As for what will be left of Ukraine, it is already being bought by Western mega-players such as BlackRock, Cargill and Monsanto. Yet Beijing certainly does not count on being left high and dry. Stranger things have happened than a future rump Ukraine positioned as a functioning trade and connectivity BRI partner.
Beijing is fully aware the NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is the un-dissociable double of the U.S. war against its Belt and Road Initiative.
Imagine President Xi Jinping mustering undiluted Taoist patience to suffer through a phone call with that warmongering actor in a sweaty T-shirt in Kiev while attempting to teach him a few facts of life – complete with the promise of sending a high-level Chinese delegation to Ukraine to discuss “peace”.
There’s way more than meets the discerning eye obscured by this spun-to-death diplomatic “victory” – at least from the point of view of NATOstan.
The question is inevitable: what’s the point of this phone call? Very simple: just business.
The Beijing leadership is fully aware the NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is the un-dissociable double of an American direct war against the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Until recently, and since 2019, Beijing was the top trade partner for Kiev (14.4% of imports, 15.3% of exports). China essentially exported machinery, equipment, cars and chemical products, importing food products, metals and also some machinery.
Very few in the West know that Ukraine joined BRI way back in 2014, and a BRI trade and investment center was operating in Kiev since 2018. BRI projects include a 2017 drive to build the fourth line of the Kiev metro system as well as 4G installed by Huawei. Everything is stalled since 2022.
Now we know that all western DATA is forged. We also know that Yellen, sobbing over a looming debt default, has the mind of a slug of jello and she will do whatever she is told without – a thought. Literally.
Watch The Mergers. This will determine their next Play Act on the Stage of the “Global Bust” as written by
Before helping to Bailout SVB Bank and Republic Bank – the FDIC had $128 billion cash on hand representing 1.27% of all insured deposits. Still think your money is insured? Not if the FDIC has no more funds. They are funded by banks – when banks are no more, their funding takes a dive. The Rothschild Economist declared a few weeks ago that the largest banks needed to absorb ALL other banks to recreate a banking Cartel of just 3-5 mega banks. This is the only means to CONTROL via social credit scores.
Today, The Economist is suggesting that mining companies begin the same absorption process. Lauding the agenda as the creation of a super commodities group or “Cartel”, the industry includes green metals as well as coal and other minerals such as lithium. Monopolies are the end goal.
Within this western trend, newly crowned King Charleshas altered his coronation to add a ‘pledge’ that all Brits are called to recite in unison proclaiming their obedience to the King. Not to the Land. Not to the Constitution. But to Charles the man who intends to expand his Kingship duties so as to fully indoctrinate the British Empire that was and isn’t. Hail Britain’s Totalitarian Rule!
The problem with going forward with the World Economic Forum Agenda is too many countries have sabotaged the global outcome. Without a global response, with waning allies, and with awakened populace across the globe, the Cartel will need more than simple monopolies doling out rations.
In the event the Mafia Cartel manages to obliterate the western economies who will they govern? Exodus from major cities will cue chaos should the chaos puppets choose to invade suburban and rural communities. Which is why the importance of gun confiscation becomes a pre-eminent need to solve before the wave moves outward. Their timing is off…
In nearly all mergers, employees are the first casualty. Employees who reap benefits, lucrative salaries and whose job is largely a stage effect go first. But in every restructure the slashing is crisp and finale. There is no begging. There is no mercy. Thus the mergers being ordered by the Cartel will have an unemployment fallout. Given all statistics are now algorithms, we have little ability to scrape together facts from the dung pile.
Unemployment is already a side show of fraud – operating on the same ideology established by Communist China. We used to laugh at how China manipulated its GDP, its employment, its death rate, its wealth, its stock market, all DATA. It is relatively easy once the government is onboard. Now we know that all western DATA is forged. We also know that Yellen, sobbing over a looming debt default, has the mind of a slug of jello and she will do whatever she is told without – a thought. Literally.
The same people creating this law will decide what you say is right or wrong. Better pray the wind is blowing in the right direction on the day they decide to look at you.
Irish authorities are pushing forward a bill that will make it a crime to disseminate and possess content deemed to be hateful—a development Elon Musk warns is a threat to free speech in the country.
The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 (pdf) seeks to “amend the law relating to the prohibition of incitement to violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of certain characteristics (referred to as protected characteristics) of the person or the group of persons and to provide for an offence of condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.”
It aims at “combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”
The bill classifies “race, skin colour, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, and disability” as protected characteristics.
Gender is “the gender of a person or the gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender or with which the person identifies and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.”
The bill empowers Irish authorities to convict people criminally for alleged hate crimes. According to the bill, a person can be deemed guilty of an offense if the individual “(i) communicates material to the public or a section of the public, or (ii) behaves in a public place in a manner, that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics.”
“Massive attack on freedom of speech,” Musk said in an April 30 tweet responding to an organization called Free Speech Ireland, which criticized the Irish government for voting against “human rights and quite literally for thought crime legislation.”
An amendment to include the UN Convention on Human Rights protections on free speech into the hate speech bill was defeated. Another amendment to excuse the section allowing for prosecuting individuals possessing offensive material without communicating it was also defeated.
This means that Irish authorities can arrest a person for simply possessing material deemed as potentially inciting hatred if disseminated.
Lawmakers have introduced nearly 275 measures this session, while bureaucrats are busy using the CCP to justify ballooning budgets.
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C. ):They are centralized; we are decentralized. They are closed; we are open. They suppress free speech and human dignity; we embrace it.”
The 118th Congress has been underway for about three months, and at least one thing is already clear — across both parties, many committees, and a whole host of issues touching virtually all aspects of American life — China is the hottestissue on the Hill right now.
The first hearings of the session are often indicative of overarching priorities for the upcoming term. In 2023, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Financial Services Committee, and the House subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, part of the Judiciary committee, all held their initial hearings on some aspect of strategic competition with China. Within a week of their swearing-in, a large majority of members voted to establish the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, to much media fanfare.
Since then, subcommittees in HFAC, as well as Homeland Security, Coronavirus, Ways and Means, and Oversight committees have followed suit, in one way or another, in raising the China specter.
Not surprisingly, many of these hearings have been full of fear-mongering, depicting the Chinese Communist Party as an existential threat rather than actually grappling with the genuine challenges and legitimate concerns now facing the U.S.-China relationship.
“China is not an ally or a strategic partner. They are our competitor and pose the single greatest threat to America’s global standing,” charged Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C. ) during the Financial Services committee’s first hearing. “The juxtaposition between the United States and China could not be more clear. They are centralized; we are decentralized. They are closed; we are open. They suppress free speech and human dignity; we embrace it.”
The chairman of the subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), declared during his hearing that “America’s national security is at risk because of China’s government’s quest to achieve superiority using both internal and externally gotten technology. They will use both legal and illegal means in order to gain technology.”
Other hearings have veered off course from their official agendas into unrelated attacks on Beijing, as when Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) — during a hearing on PRC influence in the Indian Ocean — wondered, in a reference to China’s treatment of Uyghurs and ambivalence towards the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, “how effective have we been in letting the Muslim populations from Indonesia to Egypt know what China is doing and making them pay a price?” None of the witnesses felt they had sufficient expertise to answer this question.
A search of the congressional record shows that in the first three months of the 118th Congress, lawmakers have introduced 273 bills or amendments that contain some variation of the word “China.” The terms “CCP,” “PRC,” “Beijing,” or “Taiwan” add a handful more. This marks a significant uptick in China-related legislation in recent Congresses. This session’s total is already more than any congressional session before the 114th (2015-16). Since then, the number has increased from 288 in the 115th (2017-2018) to 627 in the 116th (2019-2020) to 1,323 in the 117th Congress (2021-2022).
Like the recent congressional hearings, these bills touch on almost every aspect of American life.
At a time of intense partisan polarization, bashing China is one issue on which both parties can’t get enough. Republicans sense that China’s rise — and the supposed American decline that accompanies it — serves as a useful political weapon against President Joe Biden.
“The second thing that’s happening, and that’s more concerning for me,” Michael Brenes, Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute, told Responsible Statecraft, “is that the Biden administration is pursuing a policy where it believes the China threat can be served to revive or renew American democracy and American foreign policy, in a post war on terror era.” Meaning, he added, that everything from domestic renewal to industrial policy to foreign policymaking is being justified on that basis.
As a result, heads of various government agencies have made cases for increasing their budgets based on the need to combat the China threat. Testifying in front of the House Appropriations Committee in late April, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that bureau agents were outnumbered “at least 50 to 1” by Chinese hackers looking to attack critical U.S. infrastructure.
Therefore, the most important step in the liberty movement now is convincing more people to apply the same moral code to theft and murder committed by government as they apply to those same crimes by private citizens. The government, at the very least, should be held to the same moral codes as the people it governs.
Ensuring that government follows the same nonaggression principle as law-abiding citizens is the key to a society of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
Political Cartoon by Joe Wolf in the Rapid City Journal
Last week the House passed legislation increasing the debt ceiling. The bill was supported by all but four Republicans. For some Republicans, this was the first time they had ever voted for a debt ceiling increase. Perhaps the reason they did so this time was because the legislation also promised to reduce federal spending by $4.5 trillion over the next decade. Most of those spending reductions are achieved by rolling back Fiscal Year spending to 2022 levels and then limiting increases in spending to one percent for the next ten years. The bill also returns unspent COVID relief money to the U.S. Treasury and eliminates President Biden’s student loan forgiveness programs.
Perhaps the most significant part of the bill is the REINS Act. This legislation requires congressional approval of any new federal regulation that will have an impact of more than $100 million, will have significant harmful impact on the economy, or will increase consumer prices. Even though the bill increases spending and debt, there are reasons a supporter of limited government might vote for it.
However even in the unlikely event that this bill is passed in the Senate and signed into law by President Biden, it is unlikely that the one percent spending cap would remain in force for the full ten years.
People who oppose due process are opposing common decency in the legal treatment of others. With bitter irony, they do so in the name of protecting the vulnerable—in this case, the gender identified. Anyone who needs protection against common decency and truth is not pursuing justice. They want privilege and power. If the voice of reason can still be heard, people need to hear it now.
College campuses have long been battlegrounds between due process for those accused of sexual misconduct (innocent until proven guilty) and legal privileges for alleged victims who many automatically believe (guilty until proven innocent).
The front line is Title IX, the 1972 federal law designed to curb sex discrimination in schools. President Joe Biden’s Department of Education (DOE) wants to add gender identity to the mix. The players in this renewed conflict are Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, who has introduced a bill to champion due process rights on campus, and Biden’s DOE, who is expanding the definition of discrimination.
The specific issue addressed by the DOE is athletic eligibility. The issue is a political flash point that revolves around the question, “Should transgendered male-to-females compete in women’s sports or is their strength advantage unfair to biological females?” This article examines the competing and overlapping provisions of the draft Title IX regulation, the 2023 draft sports regulation, and Kennedy’s bill.
The Biden executive order 14021 (March 8, 2021) that sparked the current conflict is entitled “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.” It is a statement of intent. On April 6, 2023, the DOE rolled out an implementation mechanism for the executive order “Proposed Change to its Title IX Regulations on Students’ Eligibility for Athletic Teams.”
The language in the 116-page document is confusing and vague, but the core of it redefines terms such as “discrimination” and favorably includes gender identity into the framework for athletic eligibility. The opening summary states that the DOE will “set out a standard that would govern a recipient’s adoption or application of sex-related criteria” that might “limit or deny a student’s eligibility to participate on a male or female athletic team consistent with their gender identity.” This regulation presumes transgendered athletes are able participate in their chosen categories unless the school identifies safety reasons to not allow this.
Backlash from progressives has been swift. The “Proposed Change” is insufficiently protrans, they claim. “These regulations specify methods schools may employ to determine a student’s sex, including invasive physical examinations,” complains the transgender journalist Erin Reed.
Moreover, the DOE document would give school districts the final say on whether injecting gender identity into athletics is problematic. Progressives react with horror. Actually, this is no issue at all. As with past DOE recommendations, schools are likely to over comply not only due to the extreme liberal bias on most campuses but also to avoid a catastrophic loss of federal funds. The “Proposed Change” makes this threat explicitly.
The single dumbest thing the US-centralized empire asks us to believe is that the military encirclement of its top two geopolitical rivals is a defensive action, rather than an act of extreme aggression.
We’re asked to believe many extremely stupid narratives by the manipulators who rule over us, but I really think this one might take the cake. The idea that the US militarily encircling Russia and China is an act of defense rather than aggression is so in-your-face transparently idiotic that anyone who thinks critically enough about it will immediately dismiss it for the foam-brained nonsense that it is, yet it’s the mainstream narrative in the western world, and millions of people accept it as true. Because that’s the power of US propaganda.
It gets more and more absurd the more you think about it. Their argument is basically, “No no you don’t understand, the US has been hurriedly surrounding its primary geopolitical competitors with war machinery because it wants to prevent them from doing something aggressive.” They’re like, “We can’t just have nations exerting military aggression willy nilly, that’s why we needed to move all this war machinery to the other side of the planet onto the borders of our primary strategic rivals.”
Can you think of anything more insane than that? Than all of the most powerful and influential figures in politics, government and media simultaneously claiming that a nation amassing heavily-armed proxy forces on the borders of their enemies is something that should be regarded as an action designed to prevent aggression, rather than an incendiary act of extreme aggression in and of itself?
I recently had someone tell me that the US has every right to expand its immense military presence near China, and to illustrate their point they said that if China set up a base in Mexico the US would have no business telling them not to. But that argument actually illustrates my point, not theirs: only the most propaganda-addled of minds would believe that the US would allow China to set up a military base in Mexico for even one second. There’d be kinetic warfare long before the foundations were even poured.
After Lu Shaye, China’s outspoken ambassador to France, stated during a televised interview last month that the former Soviet republics “have no effective status in international law because there is no international agreement to recognize their status as sovereign countries,” American Enterprise Institute (AEI) “senior fellow” Dalibor Rohac used the occasion to rail against China’s foreign policy.
At the AEI— a right-leaning, inside-the-Beltway think tank — Rohac “studies European political and economic trends, specifically Central and Eastern Europe, the European Union (EU) and the eurozone, US-EU relations, and the post-Communist transitions and backsliding of countries in the former Soviet bloc.” He is also “a research associate at the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies in Brussels and a fellow at Anglo-American University in Prague.”
In a recent article in the Spectator magazine, “A Chinese Diplomat Has Let Slip the Truth about Beijing’s Foreign Policy,” Rohac characterized the Chinese ambassador’s remarks as “a telling admission of Beijing’s real thinking about international relations, which is far cruder and Hobbesian than most Europeans are willing to admit.”
We should take Lu Shaye at his word, Rohac writes, because he is “a veteran of both Chinese communist politics and foreign service” who “epitomises China’s aggressive approach to diplomacy, exemplified by his warning, in the context of a visit by former US House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s to Taiwan, that the Taiwanese would have to be ‘re-educated,’ bringing back eerie echoes of Maoist and Stalinist terror.”
The Chinese embassy in Paris issued a statement in response to another of Lu Shaye’s gaffes that Rohac should have paid attention to: “China respects the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all nations and supports the objectives and principles of the UN Charter. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, China was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with the countries concerned.”
I am not making an apology for the Chinese government. There is no question that China is ruled by a lying, oppressive, totalitarian, authoritarian regime that forbids its citizens from enjoying political and religious liberty and seeks to control every facet of their lives. But what is the truth about Beijing’s foreign policy that Rohac takes issue with?
Does China have tens of thousands of troops stationed in over a hundred countries?
Does China go abroad seeking monsters to destroy?
Does China have hundreds of military bases on foreign soil?
Rather than ushering in liberal democracy and prosperity, the ouster of Gaddafi left the country fractured, with two rival governments and various militias vying for power. Obama’s regime change marked the start of an ongoing era of chaos, with some of the greatest resulting evils inflicted on black Africans.
There is something to be said for leaving countries alone.
Barack Obama was elected president some 143 years after the abolition of slavery in the United States. As teary-eyed African-Americans watched Obama’s 2008 election night speech in Chicago’s Grant Park, none could have imagined that America’s first black president would leave his own legacy of slavery—in Africa.
However, that’s exactly what he did, thanks to a combination of imperial hubris, disregard for constitutional restraints on executive war powers, and the use of false pretenses.
In 2011, egged on by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a handful of other advisors, Obama ordered a months-long series of air strikes that facilitated a NATO-backed regime change campaign that toppled Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
Rather than ushering in liberal democracy and prosperity, the ouster of Gaddafi left the country fractured, with two rival governments and various militias vying for power. Obama’s regime change marked the start of an ongoing era of chaos, with some of the greatest resulting evils inflicted on black Africans.
Those evils began during the war, as racism and Gaddafi’s use of sub-Saharan black mercenaries combined to spark widespread atrocities perpetrated against blacks who were seen as fair game for various atrocities including beatings, rapes and lynchings.
“We had 70-80 people from Chad working for our company,” a Turkish construction worker told BBC. “They were cut dead with pruning shears and axes, attackers saying: ‘You are providing troops for Gaddafi.’ The Sudanese were also massacred. We saw it for ourselves.”
One rebel group was glorified in roadside graffiti as “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin”—that being a reference to Libya’s black descendants of slaves, such as those who populated the town of Tawergha. Once home to 30,000 people, Tawergha was ransacked and its occupants assaulted to the point of turning it into an ethnically-cleansed ghost town.
In 2017—six years after Gaddafi’s death—CNN captured a new and unthinkable dimension of misery being imposed on black people as a result of Obama’s regime change pursuits: The network aired video of two open-air slave auctions hosted in Libya. “Big strong boys for farm work,” said an auctioneer. One trio of blacks was purchased for $400 each.
Pepe Escobar
MCViewPoint 
