Should the Mainstream Media be Considered a Part of the Political Class?

“You are now on a par with the political class. How ’bout that? It’s not a great place to be, is it?” -Nigel Farage

I’ve gotta say folks, it’s getting harder and harder to read and understand the news these days. It’s not so much the tribalistic biases, distortions, and lying by omission that we’re all used to, it’s about honesty, ethics and accountability. There’s a reason why Brian Williams was fired from his show for lying about his experiences during the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. If people are forced to take William’s statements with a grain of salt, that kind of undermines the whole purpose of news and being a journalist, right? So how does the MSM still get it so wrong? You had one job…

Although it would seem that lying for your own benefit as a journalist is punished, lying on behalf of the political class is accepted. The fourth estate has been subject to a form of regulatory capture. There’s a revolving door and members of the news media are often considered for propagandist positions in administrations such as Press Secretary and Director of Communications. In order to be considered for the job, administrations will be looking for loyalty, and a body of work that they or their candidate approve of.

This means that unethical hack reporters and pundits who view journalism as a stepping stone to their own personal power will collude and slant their coverage to curry favor with powerful politicians. Those who wish to become White House propagandists will produce propaganda on their own to show that they are capable of it. When you have a field of such competitors vying for a limited amount of administration positions, you can have your own propaganda machine quietly working for you in the news industry.

If you’ll remember, Wikileaks published a list of journalists who agreed to have dinner with John Podesta. It should be noted that this was a private dinner, none of the participants have come forth to explain what was discussed, and we probably would have never known about this if it weren’t for Wikileaks and Julian Assange. It should also be noted that ABC’s George Stephanoplous was RSVP’d, and that he was Bill Clinton’s Communications Director in 1993.

https://i1.wp.com/www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/wikileaks_rsvp_yes_0.png

Wikileaks email 21063- “RE: Press Dinners – Full Info”

And then there is, of course, Donna Brazile’s dismissal from CNN for passing town hall questions to the Clinton campaign, the various brown-nosing emails from people like Glenn Thrush and John Harwood, fraternizing at the White House Correspondence Dinners, and so on and so forth.

When somebody like Trump points out this collusion and tries to hold the media accountable, they claim victimhood and persecution of a free press. These delicate geniuses are anything but. You can’t be that delicate when you have the power of the pen, and there was absolutely nothing genius about the MSM’s 2016 election coverage. And yes, it is important to have a free and independent media in this country, but that last part – independent- isn’t mentioned.

Then I heard the UKIP’s Nigel Farage speak at a convention for journalists in Copenhagen, and I was struck by his statement that many are viewing the MSM in the same light as politicians.

“2016 has been the year of political revolution, it has been the year of the outsiders. But remember, what made Brexit happen, and what got Trump elected, were a lot of little people who don’t normally vote at all, but have simply had enough and want to vote for change. They feel they’ve been talked down to, they feel they’ve been sneered at, and I think what this conference needs to face up to is it’s not just the political class that increasingly is treated with contempt by the broader public across the West. Actually, the national broadcasters – and the rest of the media, too – are being, I’m afraid, viewed in the same way. You are now on a par with the political class. How ’bout that? It’s not a great place to be, is it?”

Nigel Farage at the News Xchange annual conference [Video]

With all of the whitewashing, distortions, omissions of context, and appeals to emotions, media pundits and commentators are beginning to talk more and more like politicians. Looking at the 2016 election coverage and the Podesta Wikileaks, it would seem that news networks like CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and the New York Times were little more than political advocacy groups. So if the mainstream media pundits are willing to advocate on behalf of politicians, attend private dinners with campaign managers, and even help them cheat at town halls, should they be considered a part of the political class? Should the public have to take their words with a grain of salt the way they do with politicians? I find myself doing just that.

So what can we do? I think if Trump wants to drain the swamp in DC, he could drain the swamp in midtown Manhattan as well. I suggest that print and especially broadcast journalists working for the 6 major media conglomerates (CBS, Time Warner, Viacom, Disney, News Corp, and GE) be required to resign from their positions for a period of 4 years before accepting a job in the federal government. This will prevent the kind of media collusion and manipulation of public opinion we saw in the 2016 election. With such a steep requirement to transition into the public sector, the incentive to appease politicians disappears, and the revolving door is locked shut.

Taiwan and Other Tenuous Relationships in the North Pacific

Since 1949, Taiwan has been a particularly sensitive area for Chinese internal politics. In fact, you could call it an old wound that has never completely healed over.

A simple congratulatory call from the president of Taiwan to President-elect Donald Trump has ruffled Beijing’s feathers. One week prior, the Chinese were flying nuclear-capable bombers around the island country, perhaps signaling a warning to Taiwanese nationalists not to act up.

“According to a press release from the Trump transition team about the phone call, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen offered her congratulations and Trump offered the same to her for her election victory this year. They discussed the ‘close economic, political, and security ties between Taiwan and the United States,’ the Trump transition team said.”

China Lodges Diplomatic Protest After Trump’s Call With Taiwan’s President

Since 1949, Taiwan has been a particularly sensitive area for Chinese internal politics. In fact, you could call it an old wound that has never completely healed over. When Mao Zedong and the PLA won the Chinese Civil War with the help of the Soviets, the deposed government was the Republic of China (ROC) under Chiang Kai-shek, and they were forced to abandon their capital and set up a government in exile on Taiwan. Since then, there has been no armistice, no cease-fire signed between the two Chinese factions. Both governments, the PRC and the ROC, claim to be the legitimate government of China, but the Communists held the mainland, and when Nixon came around to open up relations with China, he chose to negotiate with the PRC.

Although Chiang Kai-shek lead the Nationalist Party and the Republic of China for most of the 20th century, the ROC was first lead by Sun Yat-sen, a doctor, political philosopher, and revolutionary who was born in China, but received an education from American schools in Hawaii. Sun believed in decentralizing power and developing a federal republic of smaller states similar to the US. He lead the rebellion that overturned the last Chinese emperor and the Qing Dynasty. A photo of Sun Yat-sen is featured above.

With the death of the TPP, US foreign policy in the Pacific Rim has stalled, but this contact between the President-elect and the president of Taiwan could be taken as a sign of changing relationships between the US and China.

The whole northern Pacific area is a bit of a work in progress for both China and Russia. Right on their doorstep is North Korea, a nuclear powder keg being run by a megalomaniac. Below the 38th parallel is South Korea, a bastion of Western influence and home to nearly 30,000 US troops. Further east is Japan, who are currently rearming and overhauling their military forces in response to China’s aggression in the South China Sea. Japan has also established its own balance of power, working economically with Russia as a counterbalance for Chinese expansion.

Japan’s recent rapprochement with Russia has also helped to settle the territorial dispute over the Kuril Islands. The Russians agreed to return two of the four islands to Japan, but on the territory they’ve kept, they’ve installed missile systems with a 375 mile effective range.

“The disagreement over the Pacific islands, seized by the Soviet Union in the final days of World War II, has kept the two countries from signing a peace treaty formally ending their wartime hostilities.

“Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been pushing for progress in the dispute over the islands, called the southern Kurils by Russia and the Northern Territories by Japan.

“The sparsely inhabited islands lie just north of the Japanese island of Hokkaido, in an area rich in natural resources, and they also serve as a strategic vantage point for the Russian military. Last month, Japan protested after Russia announced the deployment of new anti-ship missiles on Pacific islands to the Kurils.”

Russia warns Japan not to expect quick progress on islands

The Chinese are already very busy taking over the South China Sea, stabilizing the Yuan, and building infrastructure along with other long-term geopolitical goals. Having to deal with Taiwanese nationalism may be another issue for China to juggle, and the possibility of a currency war turning into an all-out trade war with the US could threaten China’s ability to coordinate and fund big projects that require heavy, fixed capital.

Is Putin Purging His Kremlin of Keynesians?

If Ulyukayev’s arrest is the beginning of a purge of Western Liberal economists from the Kremlin, it may have also been a litmus test to assess the political and social ramifications of further shake ups in senior leadership.

In a previous post about Russia’s geopolitical goals, I mentioned the struggle for influence among the Western Liberal economists running the Russian Central Bank and the Stolypin Club, a collection of economic advisors shaping Putin’s foreign policy goals. Judging from Russia’s recent geopolitical moves, it would seem that the Stolypin Club were winning that war of influence, and I have been watching for Putin to start purging the Keynesians that made their way into the Kremlin under the Yeltsin administration.

When news surfaced that Economy Minister Alexei Ulyukayev was arrested for accepting a bribe, I started parsing through the details to see if the incident may have been related to the palace politics I mentioned earlier. Ulyukayev is accused of accepting $2 million to “grease the skids” for a major deal between two Russian oil companies, and Putin dismissed him from service the same day he was arrested.

Corrupt oligarchs are the norm in Russia, so what’s the big deal? Although many in the media are characterizing Ulyukayev as an underling for Putin, Ulyukayev came into power under Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and held the position of Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank of Russia for 9 years prior. It was also the Medvedev economic team who bailed out major banks and initiated a stimulus program when the 2008/2009 recession hit the country- two very Keynesian policies. At this point, I began to wonder if Ulyukayev may have been the latest casualty in the war over Russia’s economic policies, and if the Stolypin Club had begun to eclipse their rivals.

Putin is a product of Russia’s corrupt oligarchical system. Formerly the mayor of St. Petersburg, any business who had planned to open up shop in his city needed his approval, and I’m willing to believe this is how Putin made many of his contacts among the Russian business and banking elites. But now, he claims to be cracking down on that corruption, perhaps in an effort to make Russian government and industry a bit more efficient and structured in case their economy continues to stagnate or decline.

“Putin hasn’t really done much to dismantle the corrupt system that has flourished in Russia under his rule — probably because graft is the glue that has held it together all these years. Yet he has appeared impatient with it since the 2014 Crimea land grab and the simultaneous oil price drop. No longer happy (or perhaps no longer able to comfortably afford) the crony capitalism of the 2000s, he wants a mobilized, militarized, patriotic nation that would circle its wagons against a perceived threat from the West and the economic difficulties that go with it. ”

Why Putin Sacrificed His Economy Minister

Putin is the one who has benefited greatly from cronyism, and it was Medvedev who ran on an anti-corruption platform, so Ulyukayev being dismissed by Putin for corruption is rather ironic. But the irony is lost on Putin’s more rabid supporters who are calling for a Soviet-style purge of all corrupt ministers and government workers. Some have even suggested that representatives from the FSB run the purged departments of government until an appropriate time for elections.

If Ulyukayev’s arrest is the beginning of a purge of Western Liberal economists from the Kremlin, it may have also been a litmus test to assess the political and social ramifications of further shake ups in senior leadership. Judging the public’s reaction to Ulyukayev’s arrest, I think a majority of the Russian people would buy into an anti-corruption cover story. If Putin begins to move against the Russian Central Bank or the rest of Medvedev’s team, then we can be sure there’s going to be another shakeup in Putin’s Kremlin.

“Putin has been careful not to threaten the economic team in Dmitry Medvedev’s government and the central bank.”

Why Putin Sacrificed His Economy Minister

So why the shake up? I think it may have something to do with the election of Trump, the death of TTP and other free trade deals, and a potential rehabilitation of the over-leveraged, bubble-prone debt finance model of economics. If Keynesians like Paul Krugman and Janet Yellen are in danger of falling out of favor in the West, then Keynesians in Russia should be listed as an endangered species.

The French Establishment’s Answer to Their Trumpian Candidate and a Possible Frexit

Le Pen may be the most dangerous opponent to the EU bureaucrats due to her pedigree, her success in reforming her party’s image, and her push to pass a referendum allowing French citizens to vote to leave the EU.

With the stunning results of the Brexit referendum and the historical upset of a Donald Trump victory, a world-wide movement to reject Globalism and open borders has made their message clear in Europe and have taken the Presidency in America. The next battleground appears to be the French 2017 Presidential elections, with voting set to begin April 23rd.

Although it could be argued that Putin was the first modern leader to stop playing by the Globalist’s rules when he invaded South Ossetia in 2008, Putin has never been a good role model for politicians in the West due to his autocratic nature. On the other hand, Silvio Berlusconi had just won a third term as Prime Minister of Italy in 2008, and many European commentators have been pointing out the similarities between him and Trump since the latter announced his run for President.

“‘The most powerful way to oppose [Berlsuconi], but it was never really done seriously, was to try and understand what his voters want and try to address the need of his voters. No jokes, stop shouting, stop crying, stop saying: ‘It is a horror and disaster’; try and seriously understand what his voters want, and the left was never really successful in doing that,’ [Giovanni] Orsina said.”

If Berlusconi is like Trump, what can America learn from Italy

Berlusconi may have been the prototype for Trump in terms of persona and spectacle, but more importantly, his populist leanings and later Euroscepticism very closely parallel the nationalist tendencies of Trump and the UKIP. It was these populist policies that addressed the needs of the Italian voters and outshone all of his personal flaws.

Over in France, Marine Le Pen leads the National Front party, and supports policies that are openly nationalist and protectionist. Le Pen is not a lippy, spray tanned billionaire like Trump and Berlusconi, her father led the National Front for 40 years and she has been active in politics since 1998. Le Pen may be the most dangerous opponent to the EU bureaucrats due to her pedigree, her success in reforming her party’s image, and her push to pass a referendum allowing French citizens to vote to leave the EU. Yes, she wants a Frexit, just like Britain’s Brexit.

In response to a growing global movement against their policies, and the further potential of a breakup of the EU, the French political Establishment have chosen Francois Fillon to be the Presidential candidate for the Republican party. Fillon served as Prime Minister under Nicolas Sarkozy, an EU Globalist who almost went rogue when sanctions on Russia began to seriously degrade the French economy. Both Sarkozy and Fillon are your typical big government conservatives espousing oligarch-friendly tax cuts while implementing tax-subsidized government welfare and stimulus programs to run up deficits and debts just like George W. Bush.

In an attempt to woo voters away from Le Pen, the Republican party and Fillon has ceded many positions on their platform to populist sentiment. He’s taken a strong stance against Islamic terrorists, favors a reset with Russian relations, and is somewhat socially conservative. But the one area where the bureaucrats in Brussels won’t release their grip is the economy, and Fillon toes the line in this respect. Fillon’s crusade against budget deficits and debt can only mean one thing for an EU country – austerity measures. He has also rejected the protectionist measures of the National Front, insisting instead that French workers embrace job retraining and the offers of employment given to them afterwards.

If that last part about job retraining sounds familiar, it’s because it was a major issue that popped up during the American election. Many inhabitants of the Rust Belt, the region of the country that may have handed Trump the election, suffered under deindustrializing trade deals like NAFTA, and did not want retraining. They wanted to keep their jobs.

“To counter Trump’s populist appeal, [Mahoning County Democratic Party Chairman David] Betras urged Clinton to go vigorously after blue-collar workers by promising to bring back jobs. The key, Betras argued, was to have this message delivered not by politicians but by local blue-collar families in radio and television ads across the region. ‘The messages can’t be about job retraining,’ he wrote. ‘These folks have heard it a million times and, frankly, they think it’s complete and total bullshit.'”

These Rust Belt Democrats Saw the Trump Wave Coming

So why do the Globalists insist on making the same mistake in France? It’s because the EU common market, and the combined economic cooperation of France and Germany, is the only thing keeping the EU and the Euro afloat. Any advice from political pundits and commentators to address the needs of the voters directly will be ignored because it can’t be followed due to geopolitical circumstances and bureaucratic inertia. The current economic paradigm of the “pivot to the East” entails the outsourcing of heavy industry and manufacturing to countries like China, Vietnam, and India in order to build more robust international trade ties and one large, interconnected world economy. Le Pen, and the threat of a Frexit, could undo all of that.

In pursuit of such a system, the EU has rejected national sovereignty, borders, and job security for their people. Anybody with half a brain can see that the Free Trade position is untenable, but the EU bureaucrat bankers and career politicians in Washington, London, and Berlin have been so dependent on public relations, focus grouping, consensus building, sugarcoating their failed policies and painting the leaves green that they have forgotten what is real.

 

Weird Things: Pizzagate and Trump’s Scientist Uncle

When I first heard the mainstream media news outlets warning of “fake news,” I suspected something big was coming down the pipe.

If you thought things were getting weird leading up to the election, they just seem to get weirder. When I first heard the mainstream media news outlets warning of “fake news,” I suspected something big was coming down the pipe. Something so embarrassing or incriminating that the media had to find a replacement for their shopworn “conspiracy theory” marginalizing term to prep the populace.

Pizzagate

I suspect that big story may have originated from the thousands of documents leaked by Wikileak’s Podesta Emails. If you’ll remember, the Clinton campaign claimed that disinformation in the form of falsified emails were being intermixed with the contents of Podesta’s inbox in a scheme to smear Clinton. The campaign made that claim just before the Spirit Cooking incident surfaced and began trending, so I suspect that this “fake news” warning is a cover for Pizzagate, which has also come out of the Podesta leaks.

For many years, probably decades, there have been rumors that the very wealthy, very connected, and political classes were engaging, in an organized fashion, in the sexual abuse of children. In 2008, billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein plead guilty to offering sex with a minor, and Bill Clinton’s phone number was found in his contact book. The investigation also uncovered that Epstein would install hidden cameras to record his clients’ criminality for blackmail purposes.

In 2012, police in Britain initiated Operation Yewtree to investigate rumors of a pedophilia ring involving BBC employees. By 2015, six were charged with assaulting minors including four Television personalities, a medical doctor, and a publicist who used to work for The Beatles.

The most disturbing aspect of this already unsettling issue is the growing pile of dead bodies consisting of whistle blowers and prospective investigators following these pedophilia rings. Individuals like Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar, Max Spiers, Gary Caradori, Carole Kasir, and now a woman working for the Human Trafficking Center and investigating child abduction in Haiti, Monica Petersen, has been found dead a little over a week ago.

According to previously declassified FBI briefings, pedophile networks use code and symbolism to communicate their intentions. Common examples are a small heart encompassed by a larger heart, or a small triangle inside of a bigger one. With Pizzagate, the term “pizza” is supposedly code for sex with a minor, with various other food items to specify age and sex. Further investigation of the Podesta emails believed to be written in code lead to James Alefantis, the owner of Comet Ping Pong in Washington DC and a former romantic partner of David Brock, the founder of Hillary’s Correct The Record Super PAC. A review of Alefantis’ Instagram account under the name jimmycomet revealed many picture entries of an explicitly sexual nature, which is very concerning since this is supposed to be a family establishment with games for children. Some pictures were of nude men with pizza covering their groin, a restrained child, a baby doll with a price tag, and a man wearing a shirt reading “I love children” in French.

So when a story like Pizzagate comes out, it’s not coming out of left field. There has been a history of pedophilia allegations with the elites, and it was only a matter of time until word got out. I suspect that organized activities like child sex rings, spirit cooking rituals, and even the collection of nude celebrity photos that were released during the Fappening point to a massive blackmail network being used by secret societies to keep their pawns from wandering off the Establishment reservation.

Dr. John G. Trump

In more weird news, we examine the President-elect’s uncle, who was a highly accomplished electrical engineer teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Trump was known mostly for his work on very high-voltage machinery and his refinement of x-ray machines in the 1930’s, but during World War II, he was recruited by the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC), under the chairmanship of Vannevar Bush, to lead secret research into radar systems with British and American Scientists.

“But first, given [Donald] Trump’s tendency to wrap things in porcelain and gold and shoot sparks through them, it’s worth noting that John Trump really does seem to have been a brilliant scientist. He was at M.I.T. for decades, and the X-ray machines he helped design ‘provided additional years of life to cancer patients throughout the world,’ as the Times put it in his obituary, in 1985.”

Donald Trump’s Nuclear Uncle

But what is not mentioned is that Dr. Trump was already working under Bush before the the start of the war as a part of his graduate program at MIT. The two were quite familiar, and I believe that is why Bush gave Dr. Trump the highly-sensitive radar program. Considering that Vannevar Bush was, without a doubt, a trusted insider, he was allowed to initiate and oversee the beginning of America’s first black project- the Manhattan Project. So I am given to speculate if Dr. Trump, a brilliant mind around extremely high-voltage applications, may have been involved in any government black projects under the direction of Vannevar Bush. And I wonder if that work would have concerned the generation of power.

Could it be possible that, through family connections, President-elect Trump has been allowed to peak behind the black project curtain? Did he learn about something that made him adopt an energy policy to “pursue all forms of energy?”

If you’d like to know more about Dr. John Trump, here’s a nice video interview of him from the MIT vaults.

Vignettes of Early Radiation Workers (1978)

Can Liberals Reform the Democratic Party?

If the voters had been allowed to have their way, a Democratic politician wouldn’t have even made it onto the final ballot as Bernie Sanders is technically an Independent.

After an unexpected drubbing in the election and the loss of many of their senior leaders, the Democratic Party is experiencing an existential crisis. Some blamed the FBI, some blamed bigotry, and Clinton’s senior strategist blamed the “Bernie Bros.” The latter suggestion rankled Sanders’ supporters, and I think the rigging of the Democratic Primary, and the rejection of Sanders by the Establishment, has the potential of driving a wedge between the moderate liberals who actually vote for the party and the Democratic Establishment who leads them. If the voters had been allowed to have their way, a Democratic politician wouldn’t have even made it onto the final ballot as Bernie Sanders is technically an Independent.

For years, there’s been a section of the left who have recognized that the policies of neoliberals like the Clintons, Joe Manchin, Chuck Schumer, and John Kerry were not all that different from neoconservatives like the Bush dynasty, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. They are all friends of Wall Street and the banks, they all like to ship American jobs overseas, and they always vote in favor of the next war. The only real difference between these two groups are their social programs, an obsession for those practicing identity politics.

So maybe after this rout, you would think the Democrats would pick fresh new leadership? Wrong. Chuck Schumer has taken over the Senate from outgoing Harry Reid and Keith Ellison is experiencing resistance from the Obama White House in his run to take over the DNC. But the leadership of the House minority is in contention, with Ohio Representative Tim Ryan challenging incumbent Nancy Pelosi. There is a very clear anti-establishment trend developing in the response of the Democratic party, so what does that mean for policy?

Will Democrats continue to allow their corporate side to run the party? Will they continue to tolerate bailouts for too big to fail banks and corporate firms? Will bankers and CEO’s continue to be too big to jail? Are corporate lawyers going to write America’s trade deals like TPP and NAFTA? How will the Democrats judge the Keynesian response to the great recession? Did quantitative easing work? And will the Democrats accept the austerity model of the EU for their future economic policies? Is long-term debt an economic ball and chain?

Will the Left finally stand up to the war hawks in their party? Or will they be silenced by “matters of national security?” The media will no longer report the truth, so America needs an antiwar party.

If Liberals continue fighting for civil rights, can they grasp the conflation of equality under the law with freedom from societal ills and economic woes? Will they realize that fraternity and fidelity create harmony, not social rules and honor brigades? Can they understand the difference between the rule of law and social justice? Can they continue to accept the war on drugs? And continue to support sending non-violent drug offenders to for-profit prisons to work as slave labor?

Will Democrats accept the management of a nation’s borders as a normal part of culture and governance? Or will race be a component of every argument and motivation? Will the Left recognize and reward the plight of illegal immigrants over the dedication and cooperation of the people going through the naturalization process? Does implicit bias preclude shared societal values? Is that why the Progressive fringe feels entitled to create new social rules like microaggressions, gender-neutral pronouns, and safe spaces?

And what will happen to the boondoggle of American Socialism? With Obamacare anything but a success, will the Left finally abandon Corporate Socialism with legislation written by and for campaign donors? Can they return to the New Deal policies that FDR created and Bernie Sanders is offering? Can they stop the draining of Social Security and Medicare funds?

The Left has a long road ahead of them, but a good start would be to drain the swamp in their own party first. The media is still focused on bigotry and the social injustice of a Trump Administration because it is a reaffirmation of the Left’s social view, but the party will have to deal with the core issues eventually. The attention on Trump also distracts from the Democrats as they fall into dissension and disarray. But the leadership’s problems will only grow if Trump drains the swamp. A higher turnover rate for Congressional leadership requires a larger pool of leaders to draw from, and the Democrats are at a distinct advantage here because of their lack of leadership and party unity and the advanced age of their current leaders.

How Will Russia and China’s Asian Strategy Deal With Trump?

China’s proposal would include Australia, Japan, and India, aiming to govern and regulate 40% of the world’s trade.

President-elect Trump’s meeting this past Friday with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe may have been conducted in an unofficial capacity, but it should still worry the US’s rivals. Japan, growing nervous of China’s expansionism, has been cozying up to Russia, who views Japan as a potential ally, counterbalance and check to China’s growth in the Pacific.

Counterbalancing Chinese influence would be prudent as China is introducing their own free trade agreement, the RECP, in the wake of the political death of the Globalist TPP. China’s proposal would include Australia, Japan, and India, aiming to govern and regulate 40% of the world’s trade. The Chinese, who along with the Russians have been suffering from a severely compressed timeline for their operations due to the oil glut and economic sanctions, will have to speed up their operations even further as Trump’s protectionist tariffs could severely impact China’s exports. But I speculate that China’s military infrastructure in the South China Sea, the mechanism responsible for the enforcement of any prospective trade deal, will not be able keep pace with the speed up in negotiations and planning.

One possible indication of these forthcoming protectionist policies is a Congressional advisory commission’s annual report recommending that Congress block Chinese state-run firms from buying up American businesses.

“Carolyn Bartholomew, the Democratic-appointed vice chairman of the review commission, said that while China restricts foreign investment with laws banning foreign participation in large swaths of its economy, Chinese companies face no such obstacles in the U.S.”

Congress urged to bar U.S. acquisitions by China state firms

China is facing more severe, long-term problems in Trump, who wants to reorganize the world economy and renegotiate the Globalist trade deals that have benefited countries like China since the 90’s. Trump also doesn’t believe in the climate change apocalypse, calling it a Chinese plot. Although nobody can deny that the smog and pollution over Beijing is real, the Chinese are relying on climate change/rising sea level hysteria to fuel interest and investment in their renewable energy industry from island nations in the Southeast Pacific.

Heavily invested in technologies like solar, China has agreed to join Japan in a proposal to integrate the countries of the Pacific Rim into one massive electrical “super grid” running entirely on renewable energy. However, the project is a long-term infrastructure deal requiring huge amounts of fixed capital over the next 34 years, so nothing is set in stone at this time.

“The entire idea is contingent on ultra high voltage power transmission lines, thousands of miles operating at more than 1,000 kilovolts AC/800 kilovolts DC. High voltages reduce losses over long distances, and both Russia and Japan already have hundreds (in Russia’s case thousands) of miles of ultra high voltage lines up and running. These pale in comparison to China’s infrastructure; since 2009 China has built nearly 10,000 miles of UHV power lines, with about the same again to come online in the next two years.

.
“The larger GEIDCO’s interconnected web of renewable energy becomes, the more stable the supply is, because it’s less dependent on individual sources, so moving toward a global energy network that shares power from Greenland to South Africa, Australia to Switzerland is the ultimate goal.”

Asian “super grid” the first step towards a global, interconnected, renewable energy grid

In their mission to overturn the Western hegemony, Russia and China have split their duties to depress the US economy before ultimately shutting it out.

Russia and its Iranian allies have been using military force to exploit the US quagmire in the Middle East. By intervening in Syria and taking on ISIS, Russia looks like a stabilizing force and Putin accumulates political capital, which he uses to gain access to oil and business ventures in the Middle East and to form economic unions in Asia. Putin even cut oil deals with a disgruntled Israel, still upset over their treatment by the Obama administration and the Iran deal. By increasing their influence over world oil production, Russia can cut into the value of the petrodollar with their oil-ruble, and maybe end the oil glut which has stalled their economy.

On the other front, China’s offensives concern economic and monetary policy. Before the yuan was given reserve currency status by the IMF, it was being decoupled from the dollar’s exchange rate and strategically devalued to help China recover from their stock market crash and to slightly advantage Chinese exports at the expense of the US. Looking forward, the Chinese are developing technologies like the “super grid” to construct a framework for a renewable energy industry. The goal is to get in front of and shut out the US from dominating any forthcoming, Eco-friendly world energy market, designed to heavily favor green energy through policies that the Chinese and Globalists have been calling for. Policies like carbon taxes, carbon credits, carbon markets and their accompanying commodity games for Wall Street to play with.

But now, Trump, with his disregard for climate change and Globalist trade deals, will force them to fundamentally revise their strategies. Trump will have to step carefully as spoiling China’s green energy super grid plan could push the balance of power and world energy markets into the hands of Putin’s oil industry, or vice-versa. The President-elect said during his campaign speeches that he would invest in all forms of energy. That would be a good start.