The end of globalisation won’t be televised, despite the hopes of the Western 99% (2/2)

Monday, 27 April 2020 5:46 AM  

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)
The end of globalisation won’t be televised, despite the hopes of the Western 99% (2/2)

By Ramin Mazaheri


Part 1 
discussed how the West’s coronavirus response totally ignored the needs of their lower classes, and also how Iran’s “Resistance Economy” rejects Western economic liberalism (and neoliberalism) which has always sought to relegate non-Westerners to second-class economic partners.

As I have written previously, the West’s corona response is not just murderously mediocre but middle-class – it assumes everyone has a comfortable home, savings and a stable job. The West is employing quarantining, control methods and collective-over-individualist concepts used by Asian nations, but without having similar cultures of government economic intervention nor widespread trust in their governments. It is not hysteria to suggest that this could prove fatal to their bubble-filled, high-finance dominated economies.

There is a lot of foolish talk from Westerners, who are effectively forbidden to learn about and discuss how capitalism-imperialism truly operates, regarding how corona will cause supply chains to move back home. This has produced a lot of soon-to-be-forgotten agreement from their politicians, who are desperate to show that – all of a sudden – they care about their lower classes. Recall that the “end of irony” was proclaimed after 9/11 – will we see the “end of globalisation” because of coronavirus?

That’s funny.

The state of Delaware is where most US corporations are located and buy their charters – if it is not the world’s biggest corporate tax haven, according to The New York Times and The Japan Times, the state is certainly among the world’s top five. (Indeed, it should now be no surprise why Delaware senator Joe Biden was chosen to be Barack Obama’s running mate amid the 2008 economic crisis.) It could not be more crystal clear, even though neoliberals in the US often try to sow confusion about this fact: “Delaware corporate law requires corporate directors to manage firms for the benefit of shareholders, and not for any other constituency.” So anyone thinking corporations will sacrifice a mere fraction of their stock price in order to move supply chains back home are absolutely deluded about the possibility of patriotism, much less humanity, in “Capitalism with American characteristics”: their laws explicitly forbid it.

The post-corona persistence of neoliberalism – an ideology predicated on reducing government programs and expenditures for the 99% with ruthless efficiency – means that Western governments both national and local will be so strapped for cash in a post-Lockdown climate that they will be forced to try and save every nickel they can to maximise ever-more inadequate tax revenues and income. They will forced to buy from China, Haiti or whoever can save them pennies, because this is exactly what neoliberalism demands – it fundamentally neuters economic patriotism.

Urban hipsters who perhaps previously would pay premiums to “eat local” (because it is tastier) will soon find that unemployment (or a worsening of the seemingly never-ending underemployment for the West’s youth class) drastically alters one’s menu options. They would like to “eat local”, but many will be forced to forego the local farmers’ market to buy their food as cheaply as possible, and regardless of provenance.

So such talk from Esquire magazine bout how corona will usher in a new economy based around “resilience preparedness” is totally absurd: the very basis of globalisation is hyper-specialisation (Adam Smith) and turning every nation into a single cash crop/cow (David Ricardo’s comparative advantage) writ large, and these two concepts are the very opposite pole of resilience. Hyper-specialisation is hyper-resistant… but in one single area; if classic liberalism or modern neoliberalism or the “free market” selected your country to produce hygienic masks, congratulations! According to them you should jack up the price and the rest of us should not try to domestically produce our own.

Contrarily, we can say that Iran has tried to create “specialisation” in the normal way – within a single national economy’s different regions instead of all over the world, messianically and arrogantly. This is why they have employed a “resistance economy” (with many egalitarian principles held over from the “command/war economy” era), which is based around self-sufficiency, protectionism, government intervention to stimulate innovation in vital sectors, and government ownership in essentially every sector with medium or large importance. This, even more than the insistence that Islam is compatible with democracy, is why the West wages war on Iran.

The good news for Iranians: these economic principles are what promote resilience and preparedness, they curtail the indebtedness/poverty of the lower classes, and they will make Iran far more capable of weathering the economic turmoil of the coming months.

It is amusing that some in the West are now clamouring for sensible, humane, patriotic, efficient measures which Iran has employed for decades. Is Iran’s economic idea more exportable to Esquire if we call it a “resilience economy”, perhaps?

The Iranian economy in opposition to the West’s seemingly certain post-Great Lockdown economic chaos

At the root of this economic program is not anti-capitalism but anti-the-type-of-capitalism which today’s Iranians are violently confronted by: neoliberalism and globalisation. This form of capitalism is the most-geared towards maximising the profits and market concentration of the 1%, whereas a “resistance economy” is fundamentally-geared towards satisfying the needs of the Iranian 99%. The Koran sanctions capitalism, after all, but it bans usury and has clear exhortations to equality and the economic redistribution of massively-ordered charity. (If the West would simply follow the ban on usury – exorbitant interest and debilitating compound interest – they would be so much better off….)

If the Iranian Revolution did not satisfy the needs of their 99%… how can we possibly explain its endurance amid all the growth-sabotaging Cold War from the West? The question never was growth, after all, but re-distribution. The same logical argument stands for anti-imperialist Cuba and North Korea – caricaturing these nations as totalitarian oligarchies will continue to lose its false power for as long as these countries continue to not just endure but thrive (considering Western blockades), and for as long as the West’s post-1980 inequality entrenchment continues. Despite the looming economic crisis, does anyone really believe the West is culturally capable of reversing these inequality trends?

Undoubtedly, the West’s corona overreaction will make their economies – which were already in a Great Recession – even weaker.

Yes, this will force more Western domestic criticism of neoliberalism and globalisation, but will it really? How can it when France’s Muslims, US so-called “White Trash” and their lower-class counterparts across the “West + client” world cannot even be seen on their televisions? We are logical to believe that open criticism of the ideology of globalisation will be muted very shortly, because all these nations have airwaves which are dominated by a handful of corporations; contrarily, the Iranian government owns all the radio and TV waves – to get the outlook of not-always-selfless private media one can turn to Iran’s extremely critical, thriving print press.

Yes, the West’s reduced economies will necessarily reduce the influence and local reach of governments, but this reduced reach can easily be counter-balanced by the drastic quasi-martial laws which have already been employed. France almost certainly has the most over-policed corona lockdown (800,000 citations already), mais bien sûr: they just had an Islamophobia-based two-year state of emergency, which President Emmanuel Macron legalised into normal police practice.

Yes, the gut-wrenching reduction in wealth for the West’s lower classes may provoke “Western-style populism”, but this ideology is intrinsically reformist and not revolutionary. Look at the Five-Star Movement in Italy – it took them eight years to win significant power, but they have not been able to make significant changes. In their last national election the superb Yellow Vests gained merely half the votes of the (ugh) Animal Rights Party.

Yes, Westerners can see that all the evidence points to the necessity that they must change, but we must recall how very culturally chauvinistic they are: The West is hysterically convinced that their system is supreme – even among their “dissidents”, who are usually just “semi-dissidents” at best – despite all the evidence of failure and their perennial disregard of their own lower classes.

So combine this inherent conservativeness (liberal reformism), with neoliberal cultural saturation, with laws that forbid leavening neoliberalism, with “it’s not totalitarian when the West does it”, and it’s hard to compute a conclusion where the Great Lockdown produces a drastic reform of the Western economy, no? They have to overcome all of these trends, laws and false beliefs simultaneously and in great measure.

That would be a revolution. The West, the great thwarter of progressive revolutions, is supposedly now on the cusp of having one?

The only thing more idiotic than such talk are the commentators who accuse Iranian Reformists of being “neoliberals”, which is as stupid as calling Biden-backing Bernie Sanders or the French “socialists”. The Iranians most associated with the “resistance economy” are indeed Ayatollah Khamenei, ex-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Principlist Party, but the idea that Reformists aren’t hugely, hugely on board with countless resistance economy principles is just eye-rollingly wrong.

The reality – well-known in Iran – is that there is absolutely no room in Iranian politics for any political group which pushes ending the pro-99%, government-interventionist, fundamentally anti-neoliberal direction of the economy for this simple fact: they would never get re-elected by the 99%, and thus such a movement is necessarily finished before it could ever even could get started in Iranian democracy. Capitalism is sanctioned by the Qur’an, so it will always have a place, but neoliberal capitalism (again, all capitalism is not “neoliberalism” just as all socialism is not “violently atheistic Russian Soviet socialism”)? Not hardly.

Smith and Ricardo’s liberal ideas that each region should produce only that which it was perfectly suited to producing had one fatal flaw: such perfect harmony cannot possibly ever exist in a capitalist-imperialist system, because such a system is predicated upon competition. This is not a small flaw in their ivory-tower thinking, nor am I resorting to a mere humbug attack on “human nature” – competition, instead of cooperation, is a poor foundation for human stability and peace.

Such harmony and mutually-beneficial arrangements (and on a global scale, no less!) could only possibly ever be achieved in a world that has a basis which is definitely not neoliberal, which is very wary of capitalism’s excesses and constant exhortations to battles both big and small, and which tacitly accepts resolutely anti-imperialist and thus essentially socialist economics as the foundation.

You may not want Iran’s culture – that’s natural, they don’t want yours.

But across the West their lower classes are clamouring for an economy with many of Iran’s motivations and practices – they will be ignored, sadly.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of the books ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’ and the upcoming ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.


Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

www.presstv.tv

Global Economic Collapse Reveals the Complete Failure of Neo-Liberal Capitalism

Global Economic Collapse Reveals the Complete Failure of Neo-Liberal Capitalism

Written by Dr. Leon Tressell exclusively for SouthFront

  • Fitch Ratings, ‘Unparalleled Global Recession Underway’
  • Economist Sven Heinrich, ‘Central banks are weapons of economic mass destruction.’

As each day passes by data pours in revealing the immense economic damage caused by the Coronavirus pandemic. Most politicians and economic pundits will put the blame for up the economic hurricane, blasting tens of millions into unemployment, on Coronavirus lock downs. Fitch Ratings has given a brief snapshot of the unfolding economic catastrophe which it predicts will last well into the 2020s:

“World GDP is now expected to fall by 3.9% in 2020, a recession of unprecedented depth in the post-war period. This is twice as large as the decline anticipated in our early April GEO update and would be twice as severe as the 2009 recession.”

“The decline in GDP equates to a USD2.8 trillion fall in global income levels relative to 2019 and a loss of USD4.5 trillion relative to our pre-virus expectations of 2020 global GDP. Fitch expects Eurozone GDP to decline by 7%, US GDP by 5.6%, and UK GDP by 6.3% in 2020.”javascript:window[“$iceContent”]

Yet at the beginning of this year the financial media and political classes around the world were making rosy forecasts how we were going to experience moderate economic growth this year built upon solid economic foundations. There was no cause for worry or alarm just let global capital work its magic and trickle-down economics would ensure living standards would rise for all.

Fast forward 4 months and a global health pandemic has revealed how shallow, brittle and unstable were the economic foundations of the neo-liberal economic order that has been heralded as such a success since the Reagan-Thatcher era of the 1980s. These foundations were built upon infinitely low interest rates, an exponential rise in debt both public and private (sending global debt over the $250 trillion mark) and a massive increase in social and economic inequality. Alongside this, has been the intense exploitation of nations in the developing world and the use of regime change wars as naked resource grabs which cement the neo-liberal economic model in position.The world economy was slowing down during 2019 and heading towards a global recession. Japan’s economy had already entered recession territory in the last quarter of 2019, meanwhile PMI data from China and Germany indicated that they were hovering just outside recession territory.The global economy at the end of 2019 was teetering on the brink and just needed a catalyst or pin to pop the everything bubble which has seen massive inflation in the prices of paper assets across the globe ranging from stocks and bonds to derivatives such as collateralized loan obligations.

The anaemic economic growth experienced by global capitalism since the last financial crisis, which was a mere 12 years ago, has been based upon a gigantic expansion of the global money supply as central banks and governments mistakenly believe that the only way to sustain our debt fuelled economic system was to create ever more debt.

The last 12 years since the 2008 global financial crisis have witnessed an unparalleled wealth transfer from the working classes to the billionaire class which wields immense political influence over governments across the world. Central bank stimulus programs i.e. quantitative easing together with historically low interest rates fuelled a speculative bonanza which has pushed financial markets to all-time highs across the globe.

Meanwhile, governments across the world have sought to give the hard pressed billionaire class a helping hand by cutting capital gains, income and corporation taxes across the board. President Trump’s $1 trillion tax give away to the economic elites in 2017 is the most egregious example of this phenomena.

At the same time, wages for billions of ordinary people have stagnated or fallen whilst welfare benefits and health care have declined. We now have the utterly surreal situation whereby 26 billionaires control as much wealth as the poorest half of humanity amounting to over 3.8 billion people.

The working and middle classes together with the underemployed poor of the developing world were made to pay for the costs of the 2008 global economic crisis. Once the Coronavirus pandemic has finally burned itself out the working people of this world will be confronted with an economic depression which will rival and indeed may exceed in severity that of the 1930s. Governments across the board will once again seek to make ordinary people pay for the cost of the gigantic debts incurred by government and central bank bailouts.

In a desperate effort to prop up their system and protect the interests of their own class central bankers and corporate politicians across the globe are presiding over yet another wealth transfer that benefits the richest 1% in society. Bloomberg has noted how over $8 trillion has been printed out of thin air by global central banks and governments to prop up their debt fuelled system. The bulk of this horde of fiat money has gone to service the needs of Wall Street and its counterparts in London, Paris Frankfurt, Shanghai et cetera.The Wall Street Journal has openly acknowledged this truth in an editorial:

“The Fed may feel all of this is essential to protect the financial system’s plumbing and reduce systemic risk until the virus crisis passes, but make no mistake the Fed is protecting Wall Street first. The goal seems to be to lift asset prices, as the Fed did after the financial panic, and hope that the wealth effect trickles down to the rest of the economy.”

As the 2020s progress massive wealth and health inequalities, hunger and poverty will lead large numbers of people to question the hyper financialised economic system whose sole motive is to protect the interests of the 1%.

The American dominated monetary system which gives preferential treatment to the empire and its allies is in decline. Its decline will be exacerbated by the twin hammer blows of the Coronavirus pandemic and the global economic depression now unfolding.

During the coming decade the make the world will become an even more unstable place as the hegemonic power of our era seeks to maintain its dominant position in the global economy at the expense of other nations. The contradictions and tensions between the United States and its rival China will be greatly exacerbated during the next period. As we saw in the 1930s once these economic contradictions and tensions reach breaking point then the superpowers of the day have few course of action open to them beyond war or appeasement of their rival.Yet during the 1930s there were instances where the onward march to war could have been averted. If Republican Spain had defeated Franco’s fascist insurgency then the momentum towards war would have been slowed. It would have greatly strengthened the Popular Front government in France and halted the appeasement policies that allowed Nazi Germany to grow in strength like a cancerous tumour.
During the next decade there will no doubt be other such instances where the onward march to war can be averted.

International Finance’s Anti-China Crusade

Source

ERIC STRIKER • APRIL 6, 2020


There is a strong anti-China current being promoted in right-wing circles and some neo-liberal ones in light of the coronavirus epidemic.

These forces are seeking to redirect real criticisms of globalization – deindustrialization, stolen intellectual property, and trade deficits – and utilize them for support for regime change operations and possibly even war against China for the financial self-interest of a few American oligarchs. It’s similar to how anti-immigration sentiment was swerved into concerns about Islam’s illiberalism in hopes of advancing Israeli interests in Europe and promoting neo-conservative wars in America.

While the Trump government’s tariffs are a welcome policy in the national interest, it also refuses to fix any of the domestic problems that allow for China to always win due to the plutocratic stranglehold American capitalists have on the US government.

The US elite is divided on China. On the one hand, there is a steadily weakening wing that seeks to continue America’s relationship with the Asian superpower in hopes of keeping a foot in the door and gradually liberalizing it.

On the other side of the debate, there are figures like George Soros, Peter Thiel, and disgraced and exiled billionaire criminal Guo Wengui who see the Chinese pseudo-National Socialist system as antifragile in the face of the passive liberal subversion that helped take down the Soviet Union.

Neither Soros, Thiel, Trump or Wengui are interested in combating globalization, but only in destroying what they perceive to be a barrier to it. For Soros, he shrouds his personal financial interest thwarted by the Chinese state in the language of “human rights” familiar to the liberal-left. Thiel has tapped a number of “alt” right-wing personalities and phony populists to try and construct a civilizational and even implicitly racial clash narrative to support his business interests in India and America. Wengui’s weapon has been Steve Bannon, who has been making his appeal to whoever will have him as a neo-con jingo, reviving silly language about “liberating” the Chinese people even though we Americans have no freedom ourselves.

Anti-China? Yes. Pro-America? No.

It’s easy to mistake the discourse of China hawks for sincere patriotism. While Donald Trump ran on a platform of bringing American industry home, the Trump administration’s actual policies in recent years have not achieved this.

The Chinese government’s international message, that its nationalistic command economy provides for superior development in comparison to liberal-capitalism, appears self-evidently true. This is a problem for American plutocracy, which tells its own citizens and those of other nations that in fact free trade and liberalization are the path to prosperity.

Rather than copying what works for the Chinese economic model (nationalizing industry, strong regulations against foreign influence, etc), American capital and the Trump administration have worked to win over Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is an advocate for mass privatization, weakening the state, and deregulation, a strategy the phony nationalist refers to as “minimum government, maximum governance.”

In Asia, economic prosperity and stable growth is more compelling than military power, and America’s elites have begun making overtures towards India in hopes of creating a counter-weight to China.

Last year, the US-India Strategic and Partnership Forum announced that 200 American manufacturers were interested in moving their supply chains from China to Indianot America. The big barrier appears to be India’s low quality infrastructure and the lack of an existing free trade agreement with the US.

According to reports in Hindu press from two months ago, the Trump administration has gone into talks with the Modi government to develop a new free trade agreement that will produce $500 billion in trade between the US and India. When all these pieces are put together, the end-result will be that the US’ economically disastrous trade deficit with China will simply be shifted to benefit India.

India’s Modi is eager to turn India into a full-blown satellite of the United States. The mass privatization of the country after the fall of the Soviet Union has not significantly bettered the average Indians life and his nation is unstable and dysfunctional. The Belt and Road Initiative threatens to spread the Chinese Corporatist development model all around nations Indian oligarchs see as being rivals or subjects: Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc.

The Belt and Road Initiative is also an existential threat to international Jewish finance. Nations across Asia, Africa, Russia and Europe have signed on or expressed interest in the BRI due to its exclusive focus on real assets and Keynesian infrastructuve-led growth, as opposed to neo-liberal models that impose the primacy of financial “assets” and selling off your country to international corporations.

India has refused to join the BRI, but the nations around it are all on board. If successful, the Belt and Road Initiative will create a counter-weight to Manhattan high-finance, and thus a potential economic partner for nations uncomfortable with the cosmopolitan, hedonistic Jewish values Washington demands its subjects take up in the name of “democracy.”

Donald Trump is trying to curtail the potential liberation of these nation’s from Wall Streets cultural and economic influence by creating the Blue Dot Network, or U.S. Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy (FOIP), which so far only has Australia, Japan, India and America as signatories.

Safe to say, this pact will require more foreign aid and trade deficits, and nothing that will financially benefit the people of America. A national industrial policy that looks to overturn neo-liberal reforms that have turned our economy into an overfinancialized basket case is the medicine we need. Instead, we are being drafted to fight a war to save an increasingly dysfunctional and discredited economic model that benefits only a few.

George Soros: The Open Society Against China

The international Jew George Soros has made much of his fortune collapsing the Bank of England and causing the Asian financial crisis. Most Western countries fear him due to his economic power, which he uses passively through speculative attacks or directly when he finances private coups against governments that defy him, known as “color revolutions.”

China, one of the only states in the world strong enough to put billionaire criminals to death, directly threatened George Soros with harsh legal repercussions when he saw the Chinese economy was flagging and began attacking the renminbi and Hong Kong dollar. According to the South China Morning Post, he was “sent packing.”Previous inroads were attempted by Soros’ Open Society Foundation, which helped organize the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, but was heavily infiltrated by Chinese agents and driven out of the country in its aftermath.

For Soros, the Open Society (inspired by writings by the Jewish globalist Karl Popper) is an important tool for international finance to deploy in order to control nations around the world. Soros’ global octopus of “foundations” promote racial incoherence, cosmopolitanism, immigration, homosexuality, feminism and other values that undermine social order and weaken national sovereignty or ethnic majorities so that they become vulnerable to his aggressive financial moves. Any collective identity, to Soros, is a threat to the liberal-Jewish outlook, and thus its hegemony.

Ever since China knocked Soros back, he has been active in trying to undermine its interests all over the world.

At the 2019 Davos conference, Soros pegged China as the “most dangerous opponent to the open society.”

Last February, Soros wrote an op-ed demanding European governments boycott a summit scheduled for this September with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. In it, the notorious Trump-hater praised the administration’s aggressive posture towards China, and warned European nations that China’s anti-liberal values were a threat to the European Unions “open society” ideology. Nations Soros has targeted, like Poland, have shown interest in the Belt and Road Initiative, and the United Kingdom has expressed its intentions to deepen ties with China to make up for the potential loss in export markets in Europe after Brexit.

Steve Bannon and Soros are unlikely allies, but they supported the astroturfed Hong Kong protests as average Americans yawned. China has also made “global cooperation” in sanctioning and destroying Russia, Iran or other perceived enemies of liberalism impossible. Maximum pressure sanctions intended to starve the Iranian people into submission have been thwarted by Chinese investment and aid. In Venezuela, when the CIA sabotaged the country’s power grids in an attempted overthrow of Nicolas Maduro, the Chinese immediately offered to fix it.

China and Russia’s non-compliance with directives from Washington and New York have by and large brought an end to “regime-change” as default foreign policy – setting back Soros’ dream of a raceless, borderless new world order significantly. The Chinese-Russian alliance has largely neutralized America’s military dominance in the Asia-Pacific, and new blocs of different levels of resistance have become emboldened (Wisegrad Group, anti-Zionist blocs in the Middle East, etc).

This is an opportunity to charter a new foreign policy path where we capitalize on our safe geostrategic position and mind our own business or focus on developing our own country, but Washington and the Jewish goons like Soros simply cannot accept it.

Steve Bannon: “Populist” For Hire

Another figure engaging in hamfisted agitation against China is Steve Bannon, a once-interesting civic nationalist who was dismissed from the White House by Trump and Jared Kushner and now appears to be a full time special interest lobbyist.

Bannon’s anti-China crusade is financed by exiled Chinese white collar criminal Guo Wengui, who in 2014 fled to America after he was discovered to be engaging with bribery and fraud, as well as rape and kidnapping. Wengui fell afoul of the Chinese Communist Party after Xi Jinping began an anti-corruption campaign in 2012.

Initially, Donald Trump announced he would deport the billionaire fugitive back to China, but changed his mind last minute. Now Wengui has been busy using his wealth to try and mobilize professional conservatives in Washington to create popular and political interest in the overthrow of the Chinese government.

Recently, Bannon has attempted to make overtures to the anti-woke left, which is hungry for alternatives to left-liberalism. On the Red Scare podcast, Bannon blew his chance at bridging right-wing and left-wing populists by focusing almost exclusively on promoting neo-conservative talking points about “freeing the Chinese people” and spreading unfounded conspiracy theories like the idea that the coronavirus is a genetically engineered Chinese bioweapon. The latter theory was invented by a Wengui funded propaganda outfit, G News.

When asked about healthcare, Bannon refused to support a national health system for all, even though most GOP voters like the idea. After Bannon called ethno-nationalists and white nationalists “clowns,” one of the hosts of the podcast asked why he supports Israel, to which he responded with desperate and logic-free Jewish bootlicking.

When Bannon attempted to pivot back to how oppressed Chinese people are, another host questioned why Americans oppressed just as harshly by our own plutocracy should give a shit, leaving with nothing but platitudes about a liberal utopia that doesn’t exist.

Some of Bannon’s rhetoric about China’s impact on America’s economy is true. But Bannon’s ties suggest he may be merely advancing the shift from dependence on China to dependence on Indian supply-chains, which is even more absurd as India’s infrastructure is awful.

Evidence suggesting this is Bannon’s role as the co-chair of the “Republican-Hindu Coalition,” an advocacy group close to the Modi government.

Naturally, Bannon’s Hindu coalition supports Trump’s call for a “merit-based” immigration system that would be the H1-B program on steroids and would grant current H1-B holders citizenship. This program would be seen as a massive betrayal by Trump’s base and impoverish America’s tech workers as unemployment explodes, so it is unlikely to be put into effect until after the 2020 election.

This is shaping up into a cynical strategy to replace China with India as the new trade deficit recipient, rather than bringing our industries home where they belong. Both Trump and Bannon are desperate to use bait-and-switch tactics to redirect anger at the failures of globalization into simplistic and impotent anti-Chinese chauvinism in order to advance the business interests and lobbies that support them, but don’t put America first.

Peter Thiel: The Alt-Billionaire Who Has Been Locked Out of China

Peter Thiel is by far the most influential in trying to mobilize dissidents and conscript them into the China crusade.

He is close to figures like the Zionist Yoram Hazony, Mencius Moldbug, Eric Weinstein (who manages Thiel’s investment firm, Thiel Capital), Bannon, China hawk and fake populist Josh Hawley (who received $500,000 from Thiel) and Donald Trump himself.

At the Israeli Hazony’s 2019 “National Conservatism” gathering, where a liberal form of phony nationalism was presented as an alternative to ethno-nationalism (in white countries, not Israel), Thiel gave a speech attacking Silicon Valley for its work with the Chinese government. Thiel is correct in this specific instance, but why is Google privately owned instead of state-owned like Huawei is? His only solution is to investigate the company for Chinese spies.

Thiel, who now fashions himself as an “American Nationalist” and is known to have had contact with a few “alt-right” figures currently trying to advance anti-China talking points, has shady ties with foreign governments that gratuitously spy on the United States. His patriotism comes into question when one looks at his investment in Carbyne, an Israeli spying firm believed to be controlled by the IDF’s Unit 8200. Thiel,along with Jeffrey Epstein and Erik Prince, were all involved in the shady project.

“Former” officials from Unit 8200 are strongly represented among CEOs of Silicon Valley companies. The Israeli’s insolent and aggressive spying on the United States was seen recently in a quickly memory holed story, where in 2019 devices were planted by Israeli intelligence to spy on the private phone conversations of Donald Trump and other prominent people in Washington. Shockingly, the US refused to respond or address the scandal.

Thiel’s specific animosity towards China is both ideological and a question of financial self-interest. While in the past he has carefully praised China, he has also made predictions that have not come true.

As the Soviet Union teetered on collapse, Milton Friedman asserted that China must fully liberalize or fall besides the Russians. While the Chinese did promote policies to encourage private initiative in some spheres, it ultimately doubled down on its planned economy when it came to the big picture. When Trump complains that it is “unfair” for the Chinese state to control the value of its currency, the Chinese ignore him, as they know that for now the US government is not strong enough to do what it takes to rein in the selfish American capitalists China plays.

The rise of artificial intelligence has created the potential to plug the holes of traditional centrally planned economies, something libertarians like Thiel are not fond of (note that his complaint about Google and China was over an AI program they were working on). It isn’t only workers who can be replaced by automation and AI, but private economic planners, aka capitalists.

Thiel’s predictions in Zero to One about China, like resource prices making them incapable of reaching Western standards of living, have not come true. The median monthly wage of Chinese workers in its major cities is currently on par with European countries like Croatia, and unlike the stagnating West, they seemed to have the wind in their sails until the pandemic hit.

Thiel has complained on multiple occasions about the many barriers the Chinese government puts in the way of foreign investors, which is common sense for any country interested in defending its sovereignty. This has made Thiel’s chess-inspired, counter-intuitive investment strategies difficult, and it is making him upset that the Chinese government is not allowing outside capitalist interests to fully partake in its growing prosperity.

It seems to have recently dawned on libertarians and neo-liberals, that after decades of denial, China remains a nationalist and socialist country and has only been using the prospect of accessing its massive market to cock-tease Western capital into providing the initial push it needed to rise. The worldviews of shot-callers like Soros and Thiel are going to be challenged if ascendent China surpasses declining America in quality of life.

On the economic front, like Bannon, Thiel appears to have an interest in pushing America closer to India. The ridiculous “Howdy Modi” spectacle, where Trump and Modi met, was sponsored by both Walmart -eager to enter the Indian market – and OYO Homes & Hotels – an Indian start-up Thiel personally funds and supports.

On the 5G front, the Trump government appeared to be doubling down on a “free market” alternative to Huawei, but this has been fruitless. Thiel’s company, Rivada, is looking to try and enrich itself with an idea to fight the potential for “Chinese espionage” via a Department of Defense selloff that would give it “open access” to its airwaves, but historically privatization schemes like this have consistently failed.

Trump appears to contradict himself and his spokesmen. Trump is now planning to campaign on nationalizing 5G, which is the true patriotic option.

All in all, it is important to make a distinction between an accurate diagnosis of the symptoms arising from our relationship with China, and the actual problem. Moving factories from China to Vietnam, India or Taiwan will leave the American people just as poor and jobless. Wasting energy following conservatives in their idiotic crusade to change how Chinese people live in China will provide no benefit to the white worker. American liberalism is collapsing because it is an unnatural and dysfunctional system.

The real conversation should be focused on the legitimacy of money power that rules us, and whether it benefits us. The answer is that it doesn’t, which is why they would like your eyes on China, rather than them.(Republished from National Justice by permission of author or representative)

%d bloggers like this: