Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

Anti-globalization movement and US-china trade war

News Neoliberalism Recommended Links Blowback against neoliberal globalization TTP, NAFTA and other supernational trade treates Brexit revisited: Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism as antidote to Neoliberalism Attempt to suppress Huawei using security as the pretext
Anti-globalization movement US-China trade war Brexit as the start of the reversal of neoliberal globalization National Security State National Socialism and Military Keysianism Media-Military-Industrial Complex American Exceptionalism
American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism Technological imperialism Judicial Imperialism Cultural imperialism Neocons as USA neo-fascists Gangster Capitalism: The United States and the Globalization of Organized Crime Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism
Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism Predator state Disaster capitalism Ethno-lingustic Nationalism Neoliberal debt slavery Resurgence of neo-fascism as reaction on crisis of  neoliberalism Etc

From Wikipedia:

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.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Oct 20, 2019] I read somewhere James Gandolfini [The Sopranos], actively did a lot of stuff for military veterans

Oct 20, 2019 | www.unz.com

Daniel Rich , says: October 17, 2019 at 5:16 am GMT

@Rurik O.T

I read somewhere James Gandolfini [The Sopranos], actively did a lot of stuff for [military] veterans.

eah , says: October 17, 2019 at 7:05 am GMT
@eah
Counterinsurgency , says: October 17, 2019 at 9:00 am GMT
@J. O. Step 1 in ending hunger in America:
Stop importing hungry foreigners who can't earn a living here.
Do that and somebody might take you seriously. As it is, you're morally despicable.

Counterinsurgency

[Oct 20, 2019] Putin sarcastic remark on Western neoliberal multiculturalism

Highly recommended!
Oct 17, 2019 | www.unz.com

"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"

-Vladimir Putin

[Oct 19, 2019] China vice premier said China would expand investments in core technologies to ensure the economic restructuring of the economy was stable

Oct 19, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

That said, as Bloomberg noted, Liu didn't address specifics about the trade talks in his speech. Instead, the vice premier said China would expand investments in core technologies to ensure the economic restructuring of the economy was stable, adding that economic activity in the year ahead is "very bright."

"We're not worried about short-term economic volatility. We have every confidence in our ability to meet macroeconomic targets for the year," he said.

As reported on Friday, ahead of the latest round of talks, President Trump's top economic advisors and industry experts warned him of an economic downturn if a further escalation in the trade war is seen by 2020. As such, it is likely that a lite trade deal could be on the table next month.

But as our readers have recently learned, the trade war didn't start the synchronized global downturn, which has been almost entirely a function of China's clogged up credit impulse...

... so any deal - lite or otherwise - won't result in an immediate acceleration of global growth; indeed, as some speculate, failure to observe a substantial economic rebound following a "deal" could well mark the point when central banks and governments finally throw in the towel, as they finally usher in the final lap in the global race to debase destroy fiat currencies and hyperinflate away the debt: MMT and Helicopter Money.


CashMcCall , 27 minutes ago link

Trump's pathetic Trade war accomplished nothing. US exports down 18% globally. Farmer destroyed. US markets for all goods harmed. The world is offloading any and all dependence on US products. Impulsive stupid jerk. 45% of the world population on US Sanctions, rising black markets, US supply chain disruptions, US manufacturing in a recession.

Tariffs are tax deductible so they do not accumulate any tax benefit to the US Treasury. They are virtually all rolled over into the national debt. So while the consumer may not notice a rising CPI, they are getting drown in Trump Debt, the largest spending deficits in US history, largest debt to GDP of over 110% and rising. Trump has the fastest acceleration of US debt of any white house occupancy nearly 4 trillion in 2.7 years. It is obvious Trump is clueless in virtually everything. Has no capacity to comprehend a thing.

Look at this scatterbrained Turkey Kurds fiasco. Impulsive, thoughtless and accomplished nothing. US troops now guarding Syrian oil. Astonishing. Everything this guy touches turned into a burning crap filled dumpster fire.

'I will be so good at the military, your head will spin'

https://youtu.be/dkKY8plxxzQ

"When those 'gunds' start shooting they tend to do things"

Then there are no deals from the self-proclaimed "art of the Deal"... nothing. Look at Iran. He has made negative progress across the board. Thank to the orange stupid nations across the globe are circumventing US Dollar Reserve. Each day the US importance and more importantly reliability is diminished.

Look at Trump in high tech... Merck has developed an Ebola vaccine in EUROPE not the USA. The USA hasn't even approved it yet. What is Trump doing... ATTACKING BIG PHARMA. Trumptards love seeing that. Yet it is the Trumptards that keep screaming to buy Murica products but if they have to pay more for them, then suddenly they demonize the US companies. Big Pharma will be the next sector to joint Semiconductor to leave the USA.

Trump blacklist Big tech. Why? Tech products have a very short shelf life. If the US doesn't sell tech product what do they have that others want? COAL? Soy Beans? From smart to stupid. Look at Intel and Microsoft. Trump band Intel Chip sales to China and threatens Microsoft operating software. In one year China now has RISC V chips from Alibaba, all open source and the Chinese Military has switched to Linux and UNIX GNU. So who loses here? The US tech businesses. Look at Micron dying on the vine, tossed from China.

Meanwhile China has 5G and has replaced all US components in its boards with the help of Hitachi and Panasonic who are doing the same with all their electronics to avoid Trump Blacklist compliance. Trump is low tech and dumb as dirt. The US Tech sector is being carpet bombed under Trump... and without tech, what products does the US have to sell that world markets want? Not a god damn thing.

Let's remember that Trump didn't want a partial deal... Now he will take anything to get him out of his self-made wreckage. Meanwhile impeachment is coming... Mista no deals is going down in flames.

CashMcCall , 13 minutes ago link

Brazil and Argentina

Last year 300,000 us farmers grew soy and had 110 mmt. This year there are 100,000 us Soy farmers left and they grew 34 mmt... not enough to export.

... Arbitrary and capricious meddling by US politicians in commodity contracts renders all contracts voidable under force majeure. I would have thought with your handle you would have known this. Those markets will never come back.

They will forever be marginalized and smaller. Trump's damage to US trade is permanent.

AllSoRight , 10 minutes ago link

In other words, consolidation among large corp farmers, decimation of the smaller family farmers? I am truly asking, but seems to remind me of the trend since the 1980s.

runningman18 , 48 minutes ago link

Trump and China claimed "substantial progress" this past spring, and it all fell apart within a couple months. The same thing will happen on this "deal"....

[Oct 15, 2019] Trump trade war with China is the start of a new Cold War, the Cold War III

Oct 15, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs , October 11, 2019 at 09:14 PM

Former World Leaders: The Trade War Threatens
the World's Economy https://nyti.ms/2MAFOTC
NYT - Kevin Rudd, Helen Clark and Carl Bildt - October 11

Despite an interim deal, global peace and prosperity
remain at risk if the United States and China do not
fully resolve their conflict.

(The authors are former prime ministers
of Australia, New Zealand and Sweden.)

This piece has been updated to reflect news developments.

The 18-month trade war between the United States and China represents the single greatest threat to global economic growth.

President Trump announced on Friday a preliminary trade détente with China, saying that the two countries have a verbal agreement for an initial phase of a deal. The agreement reportedly includes concessions from China to protect American intellectual property, to accept guidelines on managing its currency and to buy tens of billions worth of American agricultural products. Washington, for its part, will not go through next month with placing more tariffs on Chinese products.

This is an encouraging sign, but a verbal agreement is just a first step. A failure to bring the trade war to a final conclusion significantly increases the risk of recession next year in the United States, Europe, Japan and other developed and emerging economies. It would also seriously undermine China's near-term growth prospects.

That's why, as representatives of a group of 10 former prime ministers and presidents from center-left and center-right governments that have enjoyed close relations with both the United States and China, we are writing to urge Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping to reach a substantive trade agreement by year's end. It's time to bring this source of global economic uncertainty to a close.

America's and China's prosperity have been built on global free trade. America has profited immensely from access to global markets since its birth. China, since opening up 40 years ago, has lifted millions of its people out of poverty largely through global trade. Indeed, much of the prosperity enjoyed by people across the world is anchored in our ability to sell goods and services freely across national boundaries.

Now, however, we see global growth in trade lagging behind general economic growth for the first time in decades. In part, this is the product of the expanding trade war between America and China, the world's two largest economies. In part, it is because of a more general outbreak of protectionism around the world. Both these factors threaten continued global prosperity.

We recognize, as former leaders of countries with longstanding economic relationships with China, the real difficulties regarding a number of Beijing's trade and economic practices. We understand, for example, the challenges that arise from Chinese policies on intellectual property and technology transfer, its restrictions on access to its markets, and its subsidization of private and public companies that are active in the global marketplace. We believe that these practices need to change in whichever countries may use them. But it is particularly important in China, because it is the world's second-largest economy.

At the same time, as countries long committed to the principles of free trade, we do not see the ever-widening tariff war, started by the United States, as an effective way to resolve trade and economic disputes. Tariffs, by definition, are the enemy of free trade. Their cumulative impact, particularly combined with the current resurgence of protectionism worldwide, only depresses economic growth, employment and living standards. Tariffs raise the cost of living for working families as consumer prices are driven up.

Stock markets rose on Friday with the news of the preliminary deal. The tariff war has been creating economic uncertainty, depressing international investor confidence, compounding downward pressure on growth and increasing the risk of recession. The disruption of global supply chains is already profound, and it may continue until a final deal is reached.

We believe that the World Trade Organization, despite its limitations, is best positioned to address China's trade practices. We also believe that the W.T.O. is the most appropriate forum in which to resolve trade disputes. So we urge the United States and China to work with other member states to strengthen the W.T.O.'s institutional capacity.

Our group of former prime ministers and presidents includes François Fillon of France, Joe Clark of Canada, Enrico Letta of Italy, Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands, Felipe Calderón and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, and Han Seung-soo of South Korea. Given our collective experience, we are not naïve about the inherent complexities in negotiating trade agreements. Many of us have negotiated free-trade pacts with both the United States and China. We are deeply familiar with the concerns of each country, including the domestic political constituencies that argue for continued protection.

Many of those domestic concerns have focused on the long-term enforcement of any agreement. On this point, we argue that it is in China's own long-term economic interest to ensure the effective implementation of any new trade deal -- whether involving intellectual property, technology transfer, state subsidies or market access. Such policies would also need to apply to all of China's trading partners, just as they would need to apply to its relationship with the United States.

On the question of enforcement, China must be acutely aware that if it fails to comply with the terms of the agreement, an already damaging trade war is likely to resume. A new trade agreement should include strong enforcement provisions, along with strengthened W.T.O. dispute-resolution mechanisms, to give greater confidence to both parties.

For these reasons, and given the gravity of the global economic outlook for 2020, we urge both countries to exercise every effort to reach a substantive agreement this year. We also urge the United States to withdraw the punitive tariffs it has imposed -- and that China do the same with the reciprocal tariffs it has enacted.

Beyond trade, we are anxious about the wider strategic impact of any further decoupling of the Chinese and the American economies, particularly in technology and finance. Such a decoupling would present a long-term threat to global peace and security.

It would also effectively constitute the first step in the declaration of a new Cold War. As with the last Cold War, many nations would be forced to choose between the two powers. And that is a choice none of us wants to make.

[Oct 15, 2019] The Unwinnable Trade War

Notable quotes:
"... Meanwhile, Chinese consumers aren't paying higher prices for U.S. imports. A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics shows that since the beginning of 2018, China has raised the average tariff rate on U.S. imports from 8.0 percent to 21.8 percent and has lowered the average tariff rate on all its other trading partners from 8.0 percent to 6.7 percent. China imposed tariffs only on U.S. commodities that can be replaced with imports from other countries at similar prices. It actually lowered duties for those U.S. products that can't be bought elsewhere more cheaply, such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. Consequently, China's import prices for the same products have dropped overall, in spite of higher tariffs on U.S. imports. ..."
"... Beijing has proved much more capable than Washington of minimizing the pain to its consumers and economy. ..."
"... The uncomfortable truth for Trump is that U.S. trade deficits don't spring from the practices of U.S. trading partners; they come from the United States' own spending habits. ..."
"... The United States has run a persistent trade deficit since 1975, both overall and with most of its trading partners. Over the past 20 years, U.S. domestic expenditures have always exceeded GDP, resulting in negative net exports, or a trade deficit. ..."
"... Even a total Chinese capitulation in the trade war wouldn't make a dent in the overall U.S. trade deficit. ..."
"... The U.S. economy, on the other hand, has had the longest expansion in history, and the inevitable down cycle is already on the horizon: second-quarter GDP growth this year dropped to 2.0 percent from the first quarter's 3.1 percent. ..."
"... If the trade war continues, it will compromise the international trading system, which relies on a global division of labor based on each country's comparative advantage. Once that system becomes less dependable -- when disrupted, for instance, by the boycotts and hostility of trade wars -- countries will start decoupling from one another. ..."
Oct 15, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , October 12, 2019 at 02:41 AM

The Unwinnable Trade War
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/2019-10-08/unwinnable-trade-war
Foreign Affairs - Weijian Shan - November/December 2019

Everyone Loses in the US-Chinese Clash
-- but Especially Americans

... Economists reckon the dead-weight loss arising from the existing tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports to be $620 per household, or about $80 billion, annually. This represents about 0.4 percent of U.S. GDP. If the United States continues to expand its tariff regime as scheduled, that loss will more than double.

Meanwhile, Chinese consumers aren't paying higher prices for U.S. imports. A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics shows that since the beginning of 2018, China has raised the average tariff rate on U.S. imports from 8.0 percent to 21.8 percent and has lowered the average tariff rate on all its other trading partners from 8.0 percent to 6.7 percent. China imposed tariffs only on U.S. commodities that can be replaced with imports from other countries at similar prices. It actually lowered duties for those U.S. products that can't be bought elsewhere more cheaply, such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. Consequently, China's import prices for the same products have dropped overall, in spite of higher tariffs on U.S. imports.

Beijing's nimble calculations are well illustrated by the example of lobsters. China imposed a 25 percent tariff on U.S. lobsters in July 2018, precipitating a 70 percent drop in U.S. lobster exports. At the same time, Beijing cut tariffs on Canadian lobsters by three percent, and as a result, Canadian lobster exports to China doubled. Chinese consumers now pay less for lobsters imported from essentially the same waters.

THE INESCAPABLE DEFICIT

Beijing has proved much more capable than Washington of minimizing the pain to its consumers and economy. But the trade war would be more palatable for Washington if its confrontation with China were accomplishing Trump's goals. The president thinks that China is "ripping off" the United States. He wants to reduce the United States' overall trade deficit by changing China's trade practices. But levying tariffs on Chinese imports has had the paradoxical effect of inflating the United States' overall trade deficit, which, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, rose by $28 billion in the first seven months of this year compared with the same period last year.

The uncomfortable truth for Trump is that U.S. trade deficits don't spring from the practices of U.S. trading partners; they come from the United States' own spending habits.

The United States has run a persistent trade deficit since 1975, both overall and with most of its trading partners. Over the past 20 years, U.S. domestic expenditures have always exceeded GDP, resulting in negative net exports, or a trade deficit. The shortfall has shifted over time but has remained between three and six percent of GDP.

Trump wants to boost U.S. exports to trim the deficit, but trade wars inevitably invite retaliation that leads to significant reductions in exports. Moreover, increasing the volume of exports does not necessarily reduce trade deficits unless it is accompanied by a reduction in the country's spending in terms of consumption and investment. The right way to reduce a trade deficit is to grow the economy faster than concurrent domestic expenditures, which can be accomplished only by encouraging innovation and increasing productivity. A trade war does the opposite, damaging the economy, impeding growth, and hindering innovation.

Even a total Chinese capitulation in the trade war wouldn't make a dent in the overall U.S. trade deficit. If China buys more from the United States, it will purchase less from other countries, which will then sell the difference either to the United States or to its competitors.

For example, look at aircraft sales by the U.S. firm Boeing and its European rival, Airbus. At the moment, both companies are operating at full capacity. If China buys 1,000 more aircraft from Boeing and 1,000 fewer from Airbus, the European plane-maker will still sell those 1,000 aircraft, just to the United States or to other countries that might have bought instead from Boeing.

China understands this, which is one reason it hasn't put higher tariffs on U.S.-made aircraft. Whatever the outcome of the trade war, the deficit won't be greatly changed.

A RESILIENT CHINA

The trade war has not really damaged China so far, largely because Beijing has managed to keep import prices from rising and because its exports to the United States have been less affected than anticipated.

This pattern will change as U.S. importers begin to switch from buying from China to buying from third countries to avoid paying the high tariffs. But assuming China's GDP continues to grow at around five to six percent every year, the effect of that change will be quite modest.

Some pundits doubt the accuracy of Chinese figures for economic growth, but multilateral agencies and independent research institutions set Chinese GDP growth within a range of five to six percent.

Skeptics also miss the bigger picture that China's economy is slowing down as it shifts to a consumption-driven model. Some manufacturing will leave China if the high tariffs become permanent, but the significance of such a development should not be overstated. Independent of the anxiety bred by Trump's tariffs, China is gradually weaning itself off its dependence on export-led growth. Exports to the United States as a proportion of China's GDP steadily declined from a peak of 11 percent in 2005 to less than four percent by 2018. In 2006, total exports made up 36 percent of China's GDP; by 2018, that figure had been cut by half, to 18 percent, which is much lower than the average of 29 percent for the industrialized countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Chinese leaders have long sought to steer their economy away from export-driven manufacturing to a consumer-driven model.

To be sure, the trade war has exacted a severe psychological toll on the Chinese economy. In 2018, when the tariffs were first announced, they caused a near panic in China's market at a time when growth was slowing thanks to a round of credit tightening. The stock market took a beating, plummeting some 25 percent. The government initially felt pressured to find a way out of the trade war quickly. But as the smoke cleared to reveal little real damage, confidence in the market rebounded: stock indexes had risen by 23 percent and 34 percent on the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges, respectively, by September 12, 2019. The resilience of the Chinese economy in the face of the trade war helps explain why Beijing has stiffened its negotiating position in spite of Trump's escalation.

China hasn't had a recession in the past 40 years and won't have one in the foreseeable future, because its economy is still at an early stage of development, with per capita GDP only one-sixth of that of the United States. Due to declining rates of saving and rising wages, the engine of China's economy is shifting from investments and exports to private consumption. As a result, the country's growth rate is expected to slow. The International Monetary Fund projects that China's real GDP growth will fall from 6.6 percent in 2018 to 5.5 percent in 2024; other estimates put the growth rate at an even lower number.

Although the rate of Chinese growth may dip, there is little risk that the Chinese economy will contract in the foreseeable future. Private consumption, which has been increasing, representing 35 percent of GDP in 2010 and 39 percent last year, is expected to continue to rise and to drive economic growth, especially now that China has expanded its social safety net and welfare provisions, freeing up private savings for consumption.

The U.S. economy, on the other hand, has had the longest expansion in history, and the inevitable down cycle is already on the horizon: second-quarter GDP growth this year dropped to 2.0 percent from the first quarter's 3.1 percent. The trade war, without taking into account the escalations from September, will shave off at least half a percentage point of U.S. GDP, and that much of a drag on the economy may tip it into the anticipated downturn. (According to a September Washington Post poll, 60 percent of Americans expect a recession in 2020.) The prospect of a recession could provide Trump with the impetus to call off the trade war. Here, then, is one plausible way the trade war will come to an end. Americans aren't uniformly feeling the pain of the tariffs yet. But a turning point is likely to come when the economy starts to lose steam.

If the trade war continues, it will compromise the international trading system, which relies on a global division of labor based on each country's comparative advantage. Once that system becomes less dependable -- when disrupted, for instance, by the boycotts and hostility of trade wars -- countries will start decoupling from one another.

China and the United States are joined at the hip economically, each being the other's biggest trading partner. Any attempt to decouple the two economies will bring catastrophic consequences for both, and for the world at large. Consumer prices will rise, world economic growth will slow, supply chains will be disrupted and laboriously duplicated on a global scale, and a digital divide -- in technology, the Internet, and telecommunications -- will vastly hamper innovation by limiting the horizons and ambitions of technology firms. ...

[Oct 15, 2019] President Trump's placement of Huawei on the US entity list was a body blow. But Huawei is still standing

Notable quotes:
"... Yes, the U.S. government can hurt Huawei in the short term by limiting their access to technology (and to certain foreign markets). But, absent a viable competitor, this won't have much impact in the long term. Because Huawei is fundamentally not a technology company. Huawei is a human resources company. And is kind of obsessed with survival. ..."
"... Huawei's fundamental purpose has always been about survival. ..."
"... Huawei, like most engineering-based enterprises, has only one real resource, which is the cumulative brainpower of its people. This is the resource that creates the products and sells them to their customers. And as technology changes quickly, they must continually create and recreate the products – and therefore the value of the enterprise. Huawei's main strength is the system they have developed for the creation, assessment and distribution of value by over 190,000 people. It's about HR strategy. ..."
Oct 15, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne , October 10, 2019 at 12:30 PM

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-10-10/Huawei-is-going-to-beat-Trump-with-human-resources-KFEpAxznJ6/index.html

October 10, 2019

Huawei is going to beat Trump with human resources
By Jeff Towson

President Trump's placement of Huawei on the U.S. entity list was a body blow. The magnitude of the hit should not be understated. Being cut off from U.S. technology so suddenly staggered the multinational. But, to their credit, Huawei didn't go down. They took the hit and stayed on their feet.

I'm not really sure what the U.S. government thought it would achieve with the ban. To stop Huawei's growth in international markets? To shift 5G market share to Ericsson and Nokia? To cripple the company? Just an assertion of principle?

I think they really just don't understand Huawei.

Yes, the U.S. government can hurt Huawei in the short term by limiting their access to technology (and to certain foreign markets). But, absent a viable competitor, this won't have much impact in the long term. Because Huawei is fundamentally not a technology company. Huawei is a human resources company. And is kind of obsessed with survival.

Huawei's core strategy has always been about survival.

If you read Ren Zhengfei's talks and papers going back to the early 1990's, what jumps out at you is how different Huawei is. The goal of the company has never really been about money. Nor about becoming a tech giant. Nor about innovation. And it has definitely not been about going public and getting a big payday. Huawei's fundamental purpose has always been about survival.

"Being big and strong temporarily is not what we want. What we want is the ability and resilience to survive sustainably," said Ren in 2001.

Actually he has been talking for literally decades about how Huawei can survive long-term – and about the common causes of corporate decline. My simplistic take is that Ren came up with a fairly logical plan for long-term survival: Serve your customers no matter what. Then get big and slowly grind your competitors down with lower costs and greater R&D spending. And within this, the only resource you really have are your people and their cumulative brainpower.

Huawei's main resource is its people.

Huawei, like most engineering-based enterprises, has only one real resource, which is the cumulative brainpower of its people. This is the resource that creates the products and sells them to their customers. And as technology changes quickly, they must continually create and recreate the products – and therefore the value of the enterprise. Huawei's main strength is the system they have developed for the creation, assessment and distribution of value by over 190,000 people. It's about HR strategy.

Unlike the companies in the U.S. and Europe, where the shareholders are the stakeholders with ultimate say or multiple stakeholders, such as employees, owners and the community, at Huawei, the only stakeholders you ever really hear about are the current employees. It's all about the top contributing, current employees. Shareholders, providers of capital, retired employees and even the founders are all a distant second in importance.

Note how different this is to other large engineering-focused companies (say GM and Bosch), where much of the value goes into guaranteed salaries (regardless of contribution) and into post-retirement benefits (i.e., not current employees). Huawei is not only focused primarily on this one group, they are also operating much more as a meritocracy with regards to labor.

Huawei to me looks a lot like what 3G capital has been doing in consumer-facing companies like Budweiser and Burger King. They have instituted "meritocracy and partnership" on a massive scale in a knowledge business. There is a lot of ownership. And you rise and fall based on your performance.

Huawei is awesome at inspiring dedication in their top contributing, current employees. And that is pretty logical. If brainpower is Huawei's main resource, this is the group that creates that value. So recruiting and motivating this group is the biggest priority. And they don't just want them motivated. They want them "all in."

In practice, this is actually pretty complicated. It's a big company. Employees are at different stages of their lives and careers. How do you get current staff, senior staff and incoming staff to go "all in" in creating value for customers – and therefore the enterprise?

My outsider's take is that Huawei is mostly focused on motivating teams and team managers. High-performance teams with aggressive and dedicated managers are the engine of Huawei. And these are mostly in sales and marketing and R&D. They make the largest contributions to the customers and therefore the enterprise. You motivate at the team level and within the departments that matter most. And then you scale it up.

But how do you assess contributed value?

Staff are rated every 6-12 months across metrics such as sales performance (usually team-based), talent, dedication, and the potential for advancement. The phrases I keep coming across in my reading are "dedicated employees" and "high-performance teams." In fact, the book on their HR book is titled Dedication.

Once assessed, how do you reward performance?

High-performing contributors are given higher bonuses, of course. But they are also identified and given more opportunities (and responsibilities). They are given more training and the option to participate in the employee share ownership program (very important). Low performers, in contrast, are demoted or exited. Meritocracy works in both directions.

And this brings us back to the main point of this article: How does the U.S. tech ban impact any of this? How does it impact an HR system for motivating the more than 190,000 employees that continually recreate the company and ensure its survival?

In the long term, it doesn't.

Yes, the company took a big hit in the short term in terms of its access to tech (especially in semiconductors and in the consumer business) and to a few markets. But the core of the company is still churning along like it has for 30 years. And I think it is very likely Huawei will overcome these supply chain problems. And, ironically, the current crisis is probably resulting in increased motivation and dedication across the company.


Jeff Towson is a Peking University professor.

[Oct 15, 2019] Everything -- even astrophysics -- is subordinated to Mao's warped ideology.

Notable quotes:
"... Hitler's Third Reich was obliterated by massive military force in 1945. It lasted just 12 years. Stalin's Soviet Union bore the brunt of beating Hitler, but later succumbed to economic sclerosis. It fell apart in 1991, after 68 years. The mystery of the People's Republic of China is that it is still with us. ..."
Oct 15, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs , October 13, 2019 at 06:28 AM

(It's Niall.)

China's three-body problem
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/10/07/china-three-body-problem/p5xK2i5zBWdkkor0JRyjwM/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

Niall Ferguson - October 7

The 70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China was not a birthday I felt like celebrating. As Dutch historian Frank Dikötter has shown in his searing three-volume history of the Mao Zedong era, the Communist regime claimed the lives of tens of millions of people: 2 million in the revolution between 1949 and 1951, another 3 million by the end of the 1950s, up to 45 million in the man-made famine known as the "Great Leap Forward," and yet more in the mayhem of the Cultural Revolution, Mao's campaign against the intelligentsia, which escalated into a civil war.

Hitler's Third Reich was obliterated by massive military force in 1945. It lasted just 12 years. Stalin's Soviet Union bore the brunt of beating Hitler, but later succumbed to economic sclerosis. It fell apart in 1991, after 68 years. The mystery of the People's Republic of China is that it is still with us.

Now, I could give you a rather boring explanation of why I think China's bid to "catch up and surpass" (ganchao) the United States will fail. But maybe a more interesting answer can be found in Liu Cixin's astonishing 2008 novel, "The Three-Body Problem," which I read for the first time last week.

The problem of the title is introduced to the reader -- and to the nanotechnology scientist Wang Miao, one of the central characters -- as a virtual reality game, set in a strange, distant world with three suns rather than the familiar one. The mutually perturbing gravitational attractions of the three suns prevent this planet from ever settling into a predictable orbit with regular days, nights, and seasons. It has occasional "stable eras," during which civilization can advance, but with minimal warning, these give way to "chaotic eras" of intense heat or cold that render the planet uninhabitable The central conceit of Liu's novel is that China's history has the same pattern as the three-body problem: periods of stability always end with periods of chaos -- what the Chinese call dong luan. The other key character in the book is Ye Wenjie, who sees her father, a professor at Tsinghua University, beaten to death by a gang of teenage Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.

Banished from Beijing to a labor camp in benighted rural backwater, Ye is rescued when she is given a lowly job in a mysterious observatory known as Red Coast. But nothing can undo the emotional damage of witnessing her father's murder. Nor can she escape the chaos of Communism. She watches in horror as the entire area around the observatory is deforested. Everything -- even astrophysics -- is subordinated to Mao's warped ideology.

Disillusioned completely by the madness of mankind -- a sentiment reinforced by a chance meeting with an American environmentalist -- Ye stumbles on a way of beaming a message from Earth deep into space by bouncing it off the sun. When, after years of empty noise, a clear message is received in reply, she does not hesitate. Even though the message is a warning not to communicate with Trisolaris -- the name of a real planet with three suns -- Ye sends another message, ensuring that the Trisolarians can locate Earth, and initiate their long-planned relocation.

Rehabilitated in the political thaw that follows Mao's death, Ye Wenjie returns to Beijing, following in her father's footsteps as a physics professor. But she leads a double life, for she also becomes the Commander of the Earth-Trisolaris Movement, a radically misanthropic organization dedicated to helping the Trisolarians conquer earth. Acute readers will notice that this group's ideology is a subtle parody of Maoism.

"Start a global rebellion!" they shout. "Long live the spirit of Trisolaris! We shall persevere like the stubborn grass that resprouts after every wildfire! ... Eliminate human tyranny!"

Little do they know that the Trisolarians are even worse than humans. As one of the aliens points out to their leader, because of their world's utter unpredictability, "Everything is devoted to survival. To permit the survival of the civilization as a whole, there is almost no respect for the individual. Someone who can no longer work is put to death. Trisolarian society exists under a state of extreme authoritarianism." Life for the individual consists of "monotony and desiccation." That sounds a lot like Mao's China.

There is one scene in "The Three-Body Problem" that sticks in the mind. An adult and a child stand looking at the grave of a Red Guard killed during the factional battles that raged during the Cultural Revolution. "Are they heroes?" asks the child. The adult says no. "Are they enemies?" The adult again says no. "Then who are they?" The adult replies: "History."

True, the hero of the story is the foul-mouthed, chain-smoking Beijing cop Shi Qiang. Chinese readers doubtless relish the scene when he lectures a pompous American general about how best to save the world.

But the deeper meaning of the book is surely that Trisolaris is China. The three bodies in contention are not suns but classes: rulers, intellectuals, masses. Right now, China is in one of its stable phases. But, as the contending forces shift, chaos will sooner or later return. Perhaps it already has, in Hong Kong.

If it spreads, I -- and history -- will win that bet.

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , October 13, 2019 at 06:41 AM
The Three-Body Problem is a hard science fiction novel by the Chinese writer Liu Cixin. It is the first novel of the Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy, but Chinese readers generally refer to the whole series by the title of this first novel. The second and third novels in the trilogy are titled The Dark Forest and Death's End. The title of the first novel refers to the three-body problem in orbital mechanics. ...

The English translation by Ken Liu was published by Tor Books in 2014. It was the first Asian novel ever to win a Hugo Award for Best Novel, in 2015 and was nominated for the 2014 Nebula Award for Best Novel.

(An amazing trilogy. Inspired by Arthur Clarke (*). Looks like Niall has read the first book.)

* 'The Songs of Distant Earth' is a 1986 science fiction novel by British writer Arthur C. Clarke, based upon his 1958 short story of the same title. He stated that it was his favourite of all his novels. ... The novel tells of a utopian human colony in the far future that is visited by travellers from a doomed Earth, as the Sun has gone nova. The Songs of Distant Earth explores apocalyptic, atheistic, and utopian ideas, as well as the effects of long-term interstellar travel and extra-terrestrial life. (Wikipedia)

('Songs' is optimistic; 'Remembrance of
Earth's Past is not.)

[Oct 15, 2019] A new Homeland Security rule to screen out immigrants who are at risk of becoming dependent on government benefits was put on hold by a federal judge until there's a final decision whether the so-called green card wealth test is legal.

Oct 15, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs , October 11, 2019 at 09:32 PM

(There's 'that word' again.)

Judge says Trump's immigrant wealth
test is 'repugnant,' blocks its enforcement
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2019/10/11/judge-says-trump-immigrant-wealth-test-repugnant/pecnue4UQPJ5jcZcp7t5IO/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe
Chris Dolmetsch and Edvard Pettersson - Bloomberg News - October 11

A new Homeland Security rule to screen out immigrants who are at risk of becoming dependent on government benefits was put on hold by a federal judge until there's a final decision whether the so-called green card wealth test is legal.

US District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan said Friday that the rule, which was set to go into effect Oct. 15, can't be implemented nationwide.

The rule, announced in August, replaces a current policy that says immigrants shouldn't receive more than half their income from cash benefits, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or Supplemental Security Income from Social Security.

Under the new more expansive definition, immigrants aren't supposed to use public benefits like Medicaid, public housing assistance, or food stamps for more than 12 months over a 36-month period. Immigration officials will consider an immigrant's age, health, education, and wealth to see if they are at risk of becoming a "public charge."

Immigrant rights' advocacy groups and several states have argued that the new rule conflicts with existing immigration laws and would drive up the cost of providing health care and other services to immigrants.

Daniels blocked the rule following a. August lawsuit filed by the states of New York, Connecticut and Vermont and the city of New York, which alleged that the policy specifically targets immigrants of color. He ruled that the Department of Homeland Security went beyond its authority under federal immigration law.

"Defendants do not articulate why they are changing the public charge definition, why this new definition is needed now, or why the definition set forth in the rule -- which has absolutely no support in the histroy of U.S. Immigration law -- is reasonable," Daniels said, calling the rule "repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility." ...

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , October 12, 2019 at 02:47 AM
(Previously...)

Reuters - October 7

Judge's order releasing Trump's tax returns and blasting 'repugnant' immunity claim put on hold https://reut.rs/30XyBSO

[Sep 29, 2019] White House Weighs Blocking Chinese Companies From U.S. Exchanges

Sep 29, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne , September 28, 2019 at 09:13 AM

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/us/politics/trump-china-stock-exchange.html

September 27, 2019

White House Weighs Blocking Chinese Companies From U.S. Exchanges
By Alan Rappeport and Ana Swanson

WASHINGTON -- The Trump administration is discussing whether to block Chinese companies from listing shares on American stock exchanges, the latest push to try to sever economic ties between the United States and China, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

The internal discussions are in their early stages and no decision is imminent, these people cautioned.

The talks come as senior officials from both countries are scheduled to resume trade negotiations in Washington early next month. President Trump, who has continued to give mixed signals about the prospect of a trade deal with China, said earlier this week that an agreement could come "sooner than you think." His decision to delay an increase in tariffs until mid-October and China's recent purchases of American agricultural products has fueled optimism that the talks could produce an agreement.

But the prospect of further limiting American investment in China underscores the challenge that the two sides will continue to face even as they try to de-escalate a trade war that has shaken the global economy. The administration has already increased scrutiny of foreign investment with a particular eye toward China, including expanding the types of investments that can be subject to a national security review.

Last week, the Treasury Department unveiled new regulations detailing how a 2018 law, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, will work to prevent foreign firms from using investments like minority stakes to capture sensitive American information. And the United States has already blacklisted some Chinese companies, including Huawei, effectively barring them from doing business with American companies.

Stocks dropped on Friday after a report on the deliberations was published by Bloomberg News. The market continued to slide through most of the day. At close, the S&P 500 was down 0.5 percent and the Nasdaq composite index was down 1.1 percent.

Losses were particularly steep in the technology sector, and among semiconductor stocks, two parts of the market that have been sensitive to the latest updates on the economic tensions between China and the United States.

Details of how the United States would restrict Chinese companies from American stock markets were still being worked out and the idea remained in its early stages, the people familiar with the deliberations said.

China hawks within the administration have discussed the possibility of tighter restrictions on listed Chinese companies for many months. Supporters say the efforts would close longstanding loopholes that have allowed Chinese companies with links to its government to take advantage of America's financial rules and solicit funds from American investors without proper disclosure.

Skeptics caution that the move could be deeply disruptive to markets and the economy and risk turning American investors and pension funds into another casualty of the trade war.

The effect of limiting Chinese firms from raising capital inside the United States could be significant. As of the beginning of this year, 156 Chinese companies were listed on American exchanges and had a total market capitalization of $1.2 trillion, according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

"The underlying concerns have merit, but how to deal with them without creating a lot of collateral damage is tricky," Patrick Chovanec, managing director at Silvercrest Asset Management, wrote in a post on Twitter. "Abruptly delisting Chinese firms en masse would clearly send shock waves through markets."

The idea gained traction on Capitol Hill this summer when Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House introduced legislation that would delist firms that were out of compliance with American regulators for three years. The lawmakers argued that Chinese companies have been benefiting from American capital markets while playing by a different set of rules.

American complaints center on a lack of transparency into the ownership and finances of Chinese firms. The business community has long criticized China for classifying some auditor reports on company finances as state secrets and outlawing cross-border transfers of auditors' documentation.

In 2015, the Chinese affiliates of the Big Four accounting firms -- Deloitte Touch Tohmatsu, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young -- paid $500,000 each to settle a dispute about their refusal to provide documentation on Chinese companies to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which an American judge had ruled was a violation of United States law.

The White House has grown more interested in blocking Chinese firms in recent weeks, with some in the administration describing it as a top priority. Officials say the topic is not yet an issue in bilateral negotiations with the Chinese and inserting it into the talks could lead negotiations to fall apart again.

"This would be another step in ratcheting up the pressure," said Michael Pillsbury, a China scholar at the Hudson Institute who said he raised the concept of investment restrictions with the White House after negotiations with China broke down in the spring.

The White House declined to comment.

The concept has divided Mr. Trump's advisers along their usual fault lines, with Peter Navarro, Mr. Trump's trade adviser, advocating action and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin urging caution....

[Sep 27, 2019] Watch "The Family" on NETFLIX to see how religion has secretly infiltrated our politics and that of other nations, especially developing nations.

Sep 27, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

ken melvin -> anne... , September 25, 2019 at 04:35 PM


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It was meant protect the right to exercise one's religion of choice, and to protect the nation from becoming a theocracy. States like Alabama are more a theocracy than a democracy. The evangelicals so important to Trumps election would impose an evangelical theocracy on the nation.

im1dc -> ken melvin... , September 25, 2019 at 04:43 PM
Good point about religion in USA poliitics today, Melvin.

I suggest, again, that anne and everyone here watch "The Family" on NETFLIX to see how religion has secretly infiltrated our politics and that of other nations, especially developing nations.

RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to im1dc... , September 26, 2019 at 05:00 AM
Agreed except I am not sure about the "secretly" part. It depends upon how you mean it. More precisely though reactionary social conservatives have wore religious pretense as an effective stalking horse to elevate their agenda in US politics. This has never been about religion per se, but rather just a tool to fool the tools.
RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to RC (Ron) Weakley... , September 26, 2019 at 05:08 AM
Religion was the earliest cloaking device ever employed by the ship of state to conceal its own agenda going all the back to tribal Shamans even before the Divine Right of Kings. The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution only ever provided very weak defense from the state's misuse of religion, but more so protected individual's freedom of religion. In God We Trust, so to speak.
RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to RC (Ron) Weakley... , September 26, 2019 at 05:34 AM
It was religious influence in the US political sphere that was the primary vehicle for promulgating the political views that lead to the abolition of slavery (e.g., Quakers), the social welfare movement (e.g., Robert Hunter's 1912 book "Poverty"), women's suffrage (see link below, but not so much in the South), and alcohol temperance (obviously enough). OK, three out of four is good.

https://religionnews.com/2019/06/04/the-complex-role-of-faith-in-the-womens-suffrage-movement/

The complex role of faith in the women's suffrage movement


June 4, 2019

7 Min Read...

Mr. Bill , September 26, 2019 at 10:04 PM
America has forgotten it's roots, the trouble that religion created. Ignorance.

This country was created in opposition to religion.

Look what we have done. Killed xxx million people in the name of GW's sins.

Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , September 26, 2019 at 10:14 PM
Hell has no fury like a rehabilitated whore.
Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , September 26, 2019 at 10:16 PM
Especially a whore that wraps themselves in the make believe cloak of religion.
Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , September 26, 2019 at 10:18 PM
Kind of like Romer ?

[Sep 26, 2019] A house bill bans using Huawei and ZTE phones; also adds 1 billion in taxpayer paid for equipment to be donated to to USA companies so the USA companies can trash the China made equipment and exchange if for 1 billion in USA and Israel made equipment.

Sep 26, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

snake , Sep 25 2019 18:50 utc | 12

A house bill bans using Huawei and ZTE phones; also adds 1 billion in taxpayer paid for equipment to be donated to to USA companies so the USA companies can trash the China made equipment and exchange if for 1 billion in USA and Israel made equipment.

I wonder does this mean the USA and Israel cannot compete with the Chinese?


huawei ban

huawei ban

huawei ban
huawei ban

[Sep 25, 2019] Does not federal support of religious studies at the universities violate the key principle of separation of the church and the state?

"... Why should federal funding support religious studies? Does not this violate the key principle of separation of the church and the state? ..."
"... Looks like a clear waist of taxpayers dollars for me. So Trump administration is right in withholding the funds, IMHO. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... Why should federal funding support religious studies? Does not this violate the key principle of separation of the church and the state? ..."
"... Looks like a clear waste of taxpayers dollars for me. So Trump administration is right in withholding the funds, IMHO. ..."
Sep 20, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

EMichael , September 20, 2019 at 06:14 AM

Another demonstration of the potential authoritarian state being built by the Gop and trump. H/T to Kurt.

"The Trump administration has threatened to withdraw federal funding for a Middle East Studies course jointly taught by Duke University and the University of North Carolina because it believes it is too positive in its depiction of Islam in comparison to its portrayal of Judaism and Christianity.

The Department of Education said the consortium had failed to offer a "balance of perspectives" on the religions and ordered the universities to remake the course to provide a more "positive" portrayal of Judaism and Christianity or lose its federal funding. The consortium received $235,000 in federal grant money last year.

There is "a considerable emphasis placed on the understanding the positive aspects of Islam, while there is an absolute absence of any similar focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism or any other religion or belief system in the Middle East," the Department of Education said in its letter to the schools."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/trump-devos-duke-unc-curriculum-islam-judaism-christianity.html

likbez -> EMichael... , September 20, 2019 at 07:16 AM
"The Trump administration has threatened to withdraw federal funding for a Middle East Studies course jointly taught by Duke University and the University of North Carolina because it believes it is too positive in its depiction of Islam in comparison to its portrayal of Judaism and Christianity."

That's funny as this is coming from Slate. Since when Slate depends on Gulf monarchies dollars. I thought it was bankrupt long ago.

Why should federal funding support religious studies? Does not this violate the key principle of separation of the church and the state?

Why such studies can't be supported by Catholic church, rich Jewish donors, or Gulf monarchies? Say, 33.3% each ;-)

Looks like a clear waste of taxpayers dollars for me. So Trump administration is right in withholding the funds, IMHO.

kurt -> likbez... , September 20, 2019 at 11:43 AM
"Why should federal funding support religious studies? Does not this violate the key principle of separation of the church and the state?"

No - it would only do that if it was a theology class or specifically supported one religion over another. Most uni religious studies classes are secular classes that discuss and compare various religious sects from a dispassionate, sociological point of view. In fact, I think that a comparative religious studies should be a core curriculum. It would greatly reduce the religious bigotry that has infected parts of our nation. This is coming from someone who hasn't believed in God since I went to a religious university.

likbez -> kurt... , September 25, 2019 at 07:59 AM
OK, I am wrong here.

and I agree with your suggestion:

In fact, I think that a comparative religious studies should be a core curriculum. It would greatly reduce the religious bigotry that has infected parts of our nation. This is coming from someone who hasn't believed in God since I went to a religious university.

But then it should be done in Sociological department as an additional obligatory sociology course:

Religious studies originated in the 19th century, when scholarly and historical analysis of the Bible had flourished, and Hindu and Buddhist texts were first being translated into European languages.

Early influential scholars included Friedrich Max Müller in England and Cornelius P. Tiele in the Netherlands. Today religious studies is practiced by scholars worldwide.[1]

In its early years, it was known as "comparative religion" or the science of religion and, in the USA, there are those who today also know the field as the History of religion (associated with methodological traditions traced to the University of Chicago in general, and in particular Mircea Eliade, from the late 1950s through to the late 1980s).

[Sep 23, 2019] Huawei launched its Mate 30 series on Friday, the first new device produced by the Shenzhen telecommunications firm since it has been blacklisted by the United States government and excluded from American technology markets.

Notable quotes:
"... With the inaugural "Huawei AppGallery" emerging with the Mate 30, the company has now positioned itself on an investment trajectory to create a new "Huawei core" to compete with the world of Google-led Android systems outright. ..."
"... Beyond Apple and the iPhone, the Android operating system dominates in the global smartphone market. Describing it as an "operating system" is barely fitting; it might otherwise be described as "an ecosystem" with a wide range of Google orientated services within it. ..."
"... They include the popular browser Chrome, the YouTube video service, Google mail and, most critically, the "Google Playstore," which, owing to its popularity, attracts more developers and investors than any other unofficial App stores. This "ecosystem" creates a "web of comfort" which effectively entrenches the consumer in the Android orbit. ..."
"... p until May 2019, Huawei was a part of this orbit. Its subsequent estrangement from Android owing to the American government's decision has forced some difficult choices. It has made markets keen to observe how the Mate 30 will perform given its lack of Google applications and the need for users to obtain some apps through third-party stores. ..."
"... So, the question is: How are they now adapting and making that transition? Bengt Nordstrom of North Stream research in Sweden notes that "they have a strategy to become completely independent from U.S. technology. And in many areas, they have become independent." ..."
"... Huawei's announced bid to invest over 1 billion U.S. dollars in developing its own application "core" or ecosystem. This, in essence, is an effort to get developers to establish applications for the new "Huawei App store" and thus establish a self-reliant, independent path from the world of Android. ..."
"... To achieve this, the company has pledged a competitive revenue sharing scheme of 15 percent to developers, half of that what Apple and Google demand for participation in their own app-stores. ..."
Sep 23, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne , September 21, 2019 at 06:30 AM

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-09-21/Huawei-s-pivotal-moment-KabssDHWdq/index.html

September 21, 2019
Huawei's pivotal moment
By Tom Fowdy

Huawei launched its Mate 30 series on Friday, the first new device produced by the Shenzhen telecommunications firm since it has been blacklisted by the United States government and excluded from American technology markets.

The subsequent result of the listing had led Google to sever ties with the company and prohibit new devices from using its Play Store services and operating system, something which ultimately impacts the Mate 30 Series, which is using an open-source version of Android.

The impact of it all has led Western commentators to ask questions about Huawei's future in Western smartphone markets, particularly what applications can it access.

However, not all is bleak, and what may start off as a hindrance for the company is set to transform into an opportunity. The United States' assault on the company has forced Huawei to innovate.

With the inaugural "Huawei AppGallery" emerging with the Mate 30, the company has now positioned itself on an investment trajectory to create a new "Huawei core" to compete with the world of Google-led Android systems outright.

In this case, what seems like a detriment is part of a broader pivotal moment for Huawei. The company's portfolio is about to change forever.

Beyond Apple and the iPhone, the Android operating system dominates in the global smartphone market. Describing it as an "operating system" is barely fitting; it might otherwise be described as "an ecosystem" with a wide range of Google orientated services within it.

They include the popular browser Chrome, the YouTube video service, Google mail and, most critically, the "Google Playstore," which, owing to its popularity, attracts more developers and investors than any other unofficial App stores. This "ecosystem" creates a "web of comfort" which effectively entrenches the consumer in the Android orbit.

U p until May 2019, Huawei was a part of this orbit. Its subsequent estrangement from Android owing to the American government's decision has forced some difficult choices. It has made markets keen to observe how the Mate 30 will perform given its lack of Google applications and the need for users to obtain some apps through third-party stores.

So, the question is: How are they now adapting and making that transition? Bengt Nordstrom of North Stream research in Sweden notes that "they have a strategy to become completely independent from U.S. technology. And in many areas, they have become independent."

First of all, we are well aware that Huawei is developing its own Harmony Operating System as a contingency measure, although it has not chosen to apply it to the Mate 30 as an olive branch to Google.

Second, and most excitingly is Huawei's announced bid to invest over 1 billion U.S. dollars in developing its own application "core" or ecosystem. This, in essence, is an effort to get developers to establish applications for the new "Huawei App store" and thus establish a self-reliant, independent path from the world of Android.

To achieve this, the company has pledged a competitive revenue sharing scheme of 15 percent to developers, half of that what Apple and Google demand for participation in their own app-stores.

This effort is combined with a wider scope in research and development from the company, which is also designed to forfeit dependence upon American technology chains in terms of critical components and other parts.

We have already seen massive investment pledges from Huawei to build new research and development centers in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Italy and Brazil. They are not empty promises, but a serious and strategic effort.

In this case, what was intended to be a political effort to destroy and contain Huawei is likely to prove a pivotal turning point in the company's history with huge repercussions for global smartphone and technology markets.

Instead of having once been reliant on and thus beneficial to American technology markets, the outcome is that Huawei will re-emerge independent of and competing against it.

Armed with a pending new operating system, a new application development drive and a broader research effort, what seemed otherwise a detriment is likely to bring a massive opportunity. Thus, it is very important to examine the long-term prospects for the company's fortunes ahead of short-term challenges.

[Sep 23, 2019] Smartest and fastest: Huawei reveals new smartphone chip Kirin 990 5G

Notable quotes:
"... "The Kirin 990 is not only an SoC and a 5G modem glued together. We put a lot of effort in integrating the two chips. So the new chip uses less power and generates less heat while getting the job done," said Huawei fellow Ai Wei before the launch event. ..."
"... The whole Kirin 990 5G chip is so dense that it contains 10.3 billion semiconductors, the first and largest of its kind. ..."
"... Another example is AI-based video quality improvements, which takes in a low quality video and render a better one. Objects in the rendered video have much sharper edges. Huawei technicians refused to explain how they made it, but the underlying tech seems to be object recognition, content-based pixel generation and noise reduction, since these are the tricks AI does well. ..."
"... Huawei's P30 Pro smartphone, together with the Kirin 980 chip, has taken "smartphone zoom to the next level," according to third-party review site DxOMark. The phone was on top of all smartphones when it comes to photography in DxOMark's ranking. The Kirin 990 is packed with more graphic features to continue Huawei's dominance. ..."
Sep 23, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne -> anne... , September 20, 2019 at 04:51 PM

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-09-06/Smartest-and-fastest-Huawei-reveals-new-smartphone-chip-Kirin-990-5G-JLGH1KVKeI/index.html

September 6, 2019

Smartest and fastest: Huawei reveals new smartphone chip Kirin 990 5G
By Gong Zhe

Chinese smartphone giant Huawei, which has been under heavy attack from the U.S. government during the last few months, just revealed its next-generation smartphone system-on-a-chip (SoC) product "Kirin 990 5G," signaling the company's business is not stalled by foreign strangling.

The launch event was held simultaneously at IFA electronic show in Berlin, Germany, and in Beijing on Friday.

In his keynote speech, Huawei's head of gadgets Richard Yu told the press that the chip is more advanced than other flagship smartphone SoCs, because it has a built-in 5G modem.

Current rivals of the chip, like Qualcomm's Snapdragon 855, have no 5G modem and have to rely on an extra chip to support 5G.

"The Kirin 990 is not only an SoC and a 5G modem glued together. We put a lot of effort in integrating the two chips. So the new chip uses less power and generates less heat while getting the job done," said Huawei fellow Ai Wei before the launch event.

The whole Kirin 990 5G chip is so dense that it contains 10.3 billion semiconductors, the first and largest of its kind.

Flexible AI power

The chip also features three AI cores, two larger than the other smaller. This design, first in smartphones, saves battery power by only using the small core to process simple AI tasks, while resorting to the larger cores for more complex jobs.

The company named the cores "Ascend Lite" and "Ascend Tiny" to relate the cores to Huawei's new, self-proclaimed "fastest AI training chip in the world," the Ascend 910.

Huawei built a showcase at the Beijing launch event to demonstrate the chip's AI power. They showed a FaceID-like face recognition feature in a Kirin 990-powered developer board that can work when the person is four meters away from the phone, times further than Apple's current product.

Another example is AI-based video quality improvements, which takes in a low quality video and render a better one. Objects in the rendered video have much sharper edges. Huawei technicians refused to explain how they made it, but the underlying tech seems to be object recognition, content-based pixel generation and noise reduction, since these are the tricks AI does well.

Even better photos

Huawei's P30 Pro smartphone, together with the Kirin 980 chip, has taken "smartphone zoom to the next level," according to third-party review site DxOMark. The phone was on top of all smartphones when it comes to photography in DxOMark's ranking. The Kirin 990 is packed with more graphic features to continue Huawei's dominance.

A Kirin 990-powered smartphone can shoot 4K videos (3840 x 2160 pixels) at 60 frames per second, on par with market flagship phones.

The chip can also run DSLR-level noise-reduction algorithm – namely "Block Match 3D" – to bring professional tech to consumer devices.

"Porting an algorithm from DSLR to smartphone may be easy. But getting the program to run fast enough can be hard for any phone maker," Ai told CGTN Digital.

Non-U.S. tech

The design of Kirin 990 is still based on technology Huawei bought from British tech company ARM, used by several mainstream brands.

After the U.S. began imposing restrictions on Huawei, ARM cut ties with the Chinese phone maker. Despite this, Huawei has been able to use and modify AMRv8 technology thanks to its permanent ARM license. Hence why chips like Kirin 990 can still be legally built and sold.

In addition to ARM, there are other major smartphone tech companies cutting ties with Huawei, forcing the Chinese company to create its own alternatives. After Google announced to bar Huawei phones from installing their apps, Huawei started porting its IoT system "Harmony" to smartphones.

But Huawei still wishes to use technologies from all over the world. As Ai Wei explained at the launch event, "Huawei will not deliberately remove all U.S. tech from its smartphones. But when the supply from U.S. was cut, Huawei has to find a way to survive."

"That's why Huawei chose to create its own technology," Ai added....

anne -> anne... , September 20, 2019 at 05:01 PM
The point in article after article is that China is emphasizing technical advance in building the economy from rural to urban applications and the emphasis will not be lessened. The rural applications I am reading about are especially exciting.
point -> anne... , September 21, 2019 at 07:36 AM
https://www.kcrw.com/culture/shows/scheer-intelligence/america-keeps-getting-china-all-wrong

Terrific discussion on how the West perceives China et al and vice versa. Much new to me.

anne -> point... , September 21, 2019 at 08:39 AM
I appreciate the interview, but Clayton Dube as director of the University of Southern California's U.S.-China Institute knows remarkably little about China or American relations with China. Possibly Dube is being especially cautious, but still:

"The air in Los Angeles," the academic explains by way of an example, "is influenced by the air coming out of northern China. But of course, that bad air in China is produced by factories often producing for the American market. And so we have not only outsourced production, we've outsourced pollution."

This is absurdly wrong. China has been working on cleaning the environment for years now and the effects as monitored have been dramatic.

point -> anne... , September 21, 2019 at 09:16 AM
The idea that China thinks of 1849 to 1949 as a colonial period that took them 100 years to get free from, for instance, immediately helps me understand some of where they are coming from.
anne -> point... , September 21, 2019 at 09:45 AM
The idea that China thinks of 1849 to 1949 as a colonial period that took them 100 years to get free from, for instance, immediately helps me understand some of where they are coming from.

[ Surely so, this very day is "International Day of Peace in Nanjing" in memory of the victims of the terrible Japanese occupation:

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-09/21/c_138410902.htm ]

anne -> point... , September 21, 2019 at 08:40 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/upshot/china-pollution-environment-longer-lives.html

March 12, 2018

Four Years After Declaring War on Pollution, China Is Winning
Research gives estimates on the longer lives that are now possible in the country.
By Michael Greenstone

On March 4, 2014, the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang, told almost 3,000 delegates at the National People's Congress and many more watching live on state television, "We will resolutely declare war against pollution as we declared war against poverty."

...

anne -> point... , September 21, 2019 at 08:46 AM
China, for instance, has over 420,000 electric busses. The United States has 300:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-15/in-shift-to-electric-bus-it-s-china-ahead-of-u-s-421-000-to-300

im1dc -> anne... , September 21, 2019 at 09:16 AM
China has had the benefit of skipping over other advanced nation's Legacy infrastructure.

Leapfrogging ahead in some areas of development is smart and saves money for China as well, but that doesn't make China superior to other advanced nations.

anne -> anne... , September 21, 2019 at 09:26 AM
China, for instance, has over 420,000 electric busses. The United States has 300:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-15/in-shift-to-electric-bus-it-s-china-ahead-of-u-s-421-000-to-300

May 15, 2019

The U.S. Has a Fleet of 300 Electric Buses. China Has 421,000
The rest of the world will struggle for years to match China's rapid embrace of electric transit.
By Brian Eckhouse - Bloomberg

anne -> anne... , September 21, 2019 at 09:27 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/business/chinese-train-national-security.html

September 14, 2019

Fearing 'Spy Trains,' Congress May Ban a Chinese Maker of Subway Cars
By Ana Swanson

CHICAGO -- America's next fight with China is unfolding at a glistening new factory in Chicago, which stands empty except for the shells of two subway cars and space for future business that is unlikely to come.

A Chinese state-owned company called CRRC Corporation, the world's largest train maker, completed the $100 million facility this year in the hopes of winning contracts to build subway cars and other passenger trains for American cities like Chicago and Washington.

But growing fears about China's economic ambitions and its potential to track and spy on Americans are about to quash those plans. Congress is soon expected to approve legislation that would effectively bar the company from competing for new contracts in the United States, citing national security and economic concerns. The White House has expressed its support for the effort....

anne -> anne... , September 21, 2019 at 09:38 AM
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-09-18/Chinese-make-300-mln-daily-trips-through-green-transport-K5xRBUQiZO/index.html

September 18, 2019

Chinese make 300 mln daily trips through green transport

[ China has 65% of the world total mileage of high-speed rail service, but what do the Chinese know about trains anyway? ]

anne -> point... , September 21, 2019 at 09:20 AM
Terrific discussion on how the West perceives China...

[ Actually a discussion that shows a remarkable misperception of China even by an American China academic-specialist. As such the discussion is important though discouraging. ]

[Sep 22, 2019] Trump May Get Much of the World's Manufacturing Out of China, but It Won't Be Coming Back to the US

Notable quotes:
"... I always thought globalization was about the opportunity for a handful of businesses and corporations to control major industries around the world. ..."
"... There is an anti-China hawks faction based in the Republican party that has made its present felt. People like Robert Lighthizer, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon. I have seen this sentiment spill over into Australian politics but they have not reached the stage where they are asking: "Are you now, or have you ever been, born Chinese?". ..."
"... We have also seen hawk factions against Russia, Iran and not long ago Venezuela. The ones for Russia and Iran have been long going but the ones against China and Venezuela were sudden and new. It may be that tomorrow that Trump will do the same against Cuba and threaten any country that does trade with them. Who knows what other country may fall within his sights? ..."
"... it seems business people in the government are being pushed aside by hawkish factions who do not care what effect it has on the economy or the country. Great! ..."
"... Those are the same "hawks" that are busy destroying the rest of America as well. ..."
"... As it is now, China literally has the US by the jewels, and if a serious conflict ever arose, could squeeze them hard. Just their dominance in manufacturing a large percentage of the pharmaceuticals consumed by US patients alone creates a serious vulnerability. ..."
"... Situating the manufacturing in countries that are part of the Chinese sphere of influence won't help much in a conflict. China would probably be able to sweep through much of Southeast Asia quickly or interdict shipments if there was war. ..."
"... the world wide presence/threat of the USA military and diplomatic corps allows globalization to be less risky for USA businesses, so, in effect, the patriotic "spreading of democracy" around the world via military actions is a factor in USA job loss. This is yet another cost of the bloated military to the general USA population. ..."
"... Trump, as usual, got his strings pulled by the Deep State when he went for actual implementation of a campaign promise. The DS doesn't care about working Americans, they are simply against China. ..."
"... as Julius Krein, editor of American Affairs, writes: "United States industry is losing ground to foreign competitors on price, quality and technology. In many areas, our manufacturing capacity cannot compete with what exists in Asia." ..."
"... Back in the early 80s I saw a massive warehouse full of machine tools, Bridgeport mills, and such lined up, it seemed forever, the guy there said they were going to China. I asked my Dad about it, and he told me we were selling them to the Chinese for the price of scrap. The whole thing is mindless and pathetic, but the really maddening thing is the slippery way our 'leaders' can keep dodging the blame by simply pointing a finger in whatever direction, and everybody's eyes move in unison. ..."
"... The argument/discussion is not about how and where to outsource our jobs, it's about how stupid it was to do it in the first place ..."
"... Also the Chinese internal market continues to attract MNC's and this attraction will continue to grow far into the future. China's middle class is already larger than the total population of the US and it continues to grow rapidly. While down presently the Chinese internal consumption continues to grow at an annual rate of some 8.5%. ..."
"... Trump's approach to trade is isolating the US, blocking its Co's from the Chinese market, and incentivizing the Chinese to offer better conditions to Co's of the rest of the world. How can that help the US ? ..."
"... The relentless neoliberal race to the bottom, outsourcing, and austerity that marked the death blow to American Labor is over. In that light it makes little difference whether our corporations pull out of China, go to Vietnam, or come home. The exploitation of the poorest is coming to an end. And none too soon. ..."
"... I hope some candidates discuss the imperative to have the US start making it's own medications again. ..."
"... I could not believe the government has allowed the entire supply chain of building blocks of ALL our antibiotics to be sourced almost solely from China. To me THAT'S the national security issue we need to deal with immediately. As well as other vital drugs.. ..."
"... Chinese manufacturers have the wealth and experience to teach production line workers and make things anywhere. Western companies manufacturing in China have belatedly looked for facilities in neighboring countries and found the Chinese are already there. ..."
"... Trump doesn't give a damn about getting manufacturing jobs back into the United States! (Or at least his advisors don't). ..."
"... Low housing costs, lead to lower wages so UK employers were able to compete in a free trade world. William White (BIS, OECD) talks about how economics really changed over one hundred years ago as classical economics was replaced by neoclassical economics. ..."
"... He thinks we have been on the wrong path for one hundred years. Free trade requires a low cost of living and what was known in the 19th century had disappeared by the 20th. The West's high cost of living means high wages and an inability to compete in a free trade world. ..."
Sep 21, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

By Marshall Auerback, a market analyst and commentator. Produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute

"Chimerica" is a term originally coined by the historian Niall Ferguson and economist Moritz Schularick to describe the growing economic relationship between the U.S. and China since the latter's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. In the words of Ferguson : "The Chinese did the saving, the Americans the spending. The Chinese did the exporting, the Americans the importing. The Chinese did the lending, the Americans the borrowing." Much of the pre-crisis boom in global trade was driven by this economic symbiosis, which is why successive American presidents tolerated this marriage of convenience despite the increasing costs to the U.S. economy . The net benefits calculation, however, began to change after 2008, and the conflict has intensified further after the 2016 presidential election result. Today, the cumulative stress of Donald Trump's escalating trade war is leading to if not an irreparable breach between the two countries, then certainly a significant fraying. The imminent resumption of trade talks notwithstanding, the rising cost of the tariffs is already inducing some U.S. manufacturers to exit China. But in most instances, they are not returning to home shores.

It may have taken Trump to point out the pitfalls of the Chimerica link, but coming up with a coherent strategy to replace it is clearly beyond the president's abilities. America is likely to remain a relative manufacturing wasteland, as barren as Trump's own ill-conceived ideas on trade. At the same time, it's not going to be an unmitigated victory for China either, as Beijing is increasingly suffering from a large confluence of internal and external pressures.

Chimerica helped to launch China as a global trade power. To the extent that this marriage helped the U.S. economy, it skewed toward the largely blue state coastal regions. Wall Street banks located on the East Coast happily collected lucrative commissions and investment banking fees, as China's export proceeds were recycled into U.S. treasuries, stocks, and high-end real estate while the capital markets boomed; on the West Coast, "new economy" companies thrived, their growth and profitability unhindered by the onslaught of Chinese manufactured exports. By contrast, facilitated by technological advances that permitted large-scale outsourcing by U.S. manufacturers, Chimerica laid waste to much of what was left of America's Rust Belt, and the politics of many of the displaced workers mutated to the extent that Donald Trump became an appealing alternative to the establishment in 2016.

The major legacy of Chimerica, then, is that too many American workers have been semi-permanently replaced by low-cost offshored labor. Prior to great advances in technology, along with globalization, displacement of the current labor force could only have occurred through immigration of workers into the country. Historically, displacement by immigrants generally began at the menial level of the labor force, and became more restrictive as when it became correlated with significant unemployment. Given the rise of globalization and the corresponding liberalization of immigration in the past few decades, however, policy no longer arrests the displacement of American workers. The policy backlash has consequently manifested itself more via trade protectionism. Trump has sought to consolidate his Rust Belt base of supporters by launching a trade war, especially versus Beijing, the ultimate effects of which he hoped would be to re-domicile supply chains that had earlier migrated to China.

Early on in his presidency, there was some hope that Trump's protectionism was at best a bluff or, at worst, an aberration, and that the return of a Democrat to the White House in 2020 would eventually reestablish the status quo ante. But the president still can't get a wall, and his protectionism has become more pronounced almost as if to compensate. The problem today is that even if Trump is voted out of office in 2020, corporate America is becoming less inclined to wait out the end of his presidency to return to the pre-Trump status quo of parking the bulk of their manufacturing in China. There is too much risk in putting all of one's eggs in the China basket, especially given growing national security concerns . Hence, U.S. companies are taking action. In spite of decades of investment in these China-domiciled supply chains, a number of American companies are pulling out: toy manufacturer Hasbro , Illinois-based phone accessories manufacturer Xentris Wireless, and lifestyle clothing company PacSun are a few of the operators who are exiting the country.

But they are not coming back to the U.S., relocating instead to places like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Mexico, the Philippines and Taiwan. The chief financial officer of Xentris, Ben Buttolph, says that the company will never return to China: "We are trying to have multiple locations certified for all of our products, so that if all of a sudden there's an issue with one of the locations, we just flip the switch." Likewise, the CEO of Hasbro, Brian Goldner, recently spoke of "great opportunities in Vietnam, India and other territories like Mexico."

All is not lost for the U.S., however, as Goldner did celebrate the success of Hasbro's facility in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, which has resumed production of Play-Doh in the U.S. for the first time since 2004 . It is doubtful, however, that this represents the recapturing of the high value-added supply chains that Trump envisaged when he first launched his trade assault on Beijing.

In general, as Julius Krein, editor of American Affairs , writes: "United States industry is losing ground to foreign competitors on price, quality and technology. In many areas, our manufacturing capacity cannot compete with what exists in Asia."

These are not isolated examples. Defense One also notes the following development:

It came without a breaking news alert or presidential tweet, but the technological competition with China entered a new phase last month. Several developments quietly heralded this shift: Cross-border investments between the United States and China plunged to their lowest levels since 2014, with the tech sector suffering the most precipitous drop. U.S. chip giants Intel and AMD abruptly ended or declined to extend important partnerships with Chinese entities. The Department of Commerce halved the number of licenses that let U.S. companies assign Chinese nationals to sensitive technology and engineering projects.

This development consequently makes it hard to proclaim Beijing a winner in this dispute either. The country still needs access to U.S. high tech. The government announced yet another fiscal stimulus to the economy earlier this month in response to a cluster of weakening economic data, much of which is related to the trade shock. It is also the case that China is being buffeted politically, both externally and internally: externally, in addition to the escalating trade war, China's own efforts to counter the effects of rising protectionism by creating a " reverse Marshall Plan " via the Belt and Road Initiative is floundering . China's "iron brother," Pakistan, is increasingly being victimized by India's aggressive Hindu-centric nationalism . It is hard to imagine the Modi government opportunistically taking the step of annexing Kashmir and undermining Pakistan, had it not sensed Beijing's increasing vulnerability.

Internally, Beijing is finding it increasingly challenging as it seeks to enforce its "One China" policy in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The withdrawal of the controversial extradition law that first precipitated widespread demonstrations in Hong Kong has not alleviated the political pressures in the territory, but simply allowed an even bigger protest culture to take root and strengthen an independent political mindset. Similarly, Taiwan has also openly supported the Hong Kong protesters, pledging help to those seeking asylum . Both regions now constitute both a huge humiliation and challenge to the primacy of China's ruling Communist Party. And now on top of that, foreign manufacturers are leaving the country, weakening a totally leveraged manufacturing complex.

The implications of this divorce go well beyond the U.S. and China. They constitute another step toward regionalization, another step away from a quaint ideological "post-history" construct that saw Washington, D.C., as the head office and the rest of the world as a bunch of branch plants for "America, Inc." It's hardly comforting to contemplate that the last time we reached this historic juncture was the early 1900s, when a similarly globalized economy broke down, followed by the Great War. As Niall Ferguson points out , "a high level of economic integration does not necessarily prevent the growth of strategic rivalry and, ultimately, conflict." There's no doubt that both Washington and Beijing will likely making soothing noises to the markets in order to create favorable conditions for the trade talks in October, but their actions suggest that they are both digging in for a longer struggle . Today's trade wars, therefore, are likely to morph into something more destructive, which is a lose-lose in an era where human advancement depends on greater integration between economic powers.

somecallmetim , September 21, 2019 at 2:43 am

So ultimately trade peace or symbiosis is chimerical?

John , September 21, 2019 at 4:09 am

I always thought globalization was about the opportunity for a handful of businesses and corporations to control major industries around the world.

Who knew that there were people in any country that benefit?

The first country that would address affordable housing, healthcare and education so that people don't need more jobs will win.

The Rev Kev , September 21, 2019 at 4:30 am

There may be another aspect to this development and that is of geopolitics. You can see that in Marshall's article when the CFO of Xentris said: "We are trying to have multiple locations certified for all of our products, so that if all of a sudden there's an issue with one of the locations, we just flip the switch." There is an anti-China hawks faction based in the Republican party that has made its present felt. People like Robert Lighthizer, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon. I have seen this sentiment spill over into Australian politics but they have not reached the stage where they are asking: "Are you now, or have you ever been, born Chinese?".

So we have seen a long string of sanctions and tariffs at play so that China will change its laws and institutions to suit American interests. Yeah, I can't see that happening anytime soon but hey, America First, Baby. We have also seen hawk factions against Russia, Iran and not long ago Venezuela. The ones for Russia and Iran have been long going but the ones against China and Venezuela were sudden and new. It may be that tomorrow that Trump will do the same against Cuba and threaten any country that does trade with them. Who knows what other country may fall within his sights?

That being the case if you were running an international country, you can no longer just have your manufacturing base or service operations just in one country. If Xentris is an example, US companies may have to split manufacturing into several countries in case one fine day that Trump will sanction yet another country that your company depends on.

I would imagine that it would not be so efficient but it seems business people in the government are being pushed aside by hawkish factions who do not care what effect it has on the economy or the country. Great!

Leroy , September 21, 2019 at 11:51 am

Those are the same "hawks" that are busy destroying the rest of America as well. Another four years of this will, effectively, dismantle what democracy is left. The world trade won't be the big issue. The departure of millions of Americans will.

drumlin woodchuckles , September 22, 2019 at 4:42 pm

If that happens, be sure to thank the Catfood Democrats for it. Because they are the people who will do their very best and hardest to throw the next election to Trump, one way or another.

jeremyharrison , September 21, 2019 at 5:23 am

It seems like diversification of supply chains can only be a good thing. As it is now, China literally has the US by the jewels, and if a serious conflict ever arose, could squeeze them hard. Just their dominance in manufacturing a large percentage of the pharmaceuticals consumed by US patients alone creates a serious vulnerability.

I really don't think it matters if manufacturing jobs are repatriated to the US, or just set up and spread around elsewhere for now – since they'll be obsolete jobs in the near future anyway, as robotics and AI get increasingly efficient at doing the work that human workers currently do.

rd , September 21, 2019 at 5:25 pm

Situating the manufacturing in countries that are part of the Chinese sphere of influence won't help much in a conflict. China would probably be able to sweep through much of Southeast Asia quickly or interdict shipments if there was war.

Dan , September 21, 2019 at 6:28 am

So the status quo was preferable? The tone of the article seems to suggest that America should accept it place as a third-world manufacturer, as if these Asian nations have some magical sauce that can't be replicated. Gawd.

The US does have a lot of magic. Like one third of FDI related to tax evasion. Pulling Mac Book manufacturing out of Austin for the lack of one 'screw', etc. So is the premise of going after China on trade and IP policies good. I would agree. Maybe not in strategy, but at least someone has opened the box.

John Wright , September 21, 2019 at 3:26 pm

I agree with your comment, the article suggests the status quo was preferable. Of note, Trump has shown his supporters that something CAN be done other than follow the "resistance is futile" path of the Bill Clinton/Bush Jr./Obama administrations.

I also suggest that the world wide presence/threat of the USA military and diplomatic corps allows globalization to be less risky for USA businesses, so, in effect, the patriotic "spreading of democracy" around the world via military actions is a factor in USA job loss. This is yet another cost of the bloated military to the general USA population.

I worked in the electronics industry for 30+ years and watched high margin manufacturing move to Asia. Now the lower level component manufacturers (PCBs, passives) are firmly established in Asia as the USA companies have helped train worthy competitors overseas. It took 25+ years to move much of USA manufacturing overseas, indicating to me that it will take a long time to bring it back significantly, well outside the Trump time frame.

But I suspect Trump voters will appreciate Trump's headline efforts. If the Democrats push for more Free Trade as good for the USA, it will hurt them at the ballot box.

GramSci , September 21, 2019 at 6:51 am

The second time as farce. How tragicomic that Trump has succeeded in little more than repatriating the manufacture of Play-Doh. On the other hand, the shipping cost of unbaked brick seems a rational factor in Hasbro's decision. A GND that shortens supply lines would be more effective in repatriating heavy industry, but then printed circuit boards aren't all that heavy .

a different chris , September 21, 2019 at 8:42 am

The thing is Trump, as usual, got his strings pulled by the Deep State when he went for actual implementation of a campaign promise. The DS doesn't care about working Americans, they are simply against China.

So he goes and puts tariffs on a country, not a product. And surprise, said product doesn't come back on-shore. Comical (and yeah, cosmically a bit just) that Vietnam is getting so much of that manufacturing. Wasn't what he was elected for.

Glen , September 21, 2019 at 9:44 am

In general, as Julius Krein, editor of American Affairs, writes: "United States industry is losing ground to foreign competitors on price, quality and technology. In many areas, our manufacturing capacity cannot compete with what exists in Asia."

As a engineer up to my elbows in manufacturing for forty years, this was awfully easy to predict way back then (I gave up complaining about it about 2000), and then watch happen – real time. And to once again state the obvious, China did not TAKE American jobs, American CEOs GAVE them our jobs. We will not fix this problem until we identify and fix the root cause.

Now the only way to fix it is (once again obviously) massive government investment such as mandated by the GND. We need the GND, it is not only required to save the world, it will save our country.

Leroy , September 21, 2019 at 11:57 am

Fully agree Glen. How can we say China stole our "technology" when we placed it on their doorstep and asked them to make some of these for us please ?

Watt4Bob , September 21, 2019 at 3:19 pm

Agree, it was predictable, and it was predicted. What we've been talking about is the "Giant sucking sound" Ross Perot foretold would happen prior to the passing of NAFTA. It wasn't hard back then to see that he was right, but it took a few decades for the public to feel the impact, boiling frogs and all that.

Back in the early 80s I saw a massive warehouse full of machine tools, Bridgeport mills, and such lined up, it seemed forever, the guy there said they were going to China. I asked my Dad about it, and he told me we were selling them to the Chinese for the price of scrap. The whole thing is mindless and pathetic, but the really maddening thing is the slippery way our 'leaders' can keep dodging the blame by simply pointing a finger in whatever direction, and everybody's eyes move in unison.

rd , September 21, 2019 at 5:39 pm

NAFTA and China are two completely separate things. I have actually supported NAFTA in principle because we should encourage trade to be focused on our immediate neighbors. A wealthier and safer Mexico and Central America would create markets for us and virtually eliminate illegal immigrants as the southern border.

China is on the other side of the world and is not part of NAFTA. While we should have cordial relations with it, if we are looking for inexpensive labor, south of the border is the better place to focus on that. So Trump's tariffs on China are not the wrong thing to do per se. The problem is that they are being done in a vacuum of general trade policy where he is looking at everything as transaction bilateral relations with every country on the planet, which requires an immense amount of detailed thought and negotiation, neither of which appear to be a focus of this administration.

The countries that the companies are talking about moving their operations to are generally part of the new TPP which the US is not part of. So, we have removed ourselves from having trade relations with countries US CEOs are setting up operations in, but those countries are now starting to work together to counter both China (original TPP purpose) and the US (now that the US has bailed on it). Sounds like a recipe for a replay of China's giant sucking sound.

Watt4Bob , September 21, 2019 at 6:48 pm

The argument/discussion is not about how and where to outsource our jobs, it's about how stupid it was to do it in the first place. Anyone smart enough to breath knows that Mexico is next door, and China is on the other side of the world, but they are both part of the same giant sucking sound. The fact that you support both NAFTA ,think it was unwise to back out of the TPP, and think the issue is the present administration's lack of " detailed thought and negotiation " indicate a truly unbelievable level of denial.

drumlin woodchuckles , September 22, 2019 at 4:47 pm

NAFTA and MFN for China were two different actions towards the same goal . . . the use of Free Trade to dismantle thingmaking in America and re-mantle thingmaking in foreign export-aggression platforms to use against America.

Free Trade is the new Slavery. Militant Belligerent Protectionism is the new Abolition.

John Wright , September 21, 2019 at 5:41 pm

I remember when a Midwest Democrat (Stabenow?) tried to get a law passed that would prohibit a US corporation from deducting, from their federal taxes, the cost of moving factories overseas. A very minor disincentive, but a disincentive nonetheless. The Repubs beat it down as "anti-business". Concern about American workers is something to express in political speeches around election time but not in legislation.

eg , September 21, 2019 at 7:31 pm

This. As so ably described in Judith Stein's "Pivotal Decade" https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300171501/pivotal-decade

And the consequences of which forewarned in James Goldsmith's "The Trap" https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2091182.The_Trap

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s

Ignacio , September 21, 2019 at 10:41 am

Hidden within this narrative is the fact that some countries, and not only China, have for long been playing beggar-thy-neighbor policies by restraining internal consumption and redirecting savings to the rest of the world that in turn finance their exporting machines. IMO, the biggest mistake made by China has been not to force fast enough a transition from a saving economy to a consumer economy with more balanced external relationships.

These kind of policies are confrontational. As confrontational as tariffs or even as economic sanctions in my view. Yet, the prevailing economic narrative is that saving and exporting is the right economic thing to do. In this sense I think it matters a lot to which countries are being re directed investments of american companies leaving China. My intuition is that, for instance, Vietnam migth be willing to play this game while Mexico not. Investing in countries that save too much migth be counterproductive.

I very much regret this aggressive narrative that has become common place in which countries are identified simply as competitors, if not enemies, in a global chess game. Political moves are confrontational and or humiliating. These Game of Thrones dynamics are played precisely when some international consensus in more important things like figthing climate change would be more than desirable. We are headed to truly bad times.

laodan , September 21, 2019 at 11:33 am

Here is an article by Steve Dickinson from the layers office Harris Bricken McVay Sliwoski that is based on his Co's China practice. Steve's conclusion goes as follows:

The Chinese system put in place from 1992 to 2005 was a unique system and not likely to be replaced in S.E./South Asia or in any other region of the world. So for manufacturers, moving to a new region means doing the analysis from the ground up. Simply taking what they do in China and moving it to a new location is not likely to be a workable solution.

Also the Chinese internal market continues to attract MNC's and this attraction will continue to grow far into the future. China's middle class is already larger than the total population of the US and it continues to grow rapidly. While down presently the Chinese internal consumption continues to grow at an annual rate of some 8.5%.

Personal savings deposited in bank accounts reach the equivalent of some $US 30 Trillion ! Compare that to consumer debt at some $US 6.5 Trillion. In other words China is growing into the largest consumer market on earth and the biggest advantage that its internal market procures is its 'economies of scale' that make Chinese productions hyper-competitive. In other words China is gaining the kind of advantage that the US had along the 20th century. The advantage of a super large market size that dwarfs other national markets.

Trump's approach to trade is isolating the US, blocking its Co's from the Chinese market, and incentivizing the Chinese to offer better conditions to Co's of the rest of the world. How can that help the US ?

The biggest problem of the West and particularly the US is its ideological approach to economics. The Chinese adopted a pragmatic approach and it has served them well. Time to relearn the meaning of political economics (économie politique).

JTMcPhee , September 21, 2019 at 3:42 pm

I read Dickinson's PR piece linked by laodan. I used to work for a big law firm that had an international practice group focusing on moving US businesses to China ( I was not involved in that practice area, did environmental law and litigation.) The firm's PR department tasked lawyers with certain expertise to generate these kinds of come-ons as part of the compensation weighting scheme -- publish, and bring in business, or lose out in the annual "whining for dollars" partnership division of spoils. Eat what you kill.

Dickinson is talking his book, of course. I have no idea if his read of the history and the current state of affairs in China and the "Asian Tigers" (does anyone use that term any more?) is accurate and complete, but what he describes is his firm's readiness to help supranational (emphasize SUPRAnational) and post-national corporate entities get a leg up in the race to the bottom. He'll help you find the places where the ruling class will give away the biggest share of the "national birthright" so the corporate entity can maximize profit by streamlining production and consumption, and of course growth. All the stuff that is killing the planet. But his time frame, his personal time frame, presumably, as well as the framing of the corporate shark entities which he is a remora to, cares nothing for the bigger economic and ecological effects of more stuff, more shipping, more energy use, and of course more combustion and consumption.

And I'd note that he carefully omits all the baksheesh and greasing of palms that i read is such an important part of "doing business" at any kind of scale, to varying degrees everywhere in the world. I wonder if his custom analyses of the relative merits of, say, Vietnam vs. China vs. Cambodia vs. Taiwan includes sketching out the bribes that have to be paid to close on the sale of national birthrights on the way to the bottom that the globalist business model drives everything toward?

I'm sure he would be happy to have the ear and hourly billings of all the great decision makers of all the various kinds of businesses, high to low tech, wanting to take full advantage of the "opportunities" that may be on offer, on how to ride the asymptotically downward curve of the race to the bottom, for fun and profit

Looks like China has had a pretty effective industrial policy, unlike the US where corporate vampire capital dominion and corruption have bled the mopery white (not a racial reference, of course ) Do economists and policy wonks in the US even dare to use the phrase "industrial policy" any more? Or is it just presumed that "shareholder value" trumps all else? Especially as the author puts it, again quoting Ferguson, where we are "in an era where human advancement depends on greater integration between economic powers."

Right.

Susan the other` , September 21, 2019 at 3:06 pm

The relentless neoliberal race to the bottom, outsourcing, and austerity that marked the death blow to American Labor is over. In that light it makes little difference whether our corporations pull out of China, go to Vietnam, or come home. The exploitation of the poorest is coming to an end. And none too soon.

mtnwoman , September 21, 2019 at 7:22 pm

For national security reasons at minimum, I hope some candidates discuss the imperative to have the US start making it's own medications again. Makes more sense to subsidize our production of medication than to give billions in subsidies to very profitable oil companies.

https://www.tribdem.com/news/editorials/rosemary-gibson-u-s-dependence-on-china-for-medicine-a/article_db7c66e6-a407-11e9-a63e-5b2bf9c80820.html

Merf56 , September 22, 2019 at 9:04 am

I agree. I could not believe the government has allowed the entire supply chain of building blocks of ALL our antibiotics to be sourced almost solely from China. To me THAT'S the national security issue we need to deal with immediately. As well as other vital drugs..

Anecdotally, I have started making this my number one political conversation issue – replete with references ( because of course not a soul believes it at first).. I have yet to find a single person Repub or Demo who isn't horrified and against it . Any nation with this much power over our drug supply they could kill millions of us in short order

RBHoughton , September 21, 2019 at 10:06 pm

Even getting manufacturing out of China will not bankrupt that country as intended. If USA is intent on pursuing a nationalistic basis to sanctions, I think its bound to fail. Trade always finds a way as we can well remember from our own commercial / industrial development.

Chinese manufacturers have the wealth and experience to teach production line workers and make things anywhere. Western companies manufacturing in China have belatedly looked for facilities in neighboring countries and found the Chinese are already there. What's still available is land far from roads and rivers with little power supply.

Another thing is preserving wealth. US Industrialists will keep their money offshore and remit only as much as they need in the homeland. A major problem imo is a mental restraint in USA thinking. Life is all about competition and winning. The actual activity, whatever it is, provides no joy unless you win. That fearful tag "No-one remembers who came second" is banded about. Thats not a philosophy for happiness. It forces the population into displacement activities few of which are wholesome. Here endeth the lesson.

TG , September 21, 2019 at 10:48 pm

It's not a bug, it's a feature! Trump doesn't give a damn about getting manufacturing jobs back into the United States! (Or at least his advisors don't).

The trick is to move them out of nationalistic China, which is setting itself up as a competitor for power, and move the jobs into nice docile low-wage colonies, like Mexico and Indonesia and Bangladesh.

The only catch: China has all the integrated supply lines and is stable. Moving your manufacturing into a dozen different uncoordinated unstable third-world banana republics has its own down side.

Sound of the Suburbs , September 22, 2019 at 3:10 am

The UK repealed the Corn Laws to embark on free trade. This reduced the price of bread, and lowered the cost of living, so UK employers could pay internationally competitive wages. Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)

Employees get their money from wages and the employer pays through wages, so the employer is paying for that bread through wages. Expensive bread leads to higher wages making UK employers unable to compete in a free trade world. "The interest of the landlords is always opposed to the interest of every other class in the community" Ricardo 1815 / Classical Economist

Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living) Employees get their money from wages and the employer pays via wages. Employees get less disposable income after the landlords rent has gone. Employers have to cover the landlord's rents in wages reducing profit. Ricardo is just talking about housing costs, employees all rented in those days. The appalling conditions UK workers lived in during the 19th century were well documented.

Low housing costs, lead to lower wages so UK employers were able to compete in a free trade world. William White (BIS, OECD) talks about how economics really changed over one hundred years ago as classical economics was replaced by neoclassical economics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6iXBQ33pBo&t=2485s

He thinks we have been on the wrong path for one hundred years. Free trade requires a low cost of living and what was known in the 19th century had disappeared by the 20th. The West's high cost of living means high wages and an inability to compete in a free trade world.

Never mind our companies can off-shore to where employers can pay lower wages for higher profits. Look at the US cost of living Donald; this is why those jobs ain't coming back. It's hard to make a good profit in the US, when employers have to cover the US cost of living in wages, reducing profit. The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs + other debt repayments + food + other costs of living

Sound of the Suburbs , September 22, 2019 at 3:15 am

A multi-polar world became a uni-polar world with the fall of the Berlin Wall and Francis Fukuyama said it was the end of history.
It was all going so well, until the neoliberals got to work.

The US created an open, globalised world with the Washington Consensus.

China went from almost nothing to become a global super power.
That wasn't supposed to happen, let's get the rocket scientists onto it.

Maximising profit is all about reducing costs.
China had coal fired power stations to provide cheap energy.
China had lax regulations reducing environmental and health and safety costs.
China had a low cost of living so employers could pay low wages.
China had low taxes and a minimal welfare state.
China had all the advantages in an open globalised world.

It did have, but now China has become too expensive and developed Eastern economies are off-shoring to places like Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Philippines.

An open, globalised world is a race to the bottom on costs.

"The Washington Consensus was always going to work better for China than the US" the rocket scientists.

The West never really stood a chance.

drumlin woodchuckles , September 22, 2019 at 5:00 pm

Several years ago Naked Capitalism ran an article about how a young George Ball was one of the New Immoralists for International Corporate Globalonial Plantationism. And that was before neoliberalism.

Phillip Allen , September 22, 2019 at 8:06 am

"[A]n era where human advancement depends on greater integration between economic powers."

Oh, by all the gods, no. And what, pray, defines 'human advancement'? What the hell is Mr Auerback talking about?

Further integration only propels the speed at which resources are extracted and the planet dies incrementally more. The future will not be one fully integrated planet guided by whatever-the-hell oligarchs and their 'meritocratic' servitors deign the best options. The future will of necessity be vastly more local, vastly more hand-made, vastly less energy- and resource-intensive, and there will be vastly less intercontinental and intra-continental trade. World-spanning – even continent-spanning political-economic arrangements have no long term viability whatsoever. Trying to maintain such is a foolish waste of effort and resources that could be more usefully be directed at de-growth and de-industrialization.

And with that, The Lord Curmudgeon shook his cane one last time at the kids on his lawn and returned to the troll's cave from which he came.

Merf56 , September 22, 2019 at 9:11 am

I hope you have read James Howard Kunstler's World Made By Hand novelettes. They outline such a future. Interesting and quick reads if you haven't

Sound of the Suburbs , September 22, 2019 at 5:02 pm

The last engine of global growth, China, has now reached the end of the line as they have seen their Minsky Moment coming. China was the latest victim of neoclassical economics. The biggest danger to capitalism is neoclassical economics; it brought capitalism to its knees in the 1930s and is having another go now.

https://cdn.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/04/Screen-Shot-2017-04-21-at-13.52.41.png

1929 and 2008 look so similar because they are; it's the same economics and thinking. Richard Vague has analysed the data for 1929 and 2008 and they were even more similar than they initially appear. Real estate lending was actually the biggest problem in 1929. Margin lending was another factor in 2008.

This has happened globally. At 25.30 mins you can see the super imposed private debt-to-GDP ratios.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAStZJCKmbU&list=PLmtuEaMvhDZZQLxg24CAiFgZYldtoCR-R&index=6

The 1920s US mistake is now global. Japan, the UK, the US, Euro-zone and now China. The last engine of global growth, China, has now reached the end of the line as they have seen their Minsky Moment coming. The debt fuelled growth model not only runs out of steam, all the debt in the economy then acts like a drag anchor holding the economy back. Japan has been like this for thirty years.

Richard Koo explains the processes at work in the Japanese economy since the 1990s, which are at now at work throughout the global economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk

The repayment of debt to banks destroys money and this is the problem.

[Sep 22, 2019] The complete and total incompetence of the Tories

It is unclear why he calls this "incompetence". Tories clearly want to sabotage the deal and at the same time save face. That's a very tricky task and mistakes were made.
Notable quotes:
"... Politically the Tories have no plan at all, and when the clock stops on Brexit they will completely implode. The Tories are so deadlocked on Brexit that they can't even talk to themselves. ..."
"... You know the conservative party is full of incompetent wankers when the business community prefers a radical socialist over them. ..."
"... Christian Schulz at Citi says "perhaps" Corbyn is no longer as bad an option as no deal, while Deutsche's Oliver Harvey says fears about the Labour leader "may be overstated". ..."
"... "It is not that the financiers favour the opposition leader's plans for 'higher taxes, tighter labour laws, spending increases and the nationalisation of network industries', but that this may cause less harm than leaving the EU without a deal" says the Telegraph. ..."
Sep 07, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

gjohnsit on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 12:07pm A little over a year ago I wrote this .

Politically the Tories have no plan at all, and when the clock stops on Brexit they will completely implode. The Tories are so deadlocked on Brexit that they can't even talk to themselves.

...This is a political and economic disaster, not just waiting to happen, but firmly scheduled...unless Labour's neoliberal Blairites save them, the Tory government is headed for an epic collapse.

It's rare that my predictions are 100% accurate, but this time I totally nailed it. To give you an idea of how badly the Tories have bungled things, look at these two headlines.

You know the conservative party is full of incompetent wankers when the business community prefers a radical socialist over them.

But while Corbyn may be less popular than no deal among the public, The Daily Telegraph says "the scourge of bankers and avowed opponent of capitalism, is winning support from unexpected new quarters" with two of the biggest global banks operating in the City of London "warming to the Labour leader".

According to the paper, he is now seen as the lesser of two evils by analysts at Citibank and Deutsche Bank, two titans of the financial system.

Christian Schulz at Citi says "perhaps" Corbyn is no longer as bad an option as no deal, while Deutsche's Oliver Harvey says fears about the Labour leader "may be overstated".

"It is not that the financiers favour the opposition leader's plans for 'higher taxes, tighter labour laws, spending increases and the nationalisation of network industries', but that this may cause less harm than leaving the EU without a deal" says the Telegraph.

To put this sentiment in hard numbers , a coalition led by his party would spur the pound more than 5%.

As for those overstated fears about the Labour leader, that's because of a highly coordinated three year smear campaign by the very same business community.

Just a few days ago the headline was: U.K.'s Super-Rich Prepare to Flee From Corbyn Rule, Not Brexit Now they want Corbyn to save them. Without the business community undermining him at every turn, Corbyn has easily managed to hold the opposition together. At the same time Corbyn has outmaneuvered the Tories and left them helpless.

Then, his efforts to secure a snap general election -- with the goal of replacing the sacked lawmakers with a new slate of candidates more aligned with his hard-Brexit views -- were scuppered when opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn refused to play along.

Now, he is effectively trapped in Downing Street, with Corbyn holding the keys. The government plans to propose new elections again on Monday, but the opposition leader says his party will only support the move when its efforts to prevent a no-deal Brexit are locked down.

"Certainly his biggest tactical mistake so far was not to realize that it was Corbyn, as leader of the opposition, who effectively had veto power over when a general election could be held," said Professor Tony Travers, director of the Institute of Public Affairs at the London School of Economics.

This allows time for Corbyn to appear like a professional leader, so that when he finally allows a general election the memory of his steady hand will be fresh in the public's mind.

thanatokephaloides on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 6:20pm

catch-a-Tory

Like all other Tories worldwide, Boris "Tiny" Johnson is a charlatan. Hopefully, the British People will wake up and end their decades-long nightmare by placing him [Corbyn] in power.

As we need to do, ourselves.

edit: Added Corbyn's name to clarify that last sentence. And we, too, need to remove all Tories from power.

edg on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 3:58pm
Enemies

The value of an idea is often assessible by the number and strength of the enemies arrayed against it. Since so many entrenched interests and Powers-That-Be and elitists/globalists are against Brexit, I'm beginning to think that deal or no deal, Brexit must in the best interests of the 99%. Otherwise, the 1% wouldn't fight against it so hard.

gjohnsit on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 4:19pm
I think you are partly correct

@edg
I think Brexit is like tariffs. Tariffs are a good idea for the working class because it puts a cost on off-shoring jobs. BUT the way Trump is doing it is stupid and doesn't help anyone. Same thing with Brexit. It probably helps the 99%, but not the way the Tories are going about it.

The value of an idea is often assessible by the number and strength of the enemies arrayed against it. Since so many entrenched interests and Powers-That-Be and elitists/globalists are against Brexit, I'm beginning to think that deal or no deal, Brexit must in the best interests of the 99%. Otherwise, the 1% wouldn't fight against it so hard.

ludwig ii on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 4:06pm
What's the problem with no-deal?

The fact that Blair, the City of London, and neoliberals the world over hate Brexit and especially no-deal Brexit makes me think it's probably a good thing. Anything that chips away at the hegemony of global finance seems positive.

UntimelyRippd on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 8:41pm
for starters, it really screws up the Irish situation.

@ludwig ii

The fact that Blair, the City of London, and neoliberals the world over hate Brexit and especially no-deal Brexit makes me think it's probably a good thing. Anything that chips away at the hegemony of global finance seems positive.

[Sep 22, 2019] Britain's Grooming Gangs: Part 3 by Denis MacEoin

Notable quotes:
"... Not all mosques agreed to read Karmani's sermon, and some claimed -- quite incorrectly, as it happened -- that the grooming issue was a thing of the past. ..."
"... Many of those deeper aspects are directly related to the persistence of religious fundamentalism and a wide refusal among many to integrate within British society. Despite the efforts of moderate Muslims, mosques and institutions to stop young men and women travelling abroad to take part in jihad or bring back wives from abroad, many have done so. Sermonizing, even with good intentions, may not address the underlying reasons for seemingly anti-social behaviour. ..."
"... Also in 2013, Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, and a controversial reformist, spoke out following the trial and conviction of six members of a child sex ring from Oxford. He contended that some imams were indirectly inspiring the grooming gangs through their contempt for non-Muslim women ..."
"... True Islam preaches respect for women but in mosques across the country a different doctrine is preached - "one that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt" ..."
"... Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded. ..."
"... Hargey's link between the grooming gangs and hard-line religious leaders is borne out by an article published in 2018 by the serious liberal newspaper, The Independent . The author is Ella Hill, one of the girls abused in Rotherham and now part of the largest child sexual abuse investigation. ..."
"... Sexual and gender-based violence is used as a tactic of terrorism by a range of today's violent extremist groups. This makes it essential to address violence against women and girls as an integrated part in countering and preventing violent extremism. ..."
Oct 26, 2018 | www.gatestoneinstitute.org
Authored by Denis MacEoin via The Gatestone Institute,

Read Part 1 here...

Read Part 2 here...

Not all Muslims remained silent about the grooming gang problem. We have already seen how the new Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, a Muslim of Pakistani origin, took rapid action to open an enquiry into the crimes. A number of Muslim organizations and individuals have spoken out against the gangs, and condemned them for bringing their faith into disrepute. The integrative Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), for one, has spoken out strongly about grooming culture.

In May 2013, Julie Siddiqi, chief executive of the ISB, coordinated a Muslim-led coalition to campaign against offenders, known as The Community Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation, which, in turn, was launched in Bradford with the backing of the Bradford Council of Mosques. The following month, a Muslim group called Together Against Grooming (TAG) declared that a Friday prayer sermon ( khutba ) would be read out in around 500 mosques across the country to draw attention to the grooming issue.

The sermon was written by Alyas Karmani , an imam who has a background in psychology and serves at several mosques around Bradford. Karmani specializes in sexual counselling from a non-fundamentalist perspective and has worked on a PhD entitled, "The Crises of Masculinity and Urban Male Violence". His detailed understanding of the grooming gangs and their various motivations are perhaps the most sophisticated yet advanced by a Muslim expert and should be taken into account by any present or future investigation.

Some other Muslim organizations such as the progressive Islamic Society of Britain have sent out sermons on the same issue. There can be no question that there is an important and growing range of Muslim reaction to the shame brought on the communities by the grooming gangs and the reluctance in many places even to talk about sexual matters. This reformist activity in the migrant community needs to be encouraged and backed by government resources.

There are, however, other, sometimes deeper aspects to the problem that still remain to be explored. Not all mosques agreed to read Karmani's sermon, and some claimed -- quite incorrectly, as it happened -- that the grooming issue was a thing of the past.

Many of those deeper aspects are directly related to the persistence of religious fundamentalism and a wide refusal among many to integrate within British society. Despite the efforts of moderate Muslims, mosques and institutions to stop young men and women travelling abroad to take part in jihad or bring back wives from abroad, many have done so. Sermonizing, even with good intentions, may not address the underlying reasons for seemingly anti-social behaviour.

Also in 2013, Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, and a controversial reformist, spoke out following the trial and conviction of six members of a child sex ring from Oxford. He contended that some imams were indirectly inspiring the grooming gangs through their contempt for non-Muslim women:

On one level, most imams in the UK are simply using their puritanical sermons to promote the wearing of the hijab and even the burka among their female adherents. But the dire result can be the brutish misogyny we see in the Oxford sex ring.

He wrote at length about the ways in which fundamentalist attitudes influenced some men:

True Islam preaches respect for women but in mosques across the country a different doctrine is preached - "one that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt"....

The men are taught that women are "second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority"...

The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy -- sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs [sic for kuffar , pl. of kafir ] or non-believers.

Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.

The largest and most influential of all UK mosques are those of the Deobandis, a highly conservative majority denomination in Pakistani Islam that also dominates the seminaries within the UK and in which future imams are trained.

According to the author and Investigations editor at BBCNewsnight, Innes Bowen:

What most Deobandi scholars have in common is a conservative interpretation of Islamic law: television and music for the purposes of entertainment, for example, are frowned upon if not banned; attitudes towards women are deeply conservative, with, for example, some scholars advising Muslim women that their religion does not permit them to travel any distance unless accompanied by a close male relative. That this description of such an austere brand of Islam sounds similar to that propagated by the Taliban in Afghanistan should not be surprising – the Taliban movement grew out of the Deobandi madrasas of Pakistan.

Many Deobandi and other fundamentalist preachers and online fatwa sites promulgate the doctrine of al-Wala' wa'l-Bara' , which may be roughly translated as "loyalty [to Islam] and avoidance [of unbelievers]". This belief reinforces the need to stay away from, and even to have enmity towards, the inferior non-Muslim world. It is not far-fetched to see how, through this doctrine, a sense of total difference from, and contempt for, non-Muslims in general -- and non-Muslim girls and women in particular -- may have given many of the grooming gangs a debased level of justification, even self-righteousness in the members of the grooming gangs.

Hargey's link between the grooming gangs and hard-line religious leaders is borne out by an article published in 2018 by the serious liberal newspaper, The Independent . The author is Ella Hill, one of the girls abused in Rotherham and now part of the largest child sexual abuse investigation. She begins:

As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a "white slag" and "white c***" as they beat me.

They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn't dress "modestly", that they believed I deserved to be "punished". They said I had to "obey" or be beaten.

Later, she refers to a Swedish government meeting in 2017, when it was stated that:

Sexual and gender-based violence is used as a tactic of terrorism by a range of today's violent extremist groups. This makes it essential to address violence against women and girls as an integrated part in countering and preventing violent extremism.

She then argues that:

Religious indoctrination is a big part of the process of getting young men involved in grooming gang crime. Religious ideas about purity, virginity, modesty and obedience are taken to the extreme until horrific abuse becomes the norm. It was taught to me as a concept of "othering".

"Muslim girls are good and pure because they dress modestly, covering down to their ankles and wrists, and covering their crotch area. They stay virgins until marriage. They are our girls."

[Author's note: Italicized in the original, but should probably have been in quotation marks. The passage is evidently meant to be words spoken by gang members who used her.]

She also emphasizes this religious background to her treatment, stating that "My main perpetrator quoted scriptures from the Quran to me as he beat me." Nevertheless, she goes on to say that "Most grooming gang survivors I know absolutely condemn anti-Islamic hate, and we're uncomfortable with English Defence League protests. We certainly don't want random attacks on 'all Muslims'. You can't cure harm with more harm."

The connection between fundamentalist religiosity, terrorism and gender crime is not as fanciful as it might have seemed at first. There are decent Muslims everywhere who work hard to counter all the anti-social and criminal activities in which so many of their co-religionists engage and the theological positions through which they try to justify what they do. But terrorist attacks, anti-Semitic hate speech, and sexual harassment of young white women are real crimes committed by a different kind of Muslim and must be addressed as such.

In a report published on December 12, 2017, the important Muslim counter-extremism think tank, the Quilliam Foundation, addressed at length the problem of the grooming gangs. Written by Quilliam's CEO, Haras Rafiq with media strategist and researcher Muna Adil, the report , "Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation: Dissecting Grooming Gangs", consists of a comprehensive data analysis of grooming gang cases identified in the UK since 2005. Ten case studies from 2010-2017 are also analysed in depth to help determine any similarities and identify any patterns that exist across the cases.

At the root of the problem seems to lie the fact that many Muslim men have failed to integrate into British society. According to Muna Adil :

There are elements from within the British Pakistani community that still subscribe to outdated and sexist views of women embedded within their jaded interpretations of Islam. These backward views are passed down from generation to generation until the lines between faith and culture dissolve, making it increasingly difficult to criticise one without being seen as a critic of the other.

Quilliam's findings echo a number of earlier reviews and surveys of the British Muslim community as a whole. In her 2016 government-commissioned review into integration and opportunity in isolated and deprived communities, Dame Louise Casey found evidence that the hardest group to integrate was the Muslim community. In her Executive Summary , she notes (paragraph 30) that:

People of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnicity tend to live in more residentially segregated communities than other ethnic minority groups. South Asian communities (people of Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi ethnicity) live in higher concentrations at ward level than any other ethnic minority group. These concentrations at ward level are growing in many areas.

She adds that that, "Compared to other minority faith groups, Muslims tend to live in higher residential concentrations at ward level". She continues:

[Paragraph] 32. The school age population is even more segregated when compared to residential patterns of living. A Demos study found that, in 2013, more than 50% of ethnic minority students were in schools where ethnic minorities were the majority, and that school segregation was highest among students from Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic backgrounds relative to other ethnic groups.

Again:

[Paragraph] 44. Polling in 2015 also showed that more than 55% of the general public agreed that there was a fundamental clash between Islam and the values of British society, while 46% of British Muslims felt that being a Muslim in Britain was difficult due to prejudice against Islam. We found a growing sense of grievance among sections of the Muslim population, and a stronger sense of identification with the plight of the 'Ummah', or global Muslim community.

She also highlights problems with the national language:

[Paragraph] 52. English language is a common denominator and a strong enabler of integration. But Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups have the lowest levels of English language proficiency of any Black or Minority Ethnic group and women in those communities are twice as likely as men to have poor English.

Finally, we should note her statement on gender equality, which is clearly linked to the Muslim communities:

[Paragraph] 57. ... in many areas of Britain the drive towards equality and opportunity across gender might never have taken place. Women in some communities are facing a double onslaught of gender inequality, combined with religious, cultural and social barriers preventing them from accessing even their basic rights as British residents. And violence against women remains all too prevalent in domestic abuse but also in other criminal practices such as female genital mutilation, forced marriage and so-called "honour" based crime.

Casey was not the first to draw attention to most of these issues. In 2007, the British think tank Policy Exchange, published a detailed report titled "Living apart together: British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism", written by three young Asian researchers. Their most striking finding, drawn from a survey, was that the youngest generation (16-24 year olds) were more radical in their beliefs than their grandparents (55+ year olds). Thus, 37% of the youngest would prefer to live under shari'a law than British law, compared to only 17% of their elders ; 36% of the youngest believe that if a Muslim converts to another religion they must be punished by death, compared to only 19% of the oldest; a high 74% of 16-24 year olds prefer Muslim women to wear the veil, compared to a mere 28% of 55+ year olds -- an astonishing reversal. Most immigrant communities -- notably Jews, Italians, Irish, Poles and others in the United States' "melting pot" -- come to identify with their host country within the second and third generation, and that has been largely true of the United Kingdom.

One particular feature that distinguishes Muslims from the rest of the increasingly secular UK population is the extent to which religion plays a major role in people's lives. Figure 2 of the report shows that 66% agree strongly and another 20% of Muslims tend to agree that "My religion is the most important thing in my life". In Figure 1, 49% say they pray the full 5 times a day, and 22% 1-3 times a day, with a tiny 5% replying "never". It is important to read the report in full. for it has many supportive things to say about British Muslims:

However, there is also considerable diversity amongst Muslims, with many adopting a more secular approach to their religion. The majority of Muslims feel they have as much, if not more, in common with non-Muslims in Britain as with Muslims abroad. There is clearly a conflict within British Islam between a moderate majority that accepts the norms of Western democracy and a growing minority that does not. For these reasons, we should be wary of treating the entire Muslim population as a monolith with special needs that are different to the rest of the population.

An extensive poll of Muslim opinion conducted in 2016 by ICM showed that things were much the same or worse than in 2007. It was reported on by Trevor Phillips, a son of Caribbean immigrants and former chairman of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission. In an article for the Sunday Times , he expressed his deep frustration with the Muslim failure to integrate:

...for a long time, I too thought that Europe's Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain's diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.

Another 2016 survey , carried out by a Czech think tank, European Values, found that some 44% of Muslims held views corresponding to radical Islamic fundamentalism.

"The survey discovered 57 percent of Muslims reject homosexuals as friends, 45 percent said they don't trust the Jews and 54 percent think of the West as an enemy of Islam . Among fundamentalist Muslims, 72 percent of respondents said they would use violence to defend Islam. Among regular Muslims, that number amounted to 35 percent.

"An incredibly large number of Muslims want Islamic Sharia law to dominate over local laws. For instance, 72 percent of Muslims in France want to see Sharia as the main or only source of law in the country. That figure remains astonishingly high in the United Kingdom at 69 percent."

[Sep 18, 2019] Gee, didn't we have this advantage once? Thanks, neoliberals!

Sep 18, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Trade

"The Trade War Spurs China's Technology Innovators Into Overdrive" [ Industry Week ]. "In Shenzhen's glitzy financial district, a five-year-old outfit creates a 360-degree sports camera that goes on to win awards and draw comparisons to GoPro Inc. Elsewhere in the Pearl River Delta, a niche design house is competing with the world's best headphone makers. And in the capital Beijing, a little-known startup becomes one of the biggest purveyors of smartwatches on the planet. Insta360, SIVGA and Huami join drone maker DJI Technology Co. among a wave of startups that are dismantling the decades-old image of China as a clone factory -- and adding to Washington's concerns about its fast-ascending international rival.

Within the world's No. 2 economy, Trump's campaign to contain China's rise is in fact spurring its burgeoning tech sector to accelerate design and invention. The threat they pose is one of unmatchable geography: by bringing design expertise and innovation to the place where devices are manufactured, these companies are able to develop products faster and more cheaply ." •

Gee, didn't we have this advantage once? Thanks, neoliberals!

[Sep 17, 2019] Stop the Trade War in the Name of Prosperity

Notable quotes:
"... Furthermore, because of the horrific legacy of the one-child policy, China faces a rapidly aging population that will strain resources and reduce the number of working-age people . By 2050, it is estimated that the average Chinese will be 56 years of age. In contrast, the average American will be 44. No amount of spending or legal reform will prevent Beijing's coming demographic crisis. ..."
Sep 16, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Part of the Trump administration's latest round of 15 percent tariffs on Chinese imports went into effect Sunday, with the rest to follow on December 15. These increases will impact the prices of many consumer goods that Americans rely on, including clothing, appliances, televisions, smartwatches, textbooks, diapers, coffee, and even whiskey. And given their timing, they'll likely have an effect on holiday shopping. This makes all the more welcome President Trump's recent statement during the G7 summit that China is looking to end the trade war and that he too is open to making a deal.

Trump is right to negotiate with Chinese President Xi Jinping, as finding an off-ramp from the trade war should be Washington's priority. America's interest is in out-competing Beijing, not hurting our own economy in an attempt to damage theirs. The United States has a better hand here, but we must play it to our advantage.

America's great strength is in our freedom, our market economy, and our democratic system. The United States has attained a level of prosperity unseen in human history, and that economic engine is what fuels our military power. Without a strong economy, we cannot have a strong military. Thus an endless trade war endangers American security in the long term: as both sides pile on retaliatory tariffs, the risk of recession increases. American consumers will feel each new trade barrier as it hits their pocketbooks.

Washington must not pursue policies that hurt those it governs. And the suffering inflicted by a trade war wouldn't just be limited to the pricing of consumer goods. It would also make us weaker for no good reason. And it would lower tax revenues, requiring America to go further into debt to maintain our present level of security.

Advertisement

Moreover, long-term trade attacks on China are unnecessary, because China already has more problems than America. Beijing suffers from high national debt, a lack of clear economic reform, and a rapidly aging population. It has few, if any, good or timely solutions to these pressing issues.

According to the Institute of International Finance, China's total national, corporate, and household debt is now over 300 percent of its GDP. What makes this especially bad for Beijing is that the debt was taken on very quickly after the 2008 global recession, without the power of a global reserve currency to make borrowing easier, as the United States has. Moreover, this debt is largely corporate and China's state-capitalist system makes it harder for Chinese companies survive market pressures. Beijing has used cheap credit to fuel its exports and its economic rise through fully and partially state-controlled national companies.

The Chinese economic system has undergone some reforms in recent years but still remains too top-down and too focused on exports over consumption as compared to more developed economies. In other words, China needs to transition to a full market economy like Taiwan and South Korea did on their paths to prosperity, but it hasn't done so yet.

Furthermore, because of the horrific legacy of the one-child policy, China faces a rapidly aging population that will strain resources and reduce the number of working-age people . By 2050, it is estimated that the average Chinese will be 56 years of age. In contrast, the average American will be 44. No amount of spending or legal reform will prevent Beijing's coming demographic crisis.

China Has Already Lost the Trade War Tariffs Are Economic Patriotism, Putting Americans First

This comparative weakness is why it makes sense to find a trade war off-ramp sooner rather than later. China needs one badly and will eventually want a deal -- if it doesn't already. As for the United States, recession may be inevitable, but it would be better if it were not self-inflicted.

Already the trade war has cost American billions in higher prices for imported products. American farmers have been hit hard by China's retaliatory tariffs and, according to a report by IHS Markit, U.S. manufacturing has shrunk for the first since 2009. Economists polled by Reuters believe the trade war has increased the risk of a recession, with a median of those surveyed giving a 45 percent chance of a downturn over the next two years. Additionally, major banks have expressed concerns , as the stock market takes hits with every new tariff increase and angry statement between Washington and Beijing.


AllenQ 9 hours ago

I couldnt disagree more. I want more tariffs against China and Europe. I want closed borders and zero migration. China has infiltrated our government, our defense agencies, our nuclear agencies, our major research centers, our college campuses, our media and bribed our politicians. China is an imminent threat to Hong Kong, Taiwan and its militarization of the islands in the South China Sea are a threat to all of South Asia. China has been stealing US, Canadian and European technology for decades to leapfrog the US into technological dominance globally. China's plan is to force the US our of the Asia Pacific. China has infiltrated Canada and Australia to a similar degree (if not more) than the US. If you pander to these free trade globalists then you will be paving the way for a military conflict between Chinese and American Hegemony in Asia and elsewhere around the world. I dont know about you but I will take a tariff and trade war over a military war any day. Ramp up those tariffs and shift those supply chains out of China toward more benevolent allies and the world be be all the safer for it.
Mr. B 9 hours ago
China has been waging a one sided trade war against us for over 30 years, it's about time we resisted. Becoming more economically intertwined with our dangerous and genocidal rival doesn't sound like the right answer to me, especially when China will continue protectionist policies and currency manipulation regardless of what we do. America has allowed its industrial base to hemorrhage since the 70s, and bending over for our enemy to keep cheap trash flowing and American factories closed is not the right answer.
tz1 8 hours ago
Is this a white box article the Chamber of Commerce is using to astroturf?

China is a Monstrous regime that is killing and enslaving its citizens. It will simply kill everyone over 65, then 60 if it becomes convenient like they did with their one child policy. Problem solved.

You wish to keep trading with criminals, polluters, and pirates so you can get cheap junk at WalMart?

You have a job. I wish you would lose yours and that dozens of blue collar had working but laid off Americans can find one. It isn't how much something costs in dollars (or how much of your soul it costs), it is how much it costs in your virtuous labor. I'd rather pay double for stuff but get triple wages rather than pay half but be all but permanently unemployed.

ThaomasH 8 hours ago
Well said. Calling off the trade would be good for US consumers and the economy in general. But while we are on the subject,calling off the war on immigration would also be good for US consumers and the economy in general.
Adriana Pena 8 hours ago
Shoulda have voted for Hillary....
Kent 8 hours ago
Wow. This article is off-base on any number of levels.

"These increases will impact the prices of many consumer goods that Americans rely on,"

No, no they won't. Tariffs are paid for by the importer, not the consumer. If the importer could randomly increase prices, they would do so without tariffs. The market sets prices.

"America's interest is in out-competing Beijing, not hurting our own economy in an attempt to damage theirs."

If America could out-compete Beijing, American manufacturing would not have moved to China. It turns out, the American people simply don't want to live according to 3rd world standards. We want decent homes and stuff. We don't want to live in a cesspool of pollution. I'm sure the Chinese people have the same preferences, they just don't get a choice.

"Moreover, long-term trade attacks on China are unnecessary, because China already has more problems than America."

I agree with the author here, but not for the same reasons. Attacking China doesn't resolve anything. American companies will just move to a different 3rd world country with whom we can't complete. Why should I care if my clothes come from China or Vietnam?

AllenQ 5 hours ago
I am 100% supportive of the trade war and building the wall and tariffs. I say zero immigration and make all Chinese Tariffs permanent. Negotiate a trade deal with the tariffs intact. Id rather have a trade war with China and permanent tariffs than a war with China.

China has been stealing technology and has infiltrated media, government, defense, education, government officials (usually through bribes) from the US, Canada, Australia and Europe. China is proving itself to be a threat to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, India and South Asia.

Much of this "so called Russia Collusion" is actually a deflection of democratic politicians China is bribing to take down Trump in order to continue their military and technological theft, their existing preferential trade and their existing network. China is a serious danger to the US and the rest of the world. It is preferential to sacrifice a small amount of prosperity today for long term peace with China.

Mark B. 5 hours ago
Bring a thousand trade wars to blossom to save the climate, planet, middle classes. dignity and to fight rising extreme inequality.
kalendjay 3 hours ago
Propaganda. The aging of Chinese population? Not to worry, China has no real Social Security system, and so relies on massive surpluses of savings. The 300% consumer debt ratio? That would cripple any country with no help from trade. Should we let Wells Fargo and Goldman refinance them?

Farmers hit hard? As I recall we have had the worst corn harvest in decades, and shame on us for not growing more wheat, oats, and sugar cane. Our beef and poultry prices will be affected, not to mention our fast food industry, which has been whipsawed by political correctness. But China will effectively ration its pork, as it faces an even worse African Swine Flu crisis, and an additional one on grains from the Black Army Worm.

US decline in manufacturing? Look first at our glut of automobiles, and the self vetting of plant capacity by GM. Don't forget the crisis in car leases, which have made older cars worth less than their outstanding loans. And note, that the fall in lithium prices indicates that China's car electrification initiative is falling flat.

One thing left out of the equation is oil. And why should China live high on Iranian oil (mostly wastefully burned in power plants, mind you, and not cars) while we suffer attacks on Saudi oil from Iranian proxies (all on ChiRussia's dime)? Puts our trade negotiations in clear perspective, doesn't it?

Michael 3 hours ago
Stopping the war will not bring back China as our major trading partner. China is not going to be in this vulnerable position with America again. She is going to develop other markets

[Sep 16, 2019] The Untold Story of Christian Zionism's Rise to Power in the United States by Whitney Webb

Notable quotes:
"... the private influence of Christian dispensationalists was nonetheless present, as seen through the role of dispensationalist preacher and Third Temple advocate Billy Graham and his close relationships to several presidents including Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. ..."
"... Then the political power of dispensationalist theology dramatically moved from the private quarters of the halls of power into the mainstream American political discourse with the founding of the Moral Majority by evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell in 1979. ..."
"... In the early 1970s, Falwell's growing ministry was bringing in millions of dollars annually, especially his nationally broadcast program "The Old Time Gospel Hour," which ran on several major cable networks at the time. ..."
"... The Moral Majority is widely credited with turning the Christian evangelical right into a major political force in the United States, promoting extremely pro-Israel policies, increased defense spending, a Reaganite approach to the challenges of the Cold War, as well as conservative domestic policies. Falwell frequently utilized his gift from Begin in traveling and promoting the new organization, as well as himself as a major public figure. ..."
"... The Moral Majority marks a clear turning point in the Israel-U.S. evangelical relationship, as it made fervent support for Israel an area of major importance to evangelical voters and also led many evangelical voters to pay closer attention to events going on in the Middle East. Yet, given Falwell's strong promotion of Christian Zionism, many evangelicals who became increasingly politically active following the organization's founding not only supported Israel's policies of the era but also supported many of the future ambitions of Begin and the Likud Party. This support was solidified by the beginning of the Israeli Ministry of Tourism's ongoing practice of offering U.S. evangelical leaders free "familiarization" tours to Israel in the early 1980s. ..."
"... Falwell framed Begin's expansionist ambitions as a religious belief in "the inerrancy of the Old Testament," a sentiment Falwell shared. Falwell also pushed for a U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and felt that construction of a Third Temple on the Temple Mount was necessary to usher in the end times and the second coming of Christ. ..."
"... In addition, Falwell frequently met with Begin, whom he later called a personal friend, and these meetings often overlapped with Begin's official meetings with Reagan. A year later, Begin gave Falwell Israel's Jabotinsky award, making Falwell the first non-Jew to receive the honor for his advocacy on behalf of Israel and, more specifically, Likud policies and ambitions. ..."
"... Another prominent dispensationalist with great political and literary influence is Hal Lindsey, the author and co-author of several books, including The Late Great Planet Earth . Lindsey's work greatly influenced many prominent U.S. politicians like Ronald Reagan, who was so moved by Lindsey's books that he invited Lindsey to address a National Security Council meeting on nuclear war plans and helped make Lindsey an influential consultant with several members of Congress and the Pentagon. ..."
"... For instance, significantly more American Christians (55 percent) than American Jews (40 percent) believe that God gave Israel to the Jews while that sentiment is shared by only 19 percent of Israeli Christians. In addition, with regards to the Trump administration's pro-Israel policies, only 15 percent of evangelical Christians believe that President Trump favors Israel too strongly while 42 percent of American Jews hold the view that Trump is biased in favor of Israel. ..."
"... In a 2017 speech to the Christian Zionist group CUFI, Netanyahu made it clear that much of this "absurd" support came from American evangelicals, stating that "America has no better friend than Israel and Israel has no better friend than America, and Israel has no better friend in America than you." ..."
"... As a result of these meetings, CUFI aligned itself tightly with the neoconservatives that were well represented in the Bush administration, even appointing neoconservative and Christian Zionist Gary Bauer to its board and naming Bauer the first director of its lobbying arm, the CUFI Action Fund. Bauer is a founding member of the highly controversial and now-defunct neoconservative group, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and has also served on the executive board of the neoconservative group Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). ..."
"... In addition, CUFI has close ties to casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the top donor to President Trump and the entire Republican Party. Adelson even received a special award from Hagee at a 2014 CUFI event. "I've never had a greater warm feeling than being honored by Pastor Hagee," said a beaming Sheldon Adelson at the time. ..."
"... Efforts by prominent politicians to court Hagee were once numerous, until evidence of Hagee making remarks about the Holocaust that were widely considered anti-semitic surfaced during the 2008 presidential campaign. In those remarks, Hagee asserted that Adolf Hitler had been sent by God to act as a "hunter," and force Jews by means of the Holocaust to resettle in Palestine as a means of fulfilling Biblical prophecy. Then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who had aggressively courted Hagee's endorsement, was forced to distance himself from Hagee after those comments resurfaced. ..."
"... More recently, Hagee was part of an exclusive group of evangelical leaders who met with White House officials this past March prior to the partial release of the so-called "Deal of the Century," aimed at bringing "peace" to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is widely viewed as greatly favoring Israel and is expected to be rejected outright by Palestinian leadership. ..."
"... After the meeting, Hagee issued an urgent prayer request. "Our topic of discussion was discussing the forthcoming peace plan concerning Israel. Israel and the Jewish people need our prayers and our advocacy like never before," Hagee said in a video posted to the CUFI Twitter page soon after the meeting. "The Bible gives the command, 'For Zion's sake, I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake, I will not keep my peace.' I urge you tonight to pray for the peace of Jerusalem." ..."
"... While Hagee's influence and the influence of his organization CUFI are stronger than ever with Trump in the White House, his political clout with the Trump administration is, at least partially, due to the presence of staunch Christian Zionists in two of the top offices in the executive branch: vice president and secretary of state. ..."
"... After Trump chose his running mate, Pence's religious fervor came under media scrutiny , with several outlets noting that he was known to be an ardent Christian Zionist. Pence's faith gained particular attention owing to his past statements on Israel, which he has often described in prophetic terms. ..."
"... Though raised Catholic, Pence gradually transitioned to an "evangelical Catholic" and then to an evangelical Protestant and has since become a key political figure representing the fundamentalist Christian movement that promotes "dominionism," an ideology that varies in its interpretations but ultimately seeks to see the secular nature of the U.S. government shift towards one governed by "Biblical law." Pence's association with this movement has led prominent voices in the media to accuse him of supporting a theocratic form of government. ..."
"... Christian Zionism has a long history in American politics, but it has never captured the bully pulpit of the White House. Past administrations often used general biblical language in reference to Israel, but never has the evangelical theology of Christian Zionism been so close to the policymaking apparatus of the executive branch. ..."
"... Concerns that the U.S. is under the influence of extremist religious Zionism and Christian Zionism that would prevent the country from acting as an "honest broker" in the Israel-Palestine conflict have, unsurprisingly, been proven true . In fact, Pence's religious beliefs are believed to have been a major factor in Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the U.S. Embassy to the contested city. ..."
"... For much of his political career, Pompeo has framed U.S. counterterrorism policy as a " holy war " between Christianity and Islam, which he believes is the earthly equivalent of a cosmic battle between good and evil. In 2017 ..."
"... Pompeo, like many Christian Zionists, believes that war between the United States and Iran is part of the end times, a belief that is outright alarming given his prior control over CIA covert operations and his focus on Iran, as well as his current role as the U.S.' chief diplomat, in which he has also been laser-focused on promoting an aggressive policy towards Iran. ..."
"... In addition to his views on "holy war," Pompeo also frequently discussed his views on the rapture while serving as CIA director. TYT reported last year that Pompeo had spoken about the rapture so frequently that it had reportedly frightened top CIA officials. ..."
"... Well before Theodore Herzl founded political Zionism and published The Jewish State , Christian Zionists in the United States and England were already seeking to direct and influence the foreign policy of both nations in service of a religious obsession with ushering in the end times. The historical record clearly shows how Christian Zionists have influenced events throughout history, particularly in regard to the founding of the state of Israel and subsequent developments in the Israel-Palestine conflict. ..."
"... Yet, the Trump administration's ties to this apocalyptic ideology go even deeper than has been discussed in this article, as many other influential members in the Trump administration -- especially top Trump advisers Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, and U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman -- also share and actively promote this extremist religious Zionist ideology that seeks to rebuild a Third Temple. As will be seen in the next installment of this series, this ideology is also a driving factor for top Trump and Republican Party donors such as Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... Organized religion -- like organized politics, organized labor and organized crime -- cannot be trusted to have anyone's interests at heart but those of its leadership. Hell I'd personally trust organized crime (my family's Sicilian -- and all that implies) more than the other 3 I mentioned -- organized religion least of all. ..."
"... The best thing Christian Zionists could do is to perform their own aliyah and move en masse to the West Bank, specifically Bethlehem and other Christian spots. Learn some Aramaic or Samaritan. Breed like crazy. ..."
"... How cynical is it for Likud to be taking advantage of these mentally slow Christians? It's pathetic. I would imagine Pence is a true believer. Pompeo may be just acting the part as I would guess many to be doing. ..."
"... I refuse to believe Mike Pompeo gives a rat's ass what the bible says about anything. His flattery of Hagee and his followers is purest cynicism. ..."
"... Israel has always been run mostly by secular Jews. Netanyahu is a good example. In his non-observant hands, orthodox Jewish theology becomes an excuse for simple ethnic chauvinism. ..."
"... Christian zionists are crazy and numerous, but I don't believe that they are the driving force behind U.S. policy towards Israel. ..."
"... The GOP supports Israel because of AIPAC and Jewish blackmail, not Evangelicals. ..."
"... So called Christian Zionism is a kind of ersatz religion that is based not on the worship of God but rather the state of Israel. ..."
"... As one raised in a Christian Zionist church I can tell you the brain washing and mind control is very effective on young children and is quite difficult to free yourself from. ..."
"... When you look back at the "teachings" in the Old Testament, and how it is presented in these churches, it is nothing more than trauma based mind control. ..."
"... Speaking of private jets, if you haven't seen it, I recommend watching the video of the late billionaire "Christian" minister Kenneth Copeland (with private runway, too) and the Rev Jesse Duplantis explain why the need private jets costing tens of millions. Altho it's a little bit of a spoiler, it's so they can talk directly to God without being trapped in "a tube with them demons," meaning the mostly Christian passengers they'd be flying with in an airliner. If there are in fact demons roaming this world. . . ..."
"... Pence, Pompeo, Bolton and the CUFI's are the antithesis of what it means to be Christian. ..."
"... driving through the rural South, you see house flags of the Star of David in the yards of modest homes. ..."
"... Most churches in America have organized as "501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations." This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping "public policy." ..."
Jul 12, 2019 | www.unz.com

Well before Theodore Herzl founded political Zionism and published The Jewish State, Christian Zionists in the United States and England were already seeking to direct and influence the foreign policy of both nations in service to a religious obsession end times prophecy.

The largest pro-Israel organization in the United States is not composed of Jews, but of Christian evangelicals, with a total membership of 7 million, more than 2 million more members than the entirety of the American Jewish community.

Members of this organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), met in Washington on Monday, attracting thousands of attendees and featuring speeches from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence, and National Security Advisor John Bolton. CUFI's leader, controversial evangelical preacher John Hagee, has met with President Donald Trump several times and was recently part of an exclusive White House meeting in March on the administration's upcoming "peace plan" for Israel and Palestine.

CUFI is but one of many organizations throughout American history that have promoted the state of Israel and Zionism on the grounds that a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine is a requirement for the fulfillment of end-times prophecy and necessary for Jesus Christ to return to Earth -- an event Christians often refer to as "the Second Coming."

While organizations like CUFI and its predecessors have long seen the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, and the later Israeli victory and conquest of Jerusalem in 1967, as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, there is one prophecy that this sect of evangelical Christians believes is the only thing standing between them and the Second Coming. There are estimated to be more than 20 million of these Christians, often referred to as Christian Zionists, in the United States and they are a key voting bloc and source of political donations for the Republican Party.

As was explored in previous installments of this series, these Christian Zionists, much like religious Zionist extremists in Israel, believe that the Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock must be replaced with a Third Jewish Temple in order to usher in the end times.

These two groups of different faiths, since the 19th century, have repeatedly formed an opportunistic alliance in order to ensure the fulfillment of their respective prophecies, despite the fact that members of the other faith are rarely if ever on the same page in their interpretations of what occurs after the temple's construction.

This alliance, based on a mutual obsession with hastening the coming of the Apocalypse, continues to this day and now, more than at any other time in history, these groups have reached the heights of power in both Israel and the United States. Parts I and II of this exclusive series explored how this branch of religious Zionism has come to dominate the current right-wing government of Israel and has led Israel's current government to take definitive steps towards the destruction of the Al Aqsa mosque and the imminent construction of a Third Temple.

Now this installment (Part III) will show how this movement's Christian counterpart in the United States, Christian Zionism, has likewise become a dominant force in American politics, particularly following the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, where this apocalyptic vision is a major driver behind his administration's Middle East policy.

Yet, this fire-and-brimstone vision of the end times has long been a guide for prominent figures in American history and the American elite, even predating Zionism's founding as a political movement. Thus, Christian Zionism's influence on Trump administration policy is merely the latest of a long list of examples where prophecy and politics have mixed in American history, often with world-altering results.

Puritans, Prophecy and Palestine

Accounts of the role of European and North American Christians in the creation of the state of Israel often begin with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, but the efforts of certain Christian groups in England and the United States to create a Jewish state in Palestine actually date back centuries earlier and significantly predate Zionism's official founding by Theodore Herzl.

Among the first advocates for the physical immigration of European Jews to Palestine were the Puritans, an offshoot of Christian Protestantism that emerged in the late 16th century and became influential in England and, later, in the American colonies. Influential Puritans devoted considerable interest to the role of Jews in eschatology, or end-times theology, with many -- such as John Owen , a 17th-century theologian, member of parliament, and administrator at Oxford -- believing that the physical return of Jews to Palestine was necessary for the fulfillment of end-time prophecy.

While the Puritan roots of what would later become known as Christian Zionism are often overlooked in modern accounts of where and why American evangelical support for Israel began, its adherents still clearly acknowledge its legacy. For instance, on Monday at the CUFI conference, Pompeo, himself a Christian Zionist known for his obsession with the end times, told the group the following:

Christian support in America for Zion -- for a Jewish homeland -- runs back to the early Puritan settlers, and it has endured for centuries. Indeed, our second president [John Adams], a couple years back, said 'I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation.'

These Puritan beliefs, which persist today and have only grown in popularity, became more entrenched in England and colonial America with time, especially among the monied political class, and led to a variety of interpretations regarding exactly what the Bible says about the end times. Among the most influential was the development of Christian "dispensationalism," an interpretive framework that uses the Bible to divide history into different periods of "dispensations" and sees the Bible's prophetic references to "Israel" as signifying an ethnically Jewish nation established in Palestine.

Charles Russell's visual interpretation of Darby's 'dispensations' circa 1886

Dispensationalism was largely developed by English-Irish preacher John Nelson Darby, who believed that the God-ordained fates of Israel and the Christian church were completely separate, with the latter to be physically removed from the Earth by God prior to a foretold period of earthly suffering known as the Tribulation.

In Darby's view, the Tribulation would begin following the construction of a Third Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This belief in the physical removal of Christians from the Earth prior to the Tribulation, widely known as "the rapture," was invented by Darby in the 1820s and its lack of scriptural support has been widely noted by theologians of various denominations as well as biblical scholars. However, it is important to point that there are differences among dispensationalist Christians as to whether the rapture will occur before, during or after the Tribulation period.

Yet, despite its relatively short existence as an idea and lack of support in the Bible, the rapture was enthusiastically adopted by some churches in England and the United States, particularly the latter. This was largely thanks to the work of highly controversial theologian Cyrus Scofield.

Notably, Darby's brand of Christian eschatology coincides with similar developments in Jewish eschatology , namely the ideas of Rabbi Zvi Hirsh Kalisher and the creation of a new branch of Jewish messianism that believed that Jews must proactively work to hasten the coming of their messiah by immigrating to Israel and building a Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Darby's beliefs, and those he inspired promoted something similar in the sense that Christians could hasten the coming of the rapture and the Tribulation by promoting the immigration of Jews to Israel as well as the construction of a Third Jewish Temple.

Christian Zionists pave the way for Theodore Herzl

Darby traveled to North America and several other countries to popularize his ideas, meeting several influential pastors throughout the English speaking world, including James Brookes, the future mentor of Cyrus Scofield. His travels and the spread of his written works popularized his eschatological views among certain circles of American and English Christians during the religious revival of the 19th century. Darby's beliefs were particularly attractive to the elite of both countries, with some English noblemen placing newspaper advertisements urging Jews to immigrate to Palestine as early as the 1840s.

Another prominent figure influenced by Darby's end-times doctrine was the American preacher Charles Taze Russell, whose church later gave rise to several different churches, including the Jehovah's Witnesses. Decades before the founding of modern political Zionism, Russell began preaching -- not just to Christians, but to Jews in the United States and elsewhere -- about the need for mass Jewish immigration to Palestine.

As Rabbi Kalisher had done a few decades prior , Russell penned a letter in 1891 to a wealthy member of the Rothschild banking family, Edmond de Rothschild, as well as Maurice von Hirsch, a wealthy German financier, about his plan for the Jewish settlement of Palestine. Russell described his plan as follows:

My suggestion is that the wealthy Hebrews purchase from Turkey, at a fair valuation, all of her property interest in these lands: i.e., all of the Government lands (lands not held by private owners), under the provision that Syria and Palestine shall be constituted a free state."

The same plan was to resurface a few years later in arguably the most influential Zionist book of all time, Theodore Herzl's The Jewish State , which was published in 1896.

Russell addresses an audience of American Jews in New York in 1910. Photo | Public Domain

It is unknown whether Rothschild or Hirsch was influenced at all by Russell's letter, though Russell's ideas did have a lasting impact on some prominent American Jews and American Christians with regard to his promotion of Jewish immigration to Palestine.

The same year that Russell wrote his letter to de Rothschild and von Hirsch, another influential dispensationalist preacher wrote another document that is often overlooked in exploring the role of American Christians in the development and popularization of Zionism. William E. Blackstone, an American preacher who was greatly influenced by Darby and other dispensationalists of the era, had spent decades promoting with great fervor the immigration of Jews to Palestine as a means of fulfilling Biblical prophecy.

The culmination of Blackstone's efforts came in the form of the Blackstone Memorial, a petition that pleaded that then-President of the United States Benjamin Harrison and his secretary of state, James Blaine, take action "in favor of the restoration of Palestine to the Jews." The largely forgotten petition asked Harrison and Blaine to use their influence to "secure the holding at an early date, of an international conference to consider the condition of the Israelites and their claims to Palestine as their ancient home, and to promote, in all other just and proper ways, the alleviation of their suffering condition."

As with Russell's letter to de Rothschild and von Hirsch, it is unknown exactly how influential the Blackstone Memorial was in influencing the views or policies of Harrison or Blaine. However, the Blackstone Memorial petition is highly significant because of its signatories, which included the most influential and wealthiest Americans of the era, the majority of whom were Christians.

Signatories of the Blackstone Memorial included J.D. Rockefeller, the country's first billionaire; J.P. Morgan, the wealthy banker; William McKinley, future president of the United States; Thomas Brackett Reed, then speaker of the House; Melville Fuller, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; the mayors of New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago; the editors of the Boston Globe, New York Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune , among others; and numerous other members of Congress, as well as influential businessmen and clergymen. Though some rabbis were included as signatories, the petition's content was opposed by most American Jewish communities. In other words, the primary goal of Zionism, before it even became a movement, was widely supported by the American Christian elite, but opposed by American Jews.

The Blackstone Memorial would later attract the attention of Louis Brandeis, one of the most prominent American Jewish Zionists, who would later refer to Blackstone as the real "founding father of Zionism," according to Brandeis' close friend Nathan Straus. Brandeis would eventually succeed in convincing an elderly Blackstone to petition then-President Woodrow Wilson with a second Blackstone Memorial in 1916 that was presented in private to Wilson nearly a year later.

Instead of gathering signatures from prominent members of America's elite class, Blackstone this time focused on shoring up support from Protestant organizations, namely the Presbyterian Church, in keeping with Wilson's Presbyterian faith. According to historian Jerry Klinger, president of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation, this change in focus had been Brandeis', not Blackstone's, idea.

Alison Weir, author of Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel , described Brandeis as "one of the most influential" American Zionists and a key figure in the efforts to push Wilson to support the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine, of which Blackstone's second petition was part. However, Weir asserted that Blackstone's second petition was secondary to a so-called "gentleman's agreement" whereby English officials promised to support a Jewish state in Palestine if American Zionists, led by Brandeis, were able to secure the United States' entry into World War I.

Wilson ultimately supported Blackstone's new document, which was never presented publicly to the president, but privately by Rabbi Stephen Wise. This second Blackstone Memorial was a key component of the Brandeis-led campaign that eventually guaranteed American support -- i.e., private support -- for the Balfour Declaration, which established British intentions to support a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine. Notably, the Balfour Declaration is named for the then-English Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, himself a Christian dispensationalist , though Weir told MintPress that Balfour was more likely influenced by political imperatives than religious motives. The only person in the British cabinet to oppose the Balfour Declaration was its only Jewish member, Edwin Montagu.

The Balfour Declaration was addressed to a member of the Rothschild banking family, Lionel Walter Rothschild, the last in a series of letters written to members of the Rothschild family urging them to use their wealth and political influence to favor the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine: from Rabbi Kalisher, who wrote to Baron Amschel Rothschild in 1836; to Charles Taze Russell, who wrote to Edmond de Rothschild in 1891; and finally to the Balfour Declaration, written to Lionel Walter Rothschild in 1917.

Weir told MintPress that the Rothschilds figure so prominently in these early efforts to establish a Jewish state in Palestine owing to "their wealth and the power that goes with it," making them very sought after by those who felt that a Jewish state could be formed in Palestine by the purchase of the territory by wealthy European Jews, as both Kalisher and Russell had proposed. However, the Balfour Declaration was addressed to the Rothschilds because, at that time, members of the Rothschild family, Edmond de Rothschild in particular, had become among the strongest supporters of the Zionist cause.

Though the declaration carries his name, it is unclear whether Balfour himself actually authored the document. Some historians -- such as Michael Rubinstein, former president of the Jewish Historical Society of England -- have made the case that the declaration itself was written by Leopold Amery, then-political secretary of England's War Cabinet and a Zionist who, despite his commitment to the Zionist cause, obfuscated his Jewish roots for much of his career for reasons that are still the source of speculation.

As shown by the Balfour Declaration and the lobbying efforts that led to its creation, support for what would soon become known as Zionism among the nobility of England and the United States was already formidable before Herzl even began work on The Jewish State. It is worth considering that the power and influence of this religiously-motivated class of Christian elites had an influence on Herzl and his ideas, particularly given the fact that dispensationalist Christians had been promoting a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine at a time when the idea was unpopular among many prominent Jews in Europe and the United States.

Furthermore, the role of Christian Zionists, as they would later become known, continued well after Herzl began his Zionist activities, and resulted in many of the most influential acts that led to the establishment of the State of Israel, including the Balfour Declaration.

Notably, Herzl's own success in promoting his views following the publication of The Jewish State was largely due to English dispensationalist pastor William Hechler. Hechler, while serving as chaplain at the British Embassy in Vienna, forged an alliance and later close friendship with Herzl and was critical to negotiating meetings between Herzl and prominent members of the German government, including Kaiser Wilhelm II, which lent necessary political legitimacy to Herzl's Zionist movement.

A largely overlooked figure in the rise of Zionism, Hechler is mentioned in Herzl's diary more than any other person and passionately felt that the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine would bring about the end times. Hechler is also known to have been extremely interested in the construction of a Third Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount, having devoted considerable time to creating models of that Temple, some of which he prominently displayed in his office and showed to Herzl with great enthusiasm during their first meeting.

Herzl gives Kaiser Wilhelm II a tour of an early Jewish settlement near Jaffa, Palestine in 1898. Photo | Israel GPO

The Hechler-Herzl alliance is one early example of how Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists each used the motivations of the other for political gain despite the fact that Christian Zionists often hold anti-Semitic views and secular Zionists, as well as religious Zionists, do not hold Christianity in high regard. This opportunism on the parts of both Christian and Jewish Zionists has been a key feature in the rise of Zionism, particularly in the United States, and the case of Cyrus Scofield, the man more responsible than any for popularizing Christian Zionism among American evangelicals, offers another important example.

The surprising story of Cyrus Scofield

There is perhaps no other book that has been more influential in the dissemination of Christian Zionism in the United States than the Scofield Reference Bible , a version of the King James Bible whose annotations were written by Cyrus Scofield. Scofield -- who had no formal theological training, though he later claimed to have a D.D. (doctor of divinity degree) -- originally worked as a lawyer and political operative in the state of Kansas and eventually became the district attorney of that state.

Soon after his appointment to the position, he was forced to resign as a result of numerous allegations of corruption, including bribery, forging signatures on banknotes and stealing political donations from then-Senator of Kansas James Ingalls. During this time, Scofield abandoned his wife and two daughters, an action since blamed on the burgeoning scandals he was facing as well as his self-admitted heavy drinking habits.

Amid this backdrop, Scofield is said to have become an evangelical around the year 1879 and soon became associated with prominent dispensationalist preachers of the era, including Dwight Moody and James Brookes. Local papers at the time, such as the Atchison Patriot , regarded Scofield's conversion and career change with great skepticism, referring to Scofield as the "late lawyer, politician and shyster generally" who had disgraced himself by committing "many malicious acts."

Scofield went on to pastor relatively small churches, moving from Kansas to Dallas, Texas, and later Massachusetts. Yet, despite his lack of renown and his troubled history, by 1901 Scofield had managed to gain entrance to an exclusive men's club in New York, the Lotos Club, whose members at the time included steel magnate and multi-millionaire Andrew Carnegie , members of the Vanderbilt family , and famous American writer Samuel Clemens, better known by his pen name, Mark Twain.

Pastor Scofield, center, with the Deacons of the First Congregational Church of Dallas, circa 1880s

Scofield's membership in this exclusive club -- as well as the club's patronage of his activities, which granted him lodging and financing to produce what would become the Scofield Reference Bible -- has been the subject of considerable speculation. Indeed, many have noted that the presence of a fundamentalist, dispensationalist small-town preacher with a disgraced political past in a club stuffed with some of the country's most elite academics, writers and robber barons just doesn't add up.

Joseph M. Canfield, in his book The Incredible Scofield and his Book , asserted that "the admission of Scofield to the Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C.I. Scofield."

Canfield puts forth the theory in his book that the person "directing" Scofield's career was connected to New York lawyer and Zionist activist Samuel Untermeyer, who was on the club's executive committee and was a close associate of Louis Brandeis and influential in the administration of Woodrow Wilson. He then notes that Scofield's annotated bible was later "most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermeyer's pet projects -- the Zionist Movement."

Other scholars, such as David Lutz, have been more explicit than Canfield in linking Untermeyer's Zionist activism to his role in financially backing Scofield and his work on his annotated Bible. Ultimately, like the Blackstone Memorial before it, the Lotos Club's patronage of Scofield's work again reveals the interest of the American elite of the era, Christian and Jewish alike, in promoting Christian Zionism.

Untermeyer and the Lotos Club notably also funded Scofield's numerous travels to Europe, including one fateful trip to England where Scofield met with Henry Frowde, publisher of Oxford University Press. Frowde was taken with Scofield's work, largely owing to the fact that Frowde was a member of the "Exclusive Brethren," a religious group founded by John Nelson Darby, the father of dispensationalism. Oxford University Press subsequently published the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. Twenty years after its publication, it became the first-ever Oxford publication to generate over a million dollars in sales.

Scofield's Bible became spectacularly popular among American fundamentalists soon after its publication, partly because it was the first annotated bible that sought to interpret the text for the reader as well as because it became the central text of several influential seminaries that were set up after its 1909 publication. Among Scofield's many annotations are claims that have since become central to Christian Zionism, such as Scofield's annotation of Genesis 12:3 that those who curse Israel (interpreted by Christian Zionists to mean the state of Israel since its founding in 1948) will be cursed by God and those that bless Israel will similarly be blessed.

Modern Christian Zionists, like Pastor John Hagee of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), have frequently cited this interpretation that originated with Scofield in defending extreme pro-Israel stances. For instance, Hagee made the following statement in 2014:

You have to go back to basics, with the fact that in Genesis (chapter 1), God created the world and made a very solemn promise (brought in Gen. 12:3), 'I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.' From that moment on, every nation that ever blessed Israel has been blessed by God. And every nation that has ever persecuted the Jewish people, God crushed. And so He will continue."

Falwell and Likud: a friendship or something else?

Despite the widespread dissemination of the Scofield Reference Bible and its popularization among American evangelical churches and seminaries, the public influence of dispensationalist eschatology and Christian Zionism on American politics was relatively limited for much of the 20th century. However, the private influence of Christian dispensationalists was nonetheless present, as seen through the role of dispensationalist preacher and Third Temple advocate Billy Graham and his close relationships to several presidents including Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Then the political power of dispensationalist theology dramatically moved from the private quarters of the halls of power into the mainstream American political discourse with the founding of the Moral Majority by evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell in 1979.

In the early 1970s, Falwell's growing ministry was bringing in millions of dollars annually, especially his nationally broadcast program "The Old Time Gospel Hour," which ran on several major cable networks at the time. Despite -- or perhaps because of -- the spike in donations, Falwell was soon targeted by the federal government, specifically the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for "fraud and deceit" and "gross insolvency" in the financial management of his ministry, particularly the ministry's sale of $6.6 million in church bonds. The SEC lawsuit was eventually settled when a group of businessmen in Lynchburg, Virginia -- where Falwell's ministry was based -- took over the ministry's finances for the next several years, until 1977. Falwell blamed his ministry's financial problems on his "financial ignorance."

Jerry Falwell travels with his son Jonathan, right, aboard his private jet in 2004. Todd Hunley | Thomas Road Baptist Church

One year after his ministry appeared to be on a better financial footing, Falwell received an invitation to visit the state of Israel and was personally invited on the all-expenses-paid trip by Menachem Begin, then the prime minister of Israel and leader of the Likud Party. The trip would mark the beginning of a long friendship and close relationship between Falwell and Begin and, more broadly, a relationship between American evangelical leaders and Israel's Likud Party. As Israeli historian Gershom Gorenberg notes in his book The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount , the Begin administration "was the first to tap evangelical enthusiasm for Israel and turn it into political and economic support."

Soon after returning from Israel, Falwell's finances again came under federal scrutiny after a federal investigation found that Falwell had transferred the health insurance policies of his employees to an unlicensed shell company with just $128 in assets and hundreds of thousands in dollars in unpaid claims. Just as Falwell's financial troubles began to mount yet again, he received a generous gift from none other than Begin in the form of a private Learjet valued at $4 million . Shortly thereafter, Falwell went on to found the Moral Majority organization, " after consultations with theologians and political strategists ."

The Moral Majority is widely credited with turning the Christian evangelical right into a major political force in the United States, promoting extremely pro-Israel policies, increased defense spending, a Reaganite approach to the challenges of the Cold War, as well as conservative domestic policies. Falwell frequently utilized his gift from Begin in traveling and promoting the new organization, as well as himself as a major public figure.

The Moral Majority marks a clear turning point in the Israel-U.S. evangelical relationship, as it made fervent support for Israel an area of major importance to evangelical voters and also led many evangelical voters to pay closer attention to events going on in the Middle East. Yet, given Falwell's strong promotion of Christian Zionism, many evangelicals who became increasingly politically active following the organization's founding not only supported Israel's policies of the era but also supported many of the future ambitions of Begin and the Likud Party. This support was solidified by the beginning of the Israeli Ministry of Tourism's ongoing practice of offering U.S. evangelical leaders free "familiarization" tours to Israel in the early 1980s.

Begin's vision of "Greater Israel" -- the complete annexation of Palestine as well as large parts of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt by Israel -- was also shared and promoted by Falwell. In 1983, Falwell stated that "Begin will quickly tell you, 'We don't have all the land yet we're going to have,'" and further predicted that Israel would never relinquish control over the occupied West Bank because Begin was determined to keep the land "which has been delivered to them (the Israelis)."

Falwell framed Begin's expansionist ambitions as a religious belief in "the inerrancy of the Old Testament," a sentiment Falwell shared. Falwell also pushed for a U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and felt that construction of a Third Temple on the Temple Mount was necessary to usher in the end times and the second coming of Christ.

As Falwell helped turn Christian Zionism into a major political force in the United States, he also made himself a key political figure in the Reagan era and an important go-between for U.S.-Israel relations. In 1981 Begin informed Falwell of his plans to bomb an Iraqi nuclear facility before he informed the Reagan administration with the hopes that Falwell would "explain to the Christian public the reasons for the bombing." According to Canadian academic David S. New, Begin told Falwell during that phone call: "Get to work for me."

In addition, Falwell frequently met with Begin, whom he later called a personal friend, and these meetings often overlapped with Begin's official meetings with Reagan. A year later, Begin gave Falwell Israel's Jabotinsky award, making Falwell the first non-Jew to receive the honor for his advocacy on behalf of Israel and, more specifically, Likud policies and ambitions.

Though the Moral Majority officially shuttered its doors in 1989, its political legacy persisted long after, as did Falwell's political clout. Indeed, following Begin's model, Benjamin Netanyahu, during his first term as prime minister, also made a habit of visiting Falwell, meeting with the controversial pastor even before he met with political officials in his visits to Washington.

Netanyahu, left, meets Falwell at a hotel in Washington, Jan. 19, 1998. Greg Gibson | AP

During one trip to D.C. in 1998, Netanyahu's first visit was to an event co-hosted by Falwell, where the pastor praised Netanyahu as "the Ronald Reagan of Israel." The New York Times described the purpose of Netanyahu's U.S. visit not as a visit aimed at meeting with government officials, but rather one intended "to shore up his base of traditional support in the United States. Conservative Christian groups have long been ardent supporters of Israel because of its religious importance to Christianity."

However, this relationship between Christian Zionists like Falwell and prominent right-wing Israeli politicians has not been without its controversy, especially given that pro-Israel evangelicals like Falwell have a history of making anti-semitic statements.

For example, during a 1999 sermon, Falwell discussed his interpretation of end-times prophecy, widely shared by Christian Zionist evangelicals, that the Second Coming would follow not just the creation of the state of Israel but the construction of a Third Temple on the Temple Mount, from which a figure known to Christians as the "Antichrist" would reign. In responding to his own rhetorical question as to whether the Antichrist is "alive and well today," Falwell stated that "Probably because when he appears during the tribulation period he will be a full-grown counterfeit of Christ. Of course, he'll be Jewish."

Falwell's comments were immediately condemned by a variety of Jewish groups, including the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Rabbi Leon Klenicki, then-director of interfaith affairs for the ADL, noted that Falwell's view is a "common theological position" among American evangelicals and that Falwell was "an influential voice among evangelical and charismatic Christians" who "only supports Israel for his own Christological ends." "He sees us only as the ones who prepare the coming of Jesus," Klenicki stated at the time. "It is a great disappointment after more than 30 years of dialogue; he's still in the Middle Ages."

Another prominent dispensationalist with great political and literary influence is Hal Lindsey, the author and co-author of several books, including The Late Great Planet Earth . Lindsey's work greatly influenced many prominent U.S. politicians like Ronald Reagan, who was so moved by Lindsey's books that he invited Lindsey to address a National Security Council meeting on nuclear war plans and helped make Lindsey an influential consultant with several members of Congress and the Pentagon.

As noted by Israeli historian Gershom Gorenberg , Lindsey sees Jews as serving "two central roles" in Christian dispensationalist eschatology:

[T]he first -- despite his insistence of love for Jews -- is the classic one of Christian anti-Jewish polemic: They are 'the Jewish people who crucified Jesus' and the archetype of those who ignore the truth of prophecy. The second role is to fulfill prophecy despite themselves."

Gorenberg further notes that Lindsey believes that Jews have fulfilled two of the three crucial prophecies that will usher in the end times, with the first being the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the second being the Israeli conquest and occupation of Jerusalem after the Six Day War in 1967. According to Lindsey : "There remains but one more event to completely set the stage for Israel's part in the last great act of her historical drama. That is to rebuild the ancient Temple "

As Falwell's and Lindsey's comments reveal, the eschatological views of dispensationalism frequently perceive the Jewish people as little more than pawns that must fulfill certain requirements -- e.g., establishing the state of Israel, conquering Jerusalem, building a Third Temple -- in order to hasten the salvation and "rapture" of evangelical Christians. Meanwhile, Jews in Israel who do not convert to Christianity are expected to die horrible deaths, though some Christian Zionists in recent years, as will be seen shortly, have sought to adjust this still common theological position.

Despite the anti-semitic motivations underlying evangelical support for the state of Israel and the Likud-supported vision of "Greater Israel," the politically active Christian Zionist movement that Falwell helped create translated into a strong support base for Israel and right-wing Likud policy that has made it crucial to prominent Israeli politicians.

For instance, significantly more American Christians (55 percent) than American Jews (40 percent) believe that God gave Israel to the Jews while that sentiment is shared by only 19 percent of Israeli Christians. In addition, with regards to the Trump administration's pro-Israel policies, only 15 percent of evangelical Christians believe that President Trump favors Israel too strongly while 42 percent of American Jews hold the view that Trump is biased in favor of Israel.

In a video recorded in the early 2000s -- later broadcast on Israeli TV -- Netanyahu, speaking to a family of Jewish settlers, described the mass support among Americans, particularly evangelicals, for Israel as "absurd," saying:

America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won't get in our way; 80 percent of the Americans supprt us. It's absurd."

In a 2017 speech to the Christian Zionist group CUFI, Netanyahu made it clear that much of this "absurd" support came from American evangelicals, stating that "America has no better friend than Israel and Israel has no better friend than America, and Israel has no better friend in America than you."

https://content.jwplatform.com/players/8zTCANil-YuKiCfZc.html

Richard Silverstein -- an academic and journalist whose work has been published in Haaretz and MintPress, among other outlets -- has argued that Israeli politicians, particularly Netanyahu, have sought out support from evangelical groups despite their anti-Semitic undertones and the fact they the act out of self-interest in pursuing their political objectives.

In a 2017 article , Silverstein stated that for Israel's nationalist right-wing:

Judaism is not a spiritual value, it is a physical manifestation of power in the world. These Israelis understand that not all Jews are their "brothers." Some Jews are too effete, too liberal, too humane, too universalist. These Jews are the detritus which will be washed away by the tide of history. Israeli nationalists need to replace these traditional Jewish allies and have done so by finding new ones: Christian evangelicals, African dictators, European neo-Nazis. Zionism as they define it is less a movement dedicated to ethics and more one dedicated to self-interest."

A "vital part of Israel's national security"

As Falwell began to fade from public view in the early 2000s, his legacy has largely fallen to a handful of preachers now at the forefront of Christian Zionism and Christian Zionist political activism, with Falwell's son, Jerry Falwell Jr., ranking prominently among them. However, of the preachers that followed in Falwell's footsteps, one stands out: John Hagee.

Hagee is the pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, which has an active membership of over 22,000. A charismatic Christian who believes in dispensationalist eschatology and thinks that Christians are biblically required to support Israel, Hagee has long been a major advocate for Israel within evangelical and charismatic Christianity circles and has raised over $80 million for Israel since he first began hosting "A Night to Honor Israel" events in the early 1980s.

In 2006, Hagee sought to create the "Christian AIPAC" and revived a then-defunct organization previously founded in 1975 known as Christians United for Israel, or CUFI, mentioned at the beginning of this installment. Since its re-founding, CUFI has grown exponentially, now counting 7 million members , a figure that exceeds the Jewish population of the United States, which stands at around 5.7 million. Hagee chairs its executive board, which included Jerry Falwell up until Falwell's death in 2007.

Vice President Pence, left, greets Hagee at CUFI's annual summit, July 8, 2019, in Washington. Patrick Semansky | AP

CUFI is exempt from paying U.S. taxes and from publicly disclosing its finances because it is officially registered as a church, though it is often likened to an arm of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States and actively promotes and funds illegal West Bank settlements. CUFI also advocates for Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount and the construction of a Third Temple.

Much has been written about CUFI's influence in the Republican Party, which began under the George W. Bush administration soon after its founding. As journalist Max Blumenthal noted in a 2006 article for The Nation: "Over the past months, the White House has convened a series of off-the-record meetings about its policies in the Middle East with leaders of Christians United for Israel (CUFI)."

As a result of these meetings, CUFI aligned itself tightly with the neoconservatives that were well represented in the Bush administration, even appointing neoconservative and Christian Zionist Gary Bauer to its board and naming Bauer the first director of its lobbying arm, the CUFI Action Fund. Bauer is a founding member of the highly controversial and now-defunct neoconservative group, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and has also served on the executive board of the neoconservative group Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).

CUFI has since won powerful allies and counts neoconservative Elliott Abrams; former CIA director James Woosley; neoconservative archon Bill Kristol; former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee; Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Ted Cruz (R-TX); Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; and U.S. Vice President Mike Pence among its staunchest supporters. At a CUFI summit last year, Netanyahu described CUFI as a "vital part of Israel's national security."

In addition, CUFI has close ties to casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the top donor to President Trump and the entire Republican Party. Adelson even received a special award from Hagee at a 2014 CUFI event. "I've never had a greater warm feeling than being honored by Pastor Hagee," said a beaming Sheldon Adelson at the time.

At the most recent CUFI summit, held on Monday, the Trump administration sent Pence, Pompeo, U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, Assistant to the President and Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt, and National Security Advisor John Bolton, all of whom spoke at the summit.

In addition to its own influence as an organization, the group has made Hagee himself a major political player. In 2007, then-Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) compared Hagee to Moses , stating:

I want to take to opportunity to describe Pastor Hagee in the terms the Torah used to describe Moses. He is an Ish Elohim. A man of God. And those words really do fit him. And I have something else. Like Moses, he's become the leader of a mighty multitude. Even greater than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the Promised Land."

Efforts by prominent politicians to court Hagee were once numerous, until evidence of Hagee making remarks about the Holocaust that were widely considered anti-semitic surfaced during the 2008 presidential campaign. In those remarks, Hagee asserted that Adolf Hitler had been sent by God to act as a "hunter," and force Jews by means of the Holocaust to resettle in Palestine as a means of fulfilling Biblical prophecy. Then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who had aggressively courted Hagee's endorsement, was forced to distance himself from Hagee after those comments resurfaced.

Yet, the stigma around Hagee has since worn off and his influence is again on the rise following Trump's election to the presidency, as evidenced by the attendance of numerous top Trump officials to the 2019 CUFI Washington Summit earlier this week.

Though he was not included on the official board of Trump's evangelical advisers early in Trump's presidency, several slightly less controversial allies and associates of Hagee were, including Tom Mullins, Jerry Falwell Jr., and Kenneth Copeland. Then, a few months after Trump's inauguration, Hagee "dropped by" the White House unannounced and met with Trump in the Oval Office to discuss U.S. support for Israel. He also met with Trump a few weeks before Trump announced plans to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a meeting at which Trump had reportedly promised Hagee that the embassy would soon be moved and told the pastor "I will not disappoint you." Hagee described Trump's announcement on Jerusalem as having "biblical timing of absolute precision."

More recently, Hagee was part of an exclusive group of evangelical leaders who met with White House officials this past March prior to the partial release of the so-called "Deal of the Century," aimed at bringing "peace" to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is widely viewed as greatly favoring Israel and is expected to be rejected outright by Palestinian leadership.

After the meeting, Hagee issued an urgent prayer request. "Our topic of discussion was discussing the forthcoming peace plan concerning Israel. Israel and the Jewish people need our prayers and our advocacy like never before," Hagee said in a video posted to the CUFI Twitter page soon after the meeting. "The Bible gives the command, 'For Zion's sake, I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake, I will not keep my peace.' I urge you tonight to pray for the peace of Jerusalem."

As the final installment of this series will show, the shared apocalyptic visions of extremist religious Zionists and Christian Zionists regarding a Third Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount is a major driver behind the Deal of the Century and was also a major factor in the Trump administration's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, despite Palestinian hopes that East Jerusalem would serve as the capital of their future state. Notably, Christian Zionists believe that Palestinians must be expelled from the state of Israel. In addition, these end-times beliefs are also a factor in the administration's push for war with Iran, which Christian Zionists like Hagee and Pompeo believe is also a requisite for the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

While Hagee's influence and the influence of his organization CUFI are stronger than ever with Trump in the White House, his political clout with the Trump administration is, at least partially, due to the presence of staunch Christian Zionists in two of the top offices in the executive branch: vice president and secretary of state.

Pence and Pompeo push "holy war"

Though several Trump officials spoke at the recent CUFI summit, two stand out -- not just for their high-ranking positions but also for their open admissions that their Christian Zionist beliefs guide their policies. These officials are Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

After Trump chose his running mate, Pence's religious fervor came under media scrutiny , with several outlets noting that he was known to be an ardent Christian Zionist. Pence's faith gained particular attention owing to his past statements on Israel, which he has often described in prophetic terms.

Though raised Catholic, Pence gradually transitioned to an "evangelical Catholic" and then to an evangelical Protestant and has since become a key political figure representing the fundamentalist Christian movement that promotes "dominionism," an ideology that varies in its interpretations but ultimately seeks to see the secular nature of the U.S. government shift towards one governed by "Biblical law." Pence's association with this movement has led prominent voices in the media to accuse him of supporting a theocratic form of government.

Though many of the initial concerns about Pence revolved around his likely effects on domestic policy, much of his influence has instead been seen in foreign policy, including the administration's Middle East policy . His public identification as a Christian Zionist and his speech to the 2017 CUFI summit, the first vice president to ever speak at the annual event, have led some to worry that the Christian Zionist view of prophecy is guiding Pence's political actions.

Pence visits the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site in Jerusalem's Old City, Jan. 23, 2018. Oded Balilty | AP

Following Pence's first speech at CUFI, Daniel Hummel, a scholar and fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School, told the Washington Post :

Christian Zionism has a long history in American politics, but it has never captured the bully pulpit of the White House. Past administrations often used general biblical language in reference to Israel, but never has the evangelical theology of Christian Zionism been so close to the policymaking apparatus of the executive branch.

By identifying with Christian Zionism while in office, Pence risks the Trump administration's ongoing search for an 'ultimate deal' to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and erodes the U.S.' claim that it can be an 'honest broker' in the Middle East."

Concerns that the U.S. is under the influence of extremist religious Zionism and Christian Zionism that would prevent the country from acting as an "honest broker" in the Israel-Palestine conflict have, unsurprisingly, been proven true . In fact, Pence's religious beliefs are believed to have been a major factor in Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the U.S. Embassy to the contested city.

Though Mike Pence is the highest-ranking member of the Trump administration who is openly a Christian Zionist, it is Pompeo that is the most overt and open about how his religious beliefs regarding the end times guide his decision-making as head of the U.S. State Department.

For much of his political career, Pompeo has framed U.S. counterterrorism policy as a " holy war " between Christianity and Islam, which he believes is the earthly equivalent of a cosmic battle between good and evil. In 2017, as CIA director, Pompeo claimed:

Radical Islamic terror [will] continue to press against us until we make sure that we pray and stand and fight and make sure that we know that Jesus Christ is our savior [and] truly the only solution for our world."

That same year, Pompeo created a new CIA "mission center" targeting Iran headed by Michael D'Andrea, whose CIA nickname is " The Prince of Darkness ." Pompeo, like many Christian Zionists, believes that war between the United States and Iran is part of the end times, a belief that is outright alarming given his prior control over CIA covert operations and his focus on Iran, as well as his current role as the U.S.' chief diplomat, in which he has also been laser-focused on promoting an aggressive policy towards Iran.

In addition to his views on "holy war," Pompeo also frequently discussed his views on the rapture while serving as CIA director. TYT reported last year that Pompeo had spoken about the rapture so frequently that it had reportedly frightened top CIA officials.

According to Michael Weinstein -- founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation , a watchdog group on issues of religious freedom in the military and intelligence community -- who was quoted in the TYT report:

He [Pompeo] is intolerant of anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Christian. The people that worked under him at the CIA that came to us were never confused -- they never had time to be confused. They were shocked and then they were scared shitless."

A 2015 video of Pompeo that surfaced while he was CIA director also shows the former congressman describing politics as "a never-ending struggle until the rapture."

More recently, a New York Times article published in March again brought Pompeo's obsession with the end times back into public view. Titled " The Rapture and the Real World: Mike Pompeo Blends Beliefs and Policy ," the article detailed how Pompeo has made it standard operating procedure to mix his Christian Zionist views with his approach to foreign policy. That article also referenced the statement Pompeo made earlier this year, in which he opined that it was "certainly possible" that President Trump had been sent by God to "save the Jewish people from the Iranian menace."

Pompeo made those statements during an official trip to Jerusalem that was also controversial for other reasons. Indeed, in a state department video shared on social media and meant to publicize Pompeo's trip, footage of a model of the Third Jewish Temple was included while footage of the Al Aqsa mosque was notably excluded, despite it being the most iconic building in Jerusalem.

https://content.jwplatform.com/players/a8oVV0SC-YuKiCfZc.html

Given that Pompeo had also visited the tunnels that have worn away the historic mosque's foundations, many Palestinians took the video as a sign that the Trump administration was colluding with the Temple Activist movement in Israel, which was discussed in detail in Part II of this series.

Joining forces to target Jerusalem

Well before Theodore Herzl founded political Zionism and published The Jewish State , Christian Zionists in the United States and England were already seeking to direct and influence the foreign policy of both nations in service of a religious obsession with ushering in the end times. The historical record clearly shows how Christian Zionists have influenced events throughout history, particularly in regard to the founding of the state of Israel and subsequent developments in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

In the pursuit of these dispensationalist end-times prophecies, Christian Zionists have forged alliances with Jewish Zionists and each has opportunistically used the other in order to usher in the common events that are believed to facilitate the coming of their respective apocalypses or to aid more secular, political goals. From Hechler and Herzl, to Scofield and Untermeyer, to Begin and Falwell, these alliances have shaped the policy of Western governments, particularly the U.S. and England, for over a century.

Today, only one such prophecy has yet to be fulfilled, the construction of a Third Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount, which is currently occupied by the Al Aqsa mosque compound. Now, more than ever before, Israel's government, as shown in Part II, is filled with high-ranking officials who openly call for Al Aqsa's destruction and seek to hastily construct a Third Temple. Similarly, as this report has shown, the Trump administration is greatly influenced by Christian Zionists who also seek the mosque's destruction, in hopes that the Third Temple will soon be built.

Yet, the Trump administration's ties to this apocalyptic ideology go even deeper than has been discussed in this article, as many other influential members in the Trump administration -- especially top Trump advisers Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, and U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman -- also share and actively promote this extremist religious Zionist ideology that seeks to rebuild a Third Temple. As will be seen in the next installment of this series, this ideology is also a driving factor for top Trump and Republican Party donors such as Sheldon Adelson.

The end result is that the hold of this apocalyptic ideology on both the governments of Israel and the United States appears to be stronger now than ever, meaning that the danger currently facing Al Aqsa mosque, and with it world peace, looms large.

Correction | An earlier version of this article stated that Hal Lindsey was a co-author of the popular Left Behind book series. This was incorrect, as that series was co-written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, both of whom were influenced by Lindsey's earlier books including The Late Great Planet Earth .

Feature photo | Texas evangelist John Hagee of Christians United for Israel addresses a crowd of his followers and Israeli supporters at a rally at the Jerusalem convention center, April 6, 2008. Sebastian Scheiner | AP

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.


Anthony Aaron , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:41 am GMT

I have told friends and others who would listen when we discussed these matters that the Old Testament is the biggest, most powerful and destructive post-hypnotic suggestion in all of human history used by the jews to simultaneously manipulate part of Christianity (the fundamentalist/pro-zionist part) to do the bidding of jews in general and israel in particular as well as the Epistles of St. Paul who corrupted the teachings of Christ in his personal crusade to turn those teachings into a proselytizing and missionary 'religion' for the good of its leadership.

We've witnessed the fruits of those destructive elements for hundreds of years, but never to the extent of what has happened in the 20th and 21st Centuries.

Organized religion -- like organized politics, organized labor and organized crime -- cannot be trusted to have anyone's interests at heart but those of its leadership. Hell I'd personally trust organized crime (my family's Sicilian -- and all that implies) more than the other 3 I mentioned -- organized religion least of all.

I've never understood the degree of attachment that fundamentalist/pro-zionist Christians have towards the jews they never seem to really look at the reality of modern life and see just how detrimental -- if not downright destructive -- they have been of our nation and every other nation that's thrown them out.

Strangeness and it's destroying our modern world.

Reg Cæsar , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:50 am GMT
The best thing Christian Zionists could do is to perform their own aliyah and move en masse to the West Bank, specifically Bethlehem and other Christian spots. Learn some Aramaic or Samaritan. Breed like crazy.

We helped destroy Christianity in the Middle East, and we can help bring it back to life.

Christian truth Project , says: Website September 16, 2019 at 5:04 am GMT
https://destinedtoberevealed.com/covenant-replacement-theology/

Replacement theology and dispensationalism

According to one of the most popular dispensationalism theories, God has a special and unique plan of redemption for an earthly people referred to as Israel, and a heaven-bound group of people known as His church. The prominent view is that there are two peoples of God, with Israel realizing special earthly promises during the millennium, and His church receiving heavenly treasures. However, regardless of what manmade term is utilized, this thinking represents a dual-covenant doctrine that is simply not Biblical.

The theological rhetoric in relation to replacement theology also includes covenant theology. This teaching separates Gods relationship with mankind by a multitude of covenants instead of unique dispensational ages. Again, these convoluted systems of belief represent the commandments and doctrines of men and are not at all Scriptural.

There are several prevalent schools of thought regarding replacement theology expressed within the teachings of Judeo-Christianity that paint a false picture concerning the truths of Judaism. This brief synopsis will examine some of these beliefs within the context of replacement theology.

[MORE]

In this article, we will not be viewing Judaism through the narrow prism of propaganda that has captured the minds of those who have been infected with a Judeo-Christian ideology.

For those who are able to escape the false gospel programming, the reality with regards to replacement theology or the profound differences between the Old and New Covenants becomes strikingly apparent.

Judeo-Christianity and replacement theology

Although there are variances, the Judeo-Christian dual-covenant doctrine is not an actual replacement theology as such. It is more of a dualistic yet separate plan of redemption for both the Jewish people and the Christians. Many theologians teach that the New Testament church will be raptured before the commencement of the Great Tribulation. Apparently, at the end of this age, there is a period of seven years in which many Jews will come to know Christ as their Messiah.

Within Christian eschatology, it is almost exclusively taught that the Antichrist will confirm a covenant with the Jews for seven years. And in the middle of this week, he causes the sacrifices and offerings to cease. Then on a wing of the temple, he sets up the abomination of desolation.

The prominent view is that God has promised to save all of Israel. As the story goes, He will bless those who bless Israel, and His everlasting promise to them is unconditional. Unfortunately, most so-called scholars simply do not understand the identity of the true Israel of God.

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It is taught that we cannot exclude the Jewish people from their original and permanent covenant promises, as they represent the natural seed of Abraham.

If the covenant promise was made to Abraham and his seed, who does this seed refer to?
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Are the Jewish people synonymous with Spiritual Israel, or does this family consist of all who are in Christ?
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Yahshua the Messiah

Is it not clearly defined that the righteousness of God is only possible through faith in Yahshua the Messiah without the works of the Law (Rom 3:22, 28, Rom 9:32).
Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith

The Judaizers would claim that we can never combine the Church with Israel, as the two are forever separated with unique identities and purposes.

Romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect

Mark James , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:18 am GMT
How cynical is it for Likud to be taking advantage of these mentally slow Christians? It's pathetic. I would imagine Pence is a true believer. Pompeo may be just acting the part as I would guess many to be doing.

We are going to be paying more for gas soon. Fifty percent of the Saudi refinery capacity is down. But has anybody been thinking what could happen if Iran were hit and taken off-line as well? Would there be US gas shortages and $5 per gallon fill up prices? Maybe this would focus the minds of the daft Christian Zionists.

The GOP needs to get real and stop treating Israel domestic and foreign policies with support at all costs zealotry, only because, it is backed by Christian fundamentalists in their party. It's time to just say no. Like to the nitwit talk about a mutual defense policy.

Al Liguori , says: Website September 16, 2019 at 5:39 am GMT
While convention finds these Zionists called "Christian," there is nothing Christian about Zionism.

The scriptural underpinnings are a complete fraud: http://judaism.is/assets/rapture.pdf

Wally , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:39 am GMT
"Christian evangelicals, with a total membership of 7 million, more than 2 million more members than the entirety of the American Jewish community ."

No chance.

The alleged number of this "American Jewish community" is intentionally misleading nonsense. There are many, many more then they let on. Most Jews are not religious so they do not say they are "Jewish" in questions about religion. They consider themselves Jews nonetheless. They want you to think they are so few & helpless victims when in fact they create massive resentment towards themselves by their owns actions.

And they practically all heavily support "that shitty little country" and whatever is "good for Jews" at the expense of others.

see more at: Predators United : http://www.unz.com/gatzmon/predators-united/ – comment #77

renfro , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:41 am GMT
Will the 'good' Christians care about Falwell and wife's life with a pool boy, a personal tennis trainer, a gay hostel in Miami , naked pictures, calling in Cohen for pictures retrieval, lol, probably not.

Donald Trump Met The Miami Pool Attendant Whom Jerry Falwell Jr. Backed In A Business Venture

Michael Cohen, Trump's fixer and Falwell's friend, was also at Liberty University when Trump and the pool attendant met.

turtle , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:53 am GMT
Why is it that so many of these so-called "Christian Zionists" are:
a) disgustingly obese, and
b) filthy rich?
A private jet? Really? Didn't Jesus say something about a rich man's chances of getting into Heaven being extremely poor? That's how I remember it, but, hey, that was a long time ago. Besides that:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/zKqDx3RDCos?feature=oembed

Exile , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:54 am GMT
@Anthony Aaron It's ironic that Christian Zionism is often considered "fundamentalist" considering that outright hostility to Jews (see Luther) or at least supercessionism (Jews deicide = no longer Chosen, Christians now Chosen) was the theological norm in Christianity until WWII and the advent of Holocaustianity. Given the track record of atheist or "post-religious" society to date, I'd suggest you reconsider the blanket condemnation of all organized faith. Non-kosher, muscular, Germanized Christianity is the model for how to reform the modern church, or build something better in its stead. The Orthodox have their own strong tradition to build on. Both are syncretisms of some of the better elements of Christianity and pre-existing pagan and cultural elements from Europe, and both are proven to advance human happiness. "Judeo-Christianity" on the other hand is a Frankenstein theology that mocks and subverts transcendent and human values alike.
EliteCommInc. , says: September 16, 2019 at 6:02 am GMT
Oy.

The restoration of the state of Israel or the Jews is neither a creation Quakers, Puritans, Baptists, Mennonites, Anglicans, Catholics, Church of Christ, Calvary Chapel, etc. The principle of restoration is not even an idea created by Jews.

One could start at Jer. 16:14-16.

https://www.reconciliationoutreach.net/advanced-bible-studies/end-times/the-restoration-of-israel-is-gods-idea–the-scriptures-that-prove-it/

Now there are lots of evangelicals that say the restoration has come and that it is through the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/120-dispensationalism-and-zechariah-14

-- -- -- --

Pierre Papier , says: September 16, 2019 at 7:28 am GMT
@Anthony Aaron It's not the Old Testament that's the problem, it's the Talmud. Jews hardly read the Old Testament. If they did, they would understand that God has punished them for their subversive behavior for centuries. The Christian religion is the reason the West elevated itself in the first place, which is why it is constantly attacked by the Jews.
jack daniels , says: September 16, 2019 at 7:32 am GMT
This bit about Christian Zionism is just a distraction from the reality of Jewish power. When people raise the issue of Jewish control of congress, how convenient to have the Christian Zionists (7 million? 20 million?) to point to. But they have no real power at all.

Consider: How much power do these pastors and their flocks have when they address any subject other than Israel? Christian Zionists are historically opposed to abortion rights, gay rights, pre-marital sex, sex education, and secularism generally. They come from a demographic that supported segregation in the 1950s and is opposed to affirmative action, immigration, gun-control, and other social policies that secular Jews overwhelmingly support. During the Cold War southern evangelicals were strongly anti-communist, leading to tension with a Jewish community where pro-Soviet sympathies were not uncommon. How much support have they gotten on any issue other than the need to serve Israel? How many evangelicals are on the Supreme Court?

None!

That the ADL would call Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "Masters of Hate" on the cover of their newsletter shows just how much respect the evangelicals can count on when they aren't plugging Israel. And I refuse to believe Mike Pompeo gives a rat's ass what the bible says about anything. His flattery of Hagee and his followers is purest cynicism.

Note that the founders of Israel were NOT religious Jews but Bolsheviks. They created some of the most radical communes ever, with their collective child-rearing system, the kibbutz. Their leaders were happy to weaponize the 'God gave us Palestine' crowd for their purposes, but Israel has always been run mostly by secular Jews. Netanyahu is a good example. In his non-observant hands, orthodox Jewish theology becomes an excuse for simple ethnic chauvinism.

Jews are perfectly correct in thinking the southern Christian friends of Israel do not have Israel's true interests at heart. But it doesn't matter, since they are only fostered to camouflage the power of the secular Zionist lobby.

Again: On EVERY ISSUE OTHER THAN ISRAEL these voters and their pastors get their butts kicked. And even on Israel, if they ever push for something the secular Jewish lobby doesn't like they will get their butts kicked on that too.

Whoever promotes the myth of Christian Zionist power is playing into the hands of AIPAC in its effort to disguise the power of the Jewish lobbies.

Pierre Papier , says: September 16, 2019 at 7:35 am GMT
It's not the Jews, goyim! It's the Evangelicals! Blame them, not us!

Jews love using Evangelicals as human shields. The author fails to mention that The Puritans, as well as all other Judaizing movements, were encouraged and propagated by Jews themselves.

The Jewish/Puritan alliance was born in a mutual rejection of the cross and all it stood for, and the substitution of King David or Simon bar Kokhba or Sabbetai Sevi or Oliver Cromwell or Napoleon Bonaparte as an alternative to the suffering Christ. The Jews were so enamored of Cromwell as a potential Messiah that they sent a delegation to examine his baptismal records in Huntington, to see if he were descended from the lineage of King David. Cromwell, as Graetz points out, was driven to consummate this revolutionary alliance between Jews and Puritans on both the theoretical and the practical level:

G Lordon Giddy , says: September 16, 2019 at 9:40 am GMT
Dispensationalism is based on the misinterpretation of the New Testament references to Israel and the Jews. It's not the Apostle Paul's fault that his words are twisted and misinterpreted. The Christian Church is the new Israel and the new Jerusalem is that which is above and not below. And all who are of Israel are not Israel.
Jesus was also very clear that He was the new temple and even if it was destroyed it would be raised up in three days.

Christianity in the United States has been hijacked by judaizers now in some of the highest offices in our nation. It's very dangerous as we are seeing right now in our dealings with Iran.

Dennis Gannon , says: September 16, 2019 at 9:41 am GMT
I would not call them "Christians". Anyone who holds to the heresy of Premillennialism today is suspect. Most are them are deceived and are fake Christians. A few may be very new immature Christians and a few are backsliders. Today most churches are fake, and called Churchianity, not Christianity. One sign of that a church is fake, it takes the 501 C 3 tax exemption. They don't preach against sin or sinners for money. There are only shallow pep talks only from the pulpit. They entertain goats instead of feeding the sheep. Before the internet, more Christians were in ignorance because they did not have access to the right books or teachers. Now, since the internet, tons of books and teachers are available online for free, so there is no excuse to remain stupid and blind and hold to the heresy of dispensationalism or premillenialism, unless you are just spiritually deceived.
A.R. , says: September 16, 2019 at 10:01 am GMT
I was under the impression that the photo of Hertzl and Kaiser Wilhelm ll was a fake?
Isabella , says: September 16, 2019 at 10:47 am GMT
If true and accurate this explanation could illuminate a long standing mystery to many of us: the source of the power that little, disliked, natural – resources poor "Israel" [better known as Occupied Palestine] has over vast, powerful America.

It can't be "it buys Congressmen" because America has to fund Israel to the tune of billions of dollars. Israel may, indeed, just send the money around in some crazy carnival roundabout, whereby America is funding it's own slavery to a foreign power, but it seems not enough to explain the paradox.

I wondered if it had to do with America wanting a foothold in the Middle East in order to attack Russia from a strong local supply base. However, the largest US base in the ME is in Qatar, with a small local facility in Israel of a few hundred personnel opened in 2017 only. So -- no. this doesn't answer.

For a long time, it seemed that maybe Israel just found ways and means to own American rulers in order to have a strong backing for it's invasion and theft of land belonging largely to Arabic people located among Arab nations. But why they wanted to destroy what had been a peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Palestinian Jews for centuries was not explained. Again, neither did this explain why America would want to do it.

The Religious angle does seem to hold a rational answer – but for an irrational belief. That there could be so many people clinging to an ancient, unsubstantiated belief system as recorded in the Old Testament, and want to kill millions in order to see it re-enacted, seems to totally beggar belief. Is it possible there are so many adults who believe in fairy stories?

There is so much about America and its' people that is a mystery to the rest of the world. How can so many act so irrationally, and hold so many contradictory, irrational beliefs, like "American Exceptionalism".

If this [Christian Fundamentalism] is the answer, then it's horrifying and terrifying; because such people have no rationality with which to deal and understand; no ability to hold any understanding of different viewpoints; and no fear of totally destroying the world to gain their insane ends.

America has long been the land of Cults. This seems to be the worst. What the world will do about it remains to be seen – but if the writer here is correct, then the first step has been taken; to rip the veil of secrecy off and shout the truth to the world in the light of stopping that which we have finally realised exists.

Robjil , says: September 16, 2019 at 10:53 am GMT
@Pierre Papier Cromwell and his Judaziers were planning to genocide the Irish to create a new Israel in Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/e4BVOKIOYJU?start=1085&feature=oembed

Kolya Krassotkin , says: September 16, 2019 at 11:03 am GMT
@Mark James Oh, but Gawd! gave John Hagee XXXL Italian silk suits, a nubile young secretary to bang and his own private jet. Surely he intended all these as clear signs of his blessing.
lgordon25 , says: September 16, 2019 at 11:10 am GMT
The whole "rapture" thing is a homo-erotic fantasy. The normal man fights, works, suffers, and struggles in life, hoping that his strength dedication, sacrifice and meager accomplishments are worthy of God's acceptance, thus gaining admittance to paradise.

These homo-erotics adopt an abduction-rape fantasy where the powerful man-god swoops down from the heavens, beats down all opponents, then grabs up the believers who are actually nothing more than cheerleaders laying on their backs with the legs in the air ready and willing to be "raptured" into paradise.

OilcanFloyd , says: September 16, 2019 at 11:18 am GMT
Christian zionists are crazy and numerous, but I don't believe that they are the driving force behind U.S. policy towards Israel. I can't believe that such a powerful group would lose on almost every other issue, but can control every branch of the government and media on the issue of Israel. That doesn't make sense to me.
Pierre Papier , says: September 16, 2019 at 11:37 am GMT
@Mark James

The GOP needs to get real and stop treating Israel domestic and foreign policies with support at all costs zealotry, only because, it is backed by Christian fundamentalists in their party.

The GOP supports Israel because of AIPAC and Jewish blackmail, not Evangelicals.

ivan , says: Website September 16, 2019 at 11:39 am GMT
@Colin Wright Sir the so-called Temple Mount may not even the site of the original temple. If one needs a wall to piss against while in Israel, the Wailing Wall fits the bill. Considering that the Jewish hordes that came with the caliph would rather slaughter Jerusalem's Christians than build the so-called Temple, we know what the main priority of the Chosen was at that time.
Pierre Papier , says: September 16, 2019 at 11:43 am GMT
@Exile

Both are syncretisms of some of the better elements of Christianity and pre-existing pagan and cultural elements from Europe, and both are proven to advance human happiness.

Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism are syncronistic. The idea that they were was promoted by judaizing Protestants. In truth, Jews have been allies with Pagans since Julian the Apostate.

anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 11:47 am GMT
@TellTheTruth-2 Christian Zionism is an oxymoron -- to those who have never read the Jew Testament.

• Matthew 21:5 "Say to Daughter Zion , 'See, your king comes to you." • John 12:15 "Daughter Zion , see, your king is coming." • Romans 9:33 "See, I lay in Zion a stone." • Romans 11:26 "The deliverer will come from Zion ." • Hebrews 12:22 "Mount Zion , to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem." • 1 Peter 2:6 "See, I lay a stone in Zion ." • Revelation 14:1 "Standing on Mount Zion ."

It's time to go medieval on the asses of anybody who reads, owns, prints, or otherwise bitterly clings to the Holy Hook . It's time True Christians once again burn at the stake Bible-thumpers like William Tyndale. It is well documented that Medieval Christendom banned that Jewish-authored book as brutally as any atheist Communist regime.

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years
http://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-christians-were-denied-access-to-their-bible-for-1000-years_b_3303545

ivan , says: September 16, 2019 at 11:49 am GMT
The historical moment for rebuilding the so-called temple passed when the marauding Jews who accompanied the invading Arabs in 620 or thereabouts, made it clear that they would rather slaughter the Christians than waste their with the Temple stuff.
Pierre Papier , says: September 16, 2019 at 11:54 am GMT
The author pulled a "Fred Reed" and found a way to pin all the awful things the Jewish lobby has done on Conservative Christians.
ivan , says: September 16, 2019 at 11:55 am GMT
So called Christian Zionism is a kind of ersatz religion that is based not on the worship of God but rather the state of Israel. For all too many Americans, they could be addicted to opoids, two months away from payday loans, their daughters could be running riot, but as long as Holy Israel's interests are taken care of : God is in his high heaven and everything is all right with the world.
anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 12:02 pm GMT
@Pierre Papier > other Judaizing movements

Oops, you forgot one. "To the Jews 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship '" ( Catechism of the Catholic Church ) Or just ask the Pope, who told an interviewer that "inside every Christian is a Jew."

anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 12:09 pm GMT
@jack daniels Note that the founders of Christianity were also Bolsheviks, as recorded in Acts, "not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own but all things were common property to them." And Ludgwig von Mises wrote, "primitive Christianity is Bolshevism."
Commentator Mike , says: September 16, 2019 at 12:36 pm GMT
Why no mention in the introduction of the influential 19th century Christian Zionist Henry Wentworth Monk "The Prophet"? He even sought an audience with President Lincoln to ask him to ship the Jews to Israel.
England patriot , says: September 16, 2019 at 12:54 pm GMT
A lot of Brexiteers think along those lines. They think America is still run by WASPs and that the Zionists are their allies.
Anon [381] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 12:56 pm GMT
Christian Zionism is, at its core in the consciousness of the masses, redirected White ethnic nationalism without another permissible home. Harnessed to work for the nationalism of the primary enemy of White people in the West, the Jewish group, that is the primary bulwark against White nationalism.

When people are desperate to have their base political needs met, its seemingly simple to give them a poison pill as a surrogate political position.

Jews are quite good at psychologically replacing political positions of the goyim, which do not benefit the Jews, with positions that do benefit Jews and are fatal for non-Jews:

a. Jewish Christianity, mixed with some reworked older doctrines to coat the pill, for the original European religions.

b. Fraudulent economic nationalism (Marxism) for ethnic-cultural nationalism.

c. Christian Zionism (Jewish nationalism) for European (White) nationalism and European Zionism.

d. "Neoconservatism" (a mix of Marxist social doctrine for the non-Jews and Jewish Zionism) for Conservatism (White ethnic nationalism).

e. Americanism (reworked by Jews from Republicanism to mean Marxist social internationalism, in the modern age) for any type of nationalism.

Coming back from this will require a single, fast, and decisive rejection of all of it. It will not happen by debating the always-treacherous, deceitful, and ultimately murderous kikes in these comments sections.

There is literally nothing to lose by doing so. Without doing so, everything of any real worth is lost regardless.

Johnny Walker Read , says: September 16, 2019 at 1:12 pm GMT
@Anthony Aaron

As one raised in a Christian Zionist church I can tell you the brain washing and mind control is very effective on young children and is quite difficult to free yourself from.

When you look back at the "teachings" in the Old Testament, and how it is presented in these churches, it is nothing more than trauma based mind control. Many will never see the absolute insanity of the teachings that Yahweh is a kind and loving God who, all the while, preaches death and destruction to all who fail to fall in line with his every wish. The Old Testament is one of the most violent and bloody text you will ever read.

When it comes to the New Testament, it is just a kinder, gentler version of the O.T. which still preaches tribe worship, but adds submission to the state as well (thanks Romans).

For those who want to break the spell of this evil force which is about to this nation into its third world war, I suggest the pod cast series by Charles Giuliani:
http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/hosts/charles-giuliani/

Bardon Kaldian , says: September 16, 2019 at 1:13 pm GMT
So, after having created all those multiverses, matter, anti-matter, galaxies, galactic clusters, stars, quasars, red dwarfs, black holes .. God turned His attention to a shitty planet of a shitty solar system in a shitty part of a shitty galaxy. And with His almighty wisdom, He then focused on a shitty strip of land on that planet & became increasingly worried about some two-legged groups of morons, actually evolved apes, who had been wandering around that shitty piece of land- and proclaimed He had a special interest in well-being & future of those evolved apes- who, by the way, constituted a negligible fraction of all evolved apes.

From Big Bang, multiverse, hyper-dimensional .. to a shitty strip of land. Not a progress for God, definitely not

DESERT FOX , says: September 16, 2019 at 1:25 pm GMT
Christian zionists are useful idiots for the zionist NWO and they are supporting a satanic zionist one world government agenda that if it comes into being will purge these useful idiots just as they did in the Soviet Union, for the fact is zionists hate Christians and will destroy them!
Anon [121] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 1:26 pm GMT
@Pierre Papier

The Puritans, as well as all other Judaizing movements,

The Congregationalists are the closest modern heirs of the original Puritan group. For entertainment, peruse any Congregationalist congregation on the web in any major city. Just don't have lunch first. In Dallas, for one example of any that you could use, I believe the major Congregationalist congregation is explicitly one for homosexuals if memory serves. It sees its primary role to be a promoter of all things LGBT. In any other random Congregationalist "church", a typical written expression of their "faith" will be a listing of social justice demands.

Though, I might recommend that if you wanted to observe Power you might also attend a Congregationalist Church. The essence of all things is found at their origin.

A Quaker meeting in a central meetinghouse in a major urban location would be second best. A similarly positioned Synagogue, of course, would be equal to or better than both.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website September 16, 2019 at 1:28 pm GMT
Excellent piece. As per this:

Local papers at the time, such as the Atchison Patriot, regarded Scofield's conversion and career change with great skepticism, referring to Scofield as the "late lawyer, politician and shyster generally " who had disgraced himself by committing "many malicious acts."

This is basically also what WASP "political science" field is–a collection of shysters. In general, however, all this is a complete madness which passes under the nominal "Christianity" title, while being anything but.

Anonymous [895] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 1:30 pm GMT
@turtle Your points start to make sense when you recognize CUFI-ism as the continuation of Southern Freemasonry, now dispensing with the aprons and going directly for the kill with their floppy bibles to undermine Christendom, or what's left of it, from their Jewish-funded podiums on cable TV. As for Rev Hagee, with a wife and two little kids at home, this man was at the office laying more than the cornerstone of his church while singing his alleluias between the legs of the other woman he dumped his family for, like Scofield before him.

Speaking of private jets, if you haven't seen it, I recommend watching the video of the late billionaire "Christian" minister Kenneth Copeland (with private runway, too) and the Rev Jesse Duplantis explain why the need private jets costing tens of millions. Altho it's a little bit of a spoiler, it's so they can talk directly to God without being trapped in "a tube with them demons," meaning the mostly Christian passengers they'd be flying with in an airliner. If there are in fact demons roaming this world. . .

CUFI-ism and the rest of these Masonic groups parading around in the trappings of Christianity are very much like Puritanism, as the author points out. They reject the New Testament and its unambiguous replacement covenant with mankind, relying on the Old Testament covenant to interpret the new using lumpish proof texting that's heretical by definition, ultimately waving away two millennia of the ascendency of Christendom with that verse from Genesis.

Less anyone miss the more general connection between CUFI-ism and evangelicalism as the American religion, I'd point out that in general their ersatz religion uses the trappings of Christianity to flaunt Christ's word. Their "churches" are really civic centers of statolatry, using rock, or the rhythms of sexual orgasm, to capture their highest aspirations. They believe material prosperity is a measure of God's blessing of their righteousness, as their real lives make clear. Instead of pictures reminding Christians theirs is a faith in another realm and do no harm, these temples feature Israeli flags and photos of the sons in uniform sent to die and be mailed if need be, ironically serving Israel-American globe-homo imperium over the world. If their deity provides a dispensation, it's revocation of the sixth and seventh commandments as a reward for CUFI's sanctioning the incineration and dismemberment of several hundred thousand Arabs annoyingly in the way of Eretz Israel.

Pence, Pompeo, Bolton and the CUFI's are the antithesis of what it means to be Christian. There is no possible justification for the incineration of God's innocent children on the grounds that -- as the CUFI's and Fox News like to brag -- we'll kill them over there before they kill us over here. When such ends justify the means, any evil is possible in the hands of such evil men. Right after 9/11 Wendell Berry wrote, Don't kill one Muslim child and dare say you did it to protect my children and grandchildren. This should have been the rallying cry of evangelicals if they believed in Christ's word, not singing alleluia as children's skin was burned off them alive, making those Arab children, as were the 3,000 Americans cremated alive on 9/11, burnt sacrifices to an empire of evil based on lies.

Hans , says: September 16, 2019 at 1:35 pm GMT
Search engines used to readily turn this up: Chaim Weizmann Tells Churchill to Arm the Jews in Palestine and the Jews Will See that America Enters WWII – http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Weizmann_Zionists/WSC_100941.html

"I t has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war (WWI), effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favor of Great Britain . They are keen to do it – and may do it – again . But you are dealing with human beings, with flesh and blood, and the most elementary feeling of self respect sets limits to service, however willing, if the response is nothing but rebuffs and humiliations. American Jewry waits for a word – a call – from His Majesty's Government. The formation of a Jewish fighting force would be that signal. Equipment cannot be the determining factor; there will always be some alternative use for whatever equipment is available; and fresh recruits are all the time being called up in the British Commonwealth by their hundreds of thousands, while we are being told to wait for one single division because of lack of equipment. If the spirit of American Jewry is roused, the influence which this will exercise on America's rather sluggish production will return to you that equipment with manifold gains." (minus the usual cut, graft, theft, and overcharges)

See David Irving's Churchill's War Vol. 1 – http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Churchill/1/

A short and essential text is History of the Balfour Declaration – https://barnesreview.org/product/a-short-history-of-the-balfour-declaration/

typeviic , says: September 16, 2019 at 1:35 pm GMT
Stay in Chile, Whitney. Also, dont board any Cessna planes. I can count on one hand, on how many investigative journalists that are worth their weight in gold. You are amazing.
Hans , says: September 16, 2019 at 1:40 pm GMT
MUST listen – Zionist Insider Benjamin Freedman's 1961 Willard Hotel Speech – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c
Johnny Walker Read , says: September 16, 2019 at 1:44 pm GMT
Truly smart men who helped found this country were well aware of tyranny caused not only by monarchies, but by the church as well. It is why many of them settled on a belief system(not a religion)called Deism.

The words of Thomas Paine:

"The Calvinist, who damns children of a span long to hell to burn forever for the glory of God (and this is called Christianity), and the Universalist who preaches that all shall be saved and none shall be damned (and this also is called Christianity), boasts alike of their holy [revealed] religion and their Christian faith.

"Something more therefore is necessary than mere cry and wholesale assertion, and that something is TRUTH; and as inquiry is the road to truth, he that is opposed to inquiry is not a friend to truth. "The God of truth is not the God of fable; when, therefore, any book is introduced into the world as the Word of God, and made a groundwork for religion, it ought to be scrutinized more than other books to see if it bear evidence of being what it is called. Our reverence to God demands that we do this, lest we ascribe to God what is not His, and our duty to ourselves demands it lest we take fable for fact, and rest our hope of salvation on a false foundation.

"It is not our calling a book holy that makes it so, any more than our calling a religion holy that entitles it to the name. Inquiry therefore is necessary in order to arrive at truth. But inquiry must have some principle to proceed on, some standard to judge by, superior to human authority.

"When we survey the works of creation, the revolutions of the planetary system, and the whole economy of what is called nature, which is no other than the laws the Creator has prescribed to matter, we see unerring order and universal harmony reigning throughout the whole. No one part contradicts another. The sun does not run against the moon, nor the moon against the sun, nor the planets against each other. Everything keeps its appointed time and place.

"This harmony in the works of God is so obvious, that the farmer of the field, though he cannot calculate eclipses, is as sensible of it as the philosophical astronomer. He sees the God of order in every part of the visible universe."

"Here, then, is the standard to which everything must be brought that pretends to be the work or Word of God, and by this standard it must be judged, independently of anything and everything that man can say or do. His opinion is like a feather in the scale compared with the standard that God Himself has set up."

Moi , says: September 16, 2019 at 1:48 pm GMT
@Anthony Aaron "Among the first advocates for the physical immigration of European Jews to Palestine were the Puritans "

No further proof is needed to show that this land was nutty from the time that whitey set foot on it. But I find it hard to believe that Hagge and these other mega-preachers are doing the work of Jesus, peace be upon him.

Johnny Smoggins , says: September 16, 2019 at 1:53 pm GMT
Jesus Christ (followed by Freud, Marx and many others) was just the first in a long line of Hebrew con men who have dazzled the goyim. If you pray to Jesus, you are literally worshiping a Jew. Enough. If you're of a spiritual mind, why not explore your own pagan roots and beliefs? Other than that the bible told you so, how do you know that Odin is not the creator rather than the god of the Israelites?
Johnny Walker Read , says: September 16, 2019 at 2:08 pm GMT
And the consequences of all this insanity: Perhaps the final destruction of western civilization as these clowns in D.C. lead us right into WWIII.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/insane-and-ill-advised-trumps-future-war-iran-part-1

Alden , says: September 16, 2019 at 2:24 pm GMT
@Robjil Very true. But it began about 30 years before Cromwell when James 1 deported the wild Scots Puritan border bandits to Ireland with the express purpose to genocide the native Irish. Once the natives were eliminated or subdued English settlers were given land grants and established what cane to be known as the Anglo Irish Protestant Ascendancy.

The Scots border bandits were later sent to America to settle in the frontier to fight the Indians to keep the coastal merchants shipping interests and planters safe.

Descendants of those Scots border bandits known in America as the Scotch Irish are the heart soul and core of the fundamentalist evangelical Christine Zionists today 450 years later. John Knox lives on in Hagee and the rest of the Christian Zionists.

Malla , says: September 16, 2019 at 2:31 pm GMT
What did Hagee and his Christian Zionist idiots do for Arab Christian communities destroyed by Mossad ..sorry er ISIS? All they do is cry for Israel. Don't they realize that many Palestinians are Christians too?

What is surprising is that most of the powerful nations on earth are Christian (or kind off Christian), USA, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, Italy etc yet nobody could do much to save those Middle Eastern Christians. Very strange.

Priss Factor , says: Website September 16, 2019 at 2:38 pm GMT
Did Bolton leave because Trump himself went Full Bolton? https://summit.news/2019/09/16/rand-paul-warns-trump-against-needless-escalation-of-war/
Hans , says: September 16, 2019 at 2:43 pm GMT
@Johnny Smoggins If that were so, the Jews would not have worked so tirelessly to infiltrate, corrupt, and destroy the Catholic Church and others. Neither would his life have provoked the demented commentaries about him and his mother found in the Talmud. See http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/chapt03.html

You might dip into St. John of Chrysotom's homilies against the Jews and The Plot Against the Church by Maurice Pinay

anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 2:46 pm GMT
@Anonymous "Relying on the Old Testament" is exactly what the New Testament does, as the Old Testament is referenced 4,105 times, including 695 direct quotations.* The only path back to the good times of Medieval Christendom is to ban the reading, owning, and printing of the Holy Hook , and root-out the Bible-thumping bitter-clinger heretics with fire . Deus Vult!
[MORE]

* How many times do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament? An index in the Jewish New Testament catalogs 695 separate quotations from the books of the Old Testament in the New (Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, 1989). There are many other passages where the Old Testament is referred to , as in cases where an Old Testament figure is mentioned, but no specific scripture is quoted. Depending on which scholar's work you examine, the number of quotations and references in the New Testament to the Old may be as high as 4,105 .

The Expositor's Bible Commentary
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979, Vol. I, p. 617

Isabella , says: September 16, 2019 at 2:46 pm GMT
@England patriot Absolute rubbish. Just about no-one in Britain thinks a thing about America and it's people, apart from the odd "celebrity" garbage. Brexiteers all think having a load of unelected tyrants on a gravy train in Brussels laying down the law to the nation that was once sovereign, telling them they are obliged to allow the uneducable low lives of Africa and Arabia in to make London the knife murder capital of the world, is not a Britain they ever voted for or wanted.

So they have the guts to say "we can make it without a rotted tyrannical Europe about to be ruled by Macron and Le Garde in France's favour" [a nation never with a good word to say for Britain at the best of times, and currently turning armed police onto desperate demonstrators].
Rather be struggling on your knees and free, than sitting at a rich mans table begging for crumbs.

TKK , says: September 16, 2019 at 2:59 pm GMT
@ivan I pulled up to a gas station a few weeks ago in South Carolina.

A pick up, well used and dusty, was there driven by a woman with a mullet. Looked like a get your hands dirty female "get 'er done." Somebody that would help you move. Her lone bumper sticker: I Stand With Israel.

Further, driving through the rural South, you see house flags of the Star of David in the yards of modest homes.

Knowing the Jews that I do, this strikes me as sad.

England patriot , says: September 16, 2019 at 3:27 pm GMT
@Isabella The hope that America is going to give Britain a lucrative trade deal is one of the most central ideas of Brexit. To say that Brexiteers never think about America is simply not accurate, the post-Brexit trade deal with America is seen by most Brexiteers as probably the most vital part of the whole process.

The main figureheads of Brexit are Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson and both have clearly pro-American, "trans-Atlantic" outlooks. Nigel Farage clearly sees the Brexit movement as closely related to the Trump movement in the US and has made statements to that effect many times. Unfortunately I would say that many Brexiteers over-estimate the willingness of the US to offer Britain a lucrative deal.

The US is no longer the WASP-ruled, pro-Britain country it once was in the past. The former WASP elite has largely given way to a Catholic elite, bolstered by Hispanic mass immigration, and they are more likely to be politically hostile to Britain than pro-British. If the Irish border problem is not solved and the Irish are unhappy about it, I don't think Britain will be getting anything from America at all.

In fact, even Trump himself is hardly that enthusiastic about Britain and he is about as good as it gets for pro-Britishness in the US these days. Many American politicians are much more overtly anti-British than he is.

anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Malla Nobody should build one of those things without Rabbi Jesus' architectural advice: "For which of you, intending to build a pyrgon [towering pyramid], sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?"
wiggins , says: September 16, 2019 at 3:39 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read Kind of reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/QZ8hefESt7c?feature=oembed

Ris_Eruwaedhiel , says: September 16, 2019 at 3:50 pm GMT
@Anthony Aaron I think that it was Gregory Hood who observed that evangelicals have gone from worshipping a savior of Jewish blood to worshipping Jewish blood.

I agree that Paul created what's incorrectly called "Christianity," but I think that he had his own motive, whatever it was. The Church leaders were good Jews, except that they believed that Jesus was the messiah. Modern-day evangelical Christianity is pathetic – say, "Jewish is Lord," support Israel and oppose abortion, and you're in.

Beau Glenn , says: September 16, 2019 at 3:56 pm GMT
@Dennis Gannon The 501-3c is a good acid test, indeed.

The mark of a true prophet or bible teacher is not a hatred of money or a vow of poverty, but most false teachers love money and use the gospel for personal gain. (2 Corinthians 2:17, Titus 1:7, 1 Timothy 3:3).

Whoever would apply for a 501-3c, is also surrendering their first amendment rights, which seems unpatriotic, to say the least.

Most churches in America have organized as "501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations." This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping "public policy."

Although Johnson proffered this as a "favor" to churches, the favor also came with strings attached (more like shackles). One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501c3 acceptance has had to the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501c3 church. 501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues of the day. Now, that being said, how can a 501c3 legally participate in the modern day politics of foreign countries, i.e. Israel? I've read the code and I did not see this as an exemption.

For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out.

Did the church ever need to seek permission from the government to be exempt from taxes? Were churches prior to 1954 taxable? No, churches have never been taxable. To be taxable a church would first need to be under the jurisdiction, and therefore under the taxing authority, of the government. The First Amendment clearly places the church outside the jurisdiction of the civil government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Religion cannot be free if you have to pay the government, through taxation, to exercise it. Since churches aren't taxable in the first place, why do so many of them go to the IRS and seek permission to be tax-exempt? It occurs out of:

Ignorance ("We didn't know any better")
Bandwagon logic ("Everyone else is doing it")
Professional advice (many attorneys and CPAs recommend it)
Does the law require, or even encourage, a church to organize as a 501c3? To answer that question let's turn to what the IRS itself has to say:

Churches Need Not Apply

In order to be considered for tax-exempt status by the IRS an organization must fill out and submit IRS Form 1023 and 1024. However, note what the IRS says regarding churches and church ministries, in Publication 557:

Some organizations are not required to file Form 1023. These include:
Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church, such as a men's or women's organization, religious school, mission society, or youth group. These organizations are exempt automatically if they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3).

Jake , says: September 16, 2019 at 3:59 pm GMT
@Anthony Aaron The Old Testament is not "the biggest, most powerful and destructive post-hypnotic suggestion in all of human history " Confusing Christian heresy (any form of Judaizing is heretical) or Second Temple and post-Temple Jewish perversion of the Law of Moses and the faith of Abraham (which perversion Jesus said made its adherents the children of Satan) with the Old Testament is itself a gross perversion that only aids the heretics.

This is a spiritual, religious problem, and it can be addressed properly only by non-heretical theology. We have what we do today because:

1. The Reformation unleashed a horde of heresies, most of them partaking significantly in the revival of Judaizing heresies of Late Antiquity.

2. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were thorough-going Judaizers, and they imposed their sense of the world on all English culture, which means that WASP culture is the direct product of a Judaizing heresy. A secularized culture given final shape by a Judaizing heresy will be pro-Jewish in almost all things, including in being violently antagonistic to white cultures that have not been made part of the new Judaized post-Christendom imperial culture. They will ally eventually with Jews against the vast majority of whites, against all whites who resist being culturally Judaized.

3. In forging the largest and wealthiest empire in world history, the WASPs spread their form of Judaizing culture around the globe.

4. Judaizing has been ingrained into the heart of WASP culture by the successes of Anglo-Saxon Puritans so thoroughly that it cannot be removed without killing the host. English-speaking culture that is de-Judaized will stop being WASP and revert to something that the peoples of Catholic 'jolly ole England' would recognize as akin to them. It will want to revive Christendom.

You cannot solve the Jewish problem without also solving the WASP problem.
In fact, without the WASP problem, there is no way that the Jewish problem of the past century or so could have become so menacing to so many. If you doubt that for a second, recall the opening of this article: at a minimum, in the US today, with Christian identification at its lowest ever, there are at least 3 and a half times more Judaizing self-proclaimed Christians than there are Jews.

Johnny Walker Read , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:00 pm GMT
@Malla Great points one and all. I have long agreed with Carlon when he stated: It's one big club and you ain't in it.

Why else would the Russian Generals at the U.N. know the plans of our military before our commanders did in Vietnam?

Why else would Hitler pull up short at Dunkirk when he could have annihilated the retreating British forces?

World leaders put on a great puppet show for us on the world stage. While they play their parts as bitter enemies, in reality they work closely together, with their only purpose being the survival of their ruling class.

The problem is real wars are fought and real people die, all for the pleasure of these oligarchs.

Ris_Eruwaedhiel , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:00 pm GMT
@anon One of the issues that I have with both Christianity and Islam is that believers are supposed to identify with a genetically-alien people.

I read the Bible as a child, but while some of the stories were interesting, I simply couldn't identify with a desert people. On the other hand, I loved stories of the old gods and goddesses of Europe and read the Iliad at age 9. I could identify with them – they were my people.

Johnny Walker Read , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:06 pm GMT
Some problems with "Christianity" and the "Holy Book" for those who wish to become enlightened.
Anon [727] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:06 pm GMT
@Agent76 So called unrestricted religious freedom allows mafias to hide under the guise of religion and then to operate with impunity.

No amount of such social corruption, which eventually bleeds into total corruption, is worth that "first freedom". Precisely because its fatal to the State. The process that we are now realizing.

No State = no protection of any Freedom from mafia groups. What will remain are those "protected religions" as totalitarian organizations that can dominate peoples, as instructed in their doctrines, who are undefended by the State.

In a perfect world, all so called religion would be actual religion and not plans for sociopolitical dominance disguised in pseudo-religion. That's not the world in which we live.

As the world threatens to shrink the value of religious beliefs, people of faith show that religious freedom is at the heart of what makes the world a better place.

This is not the place for pure, unfounded propaganda lines.

From the Middle East to the sociopolitical conflicts being realized throughout the West, Semitic religion and the groups organized around it are at the heart of it all.

The lack of such a protective umbrella would allow group intentions to be stated in their secular context and not be protected when they are openly corrosive and hostile to the nation in which they operate. Which at least two out of three of the major Semitic religions openly are.

We do not have to give this nation up because one or two groups learned to exploit its laws to destroy it. We have a duty to reinforce this nation's defenses against those hostile to its broad existence.

Anonymous [203] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:07 pm GMT
@anon You cite biblical justification of the New Testament and its new covenant as evidence of its denial? You're an idiot.
Ris_Eruwaedhiel , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:08 pm GMT
@anon Oswald Spengler observed that, "Christian theology is the grandmother of bolshevism."

Christianity began as an end-of-the-world cult. Many Palestinian Jews, including John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul (at least at first) believed that the messiah(s) would come soon. Share everything in common, turn the other check, etc., made sense when you thought that the world would end any day now and God and the messiah would set everything right.

Jake , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:11 pm GMT
@Alden The theology of John Knox was not directly Judaizing. It was like the theologies of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, and Thomas Crnamer and a host of pre-Anglo-Saxon Puritans English, broadly Judaizing. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were a different kettle of fish, and their cultural overlordship changed England permanently, which cultural changes were exported to the world.

There was virtually no direct Judaizing brought to the American frontier by the Scots-Irish. You will find virtually none in their writings and actions, whether in VA or SC or TN or MS or TX or the lower midwest, until you get past World War 1.

What changed? They got fully Americanized. They accepted the story that their spiritual fathers were the Anglo-Saxon Puritans. And they began to act what they had embraced. They became WASPs in cultural terms.

Malla , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:11 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov Oh yeah, I forgot about the Russians in Syria. You are right. But not much could be done for Christians in Iraq.
Malla , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:12 pm GMT
@England patriot What WASP elites helping Britain? The US elites played a big role in dismantling the British Empire.
anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:14 pm GMT
@Wally Evangelical Christians do " owe it to the Jews " for their salvic spiritual blessings that can be sourced only " from the Jews ." What are you, some sort of heretical tightwad? One should not muzzle the ox that tramples out the vintage !
Jake , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:18 pm GMT
@Robjil No different from today: WASP Elites would see the utter destruction of the vast majority of whites in order to give to Jews.
Robjil , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:19 pm GMT
@OilcanFloyd Useful Idiots is what they are.

Zionist Jews are at the Top of the human species in the western world.

The Christian Zionists are the best order followers of the Top Zionist Jews.

None of the Top Zionist Jews care a whit a about their useful Idiot Zionist Christians.

It is all a charade.

Zionist Christians are being taken for a ride.

Jake , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:19 pm GMT
@Malla You mean by saving the UK in WW1, the American WASP Elites acted to kill the Brit Empire?

The Brit Empire is not dead – it is now run from DC and NYC rather than from London.

Ris_Eruwaedhiel , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:20 pm GMT
@Saggy Yet, evangelicals are fervently anti-abortion.
Twodees Partain , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:23 pm GMT
@Kolya Krassotkin "Surely he intended all these as clear signs of his blessing."

As you probably already know, financial success as proof of godliness was/is a tenet of the New England heretics. Good point.

Malla , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:23 pm GMT
@anon It is not only pyramids, Iran's sworn enemy Saudi Arabia is on this Illuminati symbolism too.
[MORE]

Saudi police Badge with the "all seeing eye".

What is strange is that Muslims should know this stuff. Islamic eschatology talks about a one eyed anti-christ/dajjal in the end times, with Jesus (Hazrat Isa) coming down from the heavens to fight the evil forces of dajjal (the Jewish massiah). Yet most Saudi muslims accept such symbols.

anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:30 pm GMT
@Jake > all whites who resist being culturally Judaized

That's me! Which is why I'm not Catholic either. Ever read the Catechism? Here's a screenshot of it:

Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew! That's what I call culturally Jewdaized. It ain't just the Protestants.

Franklin Ryckaert , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:32 pm GMT
@anon Was Christ an animal?
Robert Dolan , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:33 pm GMT
Christianity was not the inspiration for Bolshevism.

Marx and Hess and Trotsky were obviously not Christians.

Christianity was aware that jews are the enemy of the Gospel for 1900 years until Darby and Scofield produced their well known heresy.

Martin Luther didn't mice words about the tribe.

Christian zionism is so stupid, so heretical, so the OPPOSITE of the Gospel .you really have to give the nose a lot of credit when they make up shit they go all the way.

Pierre Papier , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:37 pm GMT
@JoannF You sound like another false-flagging kike.
Johnny Smoggins , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:37 pm GMT
@Hans Jews hate Whites, this is why they attack Christianity with such ferocity. I'm sure you've noticed though that they have no problem with the primitive forms of it practiced by blacks and hispanics.

Who but an enemy would plant the idea that if you're attacked, you should "turn the other cheek" to allow yourself to be attacked again rather than fighting back?

Christians may have been more Jew wise in the past but so what? For centuries now they've been worshiping them.
But back to my point; if you're a spiritual person, why not explore your own pagan roots? Is it because the Jews told you that your gods were stupid, but their god is supreme?

Pierre Papier , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:39 pm GMT
@Ris_Eruwaedhiel

Oswald Spengler observed that, "Christian theology is the grandmother of bolshevism."

Oswald Spengler was a Jew born of a Jewish mother who deliberately obscured the roll of Jewish Bolsheviks in establishing communism, put you pagan retards keep falling for it.

Pierre Papier , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read >UFO TV
More Jewish disinfo.
Twodees Partain , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Pierre Papier True. The support of evangelicals for Israel is a fig leaf justification for what would otherwise be an obviously illogical and even treasonous devotion to another country.
Twodees Partain , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:44 pm GMT
@Pierre Papier No, I don't think so. She has pointed out the use of the evangelicals by politicians and their allies and handlers within the US government, and is providing examples to support that point.
Anon [170] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:53 pm GMT
@Robjil

Zionist Jews are at the Top of the human species in the western world.

That's not a smart comment. You made a biological reference. The Jewish race is largely defined by their highest-level of Western Neanderthal (non-human / pre-human / monkey) genetic admixture that they attained from living around the primary Neanderthal cave-hives in Israel and Armenia. They're literally less human than people with lower hominid mixtures. The rest of their genetics are from us (the most unmixed group in the world) and as well as high-hominid admixture groups like Arabs.

Jews are on top politically because of the manner in which small group mafia politics works when embedded within larger groups. The smaller groups will always tend toward superior political effectiveness because it is easier to have a higher degree of interpersonal political cooperation in a smaller than a larger group.

This last dynamic is why so called "religious freedom" has to be abolished. Some time ago, religious adherents figured out that you could embed secular sociopolitical goals and political plans within religion, and then champion religious freedom to protect their mafia.The "religious freedom" system was long ago corrupted and its no longer viable in its present form. The cost of doing nothing is that of losing the Western nations to the domination of pseudo-religious mafias.

Twodees Partain , says: September 16, 2019 at 4:55 pm GMT
@Moi The Puritans were not the first white people to set foot upon this continent. They were just the nuttiest. So much of what they wanted to bring about was opposed by the others who came before them that the division became one of north versus south and led to a war between the two major factions.

The worse side won, IMO.

Anonymous [251] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:03 pm GMT
Do these Christian Zionists care if Christians are being marginalized and ethnically cleansed from teh ME holy lands?

Vladimir Putin's Russia has quietly become the protector of remaining Christians in places like Syria and Iraq. American Conservative Christians don't seem to care anything about remaining Christians in the places the original Christianity first spread under the missions of St. Paul the former Jewish Pharisee Saul of Tarsus.

Pretty much all the news I hear out of Russia, Hungary, Central and Eastern Europe is positive, encouraging, sensible.

In contrast most everything I hear out of USA/UK/England is negative, terrible, insane.

I have to go to Russia Today to get any honest political commentary about our USA, Christians trying to survive in the place that Jesus Christ and St. Paul lived, preached.

How much did these Christian Zionists get paid for their unconditional support for Israel and their promotion of the New Conservative/Zionist war mongering in the ME?

Maybe it was 30 pieces of silver.

anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:04 pm GMT
@Anonymous New Covenant, say you? This is who it's for: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Jewdah . [ source ] Are you one in "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" or not? Let us know, we're all curious. Myself, I think any White trying to identify with a New Covenant assigned specifically to Israeli Jews is as pathetic as Elizabeth Warren trying to identify as an Injun squaw. Maybe you're 1/1024 Jew?
Kolya Krassotkin , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:09 pm GMT
@anon "Inside every Christian is a Jew."

Those who assert that, including Popes, are either liars or idiots.

GogMagog2u , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:11 pm GMT
Christians will certainly be 'physically removed from the Earth' after the Third Temple and arrival of the False Messiah.

Just not in the manner so many of them were expecting.

Ron Unz , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:11 pm GMT
@jack daniels

This bit about Christian Zionism is just a distraction from the reality of Jewish power. When people raise the issue of Jewish control of congress, how convenient to have the Christian Zionists (7 million? 20 million?) to point to. But they have no real power at all .Again: On EVERY ISSUE OTHER THAN ISRAEL these voters and their pastors get their butts kicked. And even on Israel, if they ever push for something the secular Jewish lobby doesn't like they will get their butts kicked on that too.

Well, I'll admit I haven't actually read the article itself, but I happened to notice this comment, and certainly agree.

I think the clearest evidence comes from other countries like Britain and France, which certainly have no sort of significant "Christian Zionist" religious movement these days, but are nearly as much in thrall to pro-Israel policies as the U.S., and for much the same reason, namely the existence of a powerful and cohesive (and heavily Jewish) "Israel Lobby."

anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:21 pm GMT
@Twodees Partain How do we deal with obviously illogical and even treasonous devotion to another country, when the majority of Americans have accepted a "hundredfold" bribe from a Rabbi to forsake their own blood and soil [1], and openly identify as dual citizens? [2,3,4]
[MORE]
_________
Holy Hook References:

[1] "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold , and shall inherit everlasting life." -Matthew 19:29

[2] "But our Citizenship is in Jewheaven." -Phil. 3:20 (Jewheaven being Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2)

[3] "So now you Goyim are no longer strangers and foreigners; you are Citizens along with all of Jewgod's holy Jewpeople." -Ephesians 2:19

[4] "I'm actually a Citizen of Israel." Pastor Anderson, Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, AZ youtube{.}com/watch?v=NFk2SQfoBio

sharkey , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:23 pm GMT
So Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionist are on the same page up to the point where the temple is built and after that they aren't on the same page anymore. Then what? Is that when Christian Zionists take there age old turn to anti-semitism? The hebes will be ready you can be sure.
sharkey , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:27 pm GMT
@Johnny Smoggins Christians will turn against Jews when the shekels stop coming and their tummies are empty. Of course Jews know all that and will be ready as they usually are.
anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:29 pm GMT
@Pierre Papier Jesus was a Jew born of a Jewish mother, but you pagan retards keep falling for it. Glass houses, stones, and all that.
Kolya Krassotkin , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:30 pm GMT
@Malla Did you mean to write "Aretz Israel" or "Ersatz Israel"?

Your misspelling "Eartz Israel" left your comment slightly unclear.

sharkey , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:31 pm GMT
@Robjil I have felt for a long time that when the time comes that a bolshevik style roundup of us goyum starts the christian zionists will be the first victims.
Art , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:32 pm GMT
Real World: Mike Pompeo Blends Beliefs and Policy," the article detailed how Pompeo has made it standard operating procedure to mix his Christian Zionist views with his approach to foreign policy.

Clearly Pompeo is mixing "church and state" – he is not honoring his Oath of Office.

Pompeo needs to follow the US Constitution – not shape US actions around the bible.

Will anyone call him on this?

Think Peace -- Art

Robjil , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:34 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read The term Deism was messed up in the French Revolution. Another term should be used for a religion on based on empathy for all, respect for all, and that deals with present realities with rationality.

https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/cult-of-the-supreme-being/

"One observer reported: "After the ceremony [the people] went to their homes with the tranquility and the propriety of a nation truly free. Today they have rejoiced at the change of place of the guillotine. I have heard a great number of citizens say: 'With this change, the sword of the law will lose none of its effect, and we can enjoy a promenade which will become the finest in Europe'. According to Michelet, other people believed that the new cult also signalled an end to the executions. But far from signifying [this] it preceded, by just a few hours, the onset of what has been called the Great Terror. Indeed, two days after the Festival of the Supreme Being, the Convention voted the Law of 22 Prairial, submitted by Couthon (and generally thought to have been inspired by Robespierre)."

Kolya Krassotkin , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:36 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov God bless and protect Russia. God bless and Protect V. Putin.

-signed, a very patriotic American

Scripted Reality , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:38 pm GMT
Christian Zionists, Christians united for Israel – reality creates best jokes ever,

America is already occupied, annected and a protectorate.

All important things are in the hand of 1-2% of a small minority who is over-represented in media, internet,Hollywood,banks,big business,Wall Street,FED,Supreme Court,NGO's,Lobby like AIPAC,ADL, lawyers etc.

Even Trump is behaving like a Vice-president, as a self chosen King of Israel etc.

Johnny Walker Read , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:39 pm GMT
@Pierre Papier Try this one on for size:
anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:39 pm GMT
@Anonymous Q: How much did these Christian Zionists get paid?
A: 100x value of their earthly possessions -- but payable only after death. (Quite the scam, isn't it?) Please see comment #111 for contractual details.
Malla , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:44 pm GMT
@Jake Not WW1 but after the great depression. And may not be the WASP elites but the Jewish elites. The British Empire had put restrictions in trade in between the USA and the entire Empire after the Great Depression to protect the empire from future such actions with the support of all the colonies.

From the book: The New Unhappy Lords

https://ia800500.us.archive.org/23/items/TheNewUnhappyLords/TheNewUnhappyLords.pdf

[MORE]
" As far as is known "America's" anti-British policy was first given concrete expression in the brief that General Marshall took with him to the Quebec Conference in 1943.
This was to the effect that the greatest single obstacle to the expansion of America's export-capitalism after the war would be not the Soviet Union but the British Empire. What this meant, in practical terms, was that as soon as the enemies in the field had been disposed of would come the turn of the British Empire to be progressively destroyed and that means to this end would be shaped even while hostilities raged. The moment they were over the campaign could begin in real earnest, the signal for which was to be Truman's abrupt dropping of Lend-Lease to an ally whose economy had been so closely geared to war production that many markets for her goods had been systematically referred to U.S producers.
The British Empire was not the only ally marked down for liquidation. The Dutch Empire in the East Indies and the French Empire in Indo-China and Africa were also high on the list "
My comment:
What many people do not know is that the after the damage done by the Great Depression, The British Government put restrictions on trade in between the British Empire and USA to protect the economies of Britain and all of her colonies from the wall street pigs.

In Page 22 of the book we read

"However, as has happened time and again throughout history, the money-lenders had tended to overplay their hand. The six million German unemployed who were the victims of the "Great Depression" resulted in a formidable revolt against the Money Power -- the revolt of Adolf Hitler. There was also a rebellion, although of a much milder kind, in Great Britain and the British nations overseas, whose representatives met in Ottawa in 1932 to hammer out a system of Imperial Preferences calculated to insulate the British world against Wall St. amok-runs. These Preferences, as we shall see, incurred the unrelenting hostility of the New York Money Power and the only reason why a show-down was not forced was the far more serious threat to the international financial system implicit in the economic doctrines of the Third Reich."
My comment:
In other words, the Wall street greedy pigs came to the conclusion that they faced a major threat from Third Reich Germany (the barter system used by the regime) as well as to a lesser extent from the British Empire (and other Empires). Hence the war to destroy Third Reich Germany, Japanese Empire and Italy and then after the war the eventual slow destruction of the European Empires, especially the British Empire. And hence we suddenly see 'independence movements' sprouting all over the world and succeeding. Even before the war we had 'independence movements' and 'communist movements' all around the world thanks to their pet 'Soviet Russia's' agents going all around and 'radicalizing the masses', all with the blessings of Wall Street Banker pigs.

From
The Forging of the American Empire: From the Revolution to Vietnam
by By Sidney Lens, Howard Zinn
Pages 327 & 328

" For Roosevelt, the "new era" meant a shift from the imperialism of the past, in which Britain and France ruled great colonial empires, to a softer imperialism, in which the United States was pre-dominant. He articulated his particular vision of the future on many occasions. Commenting on the good-neighbour policy in 1940, for instance, FDR defined a new approach to underdeveloped countries-"give them a share"-while simultaneously expressing the opinion that it was "a terribly interesting idea" that Britain would have to sell much of its holding in Latin America to finance its war-holdings of course would end up in the hands of American entrepreneurs. "We've got to make very clear to the British from the very onset," Roosevelt remarked to his son Elliot, "that we don't intend to be simply a good-time Charlie who can be used to help the British Empire out of a tight spot, and then be forgotten forever." His bias against the old colonialism was so evident that during an informal dinner at the Atlantic Conference in August 1941, Churchill pointed as stubby finger at the American chief executive and exclaimed: "Mr. President, I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it."

Yet, Roosevelt's opposition to the old imperial system was not predicated on idealism but on the practical and materialistic desire to enhance American trade and investment. As Richrad Hofstadter observes in his American Political Tradition, it "was not simply altruistic; American commercial interests for instance the vast oil concessions that had been made . Roosevelt appears to have believed that the ruthless imperialism of the older colonial powers might be replaced by a liberal and benevolent American penetration that would be of advantage both to the natives and to American commerce. He believed that British and German bankers had had world trade pretty well sewn up in their pockets for a long time,' to the disadvantage of the United States. Arguing that 'equality of people involved the utmost freedom of competitive trade' he appealed to Churchill to open markets 'for healthy competition' and dissolve the British Empire trade agreements'. "

TKK , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:44 pm GMT
@wiggins There are people who still tithe. The "preacher"is driving a Mercedes, and works 2 hours a week for a big salary and free home and they give him 10% of their income.

When you challenge them to help them save their money, they tell you with arrogant surety that if they tithe, they have more money at the end of the month. They say it's blessed, i.e magic.

Here is a disgusting article on it. To fall for this con is tragic and catastrophic stupid.

https://pushpay.com/blog/20-bible-verses-about-tithing/

Malla , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:46 pm GMT
@Kolya Krassotkin Yes I misspelled. Thanks for the correction.
Kolya Krassotkin , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:48 pm GMT
@Ris_Eruwaedhiel "Divine" revelation always apears to happen in deserts and among people under extreme physical and mental duress. Fasting for 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness and then NOT meeting the "devil" would be surprising.
Robjil , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Anon I agree. I say the Top, not that they deserve to be there. They are at the Top. They give us tons of evidence of that for the past 70 years with their full control of our MSM. 24/7 Jewish MSM spouts that Jews never did anything wrong in history and the biggest wrong ever was done to them in WWII.

Aldous Huxley mentioned that Darwin said the following: Humans are a wild species. Why? They are led by Top people who are wild, who will always be wild. They keep replacing each other as they go to the Top. The only way that humans can solve this problem is for the Top humans to be tamed by an alien species. Huxley and Darwin could not mention who these Top people are, otherwise, both would never be know by us. Our Jewish Top Rulers would have crushed them if they did.

Well, no aliens or Jesus is coming soon, for all we know, to tame our Top Jewish Rulers. The best way to tame them is "Free Speech". This is most frightful thing of all to them. Notice Jewish MSM's mass hysteria of "Fact Speech", what they call "hate speech". Free speech is our greatest weapon against our Top Rulers. They know it, so that is the reason for massive clamping down of websites, books, and anyone who speaks up about them and what they do to our planet.

Agent76 , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:55 pm GMT
@Anon I do know history very well and I am a born again Christian and I have yet to veiw a true Christian violating scripture. The MIC is a very different story all together.

January 26, 2019 CIA Was Aiding Jihadists Before Soviets Invaded Afghanistan

According to recently declassified documents [1] of the White House, CIA and State Department as reported by Tim Weiner for The Washington Post, the CIA was aiding Afghan jihadists before the Soviets invaded in 1979.

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/01/26/cia-was-aiding-jihadists-before-soviets-invaded-afghanistan/

July 07, 2014 57 Years Ago: U.S. and Britain Approved Use of Islamic Extremists to Topple Syrian Government

BBC reports that – in 1957 – the British and American leaders approved the use of Islamic extremists and false flag attacks to topple the Syrian government.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/57-years-ago-u-s-and-britain-approved-use-of-islamic-extremists-to-topple-syrian-government/5390279

Robert Dolan , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:56 pm GMT
@Ron Unz CZ's don't really have any power. They are not major donors and they wield very little influence.

AIPAC is the elephant in the room.

As mentioned above, our government does nothing to further the interests of the dumb CZ's; we have abortion, open borders, gay marriage, etc., against the wishes of the goofy CZ's, while our military does the bidding of a foreign state.

John Hagee is a traitor to the United States because he puts "IZRUHL" first, and so does Trump.

You have to give the nose credit for having both smarts and balls. Their tiny little crew has been running the world for the last hundred years, almost without resistance.

Malla , says: September 16, 2019 at 5:57 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read

Why else would the Russian Generals at the U.N. know the plans of our military before our commanders did in Vietnam?

Wow I did not know that one. Very interesting.
I have always find it hard to believe that the USA which could defeat the Japanese Empire would lose out to North Vietnamese. Agreed that the Vietnamese were great fighters, the shorted thinner Vietnamese could go down small tunnels, knew the terrain better, had some popular support etc But still .
Similarly I find it hard to believe that the Soviet Army which defeated the Wehrmacht would lose in Afghanistan. Well I know the Afghans are brave fighters, local support, mountainous terrain made it hard for mechanized troops etc , but still .

Why else would Hitler pull up short at Dunkirk when he could have annihilated the retreating British forces?

Didn't Hitler want friendship with Britain. He though his magnanimous gesture will make the British people realize he is not the monster as portrayed in the British press. He even sent Rudolf Hess to Britain to find a way to end a war in between the British Empire and the Third Reich. But of course the British people never reacted positively to these gestures, they believed their press and radio.

The problem is real wars are fought and real people die, all for the pleasure of these oligarchs.

Sad but true. International politics is a stage with nations as actors. But for the common man the suffering is real.

anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 6:05 pm GMT
@Anon > their highest-level of Western Neanderthal (non-human

So Africans, who have the least Neanderthal genes of modern humans, are the most human of all hominids? It's an interesting hypothesis you have there. It does correlate with the fact that Neanderthals had bigger brains (1410 cm3, 6 cups) than modern humans (1350 cm3, 5.7 cups), and Africans have the smallest (1267 cm3, 5.3 cups.) Although Al Sharpton's is slightly bigger.

Agent76 , says: September 16, 2019 at 6:14 pm GMT
@Anon This is a good informative read minus emotions and is factual.

September 13, 2019 The 9/11 Deception Remains In Control Of America's Destiny

The 18th anniversary of 9/11 is over, but 9/11 isn't. September 11, 2001, is the defining event of America's 21st century.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/09/13/the-9-11-deception-remains-in-control-of-americas-destiny/

Malla , says: September 16, 2019 at 6:19 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read I have come across this theory of Christianity as a Roman invention. The reality is most likely to be exactly opposite. Christianity was a Jewish invention to infect the Roman Empire, a movement on which they lost control but attempted to bring under control from time to time in history. The ideology eventually infected the Northerners (Celts, Germanics, Slavs etc ) and spread all the way down to Africa (North Africa, Ethiopia).
Professor Revilo Oliver (Professor of the Classics; University of Illinois) wrote about this in his book 'The Origins of Christianity'.
You can read it for free here.
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/RPO_NewChrist/toc_ol.htm
Also his 'Reflections on the Christ Myth'
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Reflections.html

From the above:

"The Christ myth is puzzling, an historical problem that is still unsolved. Indeed, if considered a priori as an historical phenomenon, it is astounding. The Jesus of the composite legend was a would-be christ, who anticipates the basic doctrine of the Talmud, that Jews are a unique form of life, vastly superior to all other peoples, who, at best, if totally submissive to God's People, may aspire to the status of dogs. He boasts that he brings not peace, but a sword, so he probably wanted to rouse the Jews scattered throughout the world as well as those in Palestine to start slaughtering the civilized peoples, as did his successors in the great Jewish Conspiracy of 117. Yet this implacable enemy of the Aryans was transformed by the Christ myth into a god that Aryans worshipped!"
snip
"Now, if, in the coming century, say by the year 2100, the Jews begin to venerate Hermann Goering or Alfred Rosenberg or Julius Streicher as their divinely inspired Saviour and worship him as a Son of God and an incarnation of their Yahweh, that would be astounding, wouldn't it? Yes, but not more incredible than the transformation of a Jewish christ into a Saviour of Aryans and a god."

Check it out.

GogMagog2u , says: September 16, 2019 at 6:21 pm GMT
@Isabella Whilst I agree with your sentiment I must point out that beneath the surface of Brexit are powerful and organised Anti Muslim and Pro Israel actors positioning themselves to take advantage of what's left of a friendless, broken apart Britain.

See Tommy Robinson and his Jewish backers fomenting anti Islamic sentiment so the Sun Newspaper doesn't have to keep pushing daily stories about how Sharia Law is upon us and no go areas are everywhere. I am from Northern England and its a shit hole. A Crime infested, drug addled rat race through concrete and dog shit. I don't blame Muslims for that. I blame Lawyers, Bankers and Globalists for they're the ones who encoraged Globalist Economics, created Israel, who allow immigration from victims of Israeli wars, who let criminals run free with pathetic sentences and fostered a general sense of lawlessness in all circles.

To blame Muslims is cowardly, shortsighted and rather dumb considering they are natural allies against Zionism. There are no-go areas in Britain but they're multi ethnic and rarely Muslim only. I'm not blind to Muslim criminality like BBC and MSM in general. Muslims are involved in as much crime as anyone else. To single them out is scapegoating them and playing to Israels benefit.

Britain was left with a shit sandwich by Globalists that have rigged the outcome as usual.

A) Remain in the EU and be drowned in immigrants, loss of identity, low wages, high crime, zero punishment leading to the destruction of the Nation State.

B) Leave and join the US decent into madness. Flailing its arms about blindly striking out at whichever Muslim Country Zionism tells her too until the world erupts in flames leading to the destruction of the Nation State.

Soft Nexit v Hard Nexit.

We wanted Sovereignty but we are nothing but the US's bitch now and the US is a failure in every sphere! So strap in and wind down your window because this is going to get very bumpy and very hot.

Britain should have limped off the Global Stage, secured itself into some kind of Scandinavian Economic and Social restructuring program. Live to fight another day. Instead she booked herself an active front row seat in the biggest collapse since Ancient Rome.

freedom-cat , says: September 16, 2019 at 6:24 pm GMT
@Anthony Aaron All 3 Abrahamic religions are supremacist in nature and completely mis-leading to the masses.
I finally relinquished my entire Christian background (which was not fundamentalist) because the entire religion is overly concerned with form and doctrine.

Christian fundamentalists, like the ones in this article, are just as supremacist as the Jews; both believe they are the "blessed" and the only ones in Gods favor.

Christianity did a bad number on Europeans. Best to let go of it entirely. Jesus's message was not anything like what the "church" teaches. He discovered the "experience" of God and tried to teach others without getting himself killed.

Paganism, Pantheism, Taoism, Zen .are much better philosophies to live by. Jesus was actually more in line with some of those philosophies than anything the Catholics, Protestants, or Evangelicals prescribe.

"if you can name it, it's not Tao" Tao te Ching
(If you can name what God is, it is not God)

Robert Dolan , says: September 16, 2019 at 6:59 pm GMT
@freedom-cat Christians do not believe in supremacy. Christianity is universal and open to all of mankind. It's the very rare (and misinformed Christian) that believes in supremacy. Roman's 11 warns against such pride.

Judaism and Islam are both supremacist religions. The Talmud in particular preaches a virulent form of supremacism and this is why the western world is in so much trouble today. If Christians believed they were superior, they wouldn't be getting replaced. If anything, Christians today believe they are obligated to serve the entire non-white world, thanks to the brainwashing of marxist jews. Christians in the past might have felt some pride in their faith but that was destroyed a long time ago.

anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 7:14 pm GMT
@freedom-cat > Christianity did a bad number on Europeans.

I agree, and I also think the foreign desert religion was best adapted to European culture when reading, owning, or distributing the Bible was as strictly forbidden as it was in the Soviet Union. Once that damned Holy Hook got printed -- and European society's "Tradition" became secondary to the Jewish authors -- all Heck broke loose.

> Pantheism

Suits me! Classical (Stoic/Epicurean) naturalistic pantheism is already embedded into the most popular Western document of all time, the Declaration of Independence, invoking the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, i.e., "Deus, sive Natura." Sadly, there are few who understood him. "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." ( T. Jefferson, 1819 )

Robjil , says: September 16, 2019 at 7:23 pm GMT
@Johnny Walker Read

A religion can't be made up that easy. Christianity was an underground religion for three hundred years. It spread by the means of Pax Romana, its great roadworks and its great sea transport system. This is the only time that the Mediterranean Sea area was so peaceful in all its history. The ZUS never created a Pax Americana anywhere in the world. The ZUS has only created Pox Americana everywhere. Today it is more obvious than the cold war era.

https://www.ancientworldreview.com/2014/07/book-review-shakespeares-secret-messiah-by-joseph-atwill.html

In Caesar's Messiah, Atwill argues that Christianity was invented by the Flavian Roman emperors as a kind of counter-propaganda to prevent the spread of militant Jewish messianism. The book has a lot of problems, but the most serious flaw with his argument is that there is documentary evidence that Christianity was already in existence before Vespasian, the first Flavian emperor, ever came to power. According to Tacitus and Suetonius, there was a large Christian community already living in Rome during the reign of Nero, who blamed them for starting the Great Fire of Rome that occurred in 64 AD. Vespasian didn't become emperor until after Nero's death.

Kolya Krassotkin , says: September 16, 2019 at 7:34 pm GMT
@Malla Well, "Aretz Israel" and "Ersatz Israel" do both work.

Based on what I know of history, to call the modern country of Israel "Ersatz Israel" is more accurate and honest than to call it "Aretz Israel."

Kolya Krassotkin , says: September 16, 2019 at 7:35 pm GMT
@Hans And a meme is born.
anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 7:38 pm GMT
@Malla > Yet this implacable enemy of the Aryans was transformed by the Christ myth into a god that Aryans worshipped!

You nailed it; that is the key concept. It doesn't matter if it was Romans Jewing the Romans (Johnny Walker's theory) or Jews Jewing the Romans (your theory), it was quite the Jewing of Roman society, i.e., a corruption. And the part of Classical Greek/Roman society most corrupted was Epicureanism. The Jewish authors of the Bible copied and turned-on-its-head much of Epicurus' teachings, for example

" an Epicurean sage will on occasion will even perform what may be termed the ultimate act of self-sacrifice; he will die for a friend."

Warren, J. (2004) Facing Death: Epicurus and his Critics. Oxford University Press. pp. 186-187.

But Christianity cheapened the self-sacrifice of laying down one's life for a friend; Rabbi Jesus had only a bad weekend for our sins. Well halle-fukkin-lujah, I had a buddy endure more suffering in traction recovering from a rolled-over tractor accident.

anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 8:03 pm GMT
@Robert Dolan

> Christians do not believe in supremacy.

You're contradicted, straight out of the Bible:

Christians do believe they are superior in the fantasy afterlife realm, and that getting replaced in this life does matter one whit, because it's just another one of those "cares of this world" they're taught to ignore. If you actually care about your family, you're definitely not one of Rabbi Jesus' disciples, and he specifically says so in Matthew 19:29 and Luke 14:26.

anon [683] Disclaimer , says: September 16, 2019 at 8:12 pm GMT
@Anonymous You're confused about the time of day because you can't calculate sidereal time. Geesh, kids these days! Humor aside, it looks like you're quite upset discovering that the "New Covenant" pitch you're shilling comes straight from the Old Testament, Jeremiah chapter 31. The NT is nothing but warmed-over OT, with some paganism and corrupted Greek philosophy in the mix. Why settle for stale left-overs from Jewish authors?
Robert Dolan , says: September 16, 2019 at 8:59 pm GMT
@anon Well .you do have a point that Christians are told not to worry too much about this world because life is temporary. We are just passing through. Actually this is a standard concept for many of the world's religions.

But Christians do not see themselves as supreme. They see Christ as supreme. But Christ set the standard for behavior when He washed the Disciples feet, and modeled the sort of sacrificial mind set that He expected of His followers.

The problem is that some people take it too far, and the term for this is "doormat Christianity."

The scripture you quote about the family is meant as hyperbole to make people understand that God comes first. You have to remember that honoring your father and mother is one of the Ten Commandments.

While it's true that many Christians have turned into pussies, I do not think it's the fault of the Bible. Doormat Christianity means that people have lost touch with basic common sense.
This was not always the case, as Christians found the balls to fight muslim invasions, and Germany tried to fight against communism.

Again, the nose is to blame for the demise of Christendom, and it's fairly obvious if you take a bit of time to look into it. KMAC says that Christianity was the only cohesive group strategy that white people had and I think this is correct. That is WHY the nose worked overtime to destroy Christianity and banish it from the public square. Christianity provided the social infrastructure for whites to prosper, fostering high trust cultures, solid two parent families, high investment parenting, etc.

If Christianity wasn't such a powerful force, the nose wouldn't have bothered to wreck it.

Alden , says: September 16, 2019 at 9:32 pm GMT
@Jake Those Scots Calvinist followers of Knox were just as insane as the Puritans. They made " "covenants" with God, just as the OT jews did. They spoke with God (lol) and God spoke with them. Their one and only God ordered them to genocide the native catholic Irish because the Catholics were pagan idol worshippers, not wanna be jews

450 years later they are still the heart and soul of the Christian Zionists. And they were a lot more vicious than any Puritan ever was because of centuries of cattle and sheep rustling, kidnapping for ransom, extortion of both villages and warlords treason murder for hire I don't know what the Scots Gaelic term for how they made a living was. Italian term for how they made a living is mafia.

[Sep 14, 2019] How to lose 100 millions trying to enter the USA subway cars mar anne ,

Sep 14, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/business/chinese-train-national-security.html

September 14, 2019

Fearing 'Spy Trains,' Congress May Ban a Chinese Maker of Subway Cars
By Ana Swanson

CHICAGO -- America's next fight with China is unfolding at a glistening new factory in Chicago, which stands empty except for the shells of two subway cars and space for future business that is unlikely to come.

A Chinese state-owned company called CRRC Corporation, the world's largest train maker, completed the $100 million facility this year in the hopes of winning contracts to build subway cars and other passenger trains for American cities like Chicago and Washington.

But growing fears about China's economic ambitions and its potential to track and spy on Americans are about to quash those plans. Congress is soon expected to approve legislation that would effectively bar the company from competing for new contracts in the United States, citing national security and economic concerns. The White House has expressed its support for the effort.

Washington's attempt to block a Chinese company from selling train cars inside America is the latest escalation in a trade war that has quickly expanded from a spat over tariffs and intellectual property to a broader fight over economic and national security.

President Trump and lawmakers from both parties are increasingly anxious about the economic and technological ambitions of China, which has built cutting-edge global industries, including those that produce advanced surveillance technology. Those fears have prompted Washington to take an expansive view of potential risks, moving beyond simply trying to curtail Chinese imports.

In addition to slapping tariffs on $360 billion worth of Chinese products, the administration has banned Chinese companies like Huawei, the telecom giant, from buying sensitive American technology. It is moving to curb the ability of firms to export technology like artificial intelligence and quantum computing from the United States to China. And Congress has given the administration expansive power to block Chinese investment on national security grounds.

Now lawmakers have added a provision to a military spending bill that would prevent the use of federal grants to buy subway trains from state-owned or state-controlled companies, a measure that would effectively block CRRC's business.

The bill has gained bipartisan support from lawmakers who say companies like CRRC pose a threat to the United States. Part of the concern is economic: Flush with cash from its rapid growth, China has pumped money into building globally competitive businesses, often creating overcapacity in markets like steel, solar panels and trains.

That has lowered prices for consumers -- including American taxpayers who pay for subway cars. While a subway car has not been manufactured solely by an American company in decades, CRRC's low prices have raised concerns among American freight train companies that the company could ultimately move into -- and demolish -- their business.

CRRC has consistently underbid its competitors, winning over urban transit agencies that are saddled with aging infrastructure and tight budgets. For the Chicago L, CRRC's Chicago subsidiary bid $1.55 million per car, compared with a bid of $1.82 million per car by Bombardier, the Canadian manufacturer. And CRRC also proposed to build the Chicago facility and create 170 new jobs.

Legislators argue that Chinese state-owned companies are not pursuing profit, but the policy aims of the Chinese government to dominate key global industries like electric cars, robotics and rail.

"When you can subsidize, when you can wholly own an enterprise like China does, you can create a wholly unlevel playing field," said Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat who is a co-sponsor of the legislation. "We're used to that unlevel playing field existing between the U.S. and China, but now it's happening in our own backyard."

Another more nefarious worry is also at play. Lawmakers -- along with CRRC's competitors -- say they are concerned that subway cars made by a Chinese company might make it easier for Beijing to spy on Americans and could pose a sabotage threat to American infrastructure, though CRRC says it surrenders control of all technology in the cars to its buyers. Nonetheless, critics speculate that the Chinese firm could incorporate technology into the cars that would allow CRRC -- and the Chinese government -- to track the faces, movement, conversations or phone calls of passengers through the train's cameras or Wi-Fi.

Scott Paul, the president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, which represents manufacturers and the United Steelworkers, said the risks of giving a Chinese company the ability to monitor or control American infrastructure could not be understated given recent laws requiring Chinese companies to turn over data to Beijing upon request.

"I just think it would be irresponsible to assume the Chinese government to which this firm must answer would be a reliable security partner, given its well documented track record," Mr. Paul said.

Whether those fears are justified remains uncertain. Proponents of the bill have not made clear how subway cars manufactured by a Chinese company would pose a greater espionage threat than everything else that China makes and sells in the United States, including laptops, phones and home appliances.

Dave Smolensky, a spokesman for CRRC, said the company was being unfairly targeted by companies that wanted to legislate a competitor out of business under the guise of national security. He said the firm was a victim to "an aggressive multimillion-dollar media disinformation campaign," funded mostly by domestic freight train companies, intended to play on popular fears about China's rise.

Employees at the Chicago factory also dismissed the concerns, saying they had not seen any evidence that they were working to construct "spy trains."

"I haven't seen any secret wires yet," said Perry Nobles, an electrician for CRRC who was rigging wires in the interior of the trains. "With the world full of cellphones and computers, I'd think there's an easier way to get information."

Rising fears of China's ambitions in Washington have prompted officials to adopt an unsparing view, with policymakers and national security officials warning domestic and foreign governments not to trust Chinese equipment.

American officials have waged a global offensive against Huawei, telling other countries that allowing a Chinese company to build the world's next generation of wireless networks would be akin to handing national secrets to a foreign agent.

Like CRRC, the fear surrounding Huawei is largely based on concerns about technological dominance by China's authoritarian government. No one has yet disclosed finding a backdoor in Huawei's products that would allow it to snoop -- but officials say by the time one is discovered, it may be too late.

"The Chinese are working to put their systems in networks all across the world so they can steal your information and my information," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in an interview in May. "This administration is prepared to take this on."

As Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, introduced the provision in March, he said, "China poses a clear and present danger to our national security and has already infiltrated our rail and bus manufacturing industries."

Representative Kevin McCarthy, a Republican whose California district is home to a Chinese bus maker, BYD, had opposed a version of the provision that would apply to buses as well as trains. House lawmakers dropped the bus provision, but the Senate bill would apply to both. Congress will take the issue up again in the coming weeks as part of the annual defense bill.

The legislation would not affect the thousands of American subway cars that CRRC previously won contracts to build, including an 846-car order for the Chicago L. But it would block the company from future contracts, such as those under consideration by the Chicago Metra and the Washington Metro.

The Chicago facility is the company's second in the United States. A factory in Massachusetts that employs more than 150 people is already building trains for Boston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia, prompting concerns that the company plans to expand rapidly in the United States as it has in other foreign markets.

Like many Chinese state enterprises, CRRC is guided by Beijing's Made in China 2025 plan, which lays out an agenda to dominate key industries.

In its 2018 annual report, Liu Hualong, the company's chairman and party secretary, pledged to pursue the dual goals of "Party construction as well as developing into a world-leading company with global competitiveness."

"We conscientiously followed the important instructions of General Secretary Xi Jinping," the report said, referring to the Chinese president and Communist Party leader.

The last American firm to make passenger rail cars, the Pullman Company, produced its final car in 1981. Since then, major American cities have bought subway cars from Bombardier and Japanese manufacturers like Kawasaki, Hyundai and Hitachi.

But American manufacturers of freight rail cars, including the Greenbrier Companies and TrinityRail, which is based in Mr. Cornyn's home state of Texas, say CRRC could use its footing in the United States to steal its business. Together with unions and others, they have mounted a lobbying campaign against CRRC under an umbrella group known as the Rail Security Alliance.

The group says American taxpayer dollars should not be spent in China, where the empty rail cars are made before being shipped to the United States for further work at the company's facilities in Illinois or Massachusetts.

"We think those dollars should stay here," said Erik Olson, the vice president of the Rail Security Alliance.

CRRC sends over experts from its giant headquarters in Qingdao, China, to plants in other countries. In Chicago, the American employees call these Chinese citizens "shifu," a polite term for a skilled worker meaning "master" or "teacher."

On a sunny day in July, the company break room was split between shifus, wearing white jumpsuits and eating stuffed buns, and American workers, many of whom had joined the company in the last few months. The gleaming concrete factory floor was bare, save for a few dozen people installing wiring, air ducts and other components into the empty shells of two rail cars.

"We are a little concerned because it's our livelihood," said Mr. Nobles, who was hired in March from a previous factory job making frames for the Ford Explorer.

This summer, CRRC replaced the Chinese flag outside the factory with a Chicago flag. It has also retained two Washington lobbying firms, Squire Patton Boggs and Crossroads Strategies, to plead its case in Congress.

It may be too late. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said he helped sponsor the bill to prevent the American transit system from being "controlled by a foreign country that is not particularly friendly to us."

"They spell out in black and white they're going to use foreign investment as a weapon, and we're taking action to defend ourselves," Mr. Brown said.

[Sep 14, 2019] Women in theocratic state are usually slaves but the degree of oppression varies beween different states. One extreme definitely is Saudi Arabia but how far Iran is form it is unclear

Sep 14, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

See Women's rights in Iran - Wikipedia . Iran ranked 116 out of the 153 countries in terms of legal discrimination against women. 90% of women in Iran use cellphones and have "access to financial accounts" in Iran. In other South Asian regions, "less than 2 in 5" have this access, and a similar high share of women using cellphones

Under Reza Shah women were banned the wearing of the Islamic hijab in public. It was announced that in the beginning of 2018, women would no longer be arrested for wearing 'bad hijab' in public. In August 2019, Iranian civil rights activist Saba Kord Afshari was sentenced to 24 years behind bars, including a 15-year term for taking off her hijab in public, which Iranian authorities say promoted "corruption and prostitution." [30] [31]

WTFUD , 8 minutes ago link

You're Crackers!

Persian women are FREE. Saudi women are SLAVES.

Einstein101 , 6 minutes ago link

Persian women are FREE

I heard Persian women are not allowed to attend stadium sports events, like soccer games. Is this true?

[Sep 14, 2019] The End of Israel by Gilad Atzmon

Theocratic of neo-theocratic states do not last long. So Gilad Atzmon is probably right. The writing for theocratic Israel might well be on the wall, much like it was for the USSR. At some point the majority of population just became sick and tied of the theocratic elite and stops believing the official propaganda. .
Trump strong connecting and deference to Zionists means that he will lose certain strata of voters that previously voted for him. Will money form Zionist billionaire donors outweigh this factor is difficult to say.
Sep 14, 2019 | www.unz.com

This conflict at the heart of Israeli politics is a window into the Jewish state and its fears. Israel is rapidly becoming an Orthodox Jewish state. Israel's Orthodox Jews are the fastest growing group in the country. They are also the country's poorest population, 45 percent live below the poverty line in segregated communities. Ordinarily, one would expect the poor to support the left, but Israeli Torah Jews are rabid nationalists and openly lend their support to Benjamin Netanyahu and his party.

Prof. Dan Ben-David of Tel Aviv University warned recently that Israel could cease to exist in a couple of generations. He pointed to the astonishingly high birth rate among ultra Orthodox Jews and predicted that, based on current trends, they will comprise 49% of Israel's population by 2065. The ultra Orthodox parties are destined to dominate the Knesset within a generation or less. Ben David predicts that their dependence on Israel's welfare system will lead to a rapid decline is Israel's economy. This is economically damaging enough and is made worse by the refusal of most rabbinical schools to incorporate standard Western subjects such as mathematics, science and English into their core curriculum. Consequently, Israel is educating a growing percentage of its population in a fashion that fails to equip them to contribute to the needs of a hi-tech society that is immersed in a conflict for survival.

The picture that comes across is peculiar. As Israel becomes increasingly Jewish and fundamentalist in its nationalist and religious ethos, it has also become more divided on everything else. The Russian immigrants find it impossible to live alongside the ultra Orthodox and vice versa. The secular enclave in Tel Aviv is committed to seeing their metropolis as an extension of NY.

The Israeli Left has morphed into an LGBT hasbara unit. It has practically removed itself from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Jewish settlers adhere to the concept of a 'Two Jewish States Solution.' They want to see the West Bank become a Jewish land. Orthodox Jews are barely concerned with any of these political issues. They well know that the future of the Jewish state belongs to them. All they need to do is sustain a productive secular Jewish minority to serve as their milk cow. On top of all of that we face Bibi's survival wars that threaten to escalate any minute into a world conflict.


Altai , says: September 12, 2019 at 8:49 pm GMT

This is why I'm more optimistic the more Trump embraces Israel. He seems to have clearly decided not to get caught in Syria and so has to keep them off his back in some other way, moving the embassy and presumably giving Netanyahu the greenlight for annexation of more of the West Bank is a good thing.

It means Israel incorporates more and more Palestinians that it can't disengage from by keeping within it's existing borders and it means damaging the bi-partisan consensus with Trump's polarising association.

Everything Netanyahu does is just pulling back the sinews for the final reckoning. Instead of staying within reasonable borders and seeking a reconciliation with neighbours, Israel just gets more demanding, more unreasonable, breaks more promises and makes itself impossible to negotiate with and runs headlong into more and more Palestinian citizens.

What's unfortunate is that Europe and the US will be forced to put up with the millions of vagrant Sabras when it all goes kaput. Instead of becoming less anti-social, the Sabra became a magnificent compilation of every annoying and anti-social habit of the nations. Israelis make Sicilians look like Swedes.

Priss Factor , says: Website September 12, 2019 at 9:53 pm GMT
@Robert Dolan Israeli power is the consequence of Jewish-American Power.

It's like the princeling brat can romp around and make all kinds of trouble because his father is the king.

The King of Jewish Power is the hold over America.

Gilad Atzmon , says: September 12, 2019 at 9:56 pm GMT
@Altai I agree Altai . at the end of the day this entire mess will fall on Europe and The USA but if I read the map correctly the tolerance and empathy to the primacy of Jewish suffering is running out..the situation is getting complicated
Gilad Atzmon , says: September 12, 2019 at 9:56 pm GMT
@Altai I agree Altai . at the end of the day this entire mess will fall on Europe and The USA but if I read the map correctly the tolerance and empathy to the primacy of Jewish suffering is running out..the situation is getting complicated
niteranger , says: September 13, 2019 at 1:41 am GMT
@Robert Dolan Absolutely correct. If not for the US and it's Jewish Controlled Congress that never met a money bill for the Magic Jews Israel would be under water already. Our infrastructure is collapsing but we continue to find money for Israel no matter that we have cities with thousands of homeless people with the threat of disease and Middle Age plagues on our door step. Orthodox Jews are like Muslims in many ways because they love the "Welfare State" and they stay on it forever. Sections of New York are saturated with these Orthodox Welfare Jews and idiots like DeBlasio caters to them.

There is now a backlash by both blacks who hate them and want to kill them for their business practices in real estate and upper middle class residents that refuse to allow them to build their so called "Jewish Orthodox Communes" and take over the areas.

Israel may have overplayed their hand but that doesn't mean they will just disappear. They are sick enough to take mankind with them with their eternal wars. Hopefully Netanyahu is crazy enough to start a conflict with Iran who will bomb the shit out of them and then Hezabollah will destroy the wimp military the IDF.

We can only hope and perhaps mankind will have a chance .

Dennis Gannon , says: September 13, 2019 at 2:27 am GMT
It is more accurate to call them Talmudists. They are not "Jews". Jew is a recent abbreviation of Judean. The Ashkenazi came from Asia. They don't follow the Old Testament. They follow the Talmud, which is Maciavellian to the core. Pure evil. Since God made the man Jesus to be Lord, eventually, their works will be judged, they are headed for destruction morally, you reap what you sew. Israel is the most anti-Semitic country on earth. Which makes them hypocrites. The Arabs and Palestinians are a Semitic people and no one hates and kills them more that Israel.
Gilad Atzmon , says: Website September 13, 2019 at 4:10 am GMT
@Colin Wright As you may know Zionism was born as a reaction to antisemitsm and this fact alone suggests that people including Jews were aware of the problem before Israel was formed
Giuseppe , says: September 13, 2019 at 4:34 am GMT
@Gilad Atzmon

I don't want to ruin the party but as far as I can tell Israel is not the problem it is just a symptom of the problem peculiarly, Israel was born to fix the problem

Interesting point of view, actually, one of the most profound things I have ever read. If this is their calling, and I too somehow believe it is, they need to turn around, because they are kind of falling down on the job. So I look forward to that great day of turning. However, when they call you names, anti-Semite, self-hating Jew, or whatever else they might dig up, they greatly err, because you are a watchman on the wall.

Frankie P , says: September 13, 2019 at 4:57 am GMT
@Saggy Gilad has expressed his views on this topic many, many times. The early Zionists desired a Jewish State to make Jews human. By this, I mean that they were well aware of the Jewish Question and the repeated bad behavior of Jews in host societies, both Muslim and Christian. They were conscious of the economic role of powerful Jews, particularly with their usurious financial practices, but also as tax collectors and enforcers for the aristocracy. This, along with their tilted ethnocentric business practices, favoring their own while fleecing the goyim, invariably led to their control of what were traditionally local businesses, creating a growing resentment in local societies that reached critical mass. What followed were pogroms and expulsion. This occurred in both Muslim and Christian lands, but were especially pronouncrd in Christian Europe, which took more aggressive protective actions to shield itself.

The early Zionists wanted to be the midwives of a Jewish State that would solve the JQ by making a nation of Jews, in which Jews carried out all of the work, took all the jobs, from garbage collecting to farming, from street cleaner to bank president. They wanted to stop the pogroms and expulsions, but at the same time they were keenly aware that these were effects of Jewish behavior and actions, not senseless anti-Semitism of the goyim. So, yes Israel was conceived and born to solve the problem.

It didn't.

refl , says: September 13, 2019 at 6:10 am GMT
@Gilad Atzmon

As you may know Zionism was born as a reaction to antisemitsm and this fact alone suggests that people including Jews were aware of the problem before Israel was formed

Was it? Or was antisemitism the solution by the jewish leadership to the dissolution of their community in modern arreligious society? Was antisemitism the virtual ghetto wall?
Tell the people within that those outside want to kill them, at the same time having a small faction of very cunning Jews who go outside and produce trouble that then by necessity falls back on the whole community?

I find it quite astonishing when I read how privileged certain Jews were in European states, compared to what was the norm for regular Christian folks.
And indeed, also Christians were butchered, expelled etc in more religious times.

mena , says: September 13, 2019 at 7:50 am GMT
peculiarly, Israel was born to fix the problem

I have heard you say this before and remain surprised that you seem to believe this. The whole " people like any other people" hasbara may have been a sales approach tailored to a particular audience at some point, but any sincerity behind it has been demonstrably beside the point. Israel has been a projection of raw power from the start.

sally , says: September 13, 2019 at 8:16 am GMT
@niteranger Are you sure => "we continue to find money for Israel" <=unless you are among the elected 527 that run the USA you probably are not included in the WE.. did you vote (either yes or no) to send money to Israel?

Three votes (one to select a person to fill one of (1/425) jobs in the house of representatives, and 1 vote to select each of 2 persons to fill two senate jobs (2/100) does not make most Americans into deciding members of the USA. Not only that, at election time, American votes for President or VP do not count, because the electoral college vote decides who shall be President or vice President? So why do the candidates spend billions on the presidential elections?

350,000,000 Americans are governed by 527 salaried persons, who are elected to work at the USA.

Israel is a product of the bankers and their corporations; it began in earnest in 1897 in Switzerland.

The great success of Zionism (not racially or religiously connected) has been its networking ability. It can identify and intercept opposing forces, transport resources($, and people) in invisible ways, to/from multi many places, to focus on and to support a target project (local, regional, national or international) . The network that facilitates this "always win intention" works like a newspaper on one side, keeping all elements informed, and on the other side, like a powerful, but invisible government; seeking or willing to invade, protect or promote a place, project or person on the other side.

The network can concentrate fire power, vote power, impose political pressure, control the media, and develop the means to take advantage of, or put down, situation or opportunity or it can protect a friend in need. In a few days, a local situation or a massive opportunity can be "crowd funded" or "petition protected" via the network. For hypothetical example, say the NYT comes up for sale, in a short while a person with meager credit, tenders a multi-billion dollar offer backed with financing sufficient to acquire the opportunity? So how did the credit come to make this possible?

Its not Israel per se..that the USA congress supports: its the banking establishments and their powerful multi nation corporations, seeking to control the middle east, seeking to use "in the course of commerce" as their excuse for invisible weapon, mind control, and spy technology development. Its Economic Zionism that explains the foreign nation state support for Israel. IMO except for the propaganda value, race or religion has little to do with it.

Germanicus , says: September 13, 2019 at 8:28 am GMT
@Gilad Atzmon Why not infuse Israel with the tons of fanatical leftist(godless) Jews we have in Germany and Europe? They could counter the orthodox leeching by providing work force, and could additionally work their bottoms off on "racism", transform settlements in gay discos and do all the other professional complaints they make in Europe, like open borders.
The Jews in Europe are always scared, if Netanyahu calls them to Israel due to "anti-semitism". If a non Jew says something similar, its evil and "anti-semitic" of course.

It is quite interesting to note, that Israel develops in a theocracy(always has been in my view), while the Jews outside Israel seek to disprove/kill god and are in rebellion against god, nature, more or less play god.

Antares , says: September 13, 2019 at 8:45 am GMT
@FvS "It is the patriotic duty of all American Jews to relocate to Israel and help their nation thrive. Remember the holocaust. Also, democracy is garbage."

You could be an American patriot who doesn't want to pay 3.8 billion per year.

gotmituns , says: September 13, 2019 at 9:22 am GMT
Theodor Herzl said, "Where there is no anti Semitism, there are no Jews."
Lol , says: September 13, 2019 at 9:25 am GMT
@Gilad Atzmon The issue is that regular Europeans have diminishing rates of sympathy for Jews and the only reason European politics don't trash Israel is largely vassalage to America and not having an independent foreign policy.

With Americans ruining their relations with everyone, this will most likely change since there's no real reason for Europeans to source military equipment from outside the EU, have sanctions on Iran or Russia instead of backing their infrastructure projects, not back China in the Pacific if it offers a better deal etc.

Essentially, Jews will be America's problem and rightfully so considering right wing Americans can't seem to stop sucking Jewish dick.

Lol , says: September 13, 2019 at 9:34 am GMT
@A123 The only realistic plan would probably involve Israel not violating the fourth Geneva convention anymore which would mean the Jewish settlements on territories outside the pre-1967 borders will cease to exist as Jewish in any way.

Once you reject international law, you can't appeal to it anymore, but you must be Jewish if you think you can pick and choose what suits you. Lol

Johnny Walker Read , says: September 13, 2019 at 12:19 pm GMT
@Rational The "Holy Hook" is being exposed on a level never imagined. Charles Giuliani has a great series out exposing the "Tribe". This is one of my favorites:
http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/truth-hertz-pimp-daddy-abrahams-adventures-in-egypt-6-17-19/
Greg Bacon , says: Website September 13, 2019 at 12:24 pm GMT
The loonie Avi Lieberman is salivating at the thought being Israeli PM, and the loonie Nuttyahoo is salivating at the thought of staying PM and using that power to keep his sorry ass out of prison.

Presented with those two choices is like a robber asking its victim, "Do you want to be stabbed with a knife or shot with a gun?"

Johnny Walker Read , says: September 13, 2019 at 12:25 pm GMT
@Robert Dolan America will never be shed of this parasite until the fundamentalist Christian Zionist/NeoCons are swept from power. They are every bit as insane as the radicalized Muslims. You tell me which country this clown truly servers!!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/UYEF8y7IZYc?feature=oembed

anonymous [420] Disclaimer , says: September 13, 2019 at 12:29 pm GMT
@Anon

Few goyim will make the leap to figure out the modern implications of the Moses mythology.

You should discuss that with @ Dennis Gannon, who appears to be tangled in a ball of misunderstanding or ignorance, especially of Machiavelli, evident when he wrote:

The Ashkenazi came from Asia. They don't follow the Old Testament. They follow the Talmud, which is Maciavellian to the core. Pure evil.

Crack open The Prince: Machiavelli "figured out the modern implications of the Moses mythology." Of three candidates Machiavelli considered, he selected Moses as the model Prince. Certain "evil" behavior that became necessary to save his beloved city, Florence, and make it a Republic of and for the people of Florence, was acceptable, inasmuch as Moses, whose chief counselor was god himself, used whatever means necessary to achieve the wellbeing of the conquerors of Canaan.

If only the people of the USA had a Prince as evil, and as dedicated to the wellbeing of the American people, as Machiavelli was to Florence.

Frankie P , says: September 13, 2019 at 12:50 pm GMT
@Brewer "Zionism was born as a reaction to antisemitism." Gilad is correct, but I believe that implicit in his statement is the understanding that the "antisemitism" is reactionary: it is born out of the anti gentile behavior and actions of Jews in gentile host societies. Gilad, please correct me if I've misrepresented you.
DESERT FOX , says: September 13, 2019 at 12:59 pm GMT
Israel is a terrorist state ran by terrorists for terrorists and its goal is to destroy the mideast for its greater Israel agenda and with the help of the zionist controlled zio/US government and the American taxpayers funding of these wars and providing the military muscle the zionists are now their way to armageddon!
Twodees Partain , says: September 13, 2019 at 1:45 pm GMT
@Brewer My definition of antisemitism is any pushback against crimes of the Ashkenazi.
Charles Pewitt , says: September 13, 2019 at 2:06 pm GMT
Israel is not an ally of the United States of America.

Israel is a client-state millstone of the American Empire that uses diasporan Jews such as Shelly Adelson to buy off politicians such as President Trump.

Andrew Jackson and George Washington would immediately sever all ties to Israel and they would make sure that diasporan Jews that put the interests of Israel over and ahead of the interests of the USA were strongly encouraged to permanently leave the USA. Those Jews who put the interests of Israel over and ahead of the interests of the USA should be disallowed from gaining entry into any other European Christian nation such as Canada, Australia, Germany, France, England, Italy, Spain etc.

It would also be a no-go Blavatsky for these diasporan Jews who put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the USA to go to South America or Asia or anywhere else. Israel must be made into a receptacle that will contain and constrain the ability of diasporan Jews and Israeli Jews from interfering in the governmental affairs of any other nation.

One of the reasons I will not vote for Trump and the Republican Party is that Trump and the Republicans put the interests of Israel over and ahead of the interests of the United States of America.

Trump seems to get the fact that the American Empire is a completely and totally separate entity from the United States of America. Trump seems to understand that resistance to Shelly Adelson's demands about foreign policy decisions regarding Israel is the best way to show patriotism to the USA.

The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is a clear and present threat to the safety, security and sovereignty of the United States of America

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FIRST!

Charles Pewitt , says: September 13, 2019 at 2:18 pm GMT
Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson puts the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the USA.

Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to President Trump and the Republican Party over the years.

What has all that loot bought for diasporan Jew Adelson?

Is Adelson buying the foreign policy of the USA?

How come that dumb boob Chris Christie used the word "occupied" in front of Adelson when Christie was trying to pry some loot out of Adelson's checkbook? DUMMY!

Tweet from 2015:

Charles Pewitt , says: September 13, 2019 at 2:21 pm GMT
The ruling class in Israel wants to continue to use the US military as muscle to fight wars on behalf of Israel.

The ADL puts the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States of America.

The ADL is an evil and immoral JEW PRESSURE GROUP that pushes mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and REFUGEE OVERLOAD and ASYLUM SEEKER INUNDATION and multicultural mayhem and all manner of other anti-White crud.

DESERT FOX , says: September 13, 2019 at 2:34 pm GMT
@Charles Pewitt Agree, the zionists have controlled the American people since 1913 when they fastened their privately owned central bank aka the FED and IRS on to the American people and then came the foreign wars and debt and total control of the American people by the zionists and their banking kabal.

Nathan Rothschild infamously said; I care not what puppet is place on the throne of England for the man who controls the money supply controls the British Empire, and I am that man!

The same holds true here in the zio/US the zionists have control of the money supply via the FED and we are slaves on the zionist plantation aka America, and a central bank and the income tax are 2 of the 10 planks of the communist manifesto, and zionism = communism!

Anonymous Snanonymous , says: September 13, 2019 at 3:05 pm GMT
So the Orthodox will turn Israel into a big shtetl within the span of next fifty years with the financial help of the "secular" Jews in the West and then they would want to do away with the LGBTQ crowd out of Tel Aviv you reap what you sow!
Wally , says: September 13, 2019 at 4:07 pm GMT
@J said:
"Under all that noise there is country growing and strengthening very fast"

Dream on.
Without US taxpayers money "that shitty little country" wouldn't last a month.

The True Cost of Parasite Israel
Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers
.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

How Zionist Israel Is Robbing America Blind !:
http://www.unz.com/gatzmon/how-zionist-israel-is-robbing-america-blind/

[Sep 10, 2019] Trade Wars Are a Fool's Game -- Strategic Culture

Sep 10, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org

Eric MARGOLIS

According to the great military thinker, Maj. Gen. J.F.C. Fuller, 'the object of war is not victory. It is to achieve political goals.'

Too bad President Donald Trump does not read books. He has started economic wars against China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela without any clear strategic objective beyond inflating his ego as the world's premier warlord and punishing them for disobedience.

Trump's wars are economic. They deploy the huge economic and financial might of the United States to steamroll other nations that fail to comply with orders from Washington. Washington's motto is 'obey me or else!' Economic wars are not bloodless. Imperial Germany and the Central Powers were starved into surrender in 1918 by a crushing British naval blockade.

Trade sanctions are not making America great, as Trump claims. They are making America detested around the globe as a crude bully. Trump's efforts to undermine the European Union and intimidate Canada add to this ugly, brutal image.

Worse, Trump's tariff war against China has damaged the economy of both nations, the world's leading economic powers, and raised tensions in Asia. The world is facing recession in large part due to Trump's ill-advised wars. All to prove Trump's power and glory.

Trump and his advisors are right about China's often questionable trade practices. I did 15 years of business in China and saw a kaleidoscope of chicanery, double-dealing, and corruption. A favorite Chinese trick was to leave imports baking in the sun on the docks, or long delaying them by 'losing' paperwork.

I saw every kind of craziness in the Wild East Chinese market. But remember that it's a 'new' market in which western-style capitalism is only one generation old. Besides, China learned many of its fishy trade practices from France, that mother of mercantilism.

China indeed steals technical and military information on a mass scale. But so does the US, whose spy agencies suck up information across the world. America's claims to be a victim are pretty rich.

What Trump & Co don't understand is that China was allowed into America's Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere by the clever President Nixon to bring it under US influence – just as Japan and South Korea were in the 1950's. China's trade surplus with the US is its dividend for playing by Washington's rules. If China's trade bonus is stripped away, so will China's half-hearted acceptance of US policies. Military tensions will rise sharply.

In China's view, the US is repeating what Great Britain did in the 19th century by declaring war to force opium grown in British-ruled Burma onto China's increasingly addicted people. Today the trade crop is soya beans and wretched pigs.

Trump's ultimate objective, as China clearly knows, is to whip up a world crisis over trade, then dramatically end it – of course, before next year's elections. Trump has become a master dictator of US financial markets, rising or lowering them by surprise tweets. No president should ever have such power, but Trump has seized it.

There is no telling how much money his minions have made in short or long selling on the stock market thanks to insider information. America's trillion dollar markets have come to depend on how Trump feels when he wakes up in the morning and watches Fox news, the Mother of Misinformation.

It staggers the imagination to believe that Trump and his minions actually believe that they can intimidate China into bending the knee. China withstood mass devastation and at least 14 million deaths in World War II in order to fight off Japanese domination. Does the White House really think Beijing will cave in over soya beans and semi-conductors in a daft war directed by a former beauty contest and casino operator? China's new emperor, Xi Jinping, is highly unlikely to lose face in a trade war with the US. Dictators cannot afford to retreat. Xi can wait it out until more balanced minds again occupy the White House.

Trade wars rarely produce any benefits for either side. They are the equivalent of sending tens of thousands of soldiers to be mowed down by machine guns on the blood-soaked Somme battlefield in WWI. Glory for the stupid generals; death and misery for the common soldiers

This fool's war of big egos will inevitably end in a face-saving compromise between Washington and Beijing. Get on with it.

ericmargolis.com

[Sep 10, 2019] 'The New Normal' Trump's 'China Bind' Can Be Iran's Opportunity by Alastair Crooke

Notable quotes:
"... The old adage that the 'sea is always the sea' holds true for US foreign policy. And Iran repeating the same old routines, whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US Administration will inherit the same genes as the last. ..."
"... And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran. The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'. ..."
"... "[So] decoupling is already in motion. Like the shift of tectonic plates, the move towards a new tech alignment with China increases the potential for sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy and supply chains. To defend America's technology leadership, policymakers must upgrade their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks. ..."
"... "The key driver of this shift has not been the President's tariffs, but a changing consensus among rank-and-file policymakers about what constitutes national security. This expansive new conception of national security is sensitive to a broad array of potential threats, including to the economic livelihood of the United States, the integrity of its citizens personal data, and the country's technological advantage". ..."
"... A Quinnipiac University survey last week found for the first time in Trump's presidency, more voters now say the economy is getting worse rather than better, by a 37-31 percent margin – and by 41-37 percent, voters say the president's policies are hurting the economy. ..."
"... This is hugely significant. If Trump is experiencing a crisis of public confidence in respect to his assertive policies towards China, the last thing that he needs in the run-up to an election is an oil crisis, on top of a tariff/tech war crisis with China. A wrong move with Iran, and global oil supplies easily can go awry. Markets would not be happy. (So Trump's China 'bind' can also be Iran's opportunity ). ..."
Sep 09, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org

There is consensus amongst the Washington foreign policy élite that all factions in Iran understand that – ultimately – a deal with Washington on the nuclear issue must ensue. It somehow is inevitable. They view Iran simply as 'playing out the clock', until the advent of a new Administration makes a 'deal' possible again. And then Iran surely will be back at the table, they affirm.

Maybe. But maybe that is entirely wrong. Maybe the Iranian leadership no longer believes in 'deals' with Washington. Maybe they simply have had enough of western regime change antics (from the 1953 coup to the Iraq war waged on Iran at the western behest, to the present attempt at Iran's economic strangulation). They are quitting that failed paradigm for something new, something different.

The pages to that chapter have been shut. This does not imply some rabid anti-Americanism, but simply the experience that that path is pointless. If there is a 'clock being played out', it is that of the tic-toc of western political and economic hegemony in the Middle East is running down, and not the 'clock' of US domestic politics. The old adage that the 'sea is always the sea' holds true for US foreign policy. And Iran repeating the same old routines, whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US Administration will inherit the same genes as the last.

And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran. The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'.

If recent history has taught the Iranians anything, it is that such flimsy 'process' in the hands of a mercurial US President can simply be blown away like old dead leaves. Yes, the US has a systemic problem: US sanctions are a one-way valve: so easy to flow out, but once poured forth, there is no return inlet (beyond uncertain waivers issued at the pleasure of an incumbent President).

But more than just a long chapter reaching its inevitable end, Iran is seeing another path opening out. Trump is in a 'China bind': a trade deal with China now looks "tough to improbable", according to White House officials, in the context of the fast deteriorating environment of security tensions between Washington and Beijing. Defense One spells it out:

"It came without a breaking news alert or presidential tweet, but the technological competition with China entered a new phase last month. Several developments quietly heralded this shift: Cross-border investments between the United States and China plunged to their lowest levels since 2014, with the tech sector suffering the most precipitous drop. US chip giants Intel and AMD abruptly ended or declined to extend important partnerships with Chinese entities. The Department of Commerce halved the number of licenses that let US companies assign Chinese nationals to sensitive technology and engineering projects.

"[So] decoupling is already in motion. Like the shift of tectonic plates, the move towards a new tech alignment with China increases the potential for sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy and supply chains. To defend America's technology leadership, policymakers must upgrade their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks.

"The key driver of this shift has not been the President's tariffs, but a changing consensus among rank-and-file policymakers about what constitutes national security. This expansive new conception of national security is sensitive to a broad array of potential threats, including to the economic livelihood of the United States, the integrity of its citizens personal data, and the country's technological advantage".

Trump's China 'bind' is this: A trade deal with China has long been viewed by the White House as a major tool for 'goosing' the US stock market upwards, during the crucial pre-election period. But as that is now said to be "tough to improbable" – and as US national security consensus metamorphoses, the consequent de-coupling, combined with tariffs, is beginning to bite. The effects are eating away at President Trump's prime political asset: the public confidence in his handling of the economy: A Quinnipiac University survey last week found for the first time in Trump's presidency, more voters now say the economy is getting worse rather than better, by a 37-31 percent margin – and by 41-37 percent, voters say the president's policies are hurting the economy.

This is hugely significant. If Trump is experiencing a crisis of public confidence in respect to his assertive policies towards China, the last thing that he needs in the run-up to an election is an oil crisis, on top of a tariff/tech war crisis with China. A wrong move with Iran, and global oil supplies easily can go awry. Markets would not be happy. (So Trump's China 'bind' can also be Iran's opportunity ).

No wonder Pompeo acted with such alacrity to put a tourniquet on the brewing 'war' in the Middle East, sparked by Israel's simultaneous air attacks last month in Iraq, inside Beirut, and in Syria (killing two Hizbullah soldiers). It is pretty clear that Washington did not want this 'war', at least not now. America, as Defense One noted , is becoming acutely sensitive to any risks to the global financial system from "sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy".

The recent Israeli military operations coincided with Iranian FM Zarif's sudden summons to Biarritz (during the G7), exacerbating fears within the Israeli Security Cabinet that Trump might meet with President Rouhani in NY at the UN General Assembly – thus threatening Netanyahu's anti-Iran, political 'identity' . The fear was that Trump could begin a 'bromance' with the Iranian President (on the Kim Jong Un lines). And hence the Israeli provocations intended to stir some Iranian (over)-reaction (which never came). Subsequently it became clear to Israel that Iran's leadership had absolutely no intention to meet with Trump – and the whole episode subsided.

Trump's Iran 'bind' therefore is somehow similar to his China 'bind': With China, he initially wanted an easy trade achievement, but it has proved to be 'anything but'. With Iran, Trump wanted a razzmatazz meeting with Rohani – even if that did not lead to a new 'deal' (much as the Trump – Kim Jung Un TV spectaculars that caught the American imagination so vividly, he may have hoped for a similar response to a Rohani handshake, or he may have even aspired to an Oval Office spectacular).

Trump simply cannot understand why the Iranians won't do this, and he is peeved by the snub. Iran is unfathomable to Team Trump.

Well, maybe the Iranians just don't want to do it. Firstly, they don't need to: the Iranian Rial has been recovering steadily over the last four months and manufacturing output has steadied. China's General Administration of Customs (GAC) detailing the country's oil imports data shows that China has not cut its Iranian supply after the US waiver program ended on 2 May, but rather, it has steadily increased Iranian crude imports since the official end of the waiver extension, up from May and June levels. The new GAC data shows China imported over 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Iran in July, which is up 4.7% from the month before.

And a new path is opening in front of Iran. After Biarritz, Zarif flew directly to Beijing where he discussed a huge, multi-hundred billion (according to one report ), twenty-five-year oil and gas investment, (and a separate) 'Road and Belt' transport plan. Though the details are not disclosed, it is plain that China – unlike America – sees Iran as a key future strategic partner, and China seems perfectly able to fathom out the Iranians, too.

But here is the really substantive US shift taking place. It is that which is termed "a new normal" now taking a hold in Washington:

"To defend America's technology leadership, policymakers [are] upgrading their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks Unlike the President's trade war, support for this new, expansive definition of national security and technology is largely bipartisan, and likely here to stay.

with many of the president's top advisers viewing China first and foremost as a national security threat, rather than as an economic partner – it's poised to affect huge parts of American life, from the cost of many consumer goods to the nature of this country's relationship with the government of Taiwan.

"Trump himself still views China primarily through an economic prism. But the angrier he gets with Beijing, the more receptive he is to his advisers' hawkish stances toward China that go well beyond trade."

"The angrier he gets with Beijing" Well, here is the key point: Washington seems to have lost the ability to summon the resources to try to fathom either China, or the Iranian 'closed book', let alone a 'Byzantine' Russia. It is a colossal attenuation of consciousness in Washington; a loss of conscious 'vitality' to the grip of some 'irrefutable logic' that allows no empathy, no outreach, to 'otherness'. Washington (and some European élites) have retreated into their 'niche' consciousness, their mental enclave, gated and protected, from having to understand – or engage – with wider human experience.

To compensate for these lacunae, Washington looks rather, to an engineering and technological solution: If we cannot summon empathy, or understand Xi or the Iranian Supreme Leader, we can muster artificial intelligence to substitute – a 'toolkit' in which the US intends to be global leader.

This type of solution – from the US perspective – maybe works for China, but not so much for Iran; and Trump is not keen on a full war with Iran in the lead up to elections. Is this why Trump seems to be losing interest in the Middle East? He doesn't understand it; he hasn't the interest or the means to fathom it; and he doesn't want to bomb it. And the China 'bind' is going to be all absorbing for him, for the meantime.

[Sep 10, 2019] Neoliberal Capitalism at a Dead End by Utsa Patnaik and Prabhat Patnaik

Highly recommended!
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. ..."
Aug 25, 2019 | portside.org
Originally from: Monthly Review printer friendly
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.

Notes
  1. Harry Magdoff, The Age of Imperialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969).
  2. Samuel Berrick Saul, Studies in British Overseas Trade, 1870–1914 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960).
  3. Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966).
  4. 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).
  5. Joseph E. Stiglitz, " Inequality is Holding Back the Recovery ," New York Times , January 19, 2013.
  6. For a discussion of how even the recent euphoria about U.S. growth is vanishing, see C. P. Chandrasekhar and Jayati Ghosh, " Vanishing Green Shoots and the Possibility of Another Crisis ," The Hindu Business Line , April 8, 2019.
  7. 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.
  8. Federal Reserve Board of Saint Louis Economic Research, FRED, "Capacity Utilization: Manufacturing," February 2019 (updated March 27, 2019), http://fred.stlouisfed.org .
  9. This issue is discussed by Charles P. Kindleberger in The World in Depression, 1929–1939 , 40th anniversary ed. (Oakland: University of California Press, 2013).
  10. Michał Kalecki, " Political Aspects of Full Employment ," Political Quarterly (1943), available at mronline.org.
  11. 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).

[Sep 08, 2019] https://twitter.com/DeanBaker13/status/1170197985168199680

Sep 08, 2019 | twitter.com

Dean Baker‏ @DeanBaker13

Hey #SchoolyardDonnie, China is not paying for the tariffs, the price of our imports from China are down just 1.6 percent over the last year

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ximpim.t07.htm

Your tariffs are 10-25 percent, that means the great workers in the U.S. are paying the bill.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

"China is eating the Tariffs." Billions pouring into USA. Targeted Patriot Farmers getting massive Dollars from the incoming Tariffs! Good Jobs Numbers, No Inflation (Fed). China having worst year in decades. Talks happening, good for all!

9:51 PM - 6 Sep 2019 Reply Saturday, September 07, 2019 at 10:06 AM

Plp said in reply to anne... Btw family farmers prefer high demand for their output

Not high subsidies

They know the difference between earned and unearned dollars Reply Saturday, September 07, 2019 at 10:22 AM

Fred C. Dobbs said... Fun fact:

Trump has a favorite number
when he makes big claims: 10,000
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/09/06/trump-has-favorite-number-when-makes-big-claims/WpS2YPcnjeJQzQchHJLXhP/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

Jordan Fabian - Bloomberg - September 6

When President Donald Trump wants to convey that something is a big deal, he often reaches for the same big number: 10,000.

He says it's the number of points the Dow Jones Industrial Average would be up had the Federal Reserve not raised interest rates. It's the number of people attending his rallies -- or the number forced to wait outside because they couldn't get in.

It's also the number of jobs a company plans to create, the headcount of captured Islamic State fighters, the number of migrants in a caravan headed to the U.S., and the Allied casualty count on D-Day.

Sometimes the number is accurate. Other times, it's a wild guess -- or wildly wrong.

Trump on Wednesday predicted the Dow would be up -- another 10,000 points -- if he hadn't embarked on a trade war with China.

"If I wanted to do nothing with China, my stock market -- our stock market -- would be 10,000 points higher than it is right now," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

That would be a dramatic rise. With the Dow closing at 26,728 on Thursday, another 10,000 points would represent a 37% increase.

Memorable Number

From a marketing standpoint, there's a great reason to use 10,000: It's memorable.

"He uses this round number in particular because it seems big," said Jonah Berger, marketing professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, which Trump often boasts of attending.

"He wants to convey something is a big problem, or something would be quite different, so he uses a big round number to try and sway his audience," said Berger, author of "Contagious: Why Things Catch On."

Trump has used the number since his 2016 campaign -- in speeches, remarks to reporters and one-on-one interviews -- but it could take on new significance as he seeks to burnish his record with the approach of the 2020 election.

The president has repeatedly sought to use 10,000 to his political advantage, even when it doesn't neatly match reality.

'Horrible People'

For instance, he said in January that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers last year removed 10,000 known or suspected gang members whom he described as "horrible people." (The agency actually reported arresting that number but removing 5,872 known or suspected gang members in fiscal year 2018.)

The White House declined to comment on Trump's use of 10,000.

The president has other verbal habits. He has often cited self-imposed two week deadlines for major announcements.

While Trump is often faulted by fact-checkers for making false statements, his spokeswoman has said journalists take the president's words too literally.

"I think the president communicates in a way that some people, especially the media, aren't necessarily comfortable with," White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham told the Washington Post in a recent interview. "A lot of times they take him so literally. I know people will roll their eyes if I say he was just kidding or was speaking in hypotheticals, but sometimes he is."

'Truthful Hyperbole'

Trump defended his use of what he called "truthful hyperbole" in his 1987 book "The Art of the Deal," calling it an "innocent form of exaggeration."

"People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do," Trump wrote. "People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular."

Wittingly or not, Trump has taken to a number that comes up often in history, religion and culture.

The army of the Ten Thousand marched against Artaxerxes II of Persia. During the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad was said to have 10,000 soldiers. The King James Bible has dozens of references to 10,000. Minnesota's nickname is the Land of 10,000 Lakes. A television game show called "The $10,000 Pyramid" debuted in the U.S. in the early 1970s.

But Trump's references typically are rooted in current affairs.

The president used the number in July to talk about attendance at a North Carolina rally where his supporters chanted "Send her back!" after he invoked the name of Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat.

"We had thousands and thousands of people that wanted to come, and we said, 'Please don't come,'" Trump said. "It held 10,000 people. It was packed. We could've sold that arena 10 times."

Authorities said 8,000 people got into the arena in Greenville, filling it to capacity, according to WITN-TV in North Carolina. About 2,000 were denied entry and between 750 and 1,000 were in an overflow area, the station said, citing police estimates.

Booing Ryan

In July, Trump used the number to attack former House Speaker Paul Ryan after the Wisconsin Republican was quoted in a book saying the president doesn't know how government works.

"I remember a day in Wisconsin -- a state that I won -- where I stood up and made a speech, and then I introduced him and they booed him off the stage -- 10,000 people," Trump told reporters at the White House.

The president appeared to be referring to a December 2016 post-election rally in West Allis, Wisconsin, where he publicly thanked Ryan, who was in the crowd. Audible, but not deafening, boos were heard as Trump tried to quiet his supporters by telling them that Ryan had improved "like a fine wine."

Then there's job creation -- a Cameron LNG liquefied natural gas export facility in Louisiana or an Intel Corp. semiconductor plant in Arizona.

In separate statements, Trump said they'd each create 10,000 jobs.

Bringing Credibility

Whether Trump's use of the number is accurate or not, the specificity can bring credibility to the president's claims, said Manoj Thomas, a behavioral scientist and marketing professor at Cornell University's SC Johnson College of Business.

"Using a number to quantify a claim -- even implausible numbers -- makes it more credible because numbers are concrete," Thomas said. "Claims without any numbers, for example, 'The Dow would be much higher if not for the trade war,' are more difficult for the human mind to instinctively process because the information is abstract and lacks specificity."

Trump could add even more credibility to his claim by making the number even more specific, Thomas said.

For instance, Thomas suggested: "The Dow would be 4,600 points higher if not for the trade war."


Reply Saturday, September 07, 2019 at 09:44 AM

[Sep 07, 2019] People familiar with Chinese economic policymaking have said in recent weeks that Chinese leaders remain interested in reaching a trade deal with the United States, but that they are wary of what appear to be ever-increasing demands from the United States and what they describe as frequent shifts in the American negotiating position.

Sep 07, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs , September 05, 2019 at 03:49 PM

Markets Soar on News of China Talks, but Hopes
for Progress Are Low https://nyti.ms/2LrdVwH
NYT - Ana Swanson and Matt Phillips - September 5

WASHINGTON -- President Trump's decision to renew talks with China in the coming weeks sent financial markets soaring on Thursday, as investors seized on the development as a sign that both sides could still find a way out of an economically damaging trade war.

The rally sent the S&P 500 up more than 1 percent, underscoring just how much financial markets are subsisting on hopes and fears about the trade war. Shares fell through most of August, as Mr. Trump escalated his fight with China and imposed more tariffs, only to snap back on Thursday after news of the talks.

But expectations for progress remain low, and many in the United States and China see the best outcome as a continued stalemate that would prevent a collapse in relations before the 2020 election. Both Mr. Trump and President Xi Jinping of China are under pressure from domestic audiences to stand tough, and the talks will happen after Mr. Trump's next round of punishing tariffs take effect on Oct. 1.

"Continuing to talk soothes markets a little bit," said Eswar Prasad, the former head of the China division at the International Monetary Fund. "But the political cost to making major concessions is, I think, too high for either side."

The skepticism stems in part from what is emerging as a familiar pattern for Mr. Trump, for whom China is both a source of leverage and a potential vulnerability heading into an election year. The president has so far imposed tariffs on more than $350 billion worth of Chinese goods and routinely shifts from blasting China and threatening additional punishment to trying to calm the waters in the face of jittery markets and negative economic news.

Over two weeks, Mr. Trump has called Mr. Xi an enemy of America, ordered companies to stop doing business in China and suggested the United States was in no rush to reach a trade deal. On Sunday, he moved ahead with his threat to eventually tax every golf club, shoe and computer China sends into the United States, placing tariffs on another $112 billion of Chinese goods.

Stock investors have zeroed in on the threat the trade war poses to the economy, buying and selling in tandem with Mr. Trump's trade whims. Thursday's rally was the fifth positive performance for the market in the past six sessions. It brought the S&P 500 to within striking distance -- less than 2 percent -- of its high of 3025.86, reached on July 26.

The coming weeks could result in more of the same, analysts say: tough words when the president wants to rally his base and a temporary cooling off when it seems to be hurting an economy that is one of his main arguments for re-election.

Mr. Trump and his advisers are wary of a potential challenge from Democrats who will try to paint the president as weak on China. Officials are cognizant that striking a deal based on the kind of limited concessions China is currently offering would most likely be a political liability in the president's bid for re-election. Democrats, along with some Republicans, have previously accused Mr. Trump of buckling on China after he reached a deal that allowed ZTE, the Chinese telecom company, to avoid tough American punishment.

Yet as collateral damage from the trade war increases, Mr. Trump is facing pressure to relent. The bond market has been flashing warning signs of a potential recession, and both consumer confidence and the manufacturing sector have slowed.

The trade war is also clearly weighing on the Chinese economy, which is growing at its slowest pace in more than two decades. But China has responded defiantly, imposing retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion worth of American goods. The country is preparing to celebrate the 70th anniversary of its founding on Oct. 1, and analysts say Beijing would be unlikely to make concessions at such a politically delicate moment.

People familiar with Chinese economic policymaking have said in recent weeks that Chinese leaders remain interested in reaching a trade deal with the United States, but that they are wary of what appear to be ever-increasing demands from the United States and what they describe as frequent shifts in the American negotiating position.

The Chinese government continues to insist that it will not accept any agreement that is unequal, or that prevents it from pursuing economic policies that it needs for continued growth.

While both countries have motivation to come to an agreement, each is still insisting the other will be the first to bend.

"China and the US announced new round of trade talks and will work to make substantial progress," Hu Xijin, the editor of the state-run Global Times, wrote on Twitter. "Personally I think the US, worn out by the trade war, may no longer hope for crushing China's will. There's more possibility of a breakthrough between the two sides." ...

[Sep 07, 2019] The number of murders and armed robberies committed by people addicted to methamphetamine is "truly frightening", Western Australia's Chief Justice says.

Sep 07, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Joe , September 06, 2019 at 03:25 AM

Do Immigrants Threaten U.S. Public Safety? - Dallasfed.org


https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs13/13853/trans.htm

Mexico. Mexican criminal groups based in Mexico smuggle bulk quantities of methamphetamine via couriers traveling in private and commercial vehicles, usually equipped with hidden compartments, or by foot through and between land POEs along the Southwest Border. These criminal groups also smuggle small shipments (2 kg to 4 kg) via couriers aboard commercial flights and via mail services. Methamphetamine shipments often are transported to stash sites and staging areas, primarily in California and Arizona, before the drug is distributed locally, regionally, or nationally.

Methamphetamine transported from production areas in Mexico to the Southwest Border typically has been smuggled through and between POEs in California; however, recent data indicate that more methamphetamine may now be smuggled through or between POEs in Arizona than other Southwest Border states. According to EPIC seizure data, the combined amount of methamphetamine seizures from 2001 through 2003 at or between POEs in California (1,725 kg) was much higher than the amount seized at or between POEs in Texas (1,145 kg), Arizona (1,120 kg), or New Mexico (60 kg). However, in 2003 the amount seized in Arizona (640 kg) surpassed seizures in the other Southwest Border states including California (593 kg), Texas (484 kg), and New Mexico (16 kg) possibly because of specific law enforcement operations conducted in Arizona (see Figure 11).
-------
Pick an index then call it something vague like crime.

Are these immigrants importing meth? Mostly, immigrants crossing back and forth across the border.

How much crime does meth cause?
---
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-25/wa-chief-justice-says-ice-problem-truly-frightening/6261310

The number of murders and armed robberies committed by people addicted to methamphetamine is "truly frightening", Western Australia's Chief Justice says.

Justice Wayne Martin said 95 per cent of armed robberies and up to half of all murders could be attributed to people taking methamphetamine, also known as ice or crystal meth.
---
The number I hear is about half of all crime.

So, sure, pick a particular index, generate the result you want, and if it meets the delusional demands of Economist View then it is printed.

I didn't even need to read it, I already know what result he engineered, otherwise it never would have appeared here.

[Sep 03, 2019] Wallerstein on China

Notable quotes:
"... Can China then depend on widening internal demand to maintain its global edge? There are two reasons why not. The present authorities worry that a widening middle stratum could jeopardize their political control and seek to limit it.[a] ..."
"... The second reason, more important, is that much of the internal demand is the result of reckless borrowing by regional banks, which are facing an inability to sustain their investments. If they collapse, even partially, this could end the entire economic edge[b] of China. ..."
Sep 03, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

From Wallerstein's site, " What About China? " (2017):

A structural crisis is chaotic. This means that instead of the normal standard set of combinations or alliances that were previously used to maintain the stability of the system, they constantly shift these alliances in search of short-term gains. This only makes the situation worse. We notice here a paradox – the certainty of the end of the existing system and the intrinsic uncertainty of what will eventually replace it and create thereby a new system (or new systems) to stabilize realities .

Now, let us look at China's role in what is going on. In terms of the present system, China seems to be gaining much advantage. To argue that this means the continuing functioning of capitalism as a system is basically to (re)assert the invalid point that systems are eternal and that China is replacing the United States in the same way as the United States replaced Great Britain as the hegemonic power. Were this true, in another 20-30 years China (or perhaps northeast Asia) would be able to set its rules for the capitalist world-system.

But is this really happening? First of all, China's economic edge, while still greater than that of the North, has been declining significantly. And this decline may well amplify soon, as political resistance to China's attempts to control neighboring countries and entice (that is, buy) the support of faraway countries grows, which seems to be occurring.

Can China then depend on widening internal demand to maintain its global edge? There are two reasons why not. The present authorities worry that a widening middle stratum could jeopardize their political control and seek to limit it.[a]

The second reason, more important, is that much of the internal demand is the result of reckless borrowing by regional banks, which are facing an inability to sustain their investments. If they collapse, even partially, this could end the entire economic edge[b] of China.

In addition, there have been, and will continue to be, wild swings in geopolitical alliances. In a sense, the key zones are not in the North, but in areas such as Russia, India, Iran, Turkey, and southeastern Europe, all of them pursuing their own roles by a game of swiftly and repeatedly changing sides. The bottom line is that, though China plays a very big role in the short run, it is not as big a role as China would wish and that some in the rest of the world-system fear. It is not possible for China to stop the disintegration of the capitalist system. It can only try to secure its place in a future world-system.

As far as Wallerstein's bottom line: The proof is in the pudding. That said, there seems to be a tendency to regard Xi as all-powerful. IMNSHO, that's by no means the case, not only because of China's middle class, but because of whatever China's equivalent of deplorables is. The "wild swings in geopolitical alliances" might play a role, too; oil, Africa's minerals.

NOTES [a] I haven't seen this point made elsewhere. [b] Crisis, certainly. "Ending the entire economic edge"? I'm not so sure.

[Sep 01, 2019] Iranian Women Fight for Freedom by Uzay Bulut

Sep 01, 2019 | www.gatestoneinstitute.org

• August 29, 2019 at 4:00 am

Three Iranian women held in Tehran's notorious Qarchak prison were sentenced recently to what could amount to more than 10 years in prison. Their "crime"? Failing to wear headscarves, thereby defying the country's Islamic dress code.

The women were apprehended after a video they posted online during International Women's Day went viral. In the clip, they are seen walking bear-headed on a Tehran metro and distributing flowers to female passengers.

"The day will come when women are not forced to struggle," one of them is heard saying, while another expresses hope that one day women in hijabs will be able to walk side-by-side with women who choose not to wear them.

The battle on behalf of a woman's right not to cover her head spurred Iranian-American journalist and award-winning activist Masih Alinejad – author, most recently, of The Wind in My Hair: My Fight for Freedom in Modern Iran -- to found a social-media movement called "My Stealthy Freedom."

[Aug 28, 2019] Are we being manipulated to eventually discard objective reality or at least the concept of it?

Aug 28, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

O , Aug 27 2019 17:09 utc | 178

Interesting James Corbett video.
https://www.corbettreport.com/deep-fakes-the-cias-mission-accomplished/

Are we being manipulated to eventually discard objective reality or at least the concept of it?

[Aug 28, 2019] there are far fewer manufacturing workers overall, with about 7.5 million jobs lost since 1980.

Aug 28, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Don Bacon , Aug 27 2019 22:36 utc | 208

@ Formerly T-Bear 203

a farmer has at least 3 PhD qualifications just to contend in the business

No need for a tongue-in-cheek, you're on track, if manufacturing food is akin to other manufacturing.
. . .from last year

August 2018, The fall of employment in the manufacturing sector
Today's manufacturing output is at least 5 percent greater than it was in 2000, but it has become much more capital intensive and much less labor intensive. Accordingly, workers in the sector are more likely to have at least some college education than their counterparts of years past. But there are far fewer manufacturing workers overall, with about 7.5 million jobs lost since 1980.


What is most responsible for the manufacturing job losses? Rising trade with China is often cited as a possible culprit. But competition from China only accounts for about a fourth of the decline in manufacturing during the 2000s. This theory is further eroded by the fact that local markets that did not compete with Chinese imports also saw employment declines.
A skills mismatch -- the gap between the skills workers have and the skills employers need -- has also contributed to the decline of manufacturing employment.
Prime age men and women with less than a high school degree have been hit particularly hard by changes to manufacturing employment. As the manufacturing sector has shifted from low-skilled to high-skilled work, workers who possess higher skill levels (e.g., engineers, computer programmers, software developers, etc.) have become more sought after than before. . . here


And the US supply of STEM graduates for any technical profession seems to be wanting. Meanwhile we must recognize that employment is not directly tied to the economy, given mechanization.

[Aug 27, 2019] Trump s China Trade War Gaslighting Will There Eveh Be a Deal

Notable quotes:
"... That assumption looks to be incorrect. New Deal Democrat sent us the latest post from China Law Blog, written by lawyers who specialize in Chinese law with an eye to helping businesses get set up and operate in China. The post by Dan Harris is every bit as firm as its headline: Repeat After Me: There Will be No US-China Trade Deal . It also contains a good summary of key developments and detail on the various goods targeted. Key sections: ..."
"... But what should you make of President Trump's ordering US companies to immediately start looking for an alternative to China? He can't really do that, can he? No, but in many respects this is exactly what Trump has been doing since the U.S.-China trade war began. Trump cannot literally require American companies to pull out of China, but he can and has made it so difficult that they all but have to leave China. And this is what most of the international lawyers and international trade lawyers at my firm have come to believe has been Trump's plan all along. ..."
"... Every step of the way, Trump has made it all but impossible for China to make a trade deal with the United States, which is why this blog has been consistently clear that there will be no trade deal between the United States and China . If the US-China trade war/cold war were really about trade imbalances, it would have ended long ago with China buying more soybeans and Boeing airplanes from the United States. But from the very beginning, the U.S. has demanded China stop stealing IP and open its markets for foreign companies, and there is just no way China will agree to either of these things. Lead negotiator Robert Lighthizer is without a doubt smart enough to have known this all along. All this leads us to believe that the U.S. plan has always been to force a slow decoupling of the U.S. and China and then work to convince the rest of the democratic world (the EU, Australia, Canada, Latin America, Japan, etc.) to decouple from China, as well. In June, in Does China WANT a Second Decoupling? The Chinese Texts Say That it Does we wrote of how China wants this decoupling, as well. ..."
"... The fact that Trump issues this "order" amidst rising recession fears only highlights how ending U.S.-China trade is at the top of his to-do list. ..."
"... The critical part of the China Law Blog's reading is that the Trump Administration is deadly serious about its two big asks, intellectual property and market access. It's credible to attribute that to Trump's US Trade Representative, Lighthizer. As Lambert put it, Lighthizer is the closest thing this Administration has to a Jim Baker. Lighthizer started at Covington & Burling, then served in the Regan Administration as Deputy USTR before going to Skadden. Lighthizer is as fierce a China hawk as they come and has a long history of saying that the entry of China into the WTO was at the expense of US jobs (see here , for instance) and even making a full-throated defense of protectionism . ..."
"... In April, China made a concession to the US by designating all fetanyl products as controlled substances, in the hope that that would reduce shipments to the US. The DEA has stated that China is the main source of US fentanyl . Fentanyl accounted 18,000 overdose deaths in 2018, one fourth of the total. If you count all synthetic opioids, the toll rises to 28,000. China nevertheless claimed even then that fentanyl shipments to the US were "extremely limited" . ..."
"... Fentanyl featured in the escalation on Friday, and it could conceivably serve as the basis for a national emergency threat (even though, per the discussion earlier, it would have good odds of being overturned). One of Trump's four tweets urged US carriers to do more to halt shipments arriving from China or other destinations (Mexico is believed to be a route for the entry of Chinese fentanyl to the US). ..."
"... In May I had a conversation with a long-time friend. My friend works for a global manufacturer with a household name. He has helped oversee construction of plants around the world. He helps source components from around the world. He told me that "everybody's moving out" (of China). ..."
"... A few short years ago they had the Trans-Pacific Partnership being negotiated. This was nicknamed the "everybody but China" pact as that was its mission – to cut China out of the Pacific. Add to that the "Pivot to Asia" introduced by Obama which was to militarily threaten China and the writing was on the wall for China. They were to be boxed in and shut down. Trump may be the front man now for this effort but all the China-hawks have come out of the woodwork to be let loose in the government. ..."
"... I suppose that the plan is to force US companies to bail out of China and relocate to places like Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, etc. But the question is whether these countries have the infrastructure to support these new factories? ..."
"... I have mentioned before the idea of a multipolar world and I believe that we re seeing it now in action. The US and its vassals will be one pole and another one is forming around China, Iran and Russia. I doubt that the EU will be another as they are following what Trump orders even if reluctantly. There may be another factor. For centuries we have had an economy predicated on growth but I suspect that by the end of this century will will have one based on contraction due to climate change and depletion of resources. Better strap in. It could be a bumpy ride. ..."
Aug 26, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Trump has been up to what he seems to like to do best: whipsawing those who might be affected by his plans. On Friday, he put Mr. Market and huge swathes of Corporate America in a tizzy by retaliating against China's tariff increases. China announced that it would impose new tariffs on $75 billion of US goods and the restart of tariffs on autos and auto parts. Trump tweeted that he would increase tariffs on Chinese goods already subject to tariffs: the $250 billion at 25% would go to 30% on October 1and the $300 billion at 10% would go to 15% in phases, on September 1 and December 1. Trump also "hereby ordered" US companies to pull out of China, suggesting that he'd rely on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

Then, as most of you have likely heard, Trump made remarks at the G-7 summit that we widely interpreted as an indicator that he'd back off again, by admitting to regrets about how the trade spat was going. When the press took up that line, Trump doubled down, with the White House releasing a statement that Trump's sole regret was not raising tariffs higher.

Needless to say, the all-too-typical Trump to-ing and fro-ing made for an easy target. From the Washington Post :

Former treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, a veteran of the Clinton and Obama administrations, said the White House's conflicting statements were just the latest in a string of mixed messages that had made it impossible for people to understand its agenda.

"Deeply misguided policy and strategy has been joined for some time by dubious negotiating tactics, with promises not kept and threats not carried out on a regular basis," Summers said in an interview. "We are at a new stage now with very erratic presidential behavior and frequent denials of obvious reality. I know of no U.S. historical precedent."

And despite rousing himself to make a show of his resolve, the Administration did back down on one part of Trump's Friday missives, that of "ordering" US companies to get out of Dodge, um, China. From the Wall Street Journal :

Aides to President Trump said Sunday he has no plans to invoke emergency powers and force companies to relocate operations from China

"What he is suggesting to American businesses," [economic adviser] Mr. [Larry] Kudlow said, is that "you ought to think about moving your operations and your supply chains away from China and secondly, we'd like you to come back home."

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also weighed in, telling "Fox News Sunday" that the president didn't have plans to invoke emergency powers to force U.S. companies out of China.

"I think what he was saying is he's ordering companies to start looking," Mr. Mnuchin said."

The Journal also pointed out that Trump might have trouble forcing companies to exit:

Both Messrs. Mnuchin and Kudlow said that the president could theoretically force U.S. companies to leave China by invoking a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA .

According to the Congressional Research Service, IEEPA can be used to deal with "any unusual and extraordinary threat" outside the U.S. "to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States, if the president declares a national emergency with respect to such threat."

The president is required "in every possible instance" to consult with Congress before exercising authorities granted by IEEPA, and to specify in a report to lawmakers why the circumstances constitute a threat and why the actions are necessary, CRS said in a briefing paper on the law issued earlier this year. The president must submit follow-up reports every six months .

Rod Hunter, a partner at Baker McKenzie and expert on international trade, said Mr. Trump could declare a state of emergency and issue the order, but that doesn't mean it will stand.

"Congress could effectively override such a decision, and private parties would certainly challenge the action as an unconstitutional takings, a violation of due process rights and beyond the statutory authority granted to the president by Congress," Mr. Hunter said in an email.

Mind you, just like Brexit, there is a way to do what Trump wants to do that would not be so destructive and shambolic. Trump's China policy appears to be intended to make American more economically self-sufficient so as to improve the prosperity of US workers, as well as curb a competing imperialist.

But as we've described at some length in earlier posts, restoring America's manufacturing capabilities isn't just a matter of weaning itself off cheap Chinese imports. The US has ceded a tremendous amount of know-how, from the factory floor on up. Getting that back is a generation-long undertaking, requiring commitment to a national strategy that would include significant government investment in fundamental research, renewed emphasis on education, including much cheaper higher education and vocational training for those that aren't suited or inclined to go to college, and a reorientation of government spending and subsidies to favor productive sectors over the connected. Not only would it be difficult to get any Administration to embrace open industrial policy, particularly one that would break a lot of rice bowls (such as in our hugely wasteful arms industry and our bloated financial sector), maintaining it beyond even a two-term Presidency would be an even taller order.

But where is the Trump tariff cage match likely to wind up? Given how often Trump has backed off when Mr. Market has had a hissy, most commentator appear to have assumed before Friday's tit for tat that Trump would back down, if nothing else, in the form of allowing a lot of exceptions, and the US and China would find a way for Trump to get enough concessions from China that he could declare peace with honor.

That assumption looks to be incorrect. New Deal Democrat sent us the latest post from China Law Blog, written by lawyers who specialize in Chinese law with an eye to helping businesses get set up and operate in China. The post by Dan Harris is every bit as firm as its headline: Repeat After Me: There Will be No US-China Trade Deal . It also contains a good summary of key developments and detail on the various goods targeted. Key sections:

The US-China Trade War Is and Will be the New Normal

I hate to say we told you so, but for nearly a year, WE TOLD YOU SO. Since October, 2018 we have been all but screaming at anyone and everyone who has product made in China and sold into the United States to get out of China fast, if at all possible. We say this and we set out the below timeline to prove this not so much to show that we have been right all along, but to try to convince you that we are right when we now say there will be no resolution to the US-China trade war for a very long time and you need to act accordingly.

The below is our timeline/proof of our having predicted a straight-line decline in US-China trade relations

But what should you make of President Trump's ordering US companies to immediately start looking for an alternative to China? He can't really do that, can he? No, but in many respects this is exactly what Trump has been doing since the U.S.-China trade war began. Trump cannot literally require American companies to pull out of China, but he can and has made it so difficult that they all but have to leave China. And this is what most of the international lawyers and international trade lawyers at my firm have come to believe has been Trump's plan all along.

Every step of the way, Trump has made it all but impossible for China to make a trade deal with the United States, which is why this blog has been consistently clear that there will be no trade deal between the United States and China . If the US-China trade war/cold war were really about trade imbalances, it would have ended long ago with China buying more soybeans and Boeing airplanes from the United States. But from the very beginning, the U.S. has demanded China stop stealing IP and open its markets for foreign companies, and there is just no way China will agree to either of these things. Lead negotiator Robert Lighthizer is without a doubt smart enough to have known this all along. All this leads us to believe that the U.S. plan has always been to force a slow decoupling of the U.S. and China and then work to convince the rest of the democratic world (the EU, Australia, Canada, Latin America, Japan, etc.) to decouple from China, as well. In June, in Does China WANT a Second Decoupling? The Chinese Texts Say That it Does we wrote of how China wants this decoupling, as well.

This latest Trump "order" does not have the force of law, so in that respect it is not an order at all. But in most other respects it is. This order indicates Trump's passionate desire to rid the United States of what he sees as the China scourge . More importantly, it is yet another clear signal that he will continue to escalate this war with China until such time as he considers the United States to be victorious. The fact that Trump issues this "order" amidst rising recession fears only highlights how ending U.S.-China trade is at the top of his to-do list.

So in terms of what this means for your business, it means that you must stop believing there will be a solution to the trade war that will allow you to go back to doing business with China the way you used to do business with China. You need to instead recognize that this situation is the New Normal as between the United States and China and that, if anything, things are way more likely to get worse than they are to get better.

I'm persuaded by this point of view because these writers have adopted the perspective that we've found to be very useful in other geopolitical negotiations, which is to look at the bargaining position of both sides and see if there is any overlap. If there isn't, there won't be an agreement unless one of both parties makes a significant concession.

One reason that other observers have likely missed what the China Law Blog discern is that there's an Anglo-American tendency to assume that differences can be settled and a deal can be had. But as Sir Ivan Rogers pointed out with Brexit, and you have similar dynamics with the US and China, there aren't precedents for trade deals where the two sides want to get further apart rather than closer. Sir Ivan is of the point of view that the desire to disengage makes it much harder to come to terms.

The critical part of the China Law Blog's reading is that the Trump Administration is deadly serious about its two big asks, intellectual property and market access. It's credible to attribute that to Trump's US Trade Representative, Lighthizer. As Lambert put it, Lighthizer is the closest thing this Administration has to a Jim Baker. Lighthizer started at Covington & Burling, then served in the Regan Administration as Deputy USTR before going to Skadden. Lighthizer is as fierce a China hawk as they come and has a long history of saying that the entry of China into the WTO was at the expense of US jobs (see here , for instance) and even making a full-throated defense of protectionism .

A part of the trade spat that hasn't gotten the attention it warrants and seems to confirm the China Law Blog's thesis is the arm-wrestling over China's fetanyl exports to the US. It's not hard to see that this is an inherently important issue, since as I understand it, fentanyl is so potent that it is very easy to overdose on it, making it markedly more dangerous than other addictive drugs. In other words, the high death rate of fentanyl may make reducing supply a more effective strategy than it normally is in "the war on drugs". Substitution with just about any other controlled substance would be less dangerous. And if Trump were to make a dent in this problem, it would serve as a PR offset to some of the costs of his China strategy, like lost soyabean exports.

In April, China made a concession to the US by designating all fetanyl products as controlled substances, in the hope that that would reduce shipments to the US. The DEA has stated that China is the main source of US fentanyl . Fentanyl accounted 18,000 overdose deaths in 2018, one fourth of the total. If you count all synthetic opioids, the toll rises to 28,000. China nevertheless claimed even then that fentanyl shipments to the US were "extremely limited" .

On August 2, Trump said Xi had welshed on his promise to halt fentanyl shipments . China objected, saying it had made "unprecedented efforts" and the US was to blame for its opioid crisis. On August 21, the US sanctioned three Chinese individuals it depicted as drug kingpins, eliciting more unhappy noises from China.

Fentanyl featured in the escalation on Friday, and it could conceivably serve as the basis for a national emergency threat (even though, per the discussion earlier, it would have good odds of being overturned). One of Trump's four tweets urged US carriers to do more to halt shipments arriving from China or other destinations (Mexico is believed to be a route for the entry of Chinese fentanyl to the US).

In other words, it's not clear where this row ends, but there doesn't seem to be a path to depressurization, much the less resolution.

Update 5:00 AM EDT: Just as this post went live, the Wall Street Journal reported Trump Says China Called U.S. to 'Get Back to the Table' After Latest Tariff Spat . Trump is still hostage to Mr. Market, so it's awfully useful for him to talk up negotiations. From the story:

President Trump said China called U.S. officials on Sunday evening and said "let's get back to the table," a day after the White House said the president regretted not escalating tariffs further on Chinese goods.

Speaking to reporters alongside Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Mr. Trump called the discussions a "very positive development." .

The Chinese government didn't immediately respond to Mr. Trump's remarks or to requests to corroborate the president's account of a phone call having taken place. Chinese government officials have repeatedly said that Beijing wants to negotiate differences on trade. On Monday, Beijing's lead trade negotiator, Vice Premier Liu He, told a conference that China still wants to continue trade talks with the U.S. following heightened tensions in the past few days.


DSB , August 26, 2019 at 8:58 am

In May I had a conversation with a long-time friend. My friend works for a global manufacturer with a household name. He has helped oversee construction of plants around the world. He helps source components from around the world. He told me that "everybody's moving out" (of China).

The ones who can have not waited for Trump's message of Friday.

The Rev Kev , August 26, 2019 at 9:09 am

A few short years ago they had the Trans-Pacific Partnership being negotiated. This was nicknamed the "everybody but China" pact as that was its mission – to cut China out of the Pacific. Add to that the "Pivot to Asia" introduced by Obama which was to militarily threaten China and the writing was on the wall for China. They were to be boxed in and shut down. Trump may be the front man now for this effort but all the China-hawks have come out of the woodwork to be let loose in the government.

I suppose that the plan is to force US companies to bail out of China and relocate to places like Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, etc. But the question is whether these countries have the infrastructure to support these new factories? Do they have a trained, educated workforce to man these factories? Is there a will to move to such places? As far as those countries are concerned, these new companies could be seen as a two-edged sword. Yes they will bring investment and opportunities in those countries. But how will they know if a Trump or someone like him later on will not order those factories out if there is a dispute or if the US demands that those countries change their laws and open themselves up to financial exploitation? Trump is demanding the same of China right now. And will Trump demand that all the other western countries move out of China?

I have mentioned before the idea of a multipolar world and I believe that we re seeing it now in action. The US and its vassals will be one pole and another one is forming around China, Iran and Russia. I doubt that the EU will be another as they are following what Trump orders even if reluctantly. There may be another factor. For centuries we have had an economy predicated on growth but I suspect that by the end of this century will will have one based on contraction due to climate change and depletion of resources. Better strap in. It could be a bumpy ride.

Susan the other` , August 26, 2019 at 11:45 am

This is all pretty interesting. More theater than trade. And the reason is that there is no demand. Demographics has a lot to do with it as well. It might not make any difference now how much a company can cut costs by moving to SE Asia because nobody will be very eager to buy more crap anyway. And manufacturing cannot up and move cheaply if they have to reinvent and retool their processes to make them more environmentally acceptable. It's a sea change. And a tap-dance.

Ian Perkins , August 26, 2019 at 9:18 am

According to this article," The DEA has stated that China is the main source of US fentanyl. " I followed the link, and found "The DEA has said China is a main source of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids." Which I take as meaning that even if the US could totally shut down Chinese synthetic opioid production, someone will still be making and supplying it.

grizziz , August 26, 2019 at 11:42 am

So, if the facts as given above are reconfigured, all it would take is for the Chinese producers of synthetic opioids to pay the US patent holders their due. Problem solved! All kidding aside, the demands to get intellectual property paid for requires a very pliant judicial system to actually recognize that an idea should be rightfully owned by a person.

Individual agency is a product of 'enlightenment' thinking which opened the pathway for an idea to be the creation of a person who willed the idea into existence. A few steps later, a corporation becomes a person and then a group of people can somehow own a single idea and be able to rent that idea out. To think that the Chinese would accept this cockamamie/historically embedded/English common law idea would be to deny their own culturally based motivated reasoning.

I don't know how this situation will be resolved, but it is quite laughable that the diversion through tariffs of IP revenues which in US legal logic should be paid to Corporations is actually going to go to the US Treasury.

Ptb , August 26, 2019 at 9:46 am

"All this leads us to believe that the U.S. plan has always been to force a slow decoupling of the U.S. and China and then work to convince the rest of the democratic world (the EU, Australia, Canada, Latin America, Japan, etc.) to decouple from China, as well"

That is about right, and I do not doubt that this is the desire of Trump's negotiating team. Nor do I doubt that they can easily steer talks to fail as described (by asking for concessions on market access favorable to the US side, AND by refusing to back down on Huawei etc).

However, while effectively forcing a decoupling of China and US is straightforward, controlling its speed is not. Pull the plug too fast (which China can threaten to accelerate), and some big US companies eat it. While Lighthizer and friends may be willing to pay that price, it will make a lot of others very nervous.

Then, perhaps more importantly, is forcing the rest of the world to follow suit (or else there is no point). JP, ROK, DE (the high tech suppliers besides US) all trade at least as much with China as US. The world market buying Chinese made goods is also bigger than the US. It would take some skillful diplomacy to make it happen. This is not only beyond the level of the Trump admin, but I would say all US administrations since the year 2000, with the Iran deal maybe the only exception I can think of.

China will end up defending itself by getting the overly aggressive and self-discrediting Team Trump reelected. By openly provoking a small proxy conflict for example. Trump gets to do his Ronald Reagan act, which is what his audience wants. It will be a weird political symbiosis. (an oversized personality can't survive without a suitably inflated enemy, and Joe Biden is no Hillary Clinton. The media will play along – such drama is the only thing keeping them in business now.)

Anyway, if there is a counterbalancing force to prevent this, I would think it is wall street.

Frank Little , August 26, 2019 at 10:04 am

Apparently the US federal workers pension plan has started investing in index funds which include some Chinese companies that have been in Trump & Co's target list. From the FT this morning:

The letter -- a copy of which was seen by the Financial Times -- said an impending investment shift by the FRTIB would mean that about $50bn in US government pensions becomes exposed to the "severe and undisclosed" risks of being invested in selected Chinese companies.

The letter, dated August 26, was copied to senior US officials including Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, and Steven Mnuchin, Treasury secretary.

"The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board made a short-sighted -- and foolish -- decision to effectively fund the Chinese government and Communist party's efforts to undermine US economic and national security with the retirement savings of members of the US Armed Services and other federal employees," Mr Rubio told the Financial Times.

One thing I remember from early on in this dispute was the US wanting more opportunities to invest in the Chinese market beyond just exports/manufacturing. If pension funds are getting involved I would think that private investors would like to do the same thing, which would make long-term decoupling more difficult, especially if US businesses also want to sell things to people in China even if those things are made elsewhere.

As always your post was very informative and helpful and I certainly believe that pulling the US out of China is the goal of this whole trade dispute. I just wonder if things like this will put a damper on their plans.

[Aug 26, 2019] The US accounts for only 10 per cent of global trade and 15 per cent of global GDP but half of trade invoices and two-thirds of global securities issuance

Aug 26, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

james , Aug 25 2019 22:00 utc | 39

@34 vk....

i just re-read all your posts on the last thread.. U.S. Decoupling From China Forces Others To Decouple From U.S. thanks for those posts.. they were very informative! there was no mention of usa going off gold in that same time frame - 1972 area.. i was mildly curious about your thoughts on that and gold in general.. it seems china, india and russia continue to acquire it...i am not a gold bug and don't want to detract from the many informative ideas you bring in the last thread..

here is a quote from your first link @34.. "The US accounts for only 10 per cent of global trade and 15 per cent of global GDP but half of trade invoices and two-thirds of global securities issuance, the BoE governor said. As a result, "while the world economy is being reordered, the US dollar remains as important as when Bretton Woods collapsed" in 1971." this is what i was trying to tell grieved in the previous thread... the usa mimics a bank and this is a lot of it's gdp and growth - in derivatives, currency exchange, and etc. etc. banking / wall st stuff.. the usa has also relied on the imf / world bank providing the loans in us$ thru wall st.. i think this game is coming to an end, as more and more see it for what it is..

i want to ask you what you think the way forward is here, given mark carney and trumps comments at this juncture... what do you envision as a way forward??

vk , Aug 25 2019 20:19 utc | 34

Why neither Trump's "decoupling" nor Carney's "SHC" strategies will work:

It's all going pear-shaped

Capitalism is the first system where wealth gains life, becomes a consicious subject. It doesn't matter which country produces what and which country prints what: all it matters is the profit rate. Since capitalism reduces all forms of social labor into an abstract substance called "value", they only difference it sees is quantitative: more or less value. Hence capitalism is a system that can be better illustrated as an unstoppable pump of labor and natural resources (labor is only labor when natural matter is transformed on the human image) -- it needs infinite growth to exist (as Marx demonstrated in book II).

Neither Trump's nor Carney's plans will solve capitalism's profitability crisis. Money doesn't have a race or gender, so just exchanging the nationality of the global elite and of the factory worker won't solve the problem.

Globalisation has grown to a halt after 2008 crisis ; what we're seeing now is a continuation of that crisis -- in a scenario very similar to the 1930s. Now, even the American alliance is crumbling, for the simple fact there's not enough for every capitalist nation . The 1929 crisis was only solved by WWII; however, this time we have ICBMs and nukes: total war won't solve capitalism's problems either.

[Aug 26, 2019] China Did Not Trick the US -- Trade Negotiators Served Corporate Interests

Aug 19, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne , August 23, 2019 at 12:37 PM

http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/china-did-not-trick-the-us-trade-negotiators-served-corporate-interests

August 19, 2019

China Did Not Trick the US -- Trade Negotiators Served Corporate Interests
By Dean Baker

The New York Times ran an article * last week with a headline saying that the 2020 Democratic presidential contenders faced a serious problem: "how to be tougher on trade than Trump." Serious readers might have struggled with the idea of getting "tough on trade." After all, trade is a tool, like a screwdriver. Is it possible to get tough on a screwdriver?

While the Times's headline may be especially egregious, it is characteristic of trade coverage which takes an almost entirely Trumpian view of the topic. The media portray the issue of some countries, most obviously China, benefiting at the expense of the United States. Nothing could be more completely at odds with reality.

China has a huge trade surplus with the United States, about $420 billion (2.1 percent of GDP) as of 2018. However, this doesn't mean that China is winning at the expense of the United States and because of "stupid" trade negotiators, as Trump puts it.

The U.S. trade deficit with China was not an accident. Both Republican and Democratic administrations signed trade deals that made it easy to manufacture goods in China and other countries, and then export them back to the United States.

In many cases, this meant that large U.S. corporations, like General Electric and Boeing, outsourced parts of their operations to China to take advantage of low-cost labor there. In other cases, retailers like Walmart set up low-cost supply chains so that they could undercut their competitors in the U.S. market.

General Electric, Boeing, Walmart and the rest did not lose from our trade deficit with China. In fact, the trade deficit was the result of their efforts to increase their profits. They have little reason to be unhappy with the trade deals negotiated over the last three decades.

It is a very different story for workers in the United States. As a result of the exploding trade deficit, we lost 3.4 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2007, 20 percent of the workers in the sector. This is before the collapse of the housing bubble led to the Great Recession. We lost 40 percent of all unionized jobs in manufacturing.

This job loss not only reduced the pay of manufacturing workers, but as these displaced workers flooded into other sectors, it put downward pressure on the pay of less-educated workers generally. This is a pretty awful story, but it is not a story of China tricking our so-called stupid negotiators; it is a story of smart negotiators who served well the interest of corporations.

For some reason, the media always accept the Trumpian narrative that the large trade deficits the U.S. runs with China (and most of the rest of the world) were the result of other countries outsmarting our negotiators, or at least an accidental result of past trade deals. The media never say that large trade deficits were a predictable outcome of a trade policy designed to serve the wealthy.

The fact that trade is a story of winners and losers within countries, rather than between countries, is especially important now that our trade conflicts are entering a new phase, especially with China. While not generally endorsing Trump's reality TV show tactics, most reporting has taken the position that "we" in the U.S. have genuine grounds for complaint with China.

The complaints don't center on the under-valuation of China's currency, which is a problem for manufacturing workers. Rather, the issue that takes center stage is the supposed theft by China of our intellectual property.

While this sort of claim is routinely asserted, the overwhelming majority of people in the United States have never had any intellectual property stolen by China. It is companies like Boeing, GE, Pfizer and Merck that are upset about China not respecting their patent and copyright claims, and they want the rest of us to have a trade war to defend them.

If the goals of trade policies were put to a vote, these companies would be hugely outnumbered. However, they can count on the strong support of the media in both the opinion pages, and more importantly, the news pages. The issue is entirely framed in their favor, and dissenting voices are as likely to be heard as in the People's Republic of China.

There is a lot at stake in preserving the myth that ordinary workers were hurt as just an accidental byproduct of globalization. The story is that it just happens to be the case that hundreds of millions of people in the developing world are willing to do the same work as our manufacturing workers for a lot less money.

Yes, the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs is a sad story, but is just part of the picture. There are also millions of smart ambitious people in the developing world who are willing to do the same work as our doctors, dentists, lawyers and other professions for a lot less money.

But the people who design trade policy have made sure that these people don't have the opportunity to put the same downward pressure on our most highly paid workers, as did their counterparts working in families. And, for what it's worth, the trade model works the same when we're talking about doctors as manufacturing workers. Less pay for U.S. doctors means lower cost health care, just as lower pay for textile workers means cheaper clothes.

The key point is that winners in the global economy, along with the big corporations, got their good fortune because they rigged the process, not because of anything inherent in the nature of globalization. (This is the point of my book Rigged: How the Rules of Globalization and the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. ** )

On this basic point, the media have no more interest in truth than Donald Trump. Hence, we can expect further media parroting about being "tough" on trade.

* https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/politics/democrats-trade-trump.html

** https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf