WHAT HAPPENS IF CHINA ACHIEVES QUANTUM SUPREMACY?

IMAGE CREDITS:  ED JONES / STAFF / GETTY .

IMAGE CREDITS: ED JONES / STAFF / GETTY.

Google has already publicly displayed disloyalty to the United States.

The company now claims to have achieved quantum supremacy.

If China comes out on top of the current tech arms race, the world could be absorbed into a high tech tyranny the globe has never seen.

Artificial intelligence, human enhancement, and quantum computing arms races are currently shaping the future. The values and culture that we embrace – and are willing to fight for – will determine how these technologies are deployed.

The Chinese and American models (under the Trump admin) are battling for the future.

report from CNBC today says that China’s surveillance tech is “spreading globally.”

Chinese spy tech has reportedly been embedded into Amazon and Apple computer chips.

Read more at infowars.com

China’s Perspective: Economic Growth over Military Spending

1522755499_990442_1523032975_noticiarelacionadaprincipal_normal.png

By Tom Clifford

Question. What leader saw his country’s military dropping 26,171 bombs in one year? 

That works out at every day of that year, the country’s military dropped 72 bombs, or 3 bombs every hour, 24 hours a day, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. He was a Nobel peace prize winner.

Answer: Barack Obama. That same year, 2016, special operators from the United States could be found in 70 percent of the world’s nations.

One last question. What UN Security Council member has not fired a shot in anger outside its borders for 30 years but is nonetheless being accused of military expansionism?

Answer: China.

They see things differently in China. What we in the West refer to as the Middle East, they call the Middle West.

There are many in the West who view China as a military threat, a clear and present danger. China, needless to say, see things from a different perspective.

The United States occupies prime global real estate. It has two friendly neighbors in Canada and Mexico. China has strained relations stretching back centuries with many of its neighbors. These include India, Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam. Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom), China is the only one that has not fired a single military shot outside its border in thirty years. A naval clash with Vietnam in 1988 was the last time a shot was fired in anger.

Continue Reading at globalresearch.ca

Uh-oh: Silicon Valley is building a Chinese-style social credit system

AP/imagechina

AP/imagechina

By Mike Elgan

In China, scoring citizens’ behavior is official government policy. U.S. companies are increasingly doing something similar, outside the law.

Have you heard about China’s social credit system? It’s a technology-enabled, surveillance-based nationwide program designed to nudge citizens toward better behavior. The ultimate goal is to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step,” according to the Chinese government.

In place since 2014, the social credit system is a work in progress that could evolve by next year into a single, nationwide point system for all Chinese citizens, akin to a financial credit score. It aims to punish for transgressions that can include membership in or support for the Falun Gong or Tibetan Buddhism, failure to pay debts, excessive video gaming, criticizing the government, late payments, failing to sweep the sidewalk in front of your store or house, smoking or playing loud music on trains, jaywalking, and other actions deemed illegal or unacceptable by the Chinese government.

It can also award points for charitable donations or even taking one’s own parents to the doctor.

Punishments can be harsh, including bans on leaving the country, using public transportation, checking into hotels, hiring for high-visibility jobs, or acceptance of children to private schools. It can also result in slower internet connections and social stigmatization in the form of registration on a public blacklist.

China’s social credit system has been characterized in one pithy tweet as “authoritarianism, gamified.”

At present, some parts of the social credit system are in force nationwide and others are local and limited (there are 40 or so pilot projects operated by local governments and at least six run by tech giants like Alibaba and Tencent).

Beijing maintains two nationwide lists, called the blacklist and the red list—the former consisting of people who have transgressed, and the latter people who have stayed out of trouble (a “red list” is the Communist version of a white list.) These lists are publicly searchable on a government website called China Credit.

The Chinese government also shares lists with technology platforms. So, for example, if someone criticizes the government on Weibo, their kids might be ineligible for acceptance to an elite school.

Public shaming is also part of China’s social credit system. Pictures of blacklisted people in one city were shown between videos on TikTok in a trial, and the addresses of blacklisted citizens were shown on a map on WeChat.

Some Western press reports imply that the Chinese populace is suffocating in a nationwide Skinner box of oppressive behavioral modification. But some Chinese are unaware that it even exists. And many others actually like the idea. One survey found that 80% of Chinese citizens surveyed either somewhat or strongly approve of social credit system.

IT CAN HAPPEN HERE

Many Westerners are disturbed by what they read about China’s social credit system. But such systems, it turns out, are not unique to China. A parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and in part by surveillance of social media activity by private companies.

Here are some of the elements of America’s growing social credit system.

INSURANCE COMPANIES

The New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this year that life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts. That Instagram pic showing you teasing a grizzly bear at Yellowstone with a martini in one hand, a bucket of cheese fries in the other, and a cigarette in your mouth, could cost you. On the other hand, a Facebook post showing you doing yoga might save you money. (Insurance companies have to demonstrate that social media evidence points to risk, and not be based on discrimination of any kind—they can’t use social posts to alter premiums based on race or disability, for example.)

The use of social media is an extension of the lifestyle questions typically asked when applying for life insurance, such as questions about whether you engage in rock climbing or other adventure sports. Saying “no,” but then posting pictures of yourself free-soloing El Capitan, could count as a “yes.”

PATRONSCAN

A company called PatronScan sells three products—kiosk, desktop, and handheld systems—designed to help bar and restaurant owners manage customers. PatronScan is a subsidiary of the Canadian software company Servall Biometrics, and its products are now on sale in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

PatronScan helps spot fake IDs—and troublemakers. When customers arrive at a PatronScan-using bar, their ID is scanned. The company maintains a list of objectionable customers designed to protect venues from people previously removed for “fighting, sexual assault, drugs, theft, and other bad behavior,” according to its website. A “public” list is shared among all PatronScan customers. So someone who’s banned by one bar in the U.S. is potentially banned by all the bars in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada that use the PatronScan system for up to a year. (PatronScan Australia keeps a separate system.)

Judgment about what kind of behavior qualifies for inclusion on a PatronScan list is up to the bar owners and managers. Individual bar owners can ignore the ban, if they like. Data on non-offending customers is deleted in 90 days or less. Also: PatronScan enables bars to keep a “private” list that is not shared with other bars, but on which bad customers can be kept for up to five years.

PatronScan does have an “appeals” process, but it’s up to the company to grant or deny those appeals.

UBER AND AIRBNB

Thanks to the sharing economy, the options for travel have been extended far beyond taxis and hotels. Uber and Airbnb are leaders in providing transportation and accommodation for travelers. But there are many similar ride-sharing and peer-to-peer accommodations companies providing similar services.

Airbnb—a major provider of travel accommodation and tourist activities—bragged in March that it now has more than 6 million listings in its system. That’s why a ban from Airbnb can limit travel options.

Airbnb can disable your account for life for any reason it chooses, and it reserves the right to not tell you the reason. The company’s canned message includes the assertion that “This decision is irreversible and will affect any duplicated or future accounts. Please understand that we are not obligated to provide an explanation for the action taken against your account.” The ban can be based on something the host privately tells Airbnb about something they believe you did while staying at their property. Airbnb’s competitors have similar policies.

It’s now easy to get banned by Uber, too. Whenever you get out of the car after an Uber ride, the app invites you to rate the driver. What many passengers don’t know is that the driver now also gets an invitation to rate you. Under a new policy announced in May: If your average rating is “significantly below average,” Uber will ban you from the service.

WHATSAPP

You can be banned from communications apps, too. For example, you can be banned on WhatsApp if too many other users block you. You can also get banned for sending spam, threatening messages, trying to hack or reverse-engineer the WhatsApp app, or using the service with an unauthorized app.

WhatsApp is small potatoes in the United States. But in much of the world, it’s the main form of electronic communication. Not being allowed to use WhatsApp in some countries is as punishing as not being allowed to use the telephone system in America.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH SOCIAL CREDIT, ANYWAY?

Nobody likes antisocial, violent, rude, unhealthy, reckless, selfish, or deadbeat behavior. What’s wrong with using new technology to encourage everyone to behave?

The most disturbing attribute of a social credit system is not that it’s invasive, but that it’s extralegal. Crimes are punished outside the legal system, which means no presumption of innocence, no legal representation, no judge, no jury, and often no appeal. In other words, it’s an alternative legal system where the accused have fewer rights.

Social credit systems are an end-run around the pesky complications of the legal system. Unlike China’s government policy, the social credit system emerging in the U.S. is enforced by private companies. If the public objects to how these laws are enforced, it can’t elect new rule-makers.

An increasing number of societal “privileges” related to transportation, accommodations, communications, and the rates we pay for services (like insurance) are either controlled by technology companies or affected by how we use technology services. And Silicon Valley’s rules for being allowed to use their services are getting stricter.

If current trends hold, it’s possible that in the future a majority of misdemeanors and even some felonies will be punished not by Washington, D.C., but by Silicon Valley. It’s a slippery slope away from democracy and toward corporatocracy.

In other words, in the future, law enforcement may be determined less by the Constitution and legal code, and more by end-user license agreements.

Via fastcompany.com

US Treasury Sanctions Bitcoin, Litecoin Addresses Under Kingpin Act

bitcoin-3857778_960_720.jpg

By Max Boddy

The United States Department of the Treasury has added multiple cryptocurrency addresses to its Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, or the Kingpin Act. These addresses, and the individuals associated with them, have been deemed to be associated with foreign narcotics operators.

The Treasury updated its SDN list with recent Kingpin Act Designations on Aug 21. The three alleged narcotic operators associated with these addresses are Chinese citizens Xiaobing Yan, Fujing Zheng and Guanghua Zheng. The three individuals all have associated Bitcoin (BTC) addresses mentioned on the SDN List, and Guanghua Zheng additionally has a Litecoin (LTC) address.

As explained in a White House press release from 2015, the Kingpin Act exists to ban trading and transactions between narcotics traffickers and U.S. entities, namely companies and individuals. Under the Kingpin Act, a multitude of governmental branches coordinate to investigate narcotics traffickers, who are then named in a list that is brought before the President of the U.S., who then determines which members on the list will receive U.S. sanctions.

Mnuchin: Bitcoin is vulnerable to money laundering

As previously reported by Cointelegraph, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin believes that Bitcoin is vulnerable to money laundering. Mnuchin said that he intends to closely monitor Bitcoin and believes that billions of dollars in cryptocurrency are used for illicit purposes. 

Mnuchin has further stated that he believes Bitcoin is used for money laundering much more effectively than the U.S. dollar. According to Mnuchin, the government combats “bad actors in the U.S. dollar every day to protect the U.S. financial system.”

Via Cointelegraph.com

Twitter, Facebook suspend China-linked disinformation campaigns targeting Hong Kong

190807_HK_laser_pen_protest_Incendo_03.jpg

By Cristiano Lima

Twitter and Facebook today announced takedowns of Chinese government-linked disinformation campaigns that sought to undermine the protests in Hong Kong.

Twitter said in a blog post it has suspended 936 accounts originating in China that were part of a “significant state-backed information operation focused on the situation in Hong Kong,” where protesters have taken to the streets to oppose a bill that would allow local authorities to extradite criminal suspects to mainland China.

“Overall, these accounts were deliberately and specifically attempting to sow political discord in Hong Kong, including undermining the legitimacy and political positions of the protest movement on the ground,” the company said. The accounts were suspended for violating a number of the social network’s policies, including its rules against spam and fake accounts.

The takedown represents a small fraction of the activity discovered by Twitter, however, which said it took down “a larger, spammy network of approximately 200,000 accounts” before they became “substantially active” on the platform. Twitter is banned in China, but the company said some of the accounts were able to circumvent the ban by using virtual private networks, or VPNs.

Working off a tip from Twitter, Facebook cybersecurity chief Nathaniel Gleicher said his company suspended five accounts, seven pages and three groups with “links to individuals associated with the Chinese government” that “frequently posted about local political news and issues including topics like the ongoing protests in Hong Kong.” The pages amassed at least 15,000 followers and the groups at least 2,000 members.

Via politico.com

China lashes out at Taiwan over Hong Kong asylum offer

香港民陣指12,000人參與_反修訂引渡條例遊行_02.jpg

By Kelvin Chan and Yanan Wang

HONG KONG (AP) — China lashed out at Taiwan on Monday over its offer of political asylum to participants in Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protest movement, a day after hundreds of thousands of people marched peacefully in the latest massive demonstration in the Chinese territory.

The government of Taiwan, a self-ruled island that China considers its own territory, strongly supports the protests, and Hong Kong students in Taiwan held events over the weekend expressing their backing. Taiwan’s president made the asylum offer last month, though it’s not clear if requests have been received.

Taiwan lacks a formal legal mechanism for assessing and granting asylum requests, although it has granted residency to several vocal opponents of the Chinese government.

On Monday, Ma Xiaoguang, spokesman for the Chinese Cabinet’s Taiwan Affairs Office, said Taiwan’s offer would “cover up the crimes of a small group of violent militants” and encourage their “audacity in harming Hong Kong and turn Taiwan into a “heaven for ducking the law.”

Ma demanded that Taiwan’s government “cease undermining the rule of law” in Hong Kong, cease interfering in its affairs and not “condone criminals.”

Organizers said at least 1.7 million people participated in Sunday’s Hong Kong rally and march, although the police estimate was far lower. Police said the protest was “generally peaceful” but accused a large group of people of “breaching public peace” afterward by occupying a major thoroughfare and using slingshots to shoot “hard objects” at government headquarters and pointing lasers at police officers.

The protests have at times been marked by violent clashes with police, who say they have arrested more than 700 participants since the demonstrations started in June. However, law enforcement officers kept a low profile Sunday, with no riot police seen from the procession’s main routes. When stragglers convened outside a government complex in the late evening, other protesters urged them to go home.

More protests are planned for the coming weeks, with various rallies organized by accountants, transport workers, high school students and relatives of police officers.

Demonstrators’ frustrations over what they perceive to be the government’s refusal to respond to their demands boiled over last week with the occupation of Hong Kong’s international airport, during which a reporter for a Chinese Communist Party-owned newspaper was assaulted, and attacks on a number of police stations.

A former British colony, Hong Kong was returned to Beijing in 1997 under the framework of “one country, two systems,” which promised residents certain democratic rights not afforded to people in mainland China. But some Hong Kongers have accused the Communist Party-ruled central government of eroding their freedoms in recent years.

The protest movement’s demands include the resignation of Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam, democratic elections and an independent investigation into police use of force.

Asked Sunday about the situation in Hong Kong, U.S. President Donald Trump said the use of Chinese troops to put down the protests — similar to the bloody crackdown on protesters in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 1989 — would worsen the current U.S.-China trade dispute.

“I mean if it’s another Tiananmen Square, I think it’s a very hard thing to do if there is violence,” Trump told reporters in New Jersey. “I think there’d be tremendous political sentiment not to do something.”

Trump had originally said the protests were a matter for China to handle but has since suggested that Chinese President Xi Jinping could resolve the situation by meeting with protest leaders.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang avoided commenting on Trump’s remarks directly, but referred to the president’s previous statements on the protests.

“We have noticed that President Trump has previously stated that Hong Kong is part of China, and that they must solve it themselves and do not need advice. We hope that the U.S. side can match its acts to its words,” Geng told reporters at a daily briefing.

China has furiously rejected all outside calls for it to discuss protesters’ demands.

Members of China’s paramilitary People’s Armed Police force have been training for days across the border in Shenzhen, including on Sunday morning, fueling speculation that they could be sent in to suppress the protests. The Hong Kong police, however, have said they are capable of handling the demonstrations.

Via apnews.com

Blindsided: why does Beijing keep getting Hong Kong wrong?

15483547976_7b100fb142_b.jpg

Nectar Gan  and Chow Chung-yan  report:

Hong Kong businessman Sam Tsang does not like to talk politics. As a senior business consultant who travels frequently to mainland China and Taiwan, he knows silence is often golden.

He was in for a shock when, one night in mid-July, his boss introduced him to two “mainland researchers” who were visiting Hong Kong. That evening, all they talked about was politics.

It was just two weeks after the storming of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council chamber by young protesters, angry at the government’s controversial proposal to allow transfers of criminal suspects to mainland China, and at the excessive force they felt police had used to quell previous protests against the now-abandoned extradition bill.

“They asked a lot of questions about the anti-extradition bill protests,” Tsang said. “They wanted to know why Hong Kong people were so angry. Why did we hate Carrie Lam and the police so much, etc? I told them I’m an apolitical person and cannot represent anyone. Still, they were interested.”

Tsang said the two mainlanders – who only told him vaguely that they “worked for the central government” – even showed him some excerpts from their previous reports to Beijing.

“In the end, I could not bite my tongue and asked them ‘how could you have got things so wrong?’”

That must be a question on many people’s minds. As the world watches in amazement while the Asian financial centre is wracked by increasingly violent confrontations, and rocked by calls for greater democracy, it is clear that Beijing has been caught badly by surprise.

Just a month before the protests began, Vice-Premier Han Zheng – China’s top man in charge of Hong Kong affairs – told the city’s delegates to the national congress that “the political atmosphere in Hong Kong is changing for the better” and “Hong Kong has set on to the right path of development”.

What happened next must have come as a huge embarrassment for Beijing. In response, it dispatched “a record number of people” to the city to collect information and opinions, sources have told the South China Morning Post.

For Christine Loh Kung-wai, a former environment undersecretary who is now a scholar at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, there is a sense of déjà vu.

Back in 2003, when half a million Hongkongers marched to oppose the proposed national security law, Beijing was equally shocked and did exactly the same thing. At the time, Loh was running a public policy think tank she had founded after serving eight years in Legco.

“After the protest in 2003, a large number of people were sent to [Hong Kong] to talk to all kinds of people about what was happening,” Loh said. “However, we don’t know how their reports were written and analysed; and also what the central authorities thought [was] important.”

Since then, the central government has established numerous channels – official as well as informal ones – to improve its intelligence gathering in the former British colony. Yet, more than a decade later, it apparently was still unable to take the pulse of Hong Kong.

The labyrinthine information network spanning multiple ministries across the central government – each with its own lines of reporting – is confusing even to insiders.

The central government’s liaison office in the city, for example, has a “research office” tasked with monitoring public opinion and sending Beijing daily briefings of Hong Kong media reports across the political spectrum. The office also regularly meets pro-Beijing figures and groups in the political and business circles, as well as in the grass roots of society.

The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO) under the State Council, China’s cabinet, has its own team of “researchers” who periodically visit the city to “catch the wind” and submit reports to the leadership. Other departments – such as the National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Commerce – also send people to Hong Kong from time to time, not to mention the Ministry of State Security and its agents.

Official media, such as news agency Xinhua, run bureau offices in Hong Kong. A major daily assignment for them is to write in-depth reports – or “internal references” as they are called – for leaders in Beijing. These reports are not for outside eyes.

Beyond these official channels, scholars and researchers from various universities and think tanks across China make regular visits to Hong Kong, producing reports, papers and databanks for use by the decision makers in the capital. Even major Chinese state-owned companies in Hong Kong have to compile and deliver intelligence reports through their own channels.

Nor does it end there. The Hong Kong government itself is tasked with keeping the central government informed on the situation in the city, and so are the 200 or so Hong Kong members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, not to mention the 36 Hong Kong delegates to the National People’s Congress.

This wide range of channels and the vast scale of information collected do not always lead to a clear and comprehensive picture of public sentiment in Hong Kong. Experts blame the failure on a lack of coherent analysis and coordination among the departments.

“What’s lacking is not the sources of information or the amount of information. In fact, they’re probably too abundant right now,” said Lau Siu-kai, vice-chairman of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies, a semi-official think tank.

“The difficulty lies in how to synthesise and integrate all the information to present a meaningful, full picture that best represents the reality,” said Lau, who once headed the now-defunct Hong Kong government think tank, the Central Policy Unit.

The fact that so many departments are involved but lack cooperation and coordination can make things more difficult by creating “internal strife”, said Tian Feilong, an associate law professor at Beihang University in Beijing.

“As inside experts, during our research we often find that different departments can be sending different signals to the top decision makers – the Politburo Standing Committee and [Chinese President] Xi Jinping himself – which is likely to have an impact on their assessment of the situation [in Hong Kong],” he said.

According to Tian, central government plans to revamp its Hong Kong-related departments and establish a “unified, effective and authoritative” system had got as far as internal discussions and documents, before foundering due to “political difficulties” – given the redistribution of power it would have entailed.

“The ongoing crisis in Hong Kong exposed many structural flaws and complicated problems [in the present system] … that needed to be addressed and resolved,” Tian said.

One middle-ranking mainland official responsible for writing intelligence reports on Hong Kong admitted the central government channels had misread the situation but, he said, they were hardly alone in their mistake.

“To be frank, the reports by the Hong Kong government were just as bad. Nobody saw this coming. Even you media, none of you exactly predicted this two months ago,” he said.

The official said it was for that reason the central government declared its full support for Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor over the extradition bill in late May. Vice-Premier Han Zheng publicly urged everyone in Hong Kong to support the bill – even after tens of thousands of protesters had voiced their opposition.

“Back then, [Beijing] had certainly made a misjudgment – they thought 130,000 protesters was not a big deal,” said Lee Cheuk-yan, a long-time pro-democracy activist and former lawmaker in Hong Kong.

The estimated 130,000 people who marched against the bill on April 28 had, by June 9, become a million. The central government was taken aback by the sudden outburst of anger and frustration among the Hong Kong public. On June 16, an estimated two million people marched, even though Lam had announced the suspension of the bill a day earlier.

The opposition to the extradition bill quickly morphed into a broader, deep-seated discontent against Lam’s administration and what many see as the steady encroachment by Beijing on Hong Kong’s autonomy.

“Beijing could not have guessed all that pent-up anger and deep-rooted disaffection would explode all at once,” Lee said. “Nor could they have guessed that the public would continue to support the protesters after some of them resorted to more radical actions, such as storming Legco.”

Part of the reason may lie in a pro-establishment bias in the information received by Beijing. According to Tian, information collection and reporting is slanted towards the pro-establishment camp while the voices of pan-democrats and young localists are marginalised.

In response, Hong Kong’s pan-democracy camp and young protesters say their message and demands have always been loud and clear, if only Beijing was willing to listen. Unlike the mainland, where all media outlets and online publications must toe the Communist Party line, Hong Kong’s relatively free media and uncensored internet provide plenty of room for Beijing to hear those voices defending the city’s identity and autonomy.

“They know the situation in Hong Kong and what the public wants. But they have a different mindset for governing Hong Kong – what they want is to control Hong Kong to serve their own interests,” said pro-democracy veteran Albert Ho Chun-yan.

Victor Lee, a 23-year-old university graduate who joined one of the police station sieges, said: “I think they’ve known all along what our biggest demand is – which is universal suffrage. We’ve asked for it for so many years.

“They know what we Hongkongers want, but they won’t give it to us because they worry about the implications it would have on the mainland,” he said.

In past weeks Beijing has ramped up its propaganda efforts to discredit the movement and fan nationalist anger on the mainland, accusing protesters of launching a “colour revolution” with the help of Western “black hands”.

Some pro-Beijing scholars admit it is not that Beijing does not know the popular will of the pro-democracy movement, but rather that it has neither the will nor the intention to act upon their demands.

“Take the calls for universal suffrage as an example,” said Lau, the former Hong Kong government adviser. “In Beijing’s eyes, there are still anti-communist and anti-China forces in Hong Kong, who are hoping to seize power to rule Hong Kong via general election. How can it respond to such calls?”

The point was laid bare by a meeting between HKMAO director Zhang Xiaoming and Hong Kong’s pro-establishment figures this month, after at least two rounds of extensive intelligence gathering by Beijing in the city since the crisis began.

Illustration: Brian Wang

Hong Kong businessman Sam Tsang does not like to talk politics. As a senior business consultant who travels frequently to mainland China and Taiwan, he knows silence is often golden.

He was in for a shock when, one night in mid-July, his boss introduced him to two “mainland researchers” who were visiting Hong Kong. That evening, all they talked about was politics.

It was just two weeks after the storming of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council chamber by young protesters, angry at the government’s controversial proposal to allow transfers of criminal suspects to mainland China, and at the excessive force they felt police had used to quell previous protests against the now-abandoned extradition bill.

“They asked a lot of questions about the anti-extradition bill protests,” Tsang said. “They wanted to know why Hong Kong people were so angry. Why did we hate Carrie Lam and the police so much, etc? I told them I’m an apolitical person and cannot represent anyone. Still, they were interested.”

Young protesters storm Hong Kong’s Legislative Council on July 1. The scale of the city’s anti-government sentiment has taken Beijing by surprise. Photo: Sam Tsang

Share:

Tsang said the two mainlanders – who only told him vaguely that they “worked for the central government” – even showed him some excerpts from their previous reports to Beijing.

“In the end, I could not bite my tongue and asked them ‘how could you have got things so wrong?’”

SUBSCRIBE TO US CHINA TRADE WAR

Get updates direct to your inbox

SUBMIT

By registering, you agree to our T&C and Privacy Policy

That must be a question on many people’s minds. As the world watches in amazement while the Asian financial centre is wracked by increasingly violent confrontations, and rocked by calls for greater democracy, it is clear that Beijing has been caught badly by surprise.

Just a month before the protests began, Vice-Premier Han Zheng – China’s top man in charge of Hong Kong affairs – told the city’s delegates to the national congress that “the political atmosphere in Hong Kong is changing for the better” and “Hong Kong has set on to the right path of development”.

What happened next must have come as a huge embarrassment for Beijing. In response, it dispatched “a record number of people” to the city to collect information and opinions, sources have told the South China Morning Post.

For Christine Loh Kung-wai, a former environment undersecretary who is now a scholar at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, there is a sense of déjà vu.

Back in 2003, when half a million Hongkongers marched to oppose the proposed national security law, Beijing was equally shocked and did exactly the same thing. At the time, Loh was running a public policy think tank she had founded after serving eight years in Legco.

“After the protest in 2003, a large number of people were sent to [Hong Kong] to talk to all kinds of people about what was happening,” Loh said. “However, we don’t know how their reports were written and analysed; and also what the central authorities thought [was] important.”

Christine Loh Kung-wai is former environment undersecretary and now scholar at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Photo: Jonathan Wong

Share:

Since then, the central government has established numerous channels – official as well as informal ones – to improve its intelligence gathering in the former British colony. Yet, more than a decade later, it apparently was still unable to take the pulse of Hong Kong.

The labyrinthine information network spanning multiple ministries across the central government – each with its own lines of reporting – is confusing even to insiders.

The central government’s liaison office in the city, for example, has a “research office” tasked with monitoring public opinion and sending Beijing daily briefings of Hong Kong media reports across the political spectrum. The office also regularly meets pro-Beijing figures and groups in the political and business circles, as well as in the grass roots of society.

The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO) under the State Council, China’s cabinet, has its own team of “researchers” who periodically visit the city to “catch the wind” and submit reports to the leadership. Other departments – such as the National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Commerce – also send people to Hong Kong from time to time, not to mention the Ministry of State Security and its agents.

How Hong Kong government spurned opportunity to listen to public opinion

Official media, such as news agency Xinhua, run bureau offices in Hong Kong. A major daily assignment for them is to write in-depth reports – or “internal references” as they are called – for leaders in Beijing. These reports are not for outside eyes.

Beyond these official channels, scholars and researchers from various universities and think tanks across China make regular visits to Hong Kong, producing reports, papers and databanks for use by the decision makers in the capital. Even major Chinese state-owned companies in Hong Kong have to compile and deliver intelligence reports through their own channels.

Nor does it end there. The Hong Kong government itself is tasked with keeping the central government informed on the situation in the city, and so are the 200 or so Hong Kong members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, not to mention the 36 Hong Kong delegates to the National People’s Congress.

What’s lacking is not the sources of information or the amount of information. In fact, they’re probably too abundant right nowLau Siu-kai, vice-chairman, Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies

This wide range of channels and the vast scale of information collected do not always lead to a clear and comprehensive picture of public sentiment in Hong Kong. Experts blame the failure on a lack of coherent analysis and coordination among the departments.

“What’s lacking is not the sources of information or the amount of information. In fact, they’re probably too abundant right now,” said Lau Siu-kai, vice-chairman of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies, a semi-official think tank.

“The difficulty lies in how to synthesise and integrate all the information to present a meaningful, full picture that best represents the reality,” said Lau, who once headed the now-defunct Hong Kong government think tank, the Central Policy Unit.

Lau Siu-kai, vice-chairman of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies. Photo: Xiaomei Chen

Share:

The fact that so many departments are involved but lack cooperation and coordination can make things more difficult by creating “internal strife”, said Tian Feilong, an associate law professor at Beihang University in Beijing.

“As inside experts, during our research we often find that different departments can be sending different signals to the top decision makers – the Politburo Standing Committee and [Chinese President] Xi Jinping himself – which is likely to have an impact on their assessment of the situation [in Hong Kong],” he said.

According to Tian, central government plans to revamp its Hong Kong-related departments and establish a “unified, effective and authoritative” system had got as far as internal discussions and documents, before foundering due to “political difficulties” – given the redistribution of power it would have entailed.

“The ongoing crisis in Hong Kong exposed many structural flaws and complicated problems [in the present system] … that needed to be addressed and resolved,” Tian said.

To be frank, the reports by the Hong Kong government were just as bad. Nobody saw this coming. Even you media, none of you exactly predicted this two months agoMainland official

One middle-ranking mainland official responsible for writing intelligence reports on Hong Kong admitted the central government channels had misread the situation but, he said, they were hardly alone in their mistake.

“To be frank, the reports by the Hong Kong government were just as bad. Nobody saw this coming. Even you media, none of you exactly predicted this two months ago,” he said.

The official said it was for that reason the central government declared its full support for Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor over the extradition bill in late May. Vice-Premier Han Zheng publicly urged everyone in Hong Kong to support the bill – even after tens of thousands of protesters had voiced their opposition.

“Back then, [Beijing] had certainly made a misjudgment – they thought 130,000 protesters was not a big deal,” said Lee Cheuk-yan, a long-time pro-democracy activist and former lawmaker in Hong Kong.

Chinese Vice-Premier Han Zheng is Beijing’s top man in charge of Hong Kong affairs. Photo: Handout

Share:

The estimated 130,000 people who marched against the bill on April 28 had, by June 9, become a million. The central government was taken aback by the sudden outburst of anger and frustration among the Hong Kong public. On June 16, an estimated two million people marched, even though Lam had announced the suspension of the bill a day earlier.

The opposition to the extradition bill quickly morphed into a broader, deep-seated discontent against Lam’s administration and what many see as the steady encroachment by Beijing on Hong Kong’s autonomy.

“Beijing could not have guessed all that pent-up anger and deep-rooted disaffection would explode all at once,” Lee said. “Nor could they have guessed that the public would continue to support the protesters after some of them resorted to more radical actions, such as storming Legco.”

Part of the reason may lie in a pro-establishment bias in the information received by Beijing. According to Tian, information collection and reporting is slanted towards the pro-establishment camp while the voices of pan-democrats and young localists are marginalised.

An estimated two million people marched on June 16 in Hong Kong against the extradition bill. Photo: Handout

Share:

In response, Hong Kong’s pan-democracy camp and young protesters say their message and demands have always been loud and clear, if only Beijing was willing to listen. Unlike the mainland, where all media outlets and online publications must toe the Communist Party line, Hong Kong’s relatively free media and uncensored internet provide plenty of room for Beijing to hear those voices defending the city’s identity and autonomy.

“They know the situation in Hong Kong and what the public wants. But they have a different mindset for governing Hong Kong – what they want is to control Hong Kong to serve their own interests,” said pro-democracy veteran Albert Ho Chun-yan.

Victor Lee, a 23-year-old university graduate who joined one of the police station sieges, said: “I think they’ve known all along what our biggest demand is – which is universal suffrage. We’ve asked for it for so many years.

“They know what we Hongkongers want, but they won’t give it to us because they worry about the implications it would have on the mainland,” he said.

Two months on, what do Hong Kong protesters really want?

In past weeks Beijing has ramped up its propaganda efforts to discredit the movement and fan nationalist anger on the mainland, accusing protesters of launching a “colour revolution” with the help of Western “black hands”.

Some pro-Beijing scholars admit it is not that Beijing does not know the popular will of the pro-democracy movement, but rather that it has neither the will nor the intention to act upon their demands.

“Take the calls for universal suffrage as an example,” said Lau, the former Hong Kong government adviser. “In Beijing’s eyes, there are still anti-communist and anti-China forces in Hong Kong, who are hoping to seize power to rule Hong Kong via general election. How can it respond to such calls?”

The point was laid bare by a meeting between HKMAO director Zhang Xiaoming and Hong Kong’s pro-establishment figures this month, after at least two rounds of extensive intelligence gathering by Beijing in the city since the crisis began.

Zhang Xiaoming, director of the State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, meets Hong Kong’s pro-establishment elites in Shenzhen on August 7. Photo: Winson Wong

Zhang, who had summoned the Hong Kong politicians and business elites to Shenzhen, acknowledged there were “all kinds of public opinion and demands in society at the moment”.

But he insisted the prevailing popular will in Hong Kong right now was to “regain stability and peace, and to restore social order as soon as possible”.

Additional reporting by Echo Xie

Via scmp.com

The U.S. left a hole in leadership on climate. China is filling it.

Electrical_and_Mechanical_Services_Department_Headquarters_Photovoltaics.jpg

POLITICO’s Global Translations podcast examines the fallout from Washington’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.

Luiza Ch. Savage reports:

Call it the China climate paradox. 

Often considered the bogeyman of global climate diplomacy, China is making greater and faster strides than expected away from fossil fuels — becoming the world’s largest investor in solar and wind technology and boasting more jobs in solar energy than in coal-mining. It’s all part of a longterm economic strategy to dominate in critical technologies.

The torrid pace and unprecedented scale of China’s investments in clean energy are driven in part by local concerns about toxic air quality. China remains the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases, accounting for roughly 30 percent of global carbon dioxide pollution. 

But the moves are giving China a growing leadership role on the world stage — precisely at a time when Washington’s voice is becoming less relevant thanks to President Donald Trump’s announced plan to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, according to interviews with POLITICO’s Global Translations podcast.

“China wants to be the leader in the clean energy economy,” said Barbara Finamore, Asia director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Some people say that China was slow to catch up with the Industrial Revolution and kind of lagged behind, perhaps until recently, in the dot-com revolution, but it saw the potential to lead the clean energy revolution from the start — and it's determined to lead.”

Critics of the Paris agreement in the Trump administration have complained that China’s pledges would still allow the country to increase emissions for more than a decade, while they contend that cuts in U.S. emissions promised by the Obama administration would hurt economic growth. And they point out that the U.S., which accounts for the second-largest share of world emissions — 15 percent — has already cut its CO2 emissions over the past decade, although that decline was largely the result of power producers switching to cheaper natural gas from coal rather than being driven by U.S. climate policy.

But for Chinese President Xi Jinping, clean energy investments are not just about fighting climate change and cleaning up some of the world’s dirtiest air — but about economic competitiveness. Beijing has used hardball tactics in its quest to dominate cutting-edge technology that are among the drivers of the current Washington-Beijing trade war. They have ranged from forced intellectual property transfers and requirements that foreign companies enter into local joint ventures to heavy state subsidies for solar panels that have made it the world’s leading global supplier, undercutting prices of non-subsidized competitors.

China is responsible for a third of wind turbines and solar panels in the world — and its investments have had the side effect of driving down the global price of solar and wind technologies by nearly three-quarters in the last decade, Finamore said.

These efforts have allowed China to reduce the share of coal in its overall energy mix from 80 percent to 60 percent, she said, after having grown coal use by double digits for a decade. (By contrast, coal accounts for less than 30 percent of the U.S. energy mix, according to the Energy Information Administration.) And the NRDC published a report in January suggesting that if China continues to fully implement the policies that it already has in place to cut coal consumption — and ramps up its energy efficiency efforts — the nation could cap its coal consumption by as early as next year. 

China has also pursued electrification at an eye-popping pace. It now has almost half the world's electric vehicles, half the world’s charging infrastructure, and 99 percent of the world's electric buses, according to Finamore. “It has brought the cost of electric vehicle batteries down by two-thirds in just five years, to the point where electric vehicles can become cost-competitive with your gas-guzzling car,” Finamore added.

“China has installed more renewable capacity than any other country in the world,” said Jonathan Pershing, who was a special envoy for climate change under the Obama administration. America’s failure to tackle renewable energy on a national scale has longterm economic implications, said Pershing, now a program director at the Hewlett Foundation. 

“We are not choosing to do very many of these things at scale, and others are,” he said. “Those kinds of questions are going to be what will dictate the future in terms of economic competitiveness. And it will not just be because of climate change. It will be because that's where the world is going. That's where technology is moving. And if you're not playing in that space, you're not going to be a winner.”

Alongside aggressive green investments, China has also retooled its climate diplomacy. While the U.S. pulls back, China is taking its seat at the leadership table. When the Paris climate agreement was negotiated in 2015, China was criticized for its demand to be treated like a developing country — and to be allowed to continue to increase its emissions before beginning to decrease them by 2030. 

Now it appears emissions will peak sooner than that — and China is a participant in the so-called Major Economic Forum, in which ministers from leading countries work together to maintain momentum and common understanding in climate talks. The Forum had been run by the U.S., but Canada stepped in once the U.S. pulled out.

“China has come a long way in moving from a climate resister to a strong supporter of the Paris agreement and global climate governance,” Finamore said. “And what people don't realize is how fast things have changed.”

Canada’s minister of environment and climate, Catherine McKenna, described stepping up to fill the vacuum after the U.S. pulled out and holding a meeting of top ministers from the EU and China last June.

“That was tough because it was right after the U.S. had announced their position — but we brought folks together and it's important that we keep China very engaged at the table. I think they certainly believe in climate action and they see the opportunity, and we need them at the table and the European Union,” she said. “I think that's a very positive thing that even without the leadership of the United States —which was extraordinary under the Obama administration — internationally we're all moving forward including working with the E.U. and China,” she said.

China’s climate diplomacy includes working with individual U.S. states.

“When the U.S. walked away from the table you saw the EU, Canada and China get together and essentially say that they wanted to be the leaders and so they were the ones convening all the major economies to talk about what a path forward looked like. They would invite the U.S. to be at the table but they weren't going to wait for them,” recalled Julie Cerqueira, executive director of the U.S. Climate Alliance, launched by a group of U.S. governors in 2017 in response to Trump’s announcement of pulling the U.S. out of the Paris agreement. The group now includes 24 states and Puerto Rico, representing 40 percent of U.S. emissions, and is engaged in negotiating agreements with countries, including China, while Washington steps back.

During an energy conference in Beijing in 2017, Jinping met with California Gov. Jerry Brown in Beijing to discuss cooperation on climate action. He did not meet with Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who was also in town.

The United States is being “essentially marginalized,” Cerqueira told the podcast. “The rest of the world realizes that we have to take action.”

Via politico.com

War Party Flails Against the New Reality Defined by the Singapore and Helsinki Summits

War Party Flails Against the New Reality Defined by the Singapore and Helsinki Summits

On Friday Russian President Vladimir Putin said while in South Africa for the BRICS Summit that he had invited U.S. President Donald Trump to Moscow for talks. The Administration reciprocated later in the day, saying Putin is welcome to visit the White House next year. Despite major Senate opposition and hysterical press and social media cries of ‘treason!’, the two sides are slowly working towards easing tensions. The response from the British-led trans-Atlantic deep state and their front men in Congress has been to propose more sanctions and accuse Moscow of hacking into the U.S. power grid and the campaign of Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.

The deep state dead-enders are doubling down on the Russiagate scandal, with former attorney Michael Cohen contradicting his previous Senate testimony and public denials that candidate Trump did not know about a summer 2016 meeting between his son Donald Jr. and Fusion GPS paid “Russian government lawyer” provocateur Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower (Ms. Veselnitskaya was coached by Fusion GPS CEO Glenn Simpson before the meeting and after it). The President tweeted out that Cohen has likely hired old Clintons crony Lanny Davis and turned on his former patron to save himself and his Ukrainian-born father in law from an indictment over fraud in their New York taxi business — charges that, like the indictments against former campaign chair Paul Manafort, have nothing to do with Russia collusion. But they have everything to do with special counsel Robert Mueller’s desperation to find any witness who can testify for him against President Trump.

NEW feature: sign up for email updates from Harley Schlanger and LaRouchePAC here

Xinhua photo from the Helsinki Summit by: Lehtikuva’s (Finnish news agency) Antti Aimo-Koivisto

Read More

"As Goes Africa, So Goes Humanity"

"As Goes Africa, So Goes Humanity"

It has been only a week and a day since the historic July 16 Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki, but already the world has changed dramatically. "There are those who are aware of these positive changes" and are working to bring them to fruition, Helga Zepp- LaRouche stated today, "and then there are those who are wearing geopolitical spectacles and who refuse to see the changes. They are still defending a status quo which no longer exists. They just don't get it!"

The combination of the Belt and Road Initiative, Zepp-LaRouche continued, and Trump's policies--at least most of them, especially his summit meeting with Putin--are moving the world to a different plateau. What is emerging is a New Paradigm of cooperation among sovereign nations, precisely along the lines that Lyndon LaRouche has laid out for the last half-century.

Read More

Trump Confounds the Nuclear Warmongers; Now For the Wall Street Free-Traders!

Trump Confounds the Nuclear Warmongers; Now For the Wall Street Free-Traders!

The European geopoliticians around London, and the American neo-cons and liberal imperialists, are so "deranged" by the continuing series of impossible summits which began in Singapore with President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, that is is clear their policy can really be eradicated.

The substantive problems being discussed at these meetings, especially involving the United States and Russia, are very difficult to solve. But the threat of thermonuclear war these geopoliticians are all too willing to risk, is being driven down. And the new economic and diplomatic paradigm launched around China's Belt and Road Initiative, is providing the means to replace it entirely, with great-power cooperation for the economic and scientific progress of mankind.

But geopolitics can't be killed off while the menace of "free trade" runs rampant. 

Read More

After the Helsinki Summit, Trump Threatens Iran in ALL CAPS tweet

After the Helsinki Summit, Trump Threatens Iran in ALL CAPS tweet

A week has passed since the Trump-Putin summit, and a RogueMoney reader asked me for my thoughts on the outcome. Rather than give the stock answer of ‘it’s too soon to say’, I thought I’d do what analysts do and emphasize the knowns, then contrast those with the greater part that remain ‘known unknowns’ in the ongoing negotiations to defuse Cold War II (or more accurately, to revive the USA’s geoeconomic fortunes because Kissingerian realists in Washington realized by 2016 fighting Russia, China and Iran all at once while dominating the EU, Japan and the Koreas was no longer feasible). The problem with this traditional analytical framework including labels like ‘realism’ vs. neo-conservativism, is that Trump defies easy characterization.

On the one hand, Trump appears to sincerely want to improve U.S.-Russia relations because he has taken more heat for this than any other aspect of his platform, culminating in this week’s insane allegations that he has committed ‘treason’ by questioning the ‘intelligence community’ finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections in support of his candidacy. On the other hand, on Sunday night Trump escalated his anti-Iran rhetoric, hours after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) delivered a speech in southern California calling for a 1980s Reaganesque policy of rollback against the Islamic Republic.

Screen shot from: Russia’s Vesti News/First Channel

Read More

Trump Derangement Syndrome in Full Meltdown After Helsinki Summit and Massive Tsarist Era Gold Shipwreck Reported in Far East

Trump Derangement Syndrome in Full Meltdown After Helsinki Summit and Massive Tsarist Era Gold Shipwreck Reported in Far East

The following is a roundup of the @FinanceExaminer Ken “the Shotgun Professor” Schortgen Jr’s posts about the hysteria surrounding the Trump-Putin summit and the intriguing discovery of a Russo-Japanese war era shipwreck reportedly containing over $100 billion in gold bars. Even if the estimate of what can be salvaged from the Far Eastern waters proves overly optimistic, the shipwreck underlines the massive mineral wealth the Russian treasury possessed on the eve of World War I that Moscow’s historic enemies in the City of London coveted, and eventually plundered while using the mass murdering Bolsheviks as their agents. — JWS

Read More

План Трампа: Cooperation Between the U.S. and Russian Petrostates?

План Трампа: Cooperation Between the U.S. and Russian Petrostates?

One of the undisputed keys to the revival of Russia’s fortunes under President Vladimir Putin has been his leveraging of the world’s largest country and its immense natural resource base to finance military and vital infrastructure improvements. Putin wrote his 1996 economics dissertation in St. Petersburg “Strategic Planning of the Reproduction of the Mineral Resource Base of a Region under Conditions of the Formation of Market Relations” (which Putin’s critics at RFE/RL, Brookings Institute and the Langley/Bezos Post insist was ghostwritten) about the state leveraging oil and gas production to benefit the population, as in Russia’s Arctic neighbors Norway and Alaska.

Although overlooked by the media and deep state manufactured hysteria over Trump’s ‘treasonous’ praise for Putin and their dialogue in Helsinki, CNBC did report Putin’s proposal that the U.S. and Russia work together to regulate the oil price. If implemented this plan would make Moscow, which already cooperates with leading OPEC cartel member and petrodollar pillar Riyadh, into a partner with Washington in keeping energy prices within an acceptable range. As Putin said, it would not be advantageous to the American or global economies to see prices rise too high, nor see them collapse and thereby wreck shale oil production (he didn’t need to add, also hurting Russia and the ruble in the process as the Obama Administration and globalists tried to do in an coordinated piece of economic warfare in late 2014 — Moscow would take military action to boost its leverage against the Saudis and Qataris the following autumn in Syria).

Putin knows very well that President Reagan’s CIA director William Casey worked with the Saudis to drive down the price of oil in the late 1980s, hastening the demise of the Soviet Union which had then posted the young KGB officer and his family to Dresden in East Germany. As W the Intelligence Insider says regarding that period ‘we took out the Soviet Union and the ruble but almost lost Texas’ leading to the 1989-93 recession and ‘handover’ of power from the Bushes to the Clintons. However, in an ironic role reversal, it is now the fragile U.S. economy which needs Russian cooperation to maintain a moderate to higher price, so that highly indebted frackers stay profitable as interest rates rise and steel/aluminum trade wars (including Cold War 2 sanctions on Russian metals) drive up pipeline costs. Indeed, the main problem with the shale boom is the high depletion rate of the wells, which in turn requires cheap money from the Fed and high debt loads to manage (it was no accident that fracking took off in the mid-2000s with a loose post dot.com crash and 9/11 monetary policy).

Read More

Fireworks Begin At NATO As Trump Prepares For Putin Summit

Fireworks Begin At NATO As Trump Prepares For Putin Summit

President Trump continued his demands on the NATO countries to pay their agreed share for the defense of Europe, but the question should be: defense against whom? Trump has not, as yet, repeated his charge issued during the election campaign in 2016, when he said NATO was "obsolete" and "disproportionately" too expensive, and that terrorism was the primary concern. But he has insisted, repeatedly, that "it is a good thing to be friends with Russia and China." Certainly being friends with Russia and China should render NATO obsolete.

Trump recognizes that Russia is no threat to Eastern or Western Europe, nor any other nation, and refused to characterize Russia as a "foe" on his way to the NATO summit. He has also repeatedly noted that Russia is playing a crucial part in countering terrorism, especially in Syria.

Trump's effort to establish friendly relations with Moscow, starting with the historic summit with Putin next Monday in Helsinki, is driving the British and British assets nuts.

Read More

Trump Is Going for Game-changing Solutions

Trump Is Going for Game-changing Solutions

President Donald Trump's insistence on a personal summit with Russian President Putin looks stronger than ever, with the welcome breakdown of the most violent opponent of that summit — and the center of geopolitical war schemes — the British government. Russian-American collaboration is central to the possible end to 25 years' perpetual "regime-change" wars and terrorism, allowing, then, the possibility of economic development spreading across South Asia and North Africa. Better, a four-power collaboration of America, Russia, India, and China can provide a new, non-geopolitical strategic framework for peace. Lyndon LaRouche showed already more than two decades ago that there is no reason for the existence of NATO, and that this four-power collaboration is the new basis for security and peace.

Sputnik photo of Putin and Trump by: Mikhael Klimentyev

Read More

Are Trump's Trade Wars truly aimed at China and Europe, or are they really being instituted to kill the globalists and central bankers?

Are Trump's Trade Wars truly aimed at China and Europe, or are they really being instituted to kill the globalists and central bankers?

The North Korea gambit provided us with a very acute insight to how President Trump operates.  On one hand he publicly insulted and vilified North Korea and their leader Kim Jung-Un, but behind the scenes he proved that this was all just Kabuki Theater for the masses since he was not only able to achieve what the last few Presidents could not in formulating a denuclearization of the peninsula, but also in potentially ending a war that had been ongoing for almost 70 years.

So with this in mind we must look well below the surface when it comes to the Trade War that President Trump has initiated across the globe, and try to determine whether his motives are truly directed at China and the European continent, or if they are really focused towards destroying the central banker dream of achieving globalism and a new world order.

Read More