After Hamas's massive attack, Israel has announced an unprecedented counterattack. Air strikes have been carried out on the Gaza Strip since Saturday. Meanwhile, the army is sending tanks and other equipment to the Gaza border.
Talking hasn't been an option for Israel for a long time. There has been radio silence since it withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005 and Hamas subsequently seized power in the area. Israel is therefore looking at what it can do militarily. But all options have major disadvantages. Actually there are two options, air strikes and a ground offensive. During air strikes, Israel can attack targets from great distances. But a big problem is that you don't know where civilians and hostage Israelis are. So you run a risk there. There is also a historical lesson. History shows that you can destroy a city, but if you want to break an opponent's will to fight, that doesn't work. E.g. the bombing of Hanoi in the Vietnam War and the bombing of Berlin in World War II. "In the end, you don't win a war with that. A land offensive could allow Israel to penetrate deeper into Hamas's power base. But such an offensive carries major risks for Israel. "You then have to conquer territory house by house, floor by floor, room by room. That is a very intensive form of fighting, which leads to great losses on both sides. Moreover, Israeli soldiers would then be fighting in Hamas territory; an area where Hamas is lord and master. The reference to an earlier war that Israel fought, in 2006 against the militant movement Hezbollah in Lebanon, is clear. There too, fighting took place at house level, resulting in many casualties on the Israeli side. It shows when you start such a war, you are choosing between two evils. Earlier, Israel hit back against Hamas, hard but in moderation. Israel then often used air power to eliminate targets. Now Israel will want to go further. Israel's goal will be to break the power of Hamas to carry out such large, coordinated actions against Israel. Whatever Israel decides to do, it will be very difficult. The fact that there are Israeli hostages in the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by Hamas, also plays a role. If the Netanyahu government wants to get them all back, they will have to give something up too. That is the choice Israel must make now.
0 Comments
In the past week, stories in the media have been warning about the latest Covid-19 variant, the latest in a long list. It doesn’t seem like people are listening anymore.
In the minds of much of the public, the pandemic is long over and is firmly a thing of the past. The last thing most people want is another trip down the rabbit hole of restrictions, lockdowns, masks and vaccinations, with the past few years having seriously undermined the credibility of governments and public trust in them to do the right thing. And Western governments no longer have the political will or interest to dare make unpopular decisions, even if some are sounding the alarm. The pandemic in many respects was a turning point in government-public relations in Western countries, precisely because it was the first outbreak of such scale to occur in the age of mass social-media culture, where people, more connected than ever before, have the unrestricted capability to voice their own opinions, to hear the opinions of others, and with these to enact dissent against governments and their policies. The social-media era has already provided many significant challenges to state structures as it is, with Western governments scrambling to reassert a “narrative control” over their populations that they've since lost. Social-media freedom has played a critical role in – if not outright caused – outcomes which have shocked elites, be it the election of Donald Trump in the US, or Brexit in Britain. Subsequently, Western ruling classes have increased censorship and narrative policing on social media platforms through denouncing viewpoints they don’t like as “misinformation” or even as malicious propaganda by foreign actors like China or Russia. The Covid-19 pandemic thus saw one of the most comprehensive censorship campaigns Western governments had ever undertaken (at least before that of the Ukraine conflict), especially when it came to those who sought to question or challenge the need for vaccines. Governments have tried to aggressively reassert narrative control, stomping out dissent against their views, broadcast by establishment media. It would be foolish to deny that vaccines were important in combating the Covid-19 pandemic, even critical to saving lives, especially among the elderly and the vulnerable, but the manner in which this issue was conducted by governments has produced wholesale distrust in authority at large. That is not because vaccines are 'bad' but because people saw the profits being raked in by their Big Pharma producers, saw how aggressively governments were pushing for their implementation, and were skeptical as to whether the whole thing really served the “public interest.” In other words, the method (propaganda and censorship) defeated the objective (introducing vaccines to save lives). Big Pharma, of course, refers to a group of multinational drug- and medicine-producing companies which wield enough political influence and connections to be able to steer the public narrative towards endorsing their own products and which therefore exerts a monopoly over the perceived solutions to a health crisis or problem. These companies profited wholesale over the pandemic and to some extent influenced government policies over the issue. But more specifically, the narrative was steered to argue that the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna were the only ones you should use, with Chinese and Russian competitors often receiving targeted negative coverage. Therefore, as it goes, public criticism of pandemic-related policies has grown because it is now more widely believed that these companies, armed with the media, exert “scaremongering” to fulfil their commercial goals. Combined with the influence of social media, this has created large-scale distrust, despite all evidence of how harmful and deadly the early forms of Covid were, especially for the sick and the elderly, and of the significant numbers of Covid-related deaths being reported to this day. As a result, continuing to sound alarm bells about new variants and the spread of the disease does more harm than good, because it reinforces perceptions that the media are attempting to scare populations with something that is not a real threat. The pandemic has had a politically exhausting effect that also came with a choppy transition back to 'real' life. The public is not interested in making sacrifices again in the name of a disease that is already perceived to have 'gone away,' especially when it is believed there is an agenda behind doing so – not just Big Pharma’s but also one of power centralization, censorship and narrative-control by governments. The pandemic and the Ukraine conflict together have marked part of a shift whereby Western states have sought to reassert power lost during the social-media era, but have only achieved the opposite effect. On September 22, influential United States Senator Bob Menendez was indicted on corruption charges along with his wife, Nadine. It is the second time Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has faced such charges.
As per the indictment from the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Menendez and his wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from three New Jersey businessmen in the form of gold, cash, a luxury vehicle and assorted other goodies. In exchange, the Democrat from New Jersey allegedly used his position of power to benefit the three businessmen as well as the government of Egypt, the home country of one of the men in question. As the old saying goes, power tends to corrupt. According to US mythology, of course, corruption is entirely the business of other, less civilised nations – particularly enemies of the US – that lack the proper commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and all that nice and noble stuff. But here’s a news flash for those sectors of the domestic audience scandalised by the Menendez revelations: Corruption is about as American as apple pie. (And a related newsflash: Menendez or no Menendez, the US has spent decades flinging billions of dollars at Egypt’s repressive apparatus – which should constitute a scandal in itself.) To be sure, Menendez is hardly the only bad apple in this pie. Take Clarence Thomas, the US Supreme Court justice whose corrupt exploits have been thoroughly investigated by the New York-based nonprofit ProPublica. One recent ProPublica report notes that, “like clockwork, Thomas’ leisure activities have been underwritten by benefactors who share the ideology that drives his jurisprudence”. The report goes on to document said “leisure activities”, which have included at least 38 vacations, 26 private jet flights, eight helicopter flights, and various excursions to luxury resorts, sporting events and so on. Billionaire real estate tycoon Harlan Crow, an enthusiastic collector of Nazi paraphernalia, is but one of the filthy rich right-wing contributors to Thomas’s seemingly eternal “leisure”. Crow has also funded numerous other favours, such as paying for Thomas’s grandnephew to attend an exclusive private boarding school. In September, ProPublica revealed that Thomas had secretly participated in donor summits for the Koch network, founded by the billionaire Koch brothers and devoted to driving US policy ever more to the right. And what do you know? The Koch strategy includes bringing cases before the very court on which Thomas sits to impact US law. So much for that silly old concept of “conflict of interest”. At the end of the day, though, Thomas’s antics are merely of a piece with US capitalism, which is predicated on maintaining a tyranny of the elite under the guise of democracy. In other words, it’s about as corrupt a system as you can get. That anyone can still apply the term “democracy” to the US with a straight face is, meanwhile, a testament to the corruption of language itself. After all, you can’t very well have “rule by the people” in a country where the Supreme Court reverses campaign finance restrictions and political influence is transparently up for sale. The list of offenders goes on. There’s Samuel Alito, another Supreme Court justice who this year was exposed as having also accepted undisclosed gifts from billionaire hedge fund manager and Republican Party mega-donor Paul Singer. After being treated by Singer to a luxury fishing trip in Alaska in 2008, Alito ruled in favour of Singer’s hedge fund in a case before the Supreme Court. And then there’s Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general acquitted of corruption charges on September 16 in a historic impeachment trial, in which he was accused of bribery, obstruction of justice, abuse of public trust and other misdeeds. Allegations ranged from shady dealings with a real estate developer in Texas and misuse of power to retaliate against whistleblowers. An ally of former US President Donald Trump and an accomplice in the effort to overturn the 2020 election results, Paxton remains under FBI investigation on separate corruption charges and faces trial on allegations of felony securities fraud. After the Texas Senate acquitted the state’s top law enforcement official, Trump took to his social media platform to celebrate with typical eloquence: “The Ken Paxton Victory is sooo BIG. WOW!!!” The online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary offers several definitions of the word “corruption”. The first is “dishonest or illegal behaviour especially by powerful people”; the second is “inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means”. Further down the dictionary entry is another option consisting of just two words: “decay, decomposition”. And as US officials get away with all manner of bribery scandals and the frenetic injection of right-wing money into politics sustains a brutal plutocracy, the whole scene does indeed reek of decay. Investigative journalists have been carrying out their own research to solve the Nord Stream whodunnit, leading to sometimes sensational, if unconfirmed, reports.
Dutch military intelligence warned the CIA of a Ukrainian plan to blow up the pipelines three months before the attack, Dutch broadcaster NOS and Germany’s Die Zeit and ARD reported in June. The Washington Post made a similar claim. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly denied his country was behind the sabotage. “I would never do that,” he told Germany’s Bild newspaper, adding he would “like to see proof”. In March, The New York Times wrote that US officials had seen intelligence indicating a “pro-Ukrainian group” was responsible, without Zelenskyy’s knowledge. German media have focused on the Andromeda, with reporters from Der Spiegel magazine and broadcaster ZDF recreating the journey they believe was made by the six-person crew. According to their reporting, a forged passport used to hire the sailboat leads back to a Ukrainian soldier, while the charter fee was paid by a company registered in Poland with ties to a woman in Kyiv. In June, The Wall Street Journal reported Germany was trying to match DNA samples found on the vessel “to at least one Ukrainian soldier”. The Journal also said evidence found in the investigation included data from Andromeda’s radio and navigation equipment, satellite and mobile phones, and Gmail accounts allegedly used by the perpetrators. Danish media have reported a Russian naval vessel specialised in submarine operations, the SS-750, was photographed near the site of the blasts days before the attack. US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported in February the US was behind the blasts and that Norway assisted. It was dismissed as “fiction” by the White House. Was it a false flag operation? Experts have not ruled out a “false flag” operation by Russia, with clues deliberately placed to pin the blame on Ukraine. Andreas Umland, an analyst at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies, said he sees Russia as “the most likely” culprit. Any suspected involvement by Kyiv in an attack on Europe’s energy infrastructure could threaten the support of allies, which would benefit Russia. At the same time, the destroyed pipelines could help Gazprom avoid compensation claims for undelivered gas, even though the company was reluctant to keep the taps open before the blasts. Moscow may have sought “to kill two birds with one stone”, Umland said. The Kremlin has strongly denied responsibility. Moscow blames the US Russia has alleged the US was behind the attack, noting the sabotage “occurred after the repeated threats to the Nord Stream by the leadership of the United States”. In March, Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed the argument that Kyiv was behind the explosions, instead laying blame on the US. “Who is interested? Theoretically, the United States is interested in stopping the supply of Russian energy to the European market and supplying volumes of its own,” he told an interviewer. “Such an explosion, so powerful and at such depth, could only be conducted by experts backed by the entire potential of a state that has relevant technologies,” said Putin. Diplomatically sensitive investigations ongoing The blasts occurred in the economic zones of Sweden and Denmark, so both countries launched investigations into the incident. So far, they say the explosions were deliberate, but they have yet to single out who was behind the blasts. Germany also launched an investigation with federal prosecutors searching a yacht in January that might have been used to transport the explosives. They seized objects from the vessel and found traces of explosives.
Recently, actor and comedian Russell Brand has used his celebrity status and his internet-based show to lift up independent-minded people like US presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He questioned the US and NATO involvement in the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, as well as the mainstream media narrative on Covid-19.
The establishment neoliberals were having none of it. They turned their laser-guided coordinated attacks on Brand, and now he is facing cancelation, MeToo style. He’s been accused of rape and abuse by several women, and as a result has lost his YouTube ad revenue, has had his live shows canceled, has been dropped by his publisher, and has had shows featuring him removed from the BBC’s video-on-demand service, among other things. MeToo started out with a valiant goal, as a movement to empower women to speak out about sexual abuse where they had previously felt pressured into silence. All too quickly it got co-opted by political agendas, becoming a Democrat-backed hashtag used to attack and shut down those who disagree with the establishment narrative. It appears to have faded into relative obscurity since its roaring peak, and this zombie-like return of this style of cancelation comes off as both tiresome and disingenuous. I should know for two reasons: I worked for Democrats, and I was raped by one. The Democrat I was raped by at work is now the president of the United States. There was no investigation into Joe Biden for what he did to me that day, but rather a coordinated attack on me across social media and establishment media alike that lasted years. It destroyed my professional and personal life. The MeToo movement was nowhere to be found for me because the founder of Time’s Up, the primary organization that supported the movement, was on Biden’s payroll. Truth never stood a chance. Even when I came close to testifying before Congress, the DNC machine went full throttle at me, and then there was the part where I had to seek asylum in another country to avoid prosecution or violence. Now, I never expected instant justice. But I never got the justice of even an investigation into him.
I know what it’s like to have the narrative be locked and loaded for your complete destruction, and now so does Russell Brand. The facts on his alleged actions are murky and many of the accusers are anonymous. To date, no criminal charges, investigation, or civil cases have been filed. Just a blurry news program of innuendos latched onto by lap-dog Western media. The allegations against him were brought by Channel 4 Dispatches in a program called ‘Russell Brand: In Plain Sight’ and The Times. The allegations include rape and manipulation. As the news of the journalistic investigation spread, two shows dropped their episodes featuring Brand, and in only a few days, the trial by media had instigated his complete cancelation. Cases involving sexual misconduct, especially when they are about someone famous, are always a headline grabber.
That said, sexual assault and rape are difficult to publicly discuss. On a psychological level, rape is not about sex but power. On a legal level, the issue that swirls around any allegations of sexual assault is consent. Was there consent or not? It seems like a simple enough question, but when it comes to arguing legal definitions, it can get much more complicated, especially when you throw things like capacity to consent and withdrawal of consent into the mix. And then there’s the political level. Rape is a highly politicized issue in the US and the West in general, and no one can politicize it better than the Democrats. When a woman comes forward, her reputation often gets attacked, be it by slut-shaming or through allegations of fishing for attention. The MeToo mantra ‘believe all women’, when co-opted by the Democrat political agenda, is applied very selectively, and it becomes very easy to dismiss a politically inconvenient accuser by destroying her reputation. The accusations themselves then become a tool to deplatform or silence chosen targets. I know what it’s like to have the narrative be locked and loaded for your complete destruction, and now so does Russell Brand. The facts on his alleged actions are murky and many of the accusers are anonymous. To date, no criminal charges, investigation, or civil cases have been filed. Just a blurry news program of innuendos latched onto by lap-dog Western media. The allegations against him were brought by Channel 4 Dispatches in a program called ‘Russell Brand: In Plain Sight’ and The Times. The allegations include rape and manipulation. As the news of the journalistic investigation spread, two shows dropped their episodes featuring Brand, and in only a few days, the trial by media had instigated his complete cancelation. Cases involving sexual misconduct, especially when they are about someone famous, are always a headline grabber. That said, sexual assault and rape are difficult to publicly discuss. On a psychological level, rape is not about sex but power. On a legal level, the issue that swirls around any allegations of sexual assault is consent. Was there consent or not? It seems like a simple enough question, but when it comes to arguing legal definitions, it can get much more complicated, especially when you throw things like capacity to consent and withdrawal of consent into the mix. And then there’s the political level. Rape is a highly politicized issue in the US and the West in general, and no one can politicize it better than the Democrats. When a woman comes forward, her reputation often gets attacked, be it by slut-shaming or through allegations of fishing for attention. The MeToo mantra ‘believe all women’, when co-opted by the Democrat political agenda, is applied very selectively, and it becomes very easy to dismiss a politically inconvenient accuser by destroying her reputation. The accusations themselves then become a tool to deplatform or silence chosen targets. Last week, the Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley, in a shrewd attack on US President Joe Biden, 80, and on his main opponent, 77-year-old Donald Trump, called for term limits and mental competency tests for politicians over the age of 75, saying that “they need to let a younger generation take over.”
“The American people are saying it is time to go. If they would approve term limits, the American people would show that,” the 51-year-old former UN ambassador said in an interview on CBS’ Face the Nation. “But until then, they’ve got to know that, look, we appreciate your service, but it’s time to step away.” Haley’s remarks came just days after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the longest-serving Senate party leader of all time, froze for the second time in as many months during a press conference. Much like with Joe Biden, America’s oldest-ever president who always has handlers nearby to navigate him when he wanders off the beaten path, an assistant quickly came to McConnell’s rescue. The tragi-comedy that ensued was almost as cringe-inducing as a politician not being able to find the exit, or uttering regrettable gaffes, as is Biden’s forte. McConnell could only understand the reporters’ questions with the help of his aide, who had to repeat them loudly into his ear. Still, the top-ranking Republican only managed to answer one question out of three, and just barely, before the press conference was hastily concluded. McConnell’s office explained that the 81-year-old Senator “felt momentarily lightheaded and paused during his press conference.” Haley is one of the few politicians in the US who has openly acknowledged what is becoming very difficult to ignore: Capitol Hill, which plays host to 105 lawmakers over the age of 70, is beginning to resemble a taxpayer-funded retirement home. According to data from the Pew Research Center, the median age for House legislators is 57.9, while in the Senate the median age is 65.3 years, thus comprising one of the oldest legislative bodies in the world. Yet neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, whose presidential front-runners are both long in the tooth, are in any positions to demand term limits and cognitive ability tests. From a historical perspective, it’s interesting to note that among the 46 men who have served as US president since George Washington’s election on April 30, 1789, it wasn’t until Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was elected on January 20, 1953, that America had its first 70-year-old leader in the Oval Office – and just barely. Eisenhower, who was first elected when he was 62 years old, left office when he was 70 years, 98 days old. With Joe Biden, 80, and Donald Trump, 77, America has its first and second oldest leaders, respectively (one could argue that people today simply live longer; to counter that, there’s John Adams, America’s second president, who lived to 90; Thomas Jefferson, the third US president, who lived to 83; James Madison, the fourth president, who lived to 85). In a new survey by The Wall Street Journal, conducted between Aug. 24 and 30, 60% of 1,500 respondents said they do not believe Joe Biden is mentally up to the job of president, and 73% said he is too old for the position. So this begs the question: why are so many politicians determined to stay in office long after the average retirement age? What makes these public servants want to continue working deep into their seventies, eighties and even nineties, as was the case with Senator Strom Thurmond? Is public service really that appealing? After all, many US legislators can take advantage of the infamous revolving door that exists between Capitol Hill and K Street, a highly questionable partnership that shuffles lawmakers into lucrative positions in the corporate world as lobbyists, consultants and strategists upon their retirement. Or maybe the unwillingness to retire from the halls of Congress is simply due to the desire for even more money than what the corporate world can offer? Although the media rarely mentions it, the public servants on Capitol Hill – half of whom are millionaires – are in the perfect position to enrich themselves due to their access to inside information. The 2020 congressional insider trading scandal provided a perfect example of this. On January 24, 2020, the Senate held a closed meeting to brief lawmakers about the Covid-19 outbreak and how it would affect the United States. Following the meeting, a number of Senate members immediately began to ditch their shares in companies that would eventually suffer severe financial losses in the wake of the pandemic. California Senator Dianne Feinstein (currently 90 years old), sold stock worth upwards of $6 million in Allogene Therapeutics; Richard Burr, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sold stocks with an estimated value between $628,033 and $1.72 million; Oklahoma Republican Senator Jim Inhofe, then 86, sold stocks that amounted to about $400,000. Perhaps the most shocking finding as far as insider trading goes involved Senator Kelly Loeffler, who, together her husband Jeffrey Sprecher, the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, made twenty-seven transactions to sell stock worth between $1,275,000 and $3,100,000. They also purchased shares in Citrix Systems, which saw an earnings increase following the Covid-19 outbreak. Despite these transactions being a clear violation of the STOCK Act, no charges were brought against these public servants and all investigations into the matter were quietly swept under the congressional carpet with no explanation. While there are certainly politicians both young and old who take advantage of their positions for private gain, possibly opting to stay in office well past their ‘expiration date,’ how many is really anybody’s guess. The reality, however, is clear that financial gain is one motivating factor for keeping people inside the power loop for as long as possible. But are term limits the answer for ending the wave of greed and gerontocracy invading Capitol Hill? Personally, I doubt it. Hawkish US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo has recently undertaken an official visit to China. She is the fourth such US official to visit in the past few months, marking a stabilization – but not a breakthrough – in ties between the two powers. Here, she berated China for making its market “uninvestable” for US firms and called “on Beijing to act to reduce the risk of doing business in the country.”
This is ironic for too many reasons to list. The most obvious one is that the Biden administration recently released restrictions on US inbound foreign investment into China’s high-tech industries, including semiconductors, quantum computing, supercomputing and artificial intelligence. Although the measures are considered narrow, they are nonetheless the opposite of confidence-inducing, as Republican critics have already argued they are not enough and have demanded they be widened. This in itself tells a story about America. China isn’t making itself ‘uninvestable’; the US is doing it by deliberately creating a toxic geopolitical environment. The US does not want to see inbound investment into China and – through the stroking of tensions and military uncertainties – is heightening the risks of such investments. This makes Raimondo’s trip to Beijing immensely hypocritical. Washington’s narrative on China, peddled through compliant media, is that Beijing is primarily responsible for scaring foreign investors away due to its increasing centralization under the rule of Xi Jinping. China is being described as isolationist, rigid, unreasonable and ‘in decline’ and accused of ‘unfair’ economic practices. If only Beijing would open up more and let all these investors in, right? Everything would be fine, and the US-China economic relationship would get back on track, wouldn’t it?Possibly, but only if the US had not: 1) Placed hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs on Chinese exports, which it refuses to remove, even with high levels of inflation; 2) Opportunistically blacklisted products from entire regions of China, such as Xinjiang, on the premise of ‘human rights abuses’; 3) Put Chinese technology companies on the commerce department ‘entity list’ prohibiting US companies from exporting to them, then blacklisted the entirety of China’s semiconductor industry and forced third-party countries to do the same. On top of all the sanctions, the US is deliberately militarizing China’s entire periphery with military bases and stoking up tensions with Taiwan, capitalizing on global uncertainty following the Ukraine war. Last but certainly not least, the mountain of news articles and commentary demonizing, attacking, accusing and doom-mongering about China grows every single day. Can the US honestly say with a straight face amidst all this that it is China who is scaring away investors? Sure, as this global environment has deteriorated, Beijing has tightened its control, and the ruling party engages in harsh regulatory crackdowns against a number of companies, which hardly creates an investment-friendly environment, but that’s a product of the insecurity being driven by tensions. So when officials like Raimondo visit China and complain the conditions are unfavorable for US businesses, the level of hypocrisy borders on extreme, when Washington itself has done more than anyone else to undermine trust in Beijing. But if that is so, why should she even complain about it? The answer is because the US does not want to have an equal economic relationship with China. Washington’s ideal relationship with Beijing is one in which it gets full access to the Chinese market and gets to sell it anything it wants, not where Chinese companies are able to compete fair and square on a global scale. This is the same level of subordination it has long sought to impose on Europe, where, for example, it is casually destroying German industry by forcing its decoupling from Russian resources, selling overpriced gas and then using protectionism through the “inflation reduction act” to disincentivise production. The US wants to economically dominate China; that’s the only “investment” it has in mind and is primarily why visits like Raimondo’s never truly make any headway and are a waste of time. Western propaganda is burying the Chinese economy at the exact moment that BRICS is expanding, is it a coincidence? ‘Experts’ have been predicting the collapse of the Chinese and Russian economies for years, but the reality is invariably different.
The Economist has put out another cover story on China’s supposed economic decline. I wonder when they’ll all get tired of this theme? It’s even become a meme. In 2001, Gordon Chang, a famous American lawyer and political commentator with Chinese roots, wrote a book called ‘The Coming Collapse of China’. In fact, it was this book that made him famous. In it, the ‘expert’ argued that the country’s collapse was imminent. He even named the year – 2011. When the predicted events did not happen, Chang said he was wrong, but only by one year. In an article for Foreign Policy (FP) magazine, Chang claimed that the end of China was already near, and that everything would happen in 2012. He even urged readers to bet on it. But those promises never came to pass. Then, in 2016, the indefatigable Gordon again announced the coming collapse of China, but wisely did not give a date. Amusingly, in another FP piece, Chang urged people not to believe the IMF’s prediction that China’s economy would overtake that of the US by 2016. And in 2016, he wasn’t deterred by the fact that China had overtaken the US in terms of GDP converted into dollars at purchasing power parity. “Rising tensions within the regime, economic turmoil, and a more vibrant society. China appears to be entering a new period of extreme political instability,” wrote the perennially wrong expert in the National Interest. The Economist, continuing Chang’s glorious work, waits from cover to cover for the collapse of the Celestial Empire. It’s reminiscent of Jehovah’s Witnesses waiting for Armageddon, and seems oblivious to the fact that its content is detached from reality. But there is no creativity at all – just pandas and dragons. The West has been burying China’s economy for decades, in the same way it decided Russia’s economy was dead after the start of the military operation in Ukraine. A strong Beijing and Moscow is the United States’ worst nightmare. Only a close alliance between Beijing and Moscow could be more frightening – and today that not only exists, but is gaining more supporters. Thus, it is impossible to judge the new wave of ‘forecasts’ and ‘analyses’ about the imminent decline of China in isolation from the latest BRICS summit, where it was announced that six more countries will join the format. The Wall Street Journal now says that the decision to include new players in BRICS is a victory for China and Russia. That doesn’t really fit with the new cover of The Economist, does it?
Why? Because Kissinger was one of the key figures in the construction of the US-China diplomatic relationship which followed on from Richard Nixon’s groundbreaking visit to the country in 1972 and his meeting with Mao Zedong. This marked one of the biggest geopolitical shifts of the 20th century, leading to the opening up of China and its integration into the global economy. For this legacy, Beijing is extraordinarily grateful to Kissinger and treats him as an “old friend.” This of course, provides the backdrop as to precisely why he is visiting now, and what this means politically.
Kissinger’s legacy paved the way for an open, stable, and cooperative relationship between the US and China which lasted over 40 years, but that era is now gone. In fact, the mood among some in Washington is to try and dismantle this legacy, framing US engagement with China as a mistake which emboldened a hostile power. That is the message Mike Pompeo sought to convey in 2020 when he was secretary of state. Attempting to reset the US-China relationship into a new “epoch,” Pompeo gave a provocative speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential library in California titled ‘Communist China and the Free World’s Future’. Since the Trump administration, US-China ties have been going steadily downhill, as strategic competition in the fields of military, diplomacy, and technology have accelerated. The Biden presidency has arguably been more aggressive than its predecessor in some of the measures it has taken. It is little surprise that US politicians see engagement with China as a form of appeasement and politically unfavorable. Therefore, while officials talk of so-called ‘guardrails’ in dialogue with China, their strategic intentions do not change, and neither do they make any concessions in the diplomacy they pursue. Given this, China is courting Henry Kissinger for a critical reason. He is a living symbol of the relationship Beijing would like to have with Washington, and of what diplomatic ties ought to be like. His presence in Beijing is a political statement. China is displeased with the actions of the US, but ultimately continues to seek engagement, stability, cooperation and openness in its relationship, and nobody is a bigger representation of that than the man with whom it all began, who now believes the US and China must find a path to co-existence to avoid conflict. In doing so, Beijing calculates that it is a waste of time to try to engage with US politicians directly. The mudslinging and paranoia such attempts are met with is of such a scale that it is damaging for anyone, especially at the level of Congress. Instead, it has utilized a pragmatic strategy of targeting individuals that it believes can promote stability in the relationship, and inviting them on highly publicized visits. This has included businessmen and public figures such as Tim Cook, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates, who have all visited China in recent months. They are used to convey a message that China is open and still willing to do business, and that ties with the US do not have to be the way they currently are. In addition, these individuals act as back channels. They may not have direct political power, but through their networks and ties they wield influence, especially when it comes to lobbying. Kissinger is elderly, but he is a highly respected member of the foreign policy community. Despite the geopolitical competition with the US, China is above all cautious of rocking the boat. It is aware that the US political class cannot be swayed in its disposition, but Beijing seeks to contain and minimize its influence through diplomacy, as opposed to confrontation. Empowering Washington’s hawks is one of the worst strategic mistakes China can make. Thus, it is critical to Beijing’s objectives to slow down the ‘decoupling’ and prevent the US from gaining political capital to force other countries, in both Europe and Asia, to get on board with its agenda. Beijing does not see this as a sprint, but as a marathon. From its perspective, the use of Kissinger sends a message of hope and reconciliation, an idealistic perspective on how US-China ties should be. Of course, there is no turning back the clock, and stability might be all there is to hope for at this stage.
One of the defining features of Musk, aside from his penchant for X is his self-branding as a genius trying to push humanity forward. In reality, many of his projects, like the Vegas Loop, which is a passenger car tunnel in Las Vegas meant to reduce congestion instead of utilizing public transportation, are abjectly stupid. There are also many misconceptions that he circulates to reinforce the common narrative of his sycophants, like that he founded Tesla, the electric carmaker. But he didn’t create the company, he bought it and later called himself the “founder,” which led to a legal battle that allowed him to keep the title despite not actually being what the English language would define as a founder. A local news report from the San Francisco Bay area on this issue also describes how he pulled the same thing with PayPal, which was the main product of Confinity, a startup that had emerged with Musk’s X.com in the 1990s. If simply being an early investor in a company would define one as a founder, then every person who pays US taxes could be considered a Tesla founder because of the large amounts of federal contracts that prop the EV maker up.
Musk shouldered his way into the prestige of being a founder of some of these companies in order to boost his own image. It gives a serious amount of clout in the tech bro environment to call oneself a founder. Therefore, if history is any guide, the plan appears to be this: Elon Musk’s Twitter rebranding and the introduction of new features is designed so that he can label himself the company’s founder. It’s not about any grand corporate strategy or serious attempt at becoming the app of power; he just wants to take credit for Jack Dorsey’s product while blatantly ripping IP from China. In recent years, the phrase "Go Woke, Go Broke" has gained significant traction in public discourse. It suggests that businesses and organizations that adopt progressive values and social causes eventually face financial ruin. This narrative implies that societal progress and profitability are inherently incompatible, painting a misleading picture of the complex relationship between corporate activism and the bottom line. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the reality is far more nuanced than this simplistic slogan suggests.
The Changing Landscape of Consumer Expectations: The modern marketplace is witnessing a significant shift in consumer expectations. Today's consumers are not just interested in products or services; they are increasingly concerned about the values and ethical practices of the companies they engage with. Younger generations, in particular, are more likely to support and be loyal to brands that align with their social, environmental, and ethical values. Companies that recognize and adapt to these changing dynamics are often better positioned to thrive in the long run. By embracing corporate social responsibility, businesses can foster strong customer loyalty, attract new demographics, and differentiate themselves from their competitors. In this context, it becomes clear that "going woke" can be a shrewd business strategy, rather than a recipe for failure. The Power of Authenticity and Purpose: Successful companies are not merely jumping on the bandwagon of social causes for the sake of virtue signaling. Authenticity and genuine commitment to the values they espouse are crucial. Brands that wholeheartedly integrate their purpose and values into their DNA are more likely to resonate with consumers and build lasting relationships. Consumers today are adept at spotting shallow attempts to capitalize on social issues. When companies engage in token gestures or superficial gestures without genuine dedication, they risk damaging their reputation and losing consumer trust. Therefore, the key lies in sincere alignment with values and a sustained commitment to making a positive impact. The Positive Outcomes of Corporate Activism: Contrary to the "Go Woke, Go Broke" narrative, numerous examples exist that debunk the notion that embracing progressive causes leads to financial ruin. In fact, many companies have experienced increased brand equity and profitability by engaging in activism. For instance, companies like Patagonia, Ben & Jerry's, and Nike have successfully merged social activism with their core business strategies, resonating with their target demographics and generating substantial profits. Furthermore, research studies have shown a positive correlation between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Companies that invest in sustainability, diversity and inclusion, and ethical practices have been found to outperform their competitors over the long term. The "Go Woke, Go Broke" narrative oversimplifies the complex relationship between corporate activism and financial success. Rather than being a zero-sum game, it is clear that progressive values and profitability can coexist and even reinforce one another. In an evolving marketplace where consumers increasingly demand ethical behavior and purpose-driven initiatives, companies that genuinely embrace these principles are more likely to thrive. While it is true that any business decision carries inherent risks, the notion that adopting socially responsible stances leads inevitably to financial ruin is misguided. Companies must focus on authenticity, purpose, and a genuine commitment to social causes to navigate this landscape successfully. By doing so, they can create a positive impact on society while simultaneously securing their long-term prosperity. Sigrid Kaag is a name that resonates with leadership, diplomacy, and remarkable accomplishments. Her life and career have been nothing short of inspiring, leaving a lasting impact on both national and international fronts. From her early days to her current role, Kaag's journey is a testament to dedication, resilience, and the pursuit of a better world.
Sigrid Kaag, a Dutch politician and diplomat, began her professional journey as a civil servant at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Her innate talent and passion for diplomacy soon propelled her into the heart of international affairs. Kaag served in various crucial roles within the United Nations, including working on critical missions in the Middle East and leading the joint mission for the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons. One of the defining moments of Kaag's career came during her tenure as the Special Coordinator of the Joint Mission of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the United Nations in Syria. Her exceptional leadership skills, determination, and unwavering commitment played a pivotal role in ensuring the safe and successful removal of chemical weapons from Syria, a task considered to be highly challenging and fraught with risks. Kaag's accomplishments in the international arena led to her return to Dutch politics. In 2017, she became a member of the House of Representatives for the Democrats 66 (D66) party. Her political acumen and ability to bridge divides were evident as she assumed the role of Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation in the Dutch government. As Minister, Kaag championed key issues such as sustainable development, gender equality, and fair trade. She initiated several programs to support entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic development in developing countries, further cementing her commitment to fostering global progress and prosperity. Beyond her professional achievements, Sigrid Kaag embodies leadership qualities that inspire and motivate others. Her calm demeanor, intellectual acumen, and ability to engage in constructive dialogue have earned her respect from colleagues and counterparts alike. She has consistently demonstrated a steadfast commitment to promoting peace, understanding, and cooperation in an increasingly complex world. Sigrid Kaag's life and career serve as a reminder that true leadership is not only about achieving personal success but also about making a positive impact on society. Her dedication to diplomacy, humanitarianism, and sustainable development sets an example for aspiring leaders across the globe. By striving for excellence and embracing empathy, Kaag has shown that it is possible to effect meaningful change even in the face of formidable challenges. In conclusion, Sigrid Kaag's life story is one of extraordinary accomplishments and remarkable contributions. Her unwavering commitment to diplomacy, her exemplary leadership skills, and her relentless pursuit of a more just and equitable world make her a true role model. Sigrid Kaag's life serves as an inspiration to all those who aspire to create a positive impact and shape a better future through leadership and diplomacy.
According to EU code, tech platforms like Twitter are connected with “fact-checkers, civil society, and third-party organizations with specific expertise on disinformation.” In other words, avid gatekeepers of the establishment narrative. And on August 25th, adherence will no longer be voluntary.
The EU should consider getting out of the control freak business if it truly wants to help the European free press. Maybe then, journalists here in Europe trying our best to fully inform our audiences against information barriers created by Brussels won’t have to redirect our internet connections to places like Vietnam, Mexico, Turkey, or Brazil in order to access information and sources that the EU doesn’t like. Going green and adopting environmentally friendly practices are important steps towards sustainability and mitigating climate change. However, it is true that some aspects of going green can have potential toxic costs. Here are a few examples:
It is crucial to acknowledge these toxic costs and strive for sustainable solutions that minimize or eliminate such risks. Constant research and development are essential to improve the environmental performance of green technologies and ensure that they are produced and disposed of responsibly. In recent years, the stock market and Bitcoin have emerged as two powerful forces reshaping the financial landscape. While the stock market has long been a cornerstone of traditional investment strategies, Bitcoin, as the pioneer of cryptocurrencies, represents a new frontier for investors. The dynamic relationship between these two entities has captivated the attention of traders, analysts, and everyday individuals alike. In this editorial, we will explore the intricate interplay between the stock market and Bitcoin, shedding light on the evolving nature of investing in this digital age.
Conclusion: The intricate dance between the stock market and Bitcoin signals a new era of investing, where traditional and digital assets coexist and converge. The evolution of these two entities intertwines risk and opportunity, volatility and stability, and centralization and decentralization. As investors navigate this landscape, understanding the distinct characteristics, drivers, and regulatory frameworks surrounding the stock market and Bitcoin becomes imperative. Embracing this dynamic interplay has the potential to unlock new investment opportunities, foster financial inclusion, and shape the future of finance. |
Thank you for choosing to make a difference through your donation. We appreciate your support.
This website uses marketing and tracking technologies. Opting out of this will opt you out of all cookies, except for those needed to run the website. Note that some products may not work as well without tracking cookies. Opt Out of CookiesCategories
All
Archives
April 2024
|