One of the most brilliant propaganda maneuvers the managers of the US empire have pulled off lately is splitting the debate over US military policy along partisan lines, with one side supporting aggressions against Russia and the other preferring to focus aggressions on China. In this way they’ve ensured that mainstream discourse remains an argument over how US warmongering should occur, rather than if it should.
Senator Bernie Sanders has a new article out in The Guardian titled “The US and China must unite to fight the climate crisis, not each other,” in which he argues in favor of de-escalation measures comparable to those reached between Washington and Moscow after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
“Instead of spending enormous amounts of money planning for a war against each other, the US and China should come to an agreement to mutually cut their military budgets and use the savings to move aggressively to improve energy efficiency, move toward sustainable energy and end our reliance on fossil fuels,” Sanders argues.
Which is a fine sentiment as far as it goes, and it’s not the first time Sanders has expressed this view; last month in The Guardian he argued that the US government should be focused on resolving the climate crisis “instead of fomenting a new cold war with China.” But it’s worth noting that while acting as a dovish detente proponent with regard to China, Sanders has for years been acting as a hawkish cold warrior with regard to Russia.
Do American citizens care where their products come from? Well, it depends on who you ask.
Over the past few decades, the importance of “Made in America” – labels on products indicating production was done in the U.S. – has ebbed and flowed.
As China has grown into the United States’ economic rival and geopolitical adversary, the distinction between American-made and Chinese-made has resurfaced, even as some products have been mislabeled or locally produced but Chinese-owned.
How do people currently feel? This chart, via Visual Capitalist’s Avery Koop, uses survey responses from May 2023 out of Morning Consult, in which a representative sample of 1,000 U.S. adults were questioned on whether they had favorable views of products from U.S. companies using American or Chinese labor and parts.
“We know China has been amassing the largest stockpile of crude in the world. Nevertheless, last year, the United States sold off part of our reserves to China.
The Senate on Thursday passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would ban sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia.
The effort, which passed the Senate 85-12, was spearheaded by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV). Under President Joe Biden, the SPR has been drained to 40-year lows.
“We know China has been amassing the largest stockpile of crude in the world. Nevertheless, last year, the United States sold off part of our reserves to China. I have been working with Senator Manchin to prohibit such inexplicably reckless moves in a bipartisan way. Our amendment prevents the federal government from selling oil from the strategic petroleum reserve to China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. We should not be selling our emergency oil reserves to our adversaries,” Cruz said.
Manchin, a critic of the Biden administration’s energy policy, also warned about American oil going to China.
“Following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. ramped up production and exports to help meet global demand. It had been devastating to the world. China, on the other hand, stockpiled oil and held back refinery production and while China was stockpiling, one of its state-owned companies purchased over 1.4 million barrels from the United States of America, the people of our great country, from our own stock of reserves. That’s what we’re trying to stop,” the West Virginia Democrat said.
You might say that the immense political and media power of the Greens and eco-warriors is the real reason the West relies on China for REEs.
In other words, could the US ever accept being #2? Doug Casey: Unfortunately, at this point, the US is only number one in dissipation, wokeism, and consumerism.
I am sure the pentagram and US state department have this all figured out.
International Man: What are Rare Earth Elements (REEs), and why are they so important?
Doug Casey: The REEs are a group of 17 elements that you may recall from your high school chemistry class. They take up two rows in the periodic table, sitting by themselves at the bottom of the chart. They’re chemically similar to each other.
REEs are widely dispersed on the Earth’s surface. They aren’t “rare” per se, but since they’re not generally concentrated, you only rarely find deposits that are rich enough to qualify as a mine for elements like germanium, gadolinium, ytterbium, yttrium, or 14 others with exotic and obscure names. They’re basically all minor byproducts of mines for other elements—largely aluminum or zinc. They’ve only recently found significant uses with the development of high-tech, especially electronics and magnets. Fifty years ago, they were basically just chemical curiosities.
The US has one pure REE mine, the Mountain Pass, in the California desert near Nevada. In fact, it’s the only one in the Western hemisphere. Now owned by MP Materials (MP: NYSE $25), I have no opinion on the operation. It went bankrupt under its last owner—perhaps it will do better this time around.
International Man: Former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping once said, “The Middle East has oil. China has rare Earth.”
Today, China dominates the production and processing of REEs.
Why is that?
How likely is it that the US or someone else will be able to break China’s stranglehold soon?
Doug Casey: Deng wasn’t entirely right when he said that. China’s strength in this area isn’t so much in the mining of these things as it is in their processing. Mining any kind of ore is messy and dirty. But processing can be even worse. Smelting takes huge amounts of heat, makes a lot of nasty smoke, and leaves kilotons of toxic waste. Then refining it further takes more of the same, usually plus nasty acids. The Greenies hate mining and refining and try to make them impossible in most places. That’s why so much of it happens in China.
None of these points are in China’s interest. In the U.S. Chinese companies are treated badly. U.S. financed climate investments in foreign countries, which are small, usually come with additional extraordinary demands that benefit the donating country rather than the receiving one. China does this differently. Fentanyl is not a global problem rather a specific U.S. one the causes of which are general social problems China and other have avoided to have.
The last demand Yellen made was even more crazy. She called for a full turn of China towards neoliberal policies:
“I pressed them on our concerns about China’s unfair economic practices,” [Yellen] said, citing barriers to access for foreign firms and problems involving intellectual property. She added that a more market-oriented system in China “would not only be in the interests of the U.S. and other countries. It would be better for the Chinese economy, as well.”
Would China be where it is today if it had privatized its banking system and state owned companies? Would China be richer if it had let U.S. vulture funds buy up and bankrupt Chinese companies? Would it have managed to lift 800 million of its citizens from poverty if it had followed the economic advice of the U.S., the IMF or World Bank?
The answer to these questions is of course an emphatic “No”.
Why Yellen thinks she can impress China with advice for a ‘more market-oriented system’, even as the U.S. blocks Chinese investments, sanctions Chinese companies and limits sales of certain products to China, is beyond me.
Yellen’s visit failed to achieve anything. She had some talks with Chinese officials but achieved nothing. She lectured and made demands that no one in China will be willing to fulfill.
Yellen mentioned multiple times the US is seeking a healthy competition with China rather than a “winner-take-all” approach. While this may sound good, the key lies in how we define “healthy competition.” Is it a US-style one in which the geopolitical appetite of the US is satisfied while China unconditionally cooperates? Or is it based on mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation? The root cause of the challenges in the China-US relationship lies in Washington’s flawed perception of China. Unless the issue of the ‘first button’ is addressed, no matter how wonderful the ideas and wishes may be, they will remain nothing more than castles in the air.
Unless the U.S. accepts China as equal the relations between the countries will not turn around. The U.S. can grow with China only when it accepts that China is different from itself and has its own path towards further development.
As neither is the today’s dominant viewpoint a further deterioration of the relations, largely to the disadvantage of the U.S., is the most likely prospect.
Speaking before the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute Tuesday, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley laid out a hawkish policy for China. Sharply critical of the Biden administration’s alleged ineptitude in confronting China, Haley, who served briefly as Donald Trump’s UN ambassador, made a series of proposals that were actually not all that different from the current policy, only with a greater emphasis on economic decoupling and a dash of extra fearmongering.
She would take a policy that is already heavy on building up the military and coercive tactics against Beijing and make it heavier yet. This is unfortunately typical of the debate over China policy in this country. It is often taken for granted that the only “realistic” alternative to the current policy of containment and rivalry is a more intense and reckless version of the same. But America deserves better options.
Notably lacking in Haley’s plan is any discussion of positive economic statecraft in the Asia-Pacific region, diplomatic engagement with non-aligned countries, or working with Beijing on mitigating the effects of climate change. On bilateral trade, her only suggestion was to reduce it due to the role played by Chinese manufacturers in the fentanyl crisis. In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that previewed her speech, she wrote, “I will push Congress to revoke permanent normal trade relations [with China] until the flow of fentanyl ends.”
If the U.S. acted on this threat, it would result in significant costs for American businesses and consumers, but Haley spoke as if revoking PNTR would harm only China. Moreover, during questions afterward, Haley entertained the possibility of “full-on decoupling” from China if it was “necessary” for national security. The former governor and ambassador sounded every bit like the hardline ideologue that we saw during the Trump years.
At one point in her speech, she called Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit to Beijing a “gold-plated invitation for more Chinese aggression.” She later tried to walk this back a little during the questions, saying that she objected to the way that the Biden administration was doing things, but it’s hard to see what kind of diplomatic engagement with China she would support other than issuing threats and ultimatums.
Like other hawkish critics of Biden’s China policy, Haley ignored much of what Biden has done that those critics support while emphasizing the president’s supposed weakness. For what it’s worth, the Biden administration recently made an effort to address the crisis directly when it expanded interdiction efforts by the Department of Homeland Security. To the extent that she acknowledged any of what Biden has done on export controls, it was only to fault him for not going far enough. She wants the U.S. to “deepen” military ties with regional allies and with India, but then this is exactly what Biden has been doing for the last two years.
The much hyped counter-offensive has indeed become a death trap for the U.S. EU and NATO. The other U.S. defeat was acknowledged by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken at the end of his trip to Bejing:
The United States will not support Taiwan breaking away from China, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has said, amid a series of confusing statements by Joe Biden on the issue. ‘We do not support Taiwan independence,’ America’s top diplomat said in Beijing after meeting with Chinese president Xi Jingping.
Two massive failures, thankfully. President Xi isn’t intimidated by Blinken’s arrogance.
Confronted with the realities of life the Biden administration has in the last days acknowledged defeat in two on its most egregious and delusional foreign policy games.
The Ukrainian counter-offensive has failed. Its army is getting slaughtered on the battlefield. The ‘counteroffensive’ of the ‘NATO trained’ Ukrainian brigades has made no real progress on any front. The high level of losses of men and material make it impossible that it will ever again regain the initiative.
The U.S. aim was to integrate the Ukraine into NATO. It would then have been able to station U.S. troops in Ukraine and to put its weapons into reach of Moscow so that any independent Russian move could be countered with a threat of imminent annihilation.
After more than 20 years of pursuing that aim the U.S. threw the towel:
President Biden on Saturday said he won’t make it easier for Ukraine to join NATO, adding that the country at war with Russia has to meet the requirements to be a member.
“They got to meet the same standards. So, I’m not going to make it easier,” Biden told reporters. “I think they’ve done everything relating to demonstrating the ability to coordinate militarily, but there’s a whole issue of is their system secure? Is it noncorrupt? Does it meet all the standards … every other nation in NATO does.”
And yes, that is a change. A big one:
Biden has reportedly previously expressed that he is open to removing the Member Action Plan hurdle for Ukraine to join NATO, which requires countries that want to join the alliance make reforms militarily and democratically.
Biden has not said anything new. Biden senses that the US lost the proxy war but he must not and cannot admit it. So, in the absence of a time machine, which could have taken him all the way back to 1999 when the NATO’s expansion began unfolding, Biden simply walked back to the default position of the 2008 NATO Summit at Bucharest welcoming Ukraine into the alliance via the MAP route — as if that moment fifteen years ago is now the past and cannot be pulled back to the present. Russia is not going to accept it.
Though packaged in nice words the European Union gave Ukraine a similar negative outlook (machine translation):
China’s banking sector is the largest in the world holding over $50 Trillion in assets. That fact alone may have something to do with the deluge of visiting Tzars from the US as our banks implode sitting on less than 5% Net Equity!
Still: The US and EU continue to buy Russian resources DESPITE sanctions and demonizing. The US and EU are dependent on China – despite their sucking up naysayers – pinky swearing otherwise. The US and EU continue to demonize Russia and China in the public Platform – while continuing trade out of FEAR.
It has come to the attention of ‘those who find it interesting’ that the lab meat Bill Gates grows and advocates is genetically modified ‘immortalized cells’. These cells are specifically designated for research purposes only and even in that context the outcome of related studies are said to be ‘compromised’. Lancet. Yet, apparently, it is just these cancerous immortalized cells that Bill Gates has been using in his and likely others ‘fake meat’ product.
Apparently the problem arose when it was discovered that normal cells don’t reproduce forever – they have a designated lifespan’. The Fake Meat is predicated on fake cells because they can be manipulated and reproduce forever – because they are Fake. But if this is a fake cultured cell then it isn’t really a cell at all! IS IT?
It is a bioengineered nucleus.
I liken the fakery department to its roots – Flowers! Flowers became nonseasonal – a year round enjoyment! But to manufacture these GMO ‘flowers’ their cell structure had to be severely mutated. This human created cell however, could not reproduce scent. Thus all such GMO flowers are devoid of ‘scent’.
Such is the Fake Meat Market. It may look and taste like something aboriginal, but it has no scent. And more importantly – it has no nutritional value. Farmed Fish have NO Nutritional value. Farmed Chickens – pigs – cows lose their nutritional value as they don’t develop normally. That development is what is passed to you – consumer.
The Danish Government has bent to the Slavic sorcerers and is going to euthanize over 200,000 cows to reduce farting gas. And semi-normal people nod like bauble dolls in agreement.
Today, the esteemed fake programmer, biologist, medical doctor, farmer, rancher, lab expert, climate Tzar – Bill Gates arrived in China – as did Blinken. Gates is scheduled to meet with Xi Jinping, while Blinken will meet with one of Jinping’s lower associates with no fanfare. Gates claims this is the first visit to China since 2019 when the CoVid Pandemic was orchestrated. What will Gates provide this time?
The meetings come on the heels of CSIS discussing ways and means of preemptively sanctioning China for invading Taiwan. Punishment ‘before’ the anticipated maybe crime. A threat?
The CEO meetings descending in droves with China Leaders also includes the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, who has been a witness in the Virgin Island Lawsuit brought against JP Morgan and Jamie Dimon via the Epstein scandal. His visit also coincides with Gates last visit in 2019… months before the Pandemic Was Levied. Coincidental?
Elon Musk met with Jinping as he also paid a snap visit to China to oversee his factory in Shanghai. Citigroup CEO was in China. Goldman Sachs CEO. Apple CEO, Intel CEO, Blackstone, and General Motors have all descended on China in the last month. Desperate to shore relations despite the Pentagon and NGO insanity.
As a direct result of these visits – the bank CEO’s released a common statement that China’s Economic Growth Outlook has been raised to 6.4%. In other words, Xi Jinping is pissed about the negative prediction news and wants positive prediction news – and banks will pay China for that privilege.
SPD Silicon Valley Bank, declared insolvency and was absorbed by First Citizens Bank. They bought a negative equity of $8 billion. Before the insolvency, SPD Silicon was a 50/50 joint venture with Shanghai Pudong Development Bank.
China’s banking sector is the largest in the world holding over $50 Trillion in assets. That fact alone may have something to do with the deluge of visiting Tzars from the US as our banks implode sitting on less than 5% Net Equity!
On a number of key issues, from decoupling from China, to China’s role as a broker in negotiations on the war in Ukraine, to multipolarity, France seems to align more closely with Beijing than with Washington. And on each of those key issues, Spain seems to sound a lot like France.
In April, French President Emmanuel Macron emerged from three days of meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing sounding as comfortable talking to Beijing as he does talking to Washington.
The US is pressuring Europe to decouple from China by reconsidering their relationship and breaking their significant economic ties. But when Macron traveled to China, his travel companions were a crowd of French business executives. And they weren’t there to discuss breaking economic ties with China. Instead, Macron declared that “any decoupling, or “de-linking,” is not good for Europe, given the vast economic interests at stake.” He rejected the US insistence that “differences over political systems that make Europe and China ‘rivals’ should . . . lead to the ‘decoupling’ and ‘escalating tensions’.” Far from breaking economic ties and ending the relationship, France’s aim is to “reinforce those ties” and “re-launch a strategic and global partnership with China.”
This independent stance, which Macron has frequently referred to as “strategic autonomy,” was to be just the first of several comments that sounded more like Beijing than like Washington. Macron was independent, but he was not alone. Charles Michel, the head of the European Council, after saying that “There has been a leap forward on strategic autonomy compared to several years ago,” revealed that “On the issue of the relationship with the United States, it’s clear that there can be nuances and sensitivities around the table of the European Council. Some European leaders wouldn’t say things the same way that Emmanuel Macron did … I think quite a few really think like Emmanuel Macron.”
One of those European leaders may be Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. Weeks before Macron went to China, Sanchez blazed the trail. Seeking a more balanced trade relationship with China, Sanchez announced agreements to increase Spanish exports to China and Chinese tourism to Spain. Sanchez “also wants access to China’s rare earth minerals.” He expressed a willingness to “deepen bilateral mutually beneficial cooperation, especially cooperation in areas including electric vehicles, green energy and digital economy . . . and jointly promote further development of Spain-China relations.” Like France, Spain seems to be holding out against US demands to decouple from China.
MCViewPoint 
