concept was needed to represent
the official enemy and its ideology. The concept of "extremism" does that perfectly, as it connotes,
not an external enemy with a definable ideological goal, but rather, a deviation from the norm. The
nature of the deviation (e.g., right-wing, left-wing, faith-based, and so on) is secondary, almost
incidental. The deviation itself is the point. The "terrorist," the "extremist," the "white supremacist,"
the "religious fanatic," the "violent anarchist" these figures are not rational actors whose ideas
we need to intellectually engage with in order to debate or debunk. They are pathological deviations,
mutant cells within the body of "normality," which we need to identify and eliminate, not for ideological
reasons, but purely in order to maintain "security."
A truly global-hegemonic system like contemporary global capitalism (the first of this kind in
human history), technically, has no ideology. "Normality" is its ideology an ideology which erases
itself and substitutes the concept of what's "normal," or, in other words, "just the way it is."
The specific characteristics of "normality," although not quite arbitrary, are ever-changing. In
the West, for example, thirty years ago, smoking was normal. Now, it's abnormal. Being gay was abnormal.
Now, it's normal. Being transgender is becoming normal, although we're still in the early stages
of the process. Racism has become abnormal. Body hair is currently abnormal. Walking down the street
in a semi-fugue state robotically thumbing the screen of a smartphone that you just finished thumbing
a minute ago is "normal." Capitalism has no qualms with these constant revisions to what is considered
normal, because none of them are threats to capitalism. On the contrary, as far as values are concerned,
the more flexible and commodifiable the better.
See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny,
homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these
values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we
have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't
much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture
or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every
object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will
bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
Yes, we all want there to be other values, and we pretend there are, but there aren't, not really.
Although we're free to enjoy parochial subcultures based on alternative values (i.e., religious bodies,
the arts, and so on), these subcultures operate within capitalist society, and ultimately conform
to its rules. In the arts, for example, works are either commercial products, like any other commodity,
or they are subsidized by what could be called "the simulated aristocracy," the ivy league-educated
leisure classes (and lower class artists aspiring thereto) who need to pretend that they still have
"culture" in order to feel superior to the masses. In the latter case, this feeling of superiority
is the upscale product being sold. In the former, it is entertainment, distraction from the depressing
realities of living, not in a society at all, but in a marketplace with no real human values. (In
the absence of any real cultural values, there is no qualitative difference between Gerhard
Richter and Adam Sandler, for example. They're both successful capitalist artists. They're just selling
their products in different markets.)
The fact that it has no human values is the evil genius of global capitalist society. Unlike the
despotic societies it replaced, it has no allegiance to any cultural identities, or traditions, or
anything other than money. It can accommodate any form of government, as long as it plays ball with
global capitalism. Thus, the window dressing of "normality" is markedly different from country to
country, but the essence of "normality" remains the same. Even in countries with state religions
(like Iran) or state ideologies (like China), the governments play by the rules of global capitalism
like everyone else. If they don't, they can expect to receive a visit from global capitalism's Regime
Change Department (i.e., the US military and its assorted partners).
Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the
West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed
countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies.
The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature
of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global
capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy,"
as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural).
We haven't really got our minds around it yet, because we're still in the early stages of it,
but we have entered an epoch in which historical events are primarily being driven, and societies
reshaped, not by sovereign nation states acting in their national interests but by supranational
corporations acting in their corporate interests. Paramount among these corporate interests is the
maintenance and expansion of global capitalism, and the elimination of any impediments thereto. Forget
about the United States (i.e., the actual nation state) for a moment, and look at what's been happening
since the early 1990s. The US military's "disastrous misadventures" in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan,
Syria, and the former Yugoslavia, among other exotic places (which have obviously had nothing to
do with the welfare or security of any actual Americans), begin to make a lot more sense.
Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold
War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies,
mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war,
like any other victorious force, it has been
"clear-and-holding" the
conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map,
and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and
its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last
fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant
surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of
extremism" propagated by the corporate media.
I'm not suggesting there's a bunch of capitalists sitting around in a room somewhere in their
shiny black top hats planning all of this. I'm talking about systemic development, which is a little
more complex than that, and much more difficult to intelligently discuss because we're used to perceiving
historico-political events in the context of competing nation states, rather than competing ideological
systems or non-competing ideological systems, for capitalism has no competition . What it
has, instead, is a variety of insurgencies, the faith-based Islamic fundamentalist insurgency and
the neo-nationalist insurgency chief among them. There will certainly be others throughout the near
future as global capitalism consolidates control and restructures societies according to its values.
None of these insurgencies will be successful.
Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know,
violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless
interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism"
will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit
referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing
a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise
might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology
will be systematically marginalized and pathologized.
This won't happen right away, of course. Things are liable to get ugly first (as if they weren't
ugly enough already), but probably not in the way we're expecting, or being trained to expect by
the corporate media. Look, I'll give you a dollar if it turns out I'm wrong, and the Russians, terrorists,
white supremacists, and other "extremists" do bring down "democracy" and launch their Islamic, white
supremacist, Russo-Nazi Reich, or whatever, but from where I sit it looks pretty clear tomorrow belongs
to the Corporatocracy.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin.
His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut
novel,
ZONE
23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at
cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
Brilliant Article. But this has been going on for nearly a century or more. New York Jewish bankers
fund the Bolshevik revolution which gets rid of the Romanov dynasty and many of the revolutionaries
are not even Russian. What many people do not know is that many Western companies invested money
in Bolshevik Russia as the Bolsheviks were speeding up the modernising of the country. What many
do not know is that Feminism, destruction of families and traditional societies, homoerotic art
etc . was forced on the new Soviet population in a shock therapy sort of way. The same process
has been implemented in the West by the elites using a much slower 'boiling the frog' method using
Cultural Marxism. The aim of the Soviet Union was to spread Communism around the World and hence
bring about the One World Government as wished by the globalists. Their national anthem was the
'Internationale'. The globalists were funding revolutionary movements throughout Europe and other
parts of the world. One such attempt went extremely wrong and that was in Germany where instead
of the Communists coming in power, the National Socialists come in power which was the most dangerous
challenge faced by the Zio/globalists/elite gang. The Globalists force a war using false flag
events like Pearl Harbour etc and crushed the powers which challenged their rule i.e. Germany,
Japan and Italy. That is why Capitalist USA funded Communist Soviet Union using the land lease
program, which on the surface never makes any sense.
However in Soviet Russia, a power struggle leads to Stalin destroying the old Communist order
of Lenin Trotsky. Trotsky and his supporters leave the Soviet Union. Many of the present Neo Cons
are ex Trotskyites and hence the crazy hatred for Russia even today in American politics. These
Neocons do not have any principles, they will use any ideology such as Communism, Islam, twisted
Western Conservatism anything to attain their global goals.
Now with Stalin coming to power, things actually improved and the war with Hitler's Third Reich
gave Stalin the chance to purge many old school globalist commies and then the Soviet Union went
towards a more nationalist road. Jews slowly started losing their hold on power with Russians
and eventually other Soviets gaining more powerful positions. These folks found the ugly modern
art culture of the early Soviet period revolting and started a new movement where the messages
of Socialism can be delivered with more healthy beautiful art and culture. This process was called
'Social Realism'. So strangely what happened was that the Capitalist Christian West was becoming
more and more less traditional with time (Cultural Marxism/Fabien Socialism via media, education,
Hollywood) while the Eastern block was slowly moving in an opposite direction. The CIA (which
is basically the intelligence agency arm of Wall Street Bankers) was working to stop this 'Social
Realism' movement.
These same globalists also funded Mao and pulled the rug under Chiang Kai Shek who they were
supporting earlier. Yes, Mao was funded by the Rockerfeller/ Rothschild Cabal. Now, even if the
Globalists were not happy with Stalin gaining power in the Soviet Union (they preferred the internationalist
Trotskyites), they still found that they could work out with the Soviet Union. That is why during
the 2nd World war, the USA supports the USSR with money and material, Stalin gets a facelift as
'friendly Uncle Joe' for the Western audience. Many Cossack families who had escaped the Soviet
Union to the West were sent to their deaths after the War to the Soviet Union. Why? Mr. Eden of
Britain who could not stand Hitler wanted a New World Order where they could work with the more
murderous Soviet Union.
Now we have the cold war. What is not known is that behind the scenes at a higher level, the
Americans and the Soviets cooperated with each other exchanging technology, basically the cold
war was quite fake. But the Cold war gave the American government (basically the Globalists) to
take American Tax payers hard earned money to fund many projects such as Star Wars programme etc
All this was not needed, as a gentleman named Keenan had shown in his book that all the Americans
needed to do was to make sure Japan, Germany and Britain did not fall to the Soviets, that's it.
Thus trillions of American tax payer money would be saved. But obviously the Military Industrial
Complex did not like that idea. Both the Soviet and the American governments got the excuse spend
their people's hard money on weapons research as well as exchanging some of that technology in
the back ground. It is during this period that the precursor to the Internet was already developed.
Many of the technology we use today was already invented much earlier by government agencies but
released to the people later.
Then we have the Vietnam war. Now you must realise that the Globalist government of America
uses wars not only to change enemy societies but also the domestic society in the West. So during
the Vietnam War, the US government using the alphabet agencies such as the CIA kick start the
fake opposition hippie movements. The CIA not only drugged the Vietnamese population using drugs
from the Golden Triangle but later released them on the home population in the USA and the West.
This was all part of the Cultural Marxist plan to change or social engineer American/ Western
society. Many institutes like the Travestock Institute were part of this process. For example
one of the main hochos of the Cultural Marxism, a Mr. Aderno was closely related to the Beatles
movement.
Several experiments was done on mind control such as MK Ultra, monarch programming, Edward
Bernay's works etc Their aim was to destroy traditional Western society and the long term goal
is a New World Order. Blacks for example were used as weapons against Whites at the same time
the black social order was destroyed further via the media etc
Now, Nixon going to China was to start a long term (long planned) process to bring about Corporate
Communism. Yes that is going to be economic system in the coming New World Order. China is the
test tube, where the Worst of Communism and the Worst of Crony Capitalism be brought together
as an experiment. As the Soviet Union was going in a direction, the globalist was not happy about
(it was becoming more nationalist), they worked to bring the Soviet Union down and thus the Soviet
experiment ended only to be continued in China.
NATO today is the core military arm of the globalists, a precursor to a One World Military
Force. That explains why after the Warsaw pact was dismantled, NATO was not or why NATO would
interfere in the Middle East which is far away from the Atlantic Ocean.
The coming Cashless society will finally lead to a moneyless or distribution society, in other
words Communism, that is the long term plan.
My point is, many of the geo political events as well as social movements of the last century
(feminism for example) were all planned for a long time and are not accidents. The coming technologies
like the internet of things, 5G technology, Cashless society, biometric identification everywhere
etc are all designed to help bring about the final aim of the globalists. The final aim is a one
world government with Corporate ruled Communism where we, the worker bees will be living in our
shitty inner city like ghetto homes eating GM plastic foods and listening to crappy music. That
is the future they have planned for us. A inner city ghetto like place under Communism ruled by
greedy evil corporates.
"Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know,
violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its
ruthless interests."
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical
of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting
proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with
mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy
seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening.
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical
of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting
proles.
There must be some evidence for your assertions about the long term plans and aims of globalists
and others if there is truth in them. The sort of people you are referring to would often have
kept private diaries and certainly written many hundreds or thousands of letters. Can you give
any references to such evidence of say 80 to 130 years ago?
.. puzzling that the writer feels the need to virtue-signal by saying he "doesn't have much
time for conspiracy theories" while condemning an absolutely massive conspiracy to present establishment
lies as truth.
That is one of the most depressing demonstrations of the success of the ruling creeps that
I have yet come across.
Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last
French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU
parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what
also the EU is, I would be worried.
"See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny,
homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these
values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which
we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which
isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of
human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything,
everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what
the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value."
This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's
go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing
& are infinitely flexible is central to their power.
Mr Hopkins is also correct when he points out that Capitalism has essentially NO values (exchange
value is a value, but also a mechanism). Again, Capitalism stands for nothing: any form of government
is acceptable as long as it bows to neoliberal markets.
However, the author probably goes to far:
"Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies
are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every
developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony
I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony.
Systemic, supranational hegemony".
Capitalism has no values: however the Masters of the capitalist system most certainly do: Capitalism
is a means, the most thorough, profound means yet invented, for the attainment of that value which
has NO exchange value: POWER.
Capitalism is a supranational hegemony – yet the Elites which control it, who will act as one
when presented with any external threats to Capitalism itself, are not unified internally. Indeed,
they will engage in cut throat competition, whether considered as individuals or nations or as
particular industries.
US Imperialism is not imaginary, it is not a mere appearance or mirage of Capitalism, supranational
or not. US Imperialism in essence empowers certain sets of Capitalists over other sets. No, they
may not purposely endanger the System as a whole, however, that still leaves plenty of space for
aggressive competition, up to & including war.
Imperialism is the political corollary to the ultimate economic goal of the individual Capitalist:
Monopoly.
Psychologically daring (being no minstrel to corporatocracy nor irrelevant activism and other
"religions" that endorse the current world global system as the overhead), rationally correct,
relevant, core definition of the larger geo-world and deeper "ideological" grounding( in the case
of capitalism the quite shallow brute forcing of greed as an incentive, as sterile a society as
possible), and adhering to longer timelines of reality of planet earth. Perfectly captures the
"essence" of the dynamics of our times.
The few come to the authors' through-sites by many venue-ways, that's where some of the corporocratic
world, by sheer statistics wind up also. Why do they not get the overhand into molding the shallow
into anything better in the long haul. No world leader, no intellectual within power circles,
even within confined quarters, speaks to the absurdity of the ongoing slugging and maltering of
global human?
The elites of now are too dumb to consider the planet exo-human as a limited resource. Immigration,
migration, is the de facto path to "normalization" in the terms of the author. Reducing the world
population is not "in" the capitalist ideology. A major weakness, or if one prefers the stake
that pinches the concept of capitalism: more instead of quality principles.
The game changers, the possible game changers: eugenics and how they play out as to the elites
( understanding the genome and manipulating it), artificial intelligence ( defining it first,
not the "Elon Musk" definition), and as a far outlier exo-planetary arguments.
Confront the above with the "unexpected", the not-human engineered possible events (astroids
and the like, secondary effects of human induced toxicity, others), and the chances to get to
the author's "dollar" and what it by then might mean is indeed tiny.
As to the content, one of the utmost relevant articles, it is "art" to condense such broad
a world view into a few words, it requires a deep understanding foremost, left to wonder what
can be grasped by most reading above. Some-one try the numbers?, "big data" anyone, they might
turn out in favor of what the author undoubtedly absorbed as the nucleus of twenty-first thinking,
strategy and engineering.
This kind of thinking and "Harvard" conventionality, what a distance.
Great article, spot on. Indeed we are all at the mercy now of a relatively small clique of ruthless
criminals who are served by armies of desensitized, stupid mercenaries: MBAs, politicians, thugs,
college professors, "whorenalists", etc. I am afraid that the best answer to the current and future
dystopia is what the Germans call "innere Emigration," to psychologically detach oneself
from the contemporary world.
Thus, the only way out of this hellhole is through reading and thinking, which every self-respecting
individual should engage in. Shun most contemporary "literature" and instead turn to the classics
of European culture: there you will find all you need.
For an earlier and ever so pertinent analysis of the contemporary desert, I can heartily recommend
Umberto Galimberti's I vizi capitali e i nuovi vizi (Milan, 2003).
And yes, another verbally strong expression of the in your face truth, though for so few to
grasp. The author again has a deep understanding, if one prefers, it points to the venueway of
coming to terms, the empirical pathway as to the understanding.
"Plasticky" society is my preferred term for designating the aberrance that most (within the
elites), the rest who cares (as an historical truth), do not seem to identify as proper cluelessness
in the light of longer timelines. The current global ideology, religion of capitalism-democracy
is the equivalent of opportunistic naval staring of the elites. They are not aware that suffocation
will irreversibly affect oneself. Not enough air is the equivalent of no air in the end.
The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably
slouching its way towards the White House to officially launch the Trumpian Reich.
While the above is true, I hope most folks understand that the basic concept of controlling
people through fear is nothing new. The much vaunted constitution was crammed down our collective
throats by the rich scoundrels of the time in the words of more than one anti-federalist through
the conjuring of quite a set of threats, all bogus.
I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty
We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.
- Patrick Henry, Foreign Wars, Civil Wars, and Indian Wars -- Three Bugbears, June 5, 7,
and 9, 1788
Bottom line: Concentrated wealth and power suck.The USA was ruled by a plutoligarchy from its
inception, and the material benefits we still enjoy have occurred not because of it but
despite it.
For today's goofy "right wing" big business "conservatives" who think the US won WW2, I got news
for you. Monopoly capitalism, complete with increasing centralization of the economy and political
forces were given boosts by both world wars.
It was precisely in reaction to their impending defeat at the hands of the competitive storms
of the market tha t business turned, increasingly after the 1900′s, to the federal government
for aid and protection. In short, the intervention by the federal government was designed,
not to curb big business monopoly for the sake of the public weal, but to create monopolies
that big business (as well as trade associations smaller business) had not been able
to establish amidst the competitive gales of the free market. Both Left and Right have been
persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish
and anti-business. Hence the mythology of the New-Fair Deal-as-Red that is endemic on the Right.
Both the big businessmen, led by the Morgan interests, and Professor Kolko almost uniquely
in the academic world, have realized that monopoly privilege can only be created by the
State and not as a result of free market operations.
-Murray N. Rothbard, Rothbard Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, [Originally appeared
in Left and Right, Spring 1965, pp. 4-22.]
It was all about connecting the dots really. Connecting the dots of too many books I have gobe
through and videos I have seen. Too many to list here.
You can get a lot of info from the book 'Tragedy and Hope' by Carroll Quigley though he avoids
mantioning Jews and calls it the Anglo American establishment, Anthony Sutton however I completely
disagree about funding of the Third Reich but he does talk a lot about the secret relationship
between the USA and the USSR, Revilo Oliver etc.. etc Well you could read the Protocols. Now if
you think that the protocols was a forgery, you gotta see this, especially the last part.
Also check this out
Also check out what this Wall Street guy realised in his career.
Also this 911 firefighter, what he found out after some research
Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only
has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms
of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural
world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient
being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more,
no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
This looks like the "financialization" of society with Citizens morphing into Consumers.
And it's worth saying that Citizenship and Consumership are completely different concepts:
Citizenship – Dictionary.com
1. – the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen.
2. – the character of an individual viewed as a member of society;behavior in terms of the
duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen:
an award for good citizenship.
The Consumer – Dictionary.com
1. a person or thing that consumes.
2. Economics. a person or organization that uses a commodity or service.
A good citizen can then define themselves in a rather non-selfish, non-financial way as for
example, someone who respects others, contributes to local decisions (politically active), gains
respect through work and ethical standards etc.
A good consumer on the other hand, seems to be more a self-idea, essentially someone who buys
and consumes a lot (financial idea), has little political interest – and probably defines themselves
(and others) by how they spend money and what they own.
It's clear that US, and global capitalism, prefers active consumers over active citizens, and
maybe it explains why the US has such a worthless and dysfunctional political process.
Some folks are completely unable to connect the dots even when spoon fed the evidence. You'll
note that some, in risible displays of quasi-intellectual arrogance, make virtually impossible
demands for proof, none of which they'll ever accept. Rather, they flock to self aggrandizing
mythology like flies to fresh sewage which the plutoligarchy produces nearly infinitely.
Your observations appear pretty accurate and self justifying I'd say.
Look up the film director Aaron Russo (recently deceased), discussing how David Rockefeller
tried to bring him over to the dark side. Rockefeller discussed for example the women's movement,
its engineering. Also, there's Aldous Huxley's speech The Ultimate Revolution, on how drugs are
the final solution to rabble troubles–we will think we're happy even in the most appalling societal
conditions.
I can only say Beware of Zinn, best friend of Chomsky, endlessly tauted by shysters like Amy
Goodman and Counterpunch. Like all liberal gatekeepers, he wouldn't touch 911. I saw him speak
not long before he died, and when questioned on this he said, 'That was a long time ago, let's
talk about now.'
This from a professed historian, and it was only 7 years after 911. He seemed to have the same
old Jewish agenda, make Europeans look really bad at all times. He was always on message, like
the shyster Chomsky. Sincerely probing for the truth was not part of his agenda; his truths were
highly selective, and such a colossal event as 911 concerned him not at all, with the ensuing
wars, Patriot Acts, bullshit war on Terror, etc etc
" capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic
values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic
purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system."
This is a typical Left Lie. Capitalism in its present internationalist phase absolutely requires
Anti-Racism to lubricate sales uh, internationally and domestically. We are all Equal.
Then, the ticking-off of the rest of the bad isms, and labeling them 'despotic' is another
Leftwing and poetic attack on more or less all of us white folks, who have largely invented Capitalism,
from a racialist point of view.
"Poetic" because it is an emotional appeal, not a rational argument. The other 'despotisms'
are not despotic, unless you claim, like I do that racial personalities are more, or less despotic,
with Whites being the least despotic. The Left totalitarian thinks emotional despotism's source
is political or statist. It are not. However, Capitalism has been far less despotic than communism,
etc.
Emotional Despotism is part of who Homo Sapiens is, and this emotional despotism is not racially
equal. Whites are the least despotic, and have organized law and rules to contain such despotism.
Systems arise naturally from the Human Condition, like it or not. The attempt here is to sully
the Capitalist system, and that is all it is. This article itself is despotic propaganda.
Arguably, human nature is despotic, and White civilization has attempted to limit our despotic
nature.
This is another story.
As for elevating capitalism into a 'social system' .this is somewhat true. However, that is
not totally bad, as capitalism delivers the goods, which is the first thing, after getting out
of bed.
The second thing, is having a conformable social environment, and that is where racial accord
enters.
People want familiar and trustworthy people around them and that is just the way human nature
is genetic similarity, etc.
Beyond that, the various Leftie complaints-without-end, are also just the way it is. And yes
they can be addressed and ameliorated to some degree, but human nature is not a System to be manipulated,
even thought the current crop of scientistic lefties talk a good storyline about epigenetics and
other Hopes, false of course, like communist planning which makes its first priority, Social Change
which is always despotic. Society takes care of itself, especially racial society.
As Senator Vail said about the 1924 Immigration Act which held the line against Immigration,
"if there is going to be any changing being done, we will do it and nobody else." That 'we' was
a White we.
Capitalism must be national. International capital is tyranny.
US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US
Big Government taxes on a single gallon are around seventy-one cents for US states & rising, the
tax is now $1.00 per gallon for CA.
IOW, greedy US governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make, and it is
the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.
And that is just in the US. Have a look at Europe's taxes. My, my.
Some agendas require the "state sponsored" part to be hidden.
That is part of the reason why the constitutional convention was held in secret as well.
The cunning connivers who ram government down our throats don't like their designs exposed,
and it's an old trick which nearly always works.
Here's Aristophanes on the subject. His play is worth a read. Short and great satire on the
politicians of the day.
SAUSAGE-SELLER
No, Cleon, little you care for his reigning in Arcadia, it's to pillage and impose on the
allies at will that you reckon; y ou wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist,
that Demos may see nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for
his bread. But if ever peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort
himself once more with good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings
you have kept him out of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage,
he will rise, burning with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is
for this you rock him to sleep with your lies.
The first loyalty of jews is supposed to be to jews.
Norman Finkelstein is called a traitor by jews, the Dutch jew Hamburger is called a traitor
by Dutch jews, he's the chairman of 'Een ander joodse geluid', best translated by 'another jewish
opinion', the organisation criticises Israel.
Jewish involvement in Sept 11 seems probable, the 'dancing Israelis', the assertion that most
jews working in the Twin Towers at the time were either sick or took a day off, the fact that
the Towers were jewish property, ready for a costly demolition, much abestos in the buildings,
thus the 'terrorist' act brought a great profit.
Can one expect a jew to expose things like this ?
On his book, I did not find inconsistencies with literature I already knew.
The merit of the book is listing many events that affected common people in the USA, and destroying
the myth that 'in the USA who is poor has only himself to blame'.
This nonsense becomes clear even from the diaries of Harold L Ickes, or from Jonathan Raban
Bad Land, 1997.
As for Zinn's criticism of the adored USA constitution, I read that Charles A Beard already
in 1919 resigned because he also criticised this constitution.
Indeed, in our countries about half the national income goes to the governments by taxes, this
is the reason a country like Denmark is the best country to live in.
"... Following Frances Fox Piven, "neoliberal economic policies" refers to the set of policies carried out, in the name of individualism and unfettered markets, for "the deregulation of corporations, and particularly of financial institutions; the rollback of public services and benefit programs; curbing labor unions; 'free trade' policies that would pry open foreign markets; and wherever possible the replacement of public programs with private markets" (Piven, 2007: 13). ..."
"... The case of the United States is particularly useful to examine because its elites have projected themselves as "first among equals" of the globalization project ( Bello , 2006), and it is the place of the Global North where the neoliberal project has been pursued most resolutely and has advanced the farthest. In other words, the experiences of American workers illuminate the affects of the neoliberal project in the Global North to the greatest extent, and suggest what will happen to working people in other northern countries should they accept their respective government's adoption of such policies. ..."
"... However, it is believed that the implementation of these neoliberal economic policies and the cultural wars to divert public attention are part of a larger, conscious political program by the elites within this country that is intended to prevent re-emergence of the collective solidarity among the American people that we saw during the late 1960s-early 1970s (see Piven, 2004, 2007) -- of which the internal breakdown of discipline within the US military, in Vietnam and around the world, was arguably the most crucial (see Moser, 1996; Zeiger, 2006) -- that ultimately challenged, however inchoately, the very structure of the established social order, both internationally and in the United States itself. ..."
Most contemporary discussions of globalization, and especially of the impact of neoliberal economic
policies, focus on the countries of the Global South (see, for example, Bond, 2005; Ellner and Hellinger,
eds., 2003; a number of articles in Harris, ed., 2006; Klein, 2007; Monthly Review, 2007;
and, among others, see Scipes, 1999, 2006b). Recent articles arguing that the globalization project
has receded and might be taking different approaches (Bello, 2006; Thornton, 2007) have also focused
on the Global South. What has been somewhat discussed (see Giroux, 2004; Piven, 2004; Aronowitz,
2005) but not systematically addressed, however, is what has been the impact of globalization and
especially related neoliberal economic policies on working people in a northern country?
[i]
This paper specifically addresses this question by looking at the impact of neoliberal economic
policies on working people in the United States . Following Frances Fox Piven, "neoliberal economic
policies" refers to the set of policies carried out, in the name of individualism and unfettered
markets, for "the deregulation of corporations, and particularly of financial institutions; the rollback
of public services and benefit programs; curbing labor unions; 'free trade' policies that would pry
open foreign markets; and wherever possible the replacement of public programs with private markets"
(Piven, 2007: 13).
The case of the United States is particularly useful to examine because its elites have projected
themselves as "first among equals" of the globalization project ( Bello , 2006), and it is the place
of the Global North where the neoliberal project has been pursued most resolutely and has advanced
the farthest. In other words, the experiences of American workers illuminate the affects of the neoliberal
project in the Global North to the greatest extent, and suggest what will happen to working people
in other northern countries should they accept their respective government's adoption of such policies.
However, care must be taken as to how this is understood. While sociologically-focused textbooks
(e.g., Aguirre and Baker, eds., 2008; Hurst, 2007) have joined together some of the most recent thinking
on social inequality -- and have demonstrated that inequality not only exists but is increasing --
this has been generally presented in a national context; in this case, within the United States.
And if they recognize that globalization is part of the reason for increasing inequality, it is generally
included as one of a set of reasons.
This paper argues that we simply cannot understand what is happening unless we put developments
within a global context: the United States effects, and is affected by, global processes.
Thus, while some of the impacts can be understood on a national level, we cannot ask related questions
as to causes -- or future consequences -- by confining our examination to a national level: we absolutely
must approach this from a global perspective (see Nederveen Pieterse, 2004, 2008).
This also must be put in historical perspective as well, although the focus in this piece will
be limited to the post-World War II world. Inequality within what is now the United States today
did not -- obviously -- arise overnight. Unquestionably, it began at least 400 years ago in Jamestown
-- with the terribly unequal and socially stratified society of England's colonial Virginia before
Africans were brought to North America (see Fischer, 1989), much less after their arrival in
1619, before the Pilgrims. Yet, to understand the roots of development of contemporary social
inequality in the US , we must understand the rise of " Europe " in relation to the rest of the world
(see, among others, Rodney, 1972; Nederveen Pieterse, 1989). In short, again, we have to understand
that the development of the United States has been and will always be a global project and, without
recognizing that, we simply cannot begin to understand developments within the United States .
We also have to understand the multiple and changing forms of social stratification and resulting
inequalities in this country. This paper prioritizes economic stratification, although is not limited
to just the resulting inequalities. Nonetheless, it does not focus on racial, gender or any other
type of social stratification. However, this paper is not written from the perspective that economic
stratification is always the most important form of stratification, nor from the perspective
that we can only understand other forms of stratification by understanding economic stratification:
all that is being claimed herein is that economic stratification is one type of social stratification,
arguably one of the most important types yet only one of several, and investigates the issue of economic
stratification in the context of contemporary globalization and the neoliberal economic policies
that have developed to address this phenomenon as it affects the United States.
Once this global-historical perspective is understood and after quickly suggesting in the "prologue"
why the connection between neoliberal economic policies and the affects on working people
in the United States has not been made usually, this paper focuses on several interrelated issues:
(1) it reports the current economic situation for workers in the United States; (2) it provides a
historical overview of US society since World War II; (3) it analyzes the results of US Government
economic policies; and (4) it ties these issues together. From that, it comes to a conclusion about
the affects of neoliberal economic policies on working people in the United States .
Prologue: Origins of neoliberal economic policies in the United States
As stated above, most of the attention directed toward understanding the impact of neoliberal
economic policies on various countries has been confined to the countries of the Global South. However,
these policies have been implemented in the United States as well. This arguably began in 1982, when
the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, launched a vicious attack on inflation -- and
caused the deepest US recession since the Great Depression of the late 1920s-1930s.
However, these neoliberal policies have been implemented in the US perhaps more subtly than in
the Global South. This is said because, when trying to understand changes that continue to take place
in the United States, these economic policies are hidden "under" the various and sundry "cultural
wars" (around issues such as drugs, premarital sex, gun control, abortion, marriages for gays and
lesbians) that have been taking place in this country and, thus, not made obvious: most Americans,
and especially working people, are not aware of the changes detailed below.
[ii]
However, it is believed that the implementation of these neoliberal economic policies and
the cultural wars to divert public attention are part of a larger, conscious political program
by the elites within this country that is intended to prevent re-emergence of the collective solidarity
among the American people that we saw during the late 1960s-early 1970s (see Piven, 2004, 2007) --
of which the internal breakdown of discipline within the US military, in Vietnam and around
the world, was arguably the most crucial (see Moser, 1996; Zeiger, 2006) -- that ultimately challenged,
however inchoately, the very structure of the established social order, both internationally and
in the United States itself. Thus, we see both Democratic and Republican Parties in agreement
to maintain and expand the US Empire (in more neutral political science-ese, a "uni-polar world"),
but the differences that emerge within each party and between each party are generally confined to
how this can best be accomplished. While this paper focuses on the economic and social changes going
on, it should be kept in mind that these changes did not "just happen": conscious political decisions
have been made that produced social results (see Piven, 2004) that make the US experience -- at the
center of a global social order based on an "advanced" capitalist economy -- qualitatively different
from experiences in other more economically-developed countries.
So, what has been the impact of these policies on workers in the US?
1) The current situation for workers and growing economic inequality
Steven Greenhouse of The New York Times published a piece on September 4, 2006, writing
about entry-level workers, young people who were just entering the job market. Mr. Greenhouse noted
changes in the US economy; in fact, there have been substantial changes since early 2000, when the
economy last created many jobs.
Median incomes for families with one parent age 25-34 fell 5.9 per cent between 2000-2005.
It had jumped 12 per cent during the late '90s. (The median annual income for these families today
is $48,405.)
Between 2000-2005, entry-level wages for male college graduates fell by 7.3 per cent (to $19.72/hr)
Entry-level wages for female college graduates fell by 3.5 per cent (to $17.08)
Entry-level wages for male high school graduates fell by 3.3 per cent (to $10.93)
Entry-level wages for female high school graduates fell by 4.9 per cent (to $9.08)
Yet, the percentage drop in wages hides the growing gap between college and high school graduates.
Today, on average, college grads earn 45 per cent more than high school graduates, where the gap
had "only" been 23 per cent in 1979: the gap has doubled in 26 years (Greenhouse, 2006b).
A 2004 story in Business Week found that 24 per cent of all working Americans received
wages below the poverty line ( Business Week , 2004).
[iii] In January 2004, 23.5 million
Americans received free food from food pantries. "The surge for food demand is fueled by several
forces -- job losses, expired unemployment benefits, soaring health-care and housing costs, and the
inability of many people to find jobs that match the income and benefits of the jobs they had." And
43 million people were living in low-income families with children (Jones, 2004).
A 2006 story in Business Week found that US job growth between 2001-2006 was really based
on one industry: health care. Over this five-year period, the health-care sector has added 1.7 million
jobs, while the rest of the private sector has been stagnant. Michael Mandel, the economics editor
of the magazine, writes:
information technology, the great electronic promise of the 1990s, has turned into one of
the greatest job-growth disappointments of all time. Despite the splashy success of companies
such as Google and Yahoo!, businesses at the core of the information economy -- software, semi-conductors,
telecom, and the whole range of Web companies -- have lost more than 1.1 million jobs in the past
five years. These businesses employ fewer Americans today than they did in 1998, when the Internet
frenzy kicked into high gear (Mandel, 2006: 56) .
In fact, "take away health-care hiring in the US, and quicker than you can say cardiac bypass,
the US unemployment rate would be 1 to 2 percentage points higher" (Mandel, 2006: 57).
There has been extensive job loss in manufacturing. Over 3.4 million manufacturing jobs have been
lost since 1998, and 2.9 million of them have been lost since 2001. Additionally, over 40,000 manufacturing
firms have closed since 1999, and 90 per cent have been medium and large shops. In labor-import intensive
industries, 25 per cent of laid-off workers remain unemployed after six months, two-thirds of them
who do find new jobs earn less than on their old job, and one-quarter of those who find new jobs
"suffer wage losses of more than 30 percent" (AFL-CIO, 2006a: 2).
The AFL-CIO details the US job loss by manufacturing sector in the 2001-05 period:
Computer and electronics: 543,000 workers or 29.2 per cent
Semiconductor and electronic components: 260,100 or 36.7 per cent
Electrical equipment and appliances: 152,500 or 26 per cent
Vehicle parts: 153,400 or 18.6 per cent
Machinery: 289,400 or 19.9 per cent
Fabricated metal products: 235,200 or 13.3 per cent
Primary metals: 144,800 or 23.5 per cent
Transportation equipment: 246,300 or 12.1 per cent
Furniture products: 58,500 or 13.4 per cent
Textile mills: 158,500 or 43.1 per cent
Apparel 220,000 or 46.6 per cent
Leather products: 24,700 or 38.3 per cent
Printing: 159,300 or 19.9 per cent
Paper products: 122,600 or 20.4 per cent
Plastics and rubber products: 141,400 or 15 per cent
Chemicals: 94,900 or 9.7 per cent
Aerospace: 46,900 or 9.1 per cent
Textiles and apparel declined by 870,000 jobs 1994-2006, a decline of 65.4 per cent (AFL-CIO,
2006a: 2).
As of the end of 2005, only 10.7 per cent of all US employment was in manufacturing -- down from
21.6 per cent at its height in 1979 -- in raw numbers, manufacturing employment totaled 19.426 million
in 1979, 17.263 million in 2000, and 14.232 million in 2005.
[iv] The number of production workers
in this country at the end of 2005 was 9.378 million.
[v] This was only slightly above
the 9.306 million production workers in 1983, and was considerably below the 11.463 million as recently
as 2000 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006b). As one writer puts it, this is "the biggest long-term
trend in the economy: the decline of manufacturing." He notes that employment in the durable goods
(e.g., cars and cable TV boxes) category of manufacturing has declined from 19 per cent of all employment
in 1965 to 8 per cent in 2005 (Altman, 2006). And at the end of 2006, only 11.7 per cent of all manufacturing
workers were in unions (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007).
In addition, in 2004 and 2005, "the real hourly and weekly wages of US manufacturing workers have
fallen 3 per cent and 2.2 per cent respectively" (AFL-CIO, 2006a: 2).
The minimum wage level went unchanged for nine years: until recently when there was a small increase
-- to $5.85 an hour on July 24, 2007 -- US minimum wage had remained at $5.15 an hour since September
1, 1997 . During that time, the cost of living rose 26 percent. After adjusting for inflation, this
was the lowest level of the minimum wage since 1955. At the same time, the minimum wage was only
31 per cent of the average pay of non-supervisory workers in the private sector, which is the lowest
share since World War II (Bernstein and Shapiro, 2006).
In addition to the drop in wages at all levels, fewer new workers get health care benefits with
their jobs: [vi] in 2005, 64 per
cent of all college grads got health coverage in entry-level jobs, where 71 per cent had gotten it
in 2000 -- a 7 per cent drop in just five years. Over a longer term, we can see what has happened
to high school grads: in 1979, two-thirds of all high school graduates got health care coverage in
entry-level jobs, while only one-third do today (Greenhouse, 2006b). It must be kept in mind that
only about 28 per cent of the US workforce are college graduates -- most of the work force only has
a high school degree, although a growing percentage of them have some college, but not college degrees.
Because things have gotten so bad, many young adults have gotten discouraged and given up. The
unemployment rate is 4.4 per cent for ages 25-34, but 8.2 per cent for workers 20-24. (Greenhouse,
2006b).
Yet things are actually worse than that. In the US , unemployment rates are artificially low.
If a person gets laid off and gets unemployment benefits -- which fewer and fewer workers even get
-- they get a check for six months. If they have not gotten a job by the end of six months -- and
it is taking longer and longer to get a job -- and they have given up searching for work, then not
only do they loose their unemployment benefits, but they are no longer counted as unemployed: one
doesn't even count in the statistics!
A report from April 2004 provides details. According to the then-head of the US Federal Reserve
System, Alan Greenspan, "the average duration of unemployment increased from twelve weeks in September
2000 to twenty weeks in March [2004]" (quoted in Shapiro, 2004: 4). In March 2004, 354,000 jobs workers
had exhausted their unemployment benefits, and were unable to get any additional federal unemployment
assistance: Shapiro (2004: 1) notes, "In no other month on record, with data available back to 1971,
have there been so many 'exhaustees'."
Additionally, although it's rarely reported, unemployment rates vary by racial grouping. No matter
what the unemployment rate is, it really only reflects the rate of whites who are unemployed because
about 78 per cent of the workforce is white. However, since 1954, the unemployment rate of African-Americans
has always been more than twice that of whites, and Latinos are about 1 1/2 times that of whites.
So, for example, if the overall rate is five percent, then it's at least ten per cent for African-Americans
and 7.5 per cent for Latinos.
However, most of the developments presented above -- other than the racial affects of unemployment
-- have been relatively recent. What about longer term? Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning Princeton
University economist who writes for The New York Times, pointed out these longer term affects:
non-supervisory workers make less in real wages today (2006) than they made in 1973! So, after inflation
is taken out, non-supervisory workers are making less today in real terms that their contemporaries
made 33 years ago (Krugman, 2006b). Figures provided by Stephen Franklin -- obtained from the US
Bureau of Statistics, and presented in 1982 dollars -- show that a production worker in January 1973
earned $9.08 an hour -- and $8.19 an hour in December 2005 (Franklin, 2006). Workers in 2005 also
had less long-term job security, fewer benefits, less stable pensions (when they have them), and
rising health care costs. [vii]
In short, the economic situation for "average Americans" is getting worse. A front-page story
in the Chicago Tribune tells about a worker who six years ago was making $29 an hour, working
at a nuclear power plant. He got laid off, and now makes $12.24 an hour, working on the bottom tier
of a two-tiered unionized factory owned by Caterpillar, the multinational earth moving equipment
producer, which is less than half of his old wages. The article pointed out, "Glued to a bare bones
budget, he saved for weeks to buy a five-pack of $7 T-shirts" ( Franklin , 2006).
As Foster and Magdoff point out:
Except for a small rise in the late 1990s, real wages have been sluggish for decades. The
typical (median-income) family has sought to compensate for this by increasing the number of jobs
and working hours per household. Nevertheless, the real (inflation-adjusted) income of the typical
household fell for five years in a row through 2004 (Foster and Magdoff, 2009: 28).
A report by Workers Independent News (WIN) stated that while a majority of metropolitan
areas have regained the 2.6 million jobs lost during the first two years of the Bush Administration,
"the new jobs on average pay $9,000 less than the jobs replaced," a 21 per cent decline from $43,629
to $34,378. However, WIN says that "99 out of the 361 metro areas will not recover jobs before 2007
and could be waiting until 2015 before they reach full recovery" (Russell, 2006).
At the same time, Americans are going deeper and deeper into debt. At the end of 2000, total US
household debt was $7.008 trillion, with home mortgage debt being $4.811 trillion and non-mortgage
debt $1.749 trillion; at the end of 2006, comparable numbers were a total of $12.817 trillion; $9.705
trillion (doubling since 2000); and $2.431 trillion (US Federal Reserve, 2007-rounding by author).
Foster and Magdoff (2009: 29) show that this debt is not only increasing, but based on figures from
the Federal Reserve, that debt as a percentage of disposable income has increased overall from 62%
in 1975 to 96.8% in 2000, and to 127.2% in 2005.
Three polls from mid-2006 found "deep pessimism among American workers, with most saying that
wages were not keeping pace with inflation, and that workers were worse off in many ways than a generation
ago" (Greenhouse, 2006a). And, one might notice, nothing has been said about increasing gas prices,
lower home values, etc. The economic situation for most working people is not looking pretty.
In fact, bankruptcy filings totaled 2.043 million in 2005, up 31.6 per cent from 2004 (Associated
Press, 2006), before gas prices went through the ceiling and housing prices began falling in mid-2006.
Yet in 1998, writers for the Chicago Tribune had written, " the number of personal bankruptcy
filings skyrocketed 19.5 per cent last year, to an all-time high of 1,335,053, compared with 1,117,470
in 1996" (Schmeltzer and Gruber, 1998).
And at the same time, there were 37 million Americans in poverty in 2005, one of out every eight.
Again, the rates vary by racial grouping: while 12.6 per cent of all Americans were in poverty, the
poverty rate for whites was 8.3 percent; for African Americans, 24.9 per cent were in poverty, as
were 21.8 per cent of all Latinos. (What is rarely acknowledged, however, is that 65 per cent of
all people in poverty in the US are white.) And 17.6 per cent of all children were in poverty (US
Census Bureau, 2005).
What about the "other half"? This time, Paul Krugman gives details from a report by two Northwestern
University professors, Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon, titled "Where Did the Productivity Growth
Go?" Krugman writes:
Between 1973 and 2001, the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile
of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 per cent per year. But income at the
99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income
at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint. Just to give you a sense
of who we're talking about: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that this year, the 99th
percentile will correspond to an income of $402,306, and the 99.9th percentile to an income of
$1,672,726. The Center doesn't give a number for the 99.99th percentile, but it's probably well
over $6 million a year (Krugman, 2006a) .
But how can we understand what is going on? We need to put take a historical approach to understand
the significance of the changes reported above.
(2) A historical look at the US social order since World War II
When considering the US situation, it makes most sense to look at "recent" US developments, those
since World War II. Just after the War, in 1947, the US population was about six per cent of the
world's total. Nonetheless, this six per cent produced about 48 per cent of all goods and services
in the world! [viii] With Europe
and Japan devastated, the US was the only industrialized economy that had not been laid waste. Everybody
needed what the US produced -- and this country produced the goods, and sent them around the world.
At the same time, the US economy was not only the most productive, but the rise of the industrial
union movement in the 1930s and '40s -- the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) -- meant that
workers had some power to demand a share of the wealth produced. In 1946, just after the war, the
US had the largest strike wave in its history: 116,000,000 production days were lost in early 1946,
as industry-wide strikes in auto, steel, meat packing, and the electrical industry took place across
the United States and Canada , along with smaller strikes in individual firms. Not only that, but
there were general strikes that year in Oakland , California and Stamford , Connecticut . Workers
had been held back during the war, but they demonstrated their power immediately thereafter (Lipsitz,
1994; Murolo and Chitty, 2001). Industry knew that if it wanted the production it could sell, it
had to include unionized workers in on the deal.
It was this combination -- devastated economic markets around the world and great demand for goods
and services, the world's most developed industrial economy, and a militant union movement -- that
combined to create what is now known as the "great American middle class."
[ix]
To understand the economic impact of these factors, changes in income distribution in US society
must be examined. The best way to illuminate this is to assemble family data on income or wealth
[x] -- income data is more available,
so that will be used; arrange it from the smallest amount to the largest; and then to divide the
population into fifths, or quintiles. In other words, arrange every family's annual income from the
lowest to the highest, and divide the total number of family incomes into quintiles or by 20 percents
(i.e., fifths). Then compare changes in the top incomes for each quintile. By doing so, one can then
observe changes in income distribution over specified time periods.
The years between 1947 and 1973 are considered the "golden years" of the US society.
[xi] The values are presented
in 2005 dollars, so that means that inflation has been taken out: these are real dollar values,
and that means these are valid comparisons.
Figure 1: US family income, in US dollars, growth and istribution, by quintile, 1947-1973 compared
to 1973-2001, in 2005 dollars
Source: US Commerce Department, Bureau of the Census (hereafter, US Census Bureau) at
www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html
. All dollar values converted to 2005 dollars by US Census Bureau, removing inflation and comparing
real values. Differences and percentages calculated by author. Percentages shown in both rows labeled
"Difference" show the dollar difference as a percentage of the first year of the comparison.
Data for the first period, 1947-1973 -- the data above the grey line -- shows there was
considerable real economic growth for each quintile . Over the 26-year period, there was approximately
100 per cent real economic growth for the incomes at the top of each quintile, which meant incomes
doubled after inflation was removed; thus, there was significant economic growth in the society.
And importantly, this real economic growth was distributed fairly evenly . The data in
the fourth line (in parentheses) is the percentage relationship between the difference between 1947-1973
real income when compared to the 1947 real income, with 100 per cent representing a doubling of real
income: i.e., the difference for the bottom quintile between 1947 and 1973 was an increase
of $11,386, which is 97 per cent more than $11,758 that the top of the quintile had in 1947. As can
be seen, other quintiles also saw increases of roughly comparable amounts: in ascending order, 100
percent, 107 percent, 101 percent, and 91 percent. In other words, the rate of growth by quintile
was very similar across all five quintiles of the population.
When looking at the figures for 1973-2001, something vastly different can be observed. This is
the section below the grey line. What can be seen? First, economic growth has slowed considerably:
the highest rate of growth for any quintile was that of 58 per cent for those who topped the
fifth quintile, and this was far below the "lagger" of 91 per cent of the earlier period.
Second, of what growth there was, it was distributed extremely unequally . And the growth
rates for those in lower quintiles were generally lower than for those above them: for the bottom
quintile, their real income grew only 14 per cent over the 1973-2001 period; for the second quintile,
19 percent; for the third, 29 percent; for the fourth, 42 percent; and for the 80-95 percent, 58
percent: loosely speaking, the rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.
Why the change? I think two things in particular. First, as industrialized countries recovered
from World War II, corporations based in these countries could again compete with those from the
US -- first in their own home countries, and then through importing into the US , and then ultimately
when they invested in the United States . Think of Toyota : they began importing into the US in the
early 1970s, and with their investments here in the early '80s and forward, they now are the largest
domestic US auto producer.
Second cause for the change has been the deterioration of the American labor movement: from 35.3
per cent of the non-agricultural workforce in unions in 1954, to only 12.0 per cent of all American
workers in unions in 2006 -- and only 7.4 per cent of all private industry workers are unionized,
which is less than in 1930!
This decline in unionization has a number of reasons. Part of this deterioration has been the
result of government policies -- everything from the crushing of the air traffic controllers when
they went on strike by the Reagan Administration in 1981, to reform of labor law, to reactionary
appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees administration of labor law. Certainly
a key government policy, signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, has been the North American
Free Trade Act or NAFTA. One analyst came straight to the point:
Since [NAFTA] was signed in 1993, the rise in the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico
through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 US jobs. Most of
these lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is
just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the US economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed
to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective
bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits (Scott, 2003:
1).
These attacks by elected officials have been joined by the affects due to the restructuring of
the economy. There has been a shift from manufacturing to services. However, within manufacturing,
which has long been a union stronghold, there has been significant job loss: between July 2000 and
January 2004, the US lost three million manufacturing jobs, or 17.5 percent, and 5.2 million since
the historical peak in 1979, so that "Employment in manufacturing [in January 2004] was its lowest
since July 1950" (CBO, 2004). This is due to both outsourcing labor-intensive production overseas
and, more importantly, technological displacement as new technology has enabled greater production
at higher quality with fewer workers in capital-intensive production (see Fisher, 2004). Others have
blamed burgeoning trade deficits for the rise: " an increasing share of domestic demand for manufacturing
output is satisfied by foreign rather than domestic producers" (Bivens, 2005).
[xiii] Others have even attributed
it to changes in consumer preferences (Schweitzer and Zaman, 2006). Whatever the reason, of the 50
states, only five (Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming) did not see any job loss in manufacturing
between 1993-2003, yet 37 lost between 5.6 and 35.9 per cent of their manufacturing jobs during this
period (Public Policy Institute, 2004).
However, part of the credit for deterioration of the labor movement must be given to the labor
movement itself: the leadership has been simply unable to confront these changes and, at the same
time, they have consistently worked against any independent action by rank-and-file members.
[xiv]
However, it must be asked: are the changes in the economy presented herein merely statistical
manipulations, or is this indicating something real?
This point can be illustrated another way: by using CAGR, the Compound Annual Growth Rate. This
is a single number that is computed, based on compounded amounts, across a range of years, to come
up with an average number to represent the rate of increase or decrease each year across the entire
period. This looks pretty complex, but it is based on the same idea as compound interest used in
our savings accounts: you put in $10 today and (this is obviously not a real example) because you
get ten per cent interest, so you have $11 the next year. Well, the following year, interest is not
computed off the original $10, but is computed on the $11. So, by the third year, from your $10,
you now have $12.10. Etc. And this is what is meant by the Compound Annual Growth Rate: this is average
compound growth by year across a designated period.
Based on the numbers presented above in Figure 1, the author calculated the Compound Annual Growth
Rate by quintiles (Figure 2). The annual growth rate has been calculated for the first period, 1947-1973,
the years known as the "golden years" of US society. What has happened since then? Compare results
from the 1947-73 period to the annual growth rate across the second period, 1973-2001, again calculated
by the author.
Figure 2: Annual percentage of family income growth, by quintile, 1947-1973 compared to 1973-2001
What we can see here is that while everyone's income was growing at about the same rate in the
first period -- between 2.51 and 2.84 per cent annually -- by the second period, not only had growth
slowed down across the board, but it grew by very different rates: what we see here, again,
is that the rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.
If these figures are correct, a change over time in the percentage of income received by each
quintile should be observable. Ideally, if the society were egalitarian, each 20 per cent of the
population would get 20 per cent of the income in any one year. In reality, it differs. To understand
Figure 3, below, one must not only look at the percentage of income held by a quintile across the
chart, comparing selected year by selected year, but one needs to look to see whether a quintile's
share of income is moving toward or away from the ideal 20 percent.
Figure 3: Percentage of family income distribution by quintile, 1947, 1973, 2001.
Population by quintiles
1947
1973
2001
Top fifth (lower limit of top 5percent, or 95th Percentile)-- $184,500
[xv]
Unfortunately, much of the data available publicly ended in 2001. However, in the summer of 2007,
after years of not releasing data any later than 2001, the Census Bureau released income data up
to 2005. It allows us to examine what has taken place regarding family income inequality during the
first four years of the Bush Administration.
Figure 4: US family income, in US dollars, growth and distribution, by quintile,
2001-2005, 2005 US dollars
Lowest 20%
Second 20%
Middle 20%
Fourth 20%
Lowest level of top 5%
2001
$26,467
$45,855
$68,925
$103,828
$180,973
2005
$25,616
$45,021
$68,304
$103,100
$184,500
Difference
(4 years)
-$851
(-3.2%)
-$834
(-1.8%)
-$621
(-.01%)
-$728
(-.007%)
$3,527
(1.94%)
Source: US Census Bureau at
www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html
. (Over time, the Census Bureau refigures these amounts, so they have subsequently converted
amounts to 2006 dollar values. These values are from their 2005 dollar values, and were calculated
by the Census Bureau.) Differences and percentages calculated by author.
Thus, what we've seen under the first four years of the Bush Administration is that for at most
Americans, their economic situation has worsened: not only has over all economic growth for any quintile
slowed to a minuscule 1.94 per cent at the most, but that the bottom 80 per cent actually lost income;
losing money (an absolute loss), rather than growing a little but falling further behind the top
quintile (a relative loss). Further, the decrease across the bottom four quintiles has been suffered
disproportionately by those in the lowest 40 per cent of the society.
This can perhaps be seen more clearly by examining CAGR rates by period.
We can now add the results of the 2001-2005 period share of income by quintile to our earlier
chart:
Figure 5: Percentage of income growth per year by percentile, 1947-2005
As can be seen, the percentage of family income at each of the four bottom quintiles is less in
2005 than in 1947; the only place there has been improvement over this 58-year period is at the 95th
percentile (and above).
Figure 6: Percentage of family income distribution by quintile, 1947, 1973, 2001, 2005.
Population by quintiles
1947
1973
2001
2005
Top fifth (lower limit of top 5percent, or 95th Percentile)-- $184,500
What has been presented so far, regarding changes in income distribution, has been at the group
level; in this case, quintile by quintile. It is time now to see how this has affected the society
overall.
Sociologists and economists use a number called the Gini index to measure inequality. Family income
data has been used so far, and we will continue using it. A Gini index is fairly simple to use. It
measures inequality in a society. A Gini index is generally reported in a range between 0.000 and
1.000, and is written in thousandths, just like a winning percentage mark: three digits after the
decimal. And the higher the Gini score, the greater the inequality.
Looking at the Gini index, we can see two periods since 1947, when the US Government began computing
the Gini index for the country. From 1947-1968, with yearly change greater or smaller, the trend
is downward, indicating reduced inequality: from .376 in 1947 to .378 in 1950, but then downward
to .348 in 1968. So, again, over the first period, the trend is downward.
What has happened since then? From the low point in 1968 of .348, the trend has been upward. In
1982, the Gini index hit .380, which was higher than any single year between 1947-1968, and the US
has never gone below .380 since then. By 1992, it hit .403, and we've never gone back below .400.
In 2001, the US hit .435. But the score for 2005 has only recently been published: .440 (source:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f04.html
). So, the trend is getting worse, and with the policies established under George W. Bush, I
see them only continuing to increase in the forthcoming period. [And by the way, this increasing
trend has continued under both the Republicans and the Democrats, but since the Republicans have
controlled the presidency for 18 of the last 26 years (since 1981), they get most of the credit --
but let's not forget that the Democrats have controlled Congress across many of those years, so they,
too, have been an equal opportunity destroyer!]
However, one more question must be asked: how does this income inequality in the US, compare to
other countries around the world? Is the level of income inequality comparable to other "developed"
societies, or is it comparable to "developing" countries?
We must turn to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for our data. The CIA computes Gini scores
for family income on most of the countries around the world, and the last time checked in 2007 (August
1), they had data on 122 countries on their web page and these numbers had last been updated on July
19, 2007 (US Central Intelligence Agency, 2007). With each country listed, there is a Gini score
provided. Now, the CIA doesn't compute Gini scores yearly, but they give the last year it was computed,
so these are not exactly equivalent but they are suggestive enough to use. However, when they do
assemble these Gini scores in one place, they list them alphabetically, which is not of much comparative
use (US Central Intelligence Agency, 2007).
However, the World Bank categorizes countries, which means they can be compared within category
and across categories. The World Bank, which does not provide Gini scores, puts 208 countries into
one of four categories based on Gross National Income per capita -- that's total value of goods and
services sold in the market in a year, divided by population size. This is a useful statistic, because
it allows us to compare societies with economies of vastly different size: per capita income removes
the size differences between countries.
The World Bank locates each country into one of four categories: lower income, lower middle income,
upper middle income, and high income (World Bank, 2007a). Basically, those in the lower three categories
are "developing" or what we used to call "third world" countries, while the high income countries
are all of the so-called developed countries.
The countries listed by the CIA with their respective Gini scores were placed into the specific
World Bank categories in which the World Bank had previously located them (World Bank, 2007b). Once
grouped in their categories, median Gini scores were computed for each group. When trying to get
one number to represent a group of numbers, median is considered more accurate than an average, so
the median was used, which means half of the scores are higher, half are lower -- in other words,
the data is at the 50th percentile for each category.
The Gini score for countries, by Gross National Income per capita, categorized by the World Bank:
Figure 7: Median Gini Scores by World Bank income categories (countries selected by US Central
Intelligence Agency were placed in categories developed by the World Bank) and compared to 2004 US
Gini score as calculated by US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Income category
Median Gini score
Gini score, US (2004)
Low income countries (less than $875/person/year)
.406
.450
Lower-middle income countries (between $876-3,465/person/year)
.414
.450
Upper-middle income countries (between $3,466-10,725/person/year
.370
.450
Upper-income countries (over $10,726/person/year
.316
.450
As can be seen, with the (CIA-calculated) Gini score of .450, the US family income is more
unequal than the medians for each category, and is more unequal than some of the poorest countries
on earth, such as Bangladesh (.318 -- calculated in 2000), Cambodia (.400, 2004 est.), Laos (.370-1997),
Mozambique (.396, 1996-97), Uganda (.430-1999) and Vietnam (.361, 1998). This same finding also holds
true using the more conservative Census Bureau-calculated Gini score of .440.
Thus, the US has not only become more unequal over the 35 years, as has been demonstrated above,
but has attained a level of inequality that is much more comparable to those of developing countries
in general and, in fact, is more unequal today than some of the poorest countries on Earth. There
is nothing suggesting that this increasing inequality will lessen anytime soon. And since this increasing
income inequality has taken place under the leadership of both major political parties, there is
nothing on the horizon that suggests either will resolutely address this issue in the foreseeable
future regardless of campaign promises made.
However, to move beyond discussion of whether President Obama is likely to address these and related
issues, some consideration of governmental economic policies is required. Thus, he will be constrained
by decisions made by previous administrations, as well as by the ideological blinders worn by those
he has chosen to serve at the top levels of his administration.
3) Governmental economic policies
There are two key points that are especially important for our consideration: the US Budget and
the US National Debt. They are similar, but different -- and consideration of each of them enhances
understanding.
A) US budget. Every year, the US Government passes a budget, whereby governmental officials
estimate beforehand how much money needs to be taken in to cover all expenses. If the government
actually takes in more money than it spends, the budget is said to have a surplus; if it takes in
less than it spends, the budget is said to be in deficit.
Since 1970, when Richard Nixon was President, the US budget has been in deficit every year
except for the last four years under Clinton (1998-2001), where there was a surplus. But this
surplus began declining under Clinton -- it was $236.2 billion in 2000, and only $128.2 billion in
2001, Clinton 's last budget. Under Bush, the US has gone drastically into deficit: -$157.8 billion
in 2002; -$377.6 billion in 2003; -$412.7 billion in 2004; -$318.3 billion in 2005; and "only"-$248.2
billion in 2006 (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-78).
Now, that is just yearly surpluses and deficits. They get combined with all the other surpluses
and deficits since the US became a country in 1789 to create to create a cumulative amount, what
is called the National Debt.
B) US national debt. Between 1789 and1980 -- from Presidents Washington through
Carter -- the accumulated US National Debt was $909 billion or, to put it another way, $.909 trillion.
During Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981-89), the National Debt tripled, from $.9 trillion to $2.868
trillion. It has continued to rise. As of the end of 2006, 17 years later and after a four-year period
of surpluses where the debt was somewhat reduced, National Debt (or Gross Federal Debt) was $8.451
trillion (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-78).
To put it into context: the US economy, the most productive in the world, had a Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) of $13.061 trillion in 2006, but the National Debt was $8.451 trillion -- 64.7 per
cent of GDP -- and growing (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-1).
In April 2006, one investor reported that "the US Treasury has a hair under $8.4 trillion in outstanding
debt. How much is that? He put it into this context: " if you deposited one million dollars into
a bank account every day, starting 2006 years ago, that you would not even have ONE trillion dollars
in that account" (Van Eeden, 2006).
Let's return to the budget deficit: like a family budget, when one spends more than one brings
in, they can do basically one of three things: (a) they can cut spending; (b) they can increase taxes
(or obviously a combination of the two); or (c) they can take what I call the "Wimpy" approach.
For those who might not know this, Wimpy was a cartoon character, a partner of "Popeye the Sailor,"
a Saturday morning cartoon that was played for over 30 years in the United States . Wimpy had a great
love for hamburgers. And his approach to life was summed up in his rap: "I'll gladly give you two
hamburgers on Tuesday, for a hamburger today."
What is argued is that the US Government has been taking what I call the Wimpy approach to its
budgetary problems: it does not reduce spending, it does not raise taxes to pay for the increased
expenditures -- in fact, President Bush has cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans
[xvi] -- but instead it sells
US Government securities, often known as Treasuries, to rich investors, private corporations or,
increasingly, to other countries to cover the budget deficit. In a set number of years, the US Government
agrees to pay off each bond -- and the difference between what the purchaser bought them for and
the increased amount the US Government pays to redeem them is the cost of financing the Treasuries,
a certain percentage of the total value. By buying US Treasuries, other countries have helped keep
US interest rates low, helping to keep the US economy in as good of shape as it has been (thus, keeping
the US market flourishing for them), while allowing the US Government not to have to confront its
annual deficits. At the end of 2006, the total value of outstanding Treasuries -- to all investors,
not just other countries -- was $8.507 trillion (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-87).
It turns out that at in December 2004, foreigners owned approximately 61 per cent of all outstanding
US Treasuries. Of that, seven per cent was held by China ; these were valued at $223 billion (Gundzik,
2005).
The percentage of foreign and international investors' purchases of the total US public debt since
1996 has never been less than 17.7 percent, and it has reached a high of 25.08 per cent in September
2006. In September 2006, foreigners purchased $2.134 trillion of Treasuries; these were 25.08 per
cent of all purchases, and 52.4 per cent of all privately-owned purchases (Economic Report of the
President, 2007: Table B-89). [xvii]
Altogether, "the world now holds financial claims amounting to $3.5 trillion against the United
States , or 26 per cent of our GDP" (Humpage and Shenk, 2007: 4).
Since the US Government continues to run deficits, because the Bush Administration has refused
to address this problem, the United States has become dependent on other countries buying Treasuries.
Like a junky on heroin, the US must get other investors (increasingly countries) to finance
its budgetary deficits.
To keep the money flowing in, the US must keep interest rates high -- basically, interest rates
are the price that must be paid to borrow money. Over the past year or so, the Federal Reserve has
not raised interest rates, but prior to that, for 15 straight quarterly meetings, they did. And,
as known, the higher the interest rate, the mostly costly it is to borrow money domestically, which
means increasingly likelihood of recession -- if not worse. In other words, dependence on foreigners
to finance the substantial US budget deficits means that the US must be prepared to raise interests
rates which, at some point, will choke off domestic borrowing and consumption, throwing the US economy
into recession. [xviii]
Yet this threat is not just to the United States -- according to the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), it is a threat to the global economy. A story about a then-recently issued report by the IMF
begins, "With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the United States is running
up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of
the global economy ." The report suggested that net financial obligations of the US to the rest of
the world could equal 40 per cent of its total economy if nothing was done about it in a few years,
"an unprecedented level of external debt for a larger industrial country" according to the report.
What was perhaps even more shocking than what the report said was which institution said it: "The
IMF has often been accused of being an adjunct of the United States , its largest shareholder" (Becker
and Andrews, 2004).
Other analysts go further. After discussing the increasingly risky nature of global investing,
and noting that "The investor managers of private equity funds and major banks have displaced national
banks and international bodies such as the IMF," Gabriel Kolko (2007) quotes Stephen Roach, Morgan
Stanley's chief economist, on April 24, 2007: "a major financial crisis seemed imminent and that
the global institutions that could forestall it, including the IMF, the World Bank and other mechanisms
of the international financial architecture, were utterly inadequate." Kolko recognizes that things
may not collapse immediately, and that analysts could be wrong, but still concludes, "the transformation
of the global financial system will sooner or later lead to dire results" (Kolko, 2007: 5).
What might happen if investors decided to take their money out of US Treasuries and, say, invest
in Euro-based bonds? The US would be in big trouble, would be forced to raise its interest
rates even higher than it wants -- leading to possibly a severe recession -- and if investors really
shifted their money, the US could be observably bankrupt; the curtain hiding the "little man" would
be opened, and he would be observable to all.
Why would investors rather shift their investment money into Euro-bonds instead of US Treasuries?
Well, obviously, one measure is the perceived strength of the US economy. To get a good idea of how
solid a country's economy is, one looks at things such as budget deficits, but perhaps even more
importantly balance of trade: how well is this economy doing in comparison with other countries?
The US international balance of trade is in the red and is worsening: -$717 billion in
2005. In 1991, it was -$31 billion. Since 1998, the US trade balance has set a new record for being
in the hole every year, except during 2001, and then breaking the all time high the very next
year! -$165 B in 1998; -$263 B in 1999; -$378 B in 2000; only -$362 B in 2001; -$421 B in 2002;
-$494 B in 2003; -$617 B in 2004; and - $717 B in 2005 (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table
B-103). According to the Census Department, the balance of trade in 2006 was -$759 billion (US Census
Bureau, 2007).
And the US current account balance, the broadest measure of a country's international financial
situation -- which includes investment inside and outside the US in addition to balance of trade
-- is even worse: it was -$805 B in 2005, or 6.4 per cent of national income. "The bottom line is
that a current account deficit of this unparalleled magnitude is unsustainable and there is no hope
of it being painlessly resolved through higher exports alone," according to one analyst (quoted in
Swann, 2006). Scott notes that the current account deficit in 2006 was -$857 billion (Scott, 2007a:
8, fn. 1). "In effect, the United States is living beyond its means and selling off national assets
to pay its bills" (Scott, 2007b: 1).
[xix]
In addition, during mid-2007, there was a bursting of a domestic "housing bubble," which has threatened
domestic economic well-being but that ultimately threatens the well-being of global financial markets.
There had been a tremendous run-up in US housing values since 1995 -- with an increase of more than
70 per cent after adjusting for the rate of inflation -- and this had created "more than $8 trillion
in housing wealth compared with a scenario in which house prices had continued to rise at the same
rate of inflation," which they had done for over 100 years, between 1890 and 1995 (Baker, 2007: 8).
This led to a massive oversupply of housing, accompanied with falling house prices: according
to Dean Baker, "the peak inventory of unsold new homes of 573,000 in July 2006 was more than 50 per
cent higher than the previous peak of 377,000 in May of 1989" (Baker, 2007: 12-13). This caused massive
problems in the sub-prime housing market -- estimates are that almost $2 trillion in sub-prime loans
were made during 2005-06, and that about $325 billion of these loans will default, with more than
1 million people losing their homes (Liedtke, 2007) -- but these problems are not confined to the
sub-prime loan category: because sub-prime and "Alt-A" mortgages (the category immediately above
sub-prime) financed 40 per cent of the housing market in 2006, "it is almost inevitable that the
problems will spill over into the rest of the market" (Baker, 2007: 15). And Business Week
agrees: "Subprime woes have moved far beyond the mortgage industry." It notes that at least five
hedge funds have gone out of business, corporate loans and junk bonds have been hurt, and the leveraged
buyout market has been hurt (Goldstein and Henry, 2007).
David Leonhardt (2007) agrees with the continuing threat to the financial industry. Discussing
"adjustable rate mortgages" -- where interest rates start out low, but reset to higher rates, resulting
in higher mortgage payments to the borrower -- he points out that about $50 billion of mortgages
will reset during October 2007, and that this amount of resetting will remain over $30 billion monthly
through September 2008. "In all," he writes," the interest rates on about $1 trillion worth of mortgages
or 12 per cent of the nation's total, will reset for the first time this year or next."
Why all of this is so important is because bankers have gotten incredibly "creative" in creating
new mortgages, which they sell to home buyers. Then they bundle these obligations and sell to other
financial institutions and which, in turn, create new securities (called derivatives) based on these
questionable new mortgages. Yes, it is basically a legal ponzi scheme, but it requires the continuous
selling and buying of these derivatives to keep working: in early August 2007, however, liquidity
-- especially "financial instruments backed by home mortgages" -- dried up, as no one wanted to buy
these instruments (Krugman, 2007). The US Federal Research and the European Central Bank felt it
necessary to pump over $100 billion into the financial markets in mid-August 2007 to keep the international
economy solvent (Norris, 2007).
So, economically, this country is in terrible shape -- with no solution in sight.
On top of this -- as if all of this is not bad enough -- the Bush Administration is asking for
another $481.4 billion for the Pentagon's base budget, which it notes is "a 62 per cent increase
over 2001." Further, the Administration seeks an additional $93.4 billion in supplemental funds for
2007 and another $141.7 billion for 2008 to help fund the "Global War on Terror" and US operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan (US Government, 2007). According to Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute (SIPRI), in 2006, the US "defense" spending was equivalent to 46 per cent of all military
spending in the world, meaning that almost more money is provided for the US military in one year
than is spent by the militaries of all the other countries in the world combined (SIPRI, 2007).
And SIPRI's accounting doesn't include the $500 billion spent so far, approximately, on wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq .
In short, not only have things gotten worse for American working people since 1973 -- and especially
after 1982, with the imposition of neoliberal economic policies by institutions of the US Government
-- but on-going Federal budget deficits, the escalating National Debt, the need to attract foreign
money into US Treasuries, the financial market "meltdown" as well as the massive amounts of money
being channeled to continue the Empire, all suggest that not only will intensifying social problems
not be addressed, but will get worse for the foreseeable future.
4) Synopsis
This analysis provides an extensive look at the impact of neoliberal economic policies enacted
in the United States on American working people. These neoliberal economic policies have been enacted
as a conscious strategy by US corporate leaders and their governmental allies in both major political
parties as a way to address intensifying globalization while seeking to maintain US dominance over
the global political economy.
While it will be a while before anyone can determine success or failure overall of this elite
strategy but, because of is global-historical perspective, sufficient evidence is already available
to evaluate the affects of these policies on American working people. For the non-elites of this
country, these policies have had a deleterious impact and they are getting worse. Employment data
in manufacturing, worsening since 1979 but especially since 2000 (see Aronowitz, 2005), has been
horrific -- and since this has been the traditional path for non-college educated workers to be able
to support themselves and their families, and provide for their children, this data suggests social
catastrophe for many -- see Rubin (1995), Barnes (2005), and Bageant (2007), and accounts in Finnegan
(1998) and Lipper (2004) that support this -- because comparable jobs available to these workers
are not being created. Thus, the problem is not just that people are losing previously stable, good-paying
jobs -- as bad as that is -- but that there is nothing being created to replace these lost jobs,
and there is not even a social safety net in many cases that can generally cushion the blow (see
Wilson, 1996; Appelbaum, Bernhardt, and Murnane, eds., 2003).
Yet the impact of these social changes has not been limited to only blue-collar workers, although
the impact has been arguably greatest upon them. The overall economic growth of the society has been
so limited since 1973, and the results increasingly being unequally distributed since then, that
the entire society is becoming more and more unequal: each of the four bottom quintiles -- the bottom
80 per cent of families -- has seen a decrease in the amount of family income available to each quintile
between 2001-05. This not only increases inequality and resulting resentments -- including criminal
behaviors -- but it also produces deleterious affects on individual and social health (Kawachi, Kennedy
and Wilkinson, eds., 1999; Eitzen and Eitzen Smith, 2003). And, as shown above, this level of inequality
is much more comparable internationally to "developing" countries rather than "developed" ones.
When this material is joined with material on the US budget, and especially the US National Debt,
it is clear that these "problems" are not the product of individual failure, but of a social order
that is increasingly unsustainable. While we have no idea of what it will take before the US economy
will implode, all indications are that US elites are speeding up a run-away train of debt combined
with job-destroying technology and off-shoring production, creating a worsening balance of trade
with the rest of the world and a worsening current account, with an unstable housing market and intensifying
militarism and an increasingly antagonistic foreign policy: it is like they are building a bridge
over an abyss, with a train increasingly speeding up as it travels toward the bridge, and crucial
indicators suggest that the bridge cannot be completed in time.
Whether the American public will notice and demand a radical change in time is not certain --
it will not be enough to simply slow the train down, but it must turn down an alternative track (see
Albert, 2003; Woodin and Lucas, 2004; Starr, 2005) -- but it is almost certain that foreign investors
will. Should they not be able to get the interest rates here available elsewhere in the "developed"
parts of the world, investors will shift their investments, causing more damage to working people
in the United States .
And when this economic-focused analysis is joined with an environmental one -- George Monbiot
(2007) reports that the best science available argues that industrialized countries have to reduce
their carbon dioxide emissions by 90 per cent by the year 2030 if we are to have a chance to stop
global warming -- then it is clear that US society is facing a period of serious social instability.
5) Conclusion
This article has argued that the situation for working people in the United States, propelled
by the general governmental adoption of neoliberal economic policies, is getting worse -- and there
is no end in sight. The current situation and historical change have been presented and discussed.
Further, an examination and analysis of directly relevant US economic policies have been presented,
and there has been nothing in this analysis that suggests a radical, but necessary, change by US
elected officials is in sight. In other words, working people in this country are in bad shape generally
-- and it is worse for workers of color than for white workers -- and there is nothing within the
established social order that suggests needed changes will be effected.
The neoliberal economic policies enacted by US corporate and government leaders has been a social
disaster for increasing numbers of families in the United States .
Globalization for profit -- or what could be better claimed to be "globalization from above" --
and its resulting neoliberal economic policies have long-been recognized as being a disaster for
most countries in the Global South. This study argues that this top-down globalization and the accompanying
neoliberal economic policies has been a disaster for working people in northern countries as well,
and most particularly in the United States .
The political implications from these findings remains to be seen. Surely, one argument is not
only that another world is possible, but that it is essential.
[Kim Scipes is assistant professor of sociology , Purdue University, North Central, Westville
, IN 46391. The author's web site is at
http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes .This paper was given at the 2009 Annual Conference of the United
Association for Labor Education at the National Labor College in Silver Spring , MD. It has been
posted at Links International Journal of Socialist
Renewal with Kim Scipes' permission.]
* * *
Note to labor educators: This is a very different approach than you usually take. While
presenting a "big picture," this does not suggest what you are doing is "wrong" or "bad." What it
suggests, however, is that the traditional labor education approach is too limited: this suggests
that your work is valuable but that you need to put it into a much larger context than is generally
done, and that it is in the interaction between your work and this that we each can think out the
ways to go forward. This is presented in the spirit of respect for the important work that each of
you do on a daily basis.
It looks like Trump initially has a four point platform that was anti-neoliberal in its essence:
Non-interventionism. End the wars for the expansion of American neoliberal empire.
Détente was Russia. Abolishing NATO and saving money on this. Let European defend themselves.
Etc.
No to neoliberal globalization. Abolishing of transnational treaties that favor large
multinationals such as TPP, NAFTA, etc. Tariffs and other means of punishing corporations who
move production overseas. Repatriation of foreign profits to the USA and closing of tax holes
which allow to keep profits in tax heavens without paying a dime to the US government.
No to neoliberal "transnational job market" -- free movement of labor. Criminal prosecution
and deportation of illegal immigrants. Cutting intake of refugees. Curtailing legal immigration,
especially fake and abused programs like H1B. Making it more difficult for people from countries
with substantial terrorist risk to enter the USA including temporary prohibition of issuing visas
from certain (pretty populous) Muslim countries.
No to the multiculturalism. Stress on "Christian past" and "white heritage" of American
society and the role of whites in building the country. Rejection of advertising "special rights"
of minorities such as black population, LGBT, etc. Promotion them as "identity wedges" in elections
was the trick so dear to DemoRats and, especially Hillary and Obama.
That means that Trump election platform on an intuitive level has caught several important problem
that were created in the US society by dismantling of the "New Deal" and rampant neoliberalism practiced
since Reagan ("Greed is good" mantra).
Of cause, after election he decided to practice the same "bait and switch" maneuver as Obama.
Generally he folded in less then 100 days. Not without help from DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats)
which created a witch hunt over "Russian ties" with their dreams of the second Watergate.
But in any case, this platform still provides a path to election victory in any forthcoming election,
as problems listed are real , are not solved, and are extremely important for lower 90% of Americans.
Tulsi Gabbard so far is that only democratic politician that IMHO qualifies. Sanders is way too old
and somewhat inconsistent on No.1.
Frank was the first to note this "revolutionary" part of Tramp platform:
Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble
and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in
which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years.
But I also noticed something surprising. In each of the speeches I watched, Trump spent a good
part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate issue, one that could even be called left-wing.
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about
it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build
a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame.
He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by
Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies
that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those
companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
"... [Neo]liberalism that needs monsters to destroy can never politically engage with its enemies. It can never understand those enemies as political actors, making calculations, taking advantage of opportunities, and responding to constraints. It can never see in those enemies anything other than a black hole of motivation, a cesspool where reason goes to die. ..."
"... Hence the refusal of empathy for Trump's supporters. Insofar as it marks a demand that we not abandon antiracist principle and practice for the sake of winning over a mythicized white working class, the refusal is unimpeachable. ..."
"... Such a [neo]liberalism becomes dependent on the very thing it opposes, with a tepid mix of neoliberal markets and multicultural morals getting much-needed spice from a terrifying right. Hillary Clinton ran hard on the threat of Trump, as if his presence were enough to authorize her presidency. ..."
"... Clinton waged this campaign on the belief that her neoliberalism of fear could defeat the ethnonationalism of the right. ..."
"... In the novel, what begins as a struggle against inherited privilege results in the consolidation of a new ruling class that derives its legitimacy from superior merit. This class becomes, within a few generations, a hereditary aristocracy in its own right. Sequestered within elite institutions, people of high intelligence marry among themselves, passing along their high social position and superior genes to their progeny. Terminal inequality is the result. The gradual shift from inheritance to merit, Young writes, made "nonsense of all their loose talk of the equality of man": ..."
"... Losing every young person of promise to the meritocracy had deprived the working class of its prospective leaders, rendering it unable to coordinate a movement to manifest its political will. ..."
"... A policy of benign neglect of immigration laws invites into our country a casualized workforce without any leverage, one that competes with the native-born and destroys whatever leverage the latter have to negotiate better terms for themselves. The policy is a subsidy to American agribusiness, meatpacking plants, restaurants, bars, and construction companies, and to American families who would not otherwise be able to afford the outsourcing of childcare and domestic labor that the postfeminist, dual-income family requires. At the same time, a policy of free trade pits native-born workers against foreign ones content to earn pennies on the dollar of their American counterparts. ..."
"... Four decades of neoliberal globalization have cleaved our country into two hostile classes, and the line cuts across the race divide. On one side, college students credential themselves for meritocratic success. On the other, the white working class increasingly comes to resemble the black underclass in indices of social disorganization. On one side of the divide, much energy is expended on the eradication of subtler inequalities; on the other side, an equality of immiseration increasingly obtains. ..."
[Neo]liberalism that needs monsters to destroy can never politically engage with its enemies.
It can never understand those enemies as political actors, making calculations, taking advantage
of opportunities, and responding to constraints. It can never see in those enemies anything other
than a black hole of motivation, a cesspool where reason goes to die.
Hence the refusal of empathy for Trump's supporters. Insofar as it marks a demand that we
not abandon antiracist principle and practice for the sake of winning over a mythicized white working
class, the refusal is unimpeachable. But like the know-nothing disavowal of knowledge after
9/11, when explanations of terrorism were construed as exonerations of terrorism, the refusal of
empathy since 11/9 is a will to ignorance. Far simpler to imagine Trump voters as possessed by a
kind of demonic intelligence, or anti-intelligence, transcending all the rules of the established
order. Rather than treat Trump as the outgrowth of normal politics and traditional institutions -
it is the Electoral College, after all, not some beating heart of darkness, that sent Trump to the
White House - there is a disabling insistence that he and his forces are like no political formation
we've seen. By encouraging us to see only novelty in his monstrosity, analyses of this kind may prove
as crippling as the neocons' assessment of Saddam's regime. That, too, was held to be like no tyranny
we'd seen, a despotism where the ordinary rules of politics didn't apply and knowledge of the subject
was therefore useless.
Such a [neo]liberalism becomes dependent on the very thing it opposes, with a tepid mix of
neoliberal markets and multicultural morals getting much-needed spice from a terrifying right. Hillary
Clinton ran hard on the threat of Trump, as if his presence were enough to authorize her presidency.
Where Sanders promised to change the conversation, to make the battlefield a contest between a
multicultural neoliberalism and a multiracial social democracy, Clinton sought to keep the battlefield
as it has been for the past quarter-century. In this single respect, she can claim a substantial
victory. It's no accident that one of the most spectacular confrontations since the election pitted
the actors of Hamilton against the tweets of Trump. These fixed, frozen positions - high
on rhetoric, low on action - offer an almost perfect tableau of our ongoing gridlock of recrimination.
Clinton waged this campaign on the belief that her neoliberalism of fear could defeat the
ethnonationalism of the right. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Let us not be addicted
to "the drug of danger," as Athena says in the Oresteia, to "the dream of the enemy that
has to be crushed, like a herb, before [we] can smell freedom."
The term "meritocracy" became shorthand for a desirable societal ideal soon after it was coined
by the British socialist Sir Michael Young. But Young had originally used it to describe a dystopian
future. His 1958 satirical novel, The Rise of the Meritocracy, imagines the creation and growth of
a national system of intelligence testing, which identifies talented young people from every stratum
of society in order to install them in special schools, where they are groomed to make the best use
possible of their innate advantages.
In the novel, what begins as a struggle against inherited privilege results in the consolidation
of a new ruling class that derives its legitimacy from superior merit. This class becomes, within
a few generations, a hereditary aristocracy in its own right. Sequestered within elite institutions,
people of high intelligence marry among themselves, passing along their high social position and
superior genes to their progeny. Terminal inequality is the result. The gradual shift from inheritance
to merit, Young writes, made "nonsense of all their loose talk of the equality of man":
Men, after all, are notable not for the equality, but for the inequality, of their endowment.
Once all the geniuses are amongst the elite, and all the morons are amongst the workers, what meaning
can equality have? What ideal can be upheld except the principle of equal status for equal intelligence?
What is the purpose of abolishing inequalities in nurture except to reveal and make more pronounced
the inescapable inequalities of Nature?
I thought about this book often in the years before the crack-up of November 2016. In early 2015,
the Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam published a book that seemed to tell as history the same story
that Young had written as prophecy. Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis opens with an evocation
of the small town of Port Clinton, Ohio, where Putnam grew up in the 1950s - a "passable embodiment
of the American Dream, a place that offered decent opportunity for all the kids in town, whatever
their background." Port Clinton was, as Putnam is quick to concede, a nearly all-white town in a
pre-feminist and pre-civil-rights America, and it was marked by the unequal distribution of power
that spurred those movements into being. Yet it was also a place of high employment, strong unions,
widespread homeownership, relative class equality, and generally intact two-parent families. Everyone
knew one another by their first names and almost everyone was headed toward a better future; nearly
three quarters of all the classmates Putnam surveyed fifty years later had surpassed their parents
in both educational attainment and wealth.
When he revisited it in 2013, the town had become a kind of American nightmare. In the 1970s,
the industrial base entered a terminal decline, and the town's economy declined with it. Downtown
shops closed. Crime, delinquency, and drug use skyrocketed. In 1993, the factory that had offered
high-wage blue-collar employment finally shuttered for good. By 2010, the rate of births to unwed
mothers had risen to 40 percent. Two years later, the average worker in the county "was paid roughly
16 percent less in inflation-adjusted dollars than his or her grandfather in the early 1970s."
Young's novel ends with an editorial note informing readers that the fictional author of the text
had been killed in a riot that was part of a violent populist insurrection against the meritocracy,
an insurrection that the author had been insisting would pose no lasting threat to the social order.
Losing every young person of promise to the meritocracy had deprived the working class of its
prospective leaders, rendering it unable to coordinate a movement to manifest its political will.
"Without intelligence in their heads," he wrote, "the lower classes are never more menacing
than a rabble."
We are in the midst of a global insurrection against ruling elites. In the wake of the most destructive
of the blows recently delivered, a furious debate arose over whether those who supported Donald Trump
deserve empathy or scorn. The answer, of course, is that they deserve scorn for resorting to so depraved
and false a solution to their predicament - and empathy for the predicament itself. (And not just
because advances in technology are likely to make their predicament far more widely shared.) What
is owed to them is not the lachrymose pity reserved for victims (though they have suffered greatly)
but rather a practical appreciation of how their antagonism to the policies that determined the course
of this campaign - mass immigration and free trade - was a fully political antagonism that was disregarded
for decades, to our collective detriment.
A policy of benign neglect of immigration laws invites into our country a casualized workforce
without any leverage, one that competes with the native-born and destroys whatever leverage the latter
have to negotiate better terms for themselves. The policy is a subsidy to American agribusiness,
meatpacking plants, restaurants, bars, and construction companies, and to American families who would
not otherwise be able to afford the outsourcing of childcare and domestic labor that the postfeminist,
dual-income family requires. At the same time, a policy of free trade pits native-born workers against
foreign ones content to earn pennies on the dollar of their American counterparts.
In lieu of the social-democratic provision of childcare and other services of domestic support,
we have built a privatized, ad hoc system of subsidies based on loose border enforcement - in effect,
the nation cutting a deal with itself at the expense of the life chances of its native-born working
class. In lieu of an industrial policy that would preserve intact the economic foundation of their
lives, we rapidly dismantled our industrial base in pursuit of maximal aggregate economic growth,
with no concern for the uneven distribution of the harms and the benefits. Some were enriched hugely
by these policies: the college-educated bankers, accountants, consultants, technologists, lawyers,
economists, and corporate executives who built a supply chain that reached to the countries where
we shipped the jobs. Eventually, of course, many of these workers learned that both political parties
regarded them as fungible factors of production, readily discarded in favor of a machine or a migrant
willing to bunk eight to a room.
Four decades of neoliberal globalization have cleaved our country into two hostile classes,
and the line cuts across the race divide. On one side, college students credential themselves for
meritocratic success. On the other, the white working class increasingly comes to resemble the black
underclass in indices of social disorganization. On one side of the divide, much energy is expended
on the eradication of subtler inequalities; on the other side, an equality of immiseration increasingly
obtains.
Even before the ruling elite sent the proletariat off to fight a misbegotten war, even before
it wrecked the world economy through heedless lending, even before its politicians rescued those
responsible for the crisis while allowing working-class victims of all colors to sink, the working
class knew that it had been sacrificed to the interests of those sitting atop the meritocratic ladder.
The hostility was never just about differing patterns in taste and consumption. It was also about
one class prospering off the suffering of another. We learned this year that political interests
that go neglected for decades invariably summon up demagogues who exploit them for their own gain.
The demagogues will go on to betray their supporters and do enormous harm to others.
If we are to arrest the global descent into barbarism, we will have to understand the political
antagonism at the heart of the meritocratic project and seek a new kind of politics. If we choose
to neglect the valid interests of the working class, Trump will prove in retrospect to have been
a pale harbinger of even darker nightmares to come.
FILE PHOTO. © Getty Images/Chesnot ; REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque 7 Follow RT on
Live: Watch NASA astronauts splash down near Florida in a SpaceX Crew Ground beef recall 2020: JBS Food Canada recalls more than 38,000 pounds of meat
Pompeo: Trump taking action on Chinese software firms 'in coming days'
© Greg Nash Pompeo: Trump taking action on Chinese software firms 'in coming days'
The Puritans have always supported absolute equality, but only among Christians. They long forbade Jews from entering the civil service and massacred the Indians they claimed to love. During the American Civil War, they extended their egalitarianism to blacks (unlike the Puritans in southern Africa, who defended apartheid to the end), giving rise to the false myth of a war against slavery. Today, they defend the idea that humanity is divided between equal and, if possible, separate races. They are still reluctant to call them interracial marriages.
Cleaning Up Trump's Global Mess
Trump's Mexico Tariffs Are About White Nationalism, Not Trade
Trump's Trade War Is About Trump, Not China
Why Spend $54 Billion More on the Pentagon? To Start a War, Obviously.
Making China Great Again
![]({"default":{"load":"defer","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB176Kck.img?h=140&w=140&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f"},"dpi":1.4})
Live: Watch NASA astronauts splash down near Florida in a SpaceX Crew
Ground beef recall 2020: JBS Food Canada recalls more than 38,000 pounds of meat ![Mike Pompeo wearing a suit and tie: Pompeo: Trump taking action on Chinese software firms 'in coming days']({"default":{"load":"default","w":"80","h":"45","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17nA3A.img?h=630&w=1119&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=294&y=253"},"dpi":1.4,"size3column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17nA3A.img?h=491&w=874&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=294&y=253"},"size2column":{"load":"default","w":"62","h":"35","src":"//img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17nA3A.img?h=491&w=874&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=294&y=253"}})
© Greg Nash Pompeo: Trump taking action on Chinese software firms 'in coming days'
