Today’s News 4th August 2018

• A Chinese Spy Worked In Senator Dianne Feinstein's Office For Twenty Years

  We can only imagine the twenty-four hour media blitz that would be unleashed if this had happened with the Trump campaign, or on anyone’s staff even remotely associated  with President Trump past or present.

  But when the story first broke in the middle of this week of a mole working on behalf of the Russian Chinese government on a powerful Democrat Senate Intelligence Committee member’s staff, it passed in the mainstream media with a yawn, and though slowly gaining visibility still hasn’t been covered by some of the large cable networks or newspapers. 

  Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was “mortified” upon learning that a Chinese spy had worked in her office for nearly 20 years.

  

  According to new details initially unveiled in a Politico report on Russian and Chinese spies in Silicon Valley, a staffer who was fired five years ago had managed to stay on her team for nearly two decades likely out of motivation to collect information related to her long tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee, for which she maintains top-secret security clearance. 

  Sen. Feinstein reportedly made the staffer retire upon being alerted by the FBI. He worked as her personal driver and clerk for her Bay Area office, as CBS San Francisco relates:

  On Wednesday, the San Francisco Chronicle uncovered additional details in a column written by reporters Phil Matier and Andy Ross. The column revealed that the Chinese spy was Feinstein’s driver who also served as a gofer in her Bay Area office and was a liaison to the Asian-American community.

  He even attended Chinese consulate functions for the senator.

  Feinstein — who was Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time — was reportedly mortified when the FBI told her she’d be infiltrated. Investigators reportedly concluded the driver hadn’t leaked anything of substance and Feinstein forced him to retire.

  Perhaps the most stunning part of the story is that he remained in her office for nearly two decades, reportedly having contact with China’s Ministry of State Security for an unknown number of years during that lengthy period. 

  Though it’s unclear when his contact with the Chinese state began, follow-up reports by local San Francisco sources claim he may have been an unwitting asset.

  The San Francisco Chronicle in a follow-up investigation reports:

  According to our source, the intrigue started years earlier when the staffer took a trip to Asia to visit relatives and was befriended by someone who continued to stay in touch with him on subsequent visits.

  That someone was connected with the People’s Republic of China’s Ministry of State Security.

  “He didn’t even know what was happening — that he was being recruited,” says our source. “He just thought it was some friend.”

  Neither the FBI nor Chinese embassy has issued official comment in response to the bombshell story; however, various reports cite investigators close to the matter who say the mole was able to obtain little or nothing of substance. 

  It’s believed that the advantage of Chinese intelligence placing a driver with the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee is that he may have picked up on tidbits of sensitive conversations at moments the senator thought she could comfortably speak to colleagues and staff. 

  One former counter-espionage FBI agent in the Bay Area, Jeff Harp, told CBS San Francisco he believes someone like Sen. Feinstein would constitute a key, high value target for foreign intelligence and eavesdropping:

  Harp pointed out politicians with access to classified information are generally trained on what not to say and when not to say it. But he also noted when you have a driver behind the wheel day in and day out for 20 years, there are more opportunities to slip up.

  “Think about Diane Feinstein and what she had access to,” Harp explained. “One, she had access to the Chinese community here in San Francisco; great amount of political influence. Two, correct me if I’m wrong, Dianne Feinstein still has very close ties to the intelligence committees there in Washington, D.C.”

  And of Silicon Valley being a hotbed of Chinese espionage, Harp continued, “They also have an interest in the economy here. How to get political influence here. What’s being developed in Silicon Valley that has dual-use technology. All of that is tied to the Bay Area.”

  

• Liberal Hero Chomsky Admits "Israeli Intervention In US Elections Overwhelms Anything Russia Has Done"

  Well, this is going to make the weekend’s political conversations a little more awkward around America.

  As the mainstream media (and even the leftist politicians) begin to back quietly away from the “collusion” narrative, they remain increasingly focused on Russia’s “evil” efforts at “meddling” in the US election and “interfering with our democracy,” or some such hysterical phrase.

  And that is what makes the comments by mainstay of world-renowned political dissident and liberal-thinking hero Noam Chomsky’s comments in the following interview with Democracy Now so ‘awkward’ for the Trump-hating members of society.

  …so, take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of the world, that’s almost a joke.

  First of all, if you’re interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support.

  Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done…

  I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president’s policies – what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in 2015….

  Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress trying to – calling on them to reverse U.S. policy, without even informing the president? And that’s just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence.

  So if you happen to be interested in influence of – foreign influence on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a joke.

  I mean, one of the most elementary principles of a functioning democracy is that elected representatives should be responsive to those who elected them. There’s nothing more elementary than that. But we know very well that that is simply not the case in the United States.

  There’s ample literature in mainstream academic political science simply comparing voters’ attitudes with the policies pursued by their representatives, and it shows that for a large majority of the population, they’re basically disenfranchised. Their own representatives pay no attention to their voices. They listen to the voices of the famous 1 percent – the rich and the powerful, the corporate sector.

  The elections—Tom Ferguson’s stellar work has demonstrated, very conclusively, that for a long period, way back, U.S. elections have been pretty much bought. You can predict the outcome of a presidential or congressional election with remarkable precision by simply looking at campaign spending. That’s only one part of it. Lobbyists practically write legislation in congressional offices. In massive ways, the concentrated private capital, corporate sector, super wealth, intervene in our elections, massively, overwhelmingly, to the extent that the most elementary principles of democracy are undermined. Now, of course, all that is technically legal, but that tells you something about the way the society functions.

  So, if you’re concerned with our elections and how they operate and how they relate to what would happen in a democratic society, taking a look at Russian hacking is absolutely the wrong place to look. Well, you see occasionally some attention to these matters in the media, but very minor as compared with the extremely marginal question of Russian hacking.

  And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he’s perfectly right when he says we should have better relations with Russia.

  Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes – Russia shouldn’t refuse to deal with the United States because the U.S. carried out the worst crime of the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done.

  But they shouldn’t refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn’t refuse to deal with them for whatever infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We have to move towards better – right at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war, terminal for the species and life on Earth. We’re very close to that.

  Now, we could ask why. First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it’s because NATO expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border, expanded further under Obama.

  The U.S. has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO. That’s the kind of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns.

  So, yes, there’s tensions at the Russian border – and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those are all issues that should be of primary concern.

  The fate of – the fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species, depends on this. How much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know, whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.

  So to sum up – Trump’s right about better relations with Russia – the fate of the world depends on it, Russia did nothing of note, Russian hacking is extremely marginal, Israel is the real meddler, US democracy no longer exists, the billionaire corporatocracy runs America.

  

  Is Noam Chomsky a “puppet of Putin”? Did the veteran political dissident just become a “useful idiot”? Well he must be an anti-semite, right? We look forward to Adam Schiff’s response to this crushing blow to the left’s ‘russia-russia-russia’ narrative.

  

• Hiroshima Revisited: Memorializing The Horrors Of War With 10 Must-See War Films

  Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “The horror… the horror…”—Apocalypse Now (1979)

  

  Nearly 73 years ago, the United States unleashed atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 200,000 individuals, many of whom were civilians.

  

  Fast forward to the present day, and the U.S. military under President Trump’s leadership is dropping a bomb every 12 minutes.

  This follows on the heels of President Obama, the antiwar candidate and Nobel Peace Prize winner who waged war longer than any American president and whose targeted-drone killings continued to feed the war machine and resulted in at least 1.3 million lives lost to the U.S.-led war on terror.

  America has long had a penchant for endless wars that empty our national coffers while fattening those of the military industrial complex. Since 9/11, we’ve spent more than $1.6 trillion to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

  When you add in our military efforts in Syria and Pakistan, as well as the lifetime price of health care for disabled veterans and interest on the national debt, that cost rises to $5.6 trillion.

  Even with America’s military might spread thin, the war drums continue to sound as the Pentagon polices the rest of the world with more than 1.3 million U.S. troops being stationed at roughly 1000 military bases in over 150 countries.

  To this end, Americans are fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda that keeps them content to wave flags with patriotic fervor and less inclined to look too closely at the mounting body counts, the ruined lives, the ravaged countries, the blowback arising from ill-advised targeted-drone killings and bombing campaigns in foreign lands, or the transformation of our own homeland into a warzone.

  Nowhere is this double-edged irony more apparent than during military holidays, when we get treated to a generous serving of praise and grandstanding by politicians, corporations and others with similarly self-serving motives eager to go on record as being pro-military.

  Yet war is a grisly business, a horror of epic proportions. In terms of human carnage alone, war’s devastation is staggering. For example, it is estimated that approximately 231 million people died worldwide during the wars of the 20th century. This figure does not take into account the walking wounded—both physically and psychologically—who “survive” war.

  War drives the American police state.

  The military-industrial complex is the world’s largest employer.

  War sustains our way of life while killing us at the same time. As Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent and author Chris Hedges observes:

  War is like a poison. And just as a cancer patient must at times ingest a poison to fight off a disease, so there are times in a society when we must ingest the poison of war to survive. But what we must understand is that just as the disease can kill us, so can the poison. If we don’t understand what war is, how it perverts us, how it corrupts us, how it dehumanizes us, how it ultimately invites us to our own self-annihilation, then we can become the victim of war itself.

  War also entertains us with its carnage, its killing fields, its thrills and chills and bloodied battles set to music and memorialized in books, on television, in video games, and in superhero films and blockbuster Hollywood movies financed in part by the military.

  War has become a centerpiece of American entertainment culture, most prevalent in war movies.

  War movies deal in the extremes of human behavior. The best films address not only destruction on a vast scale but also plumb the depths of humanity’s response to the grotesque horror of war. They present human conflict in its most bizarre conditions—where men and women caught in the perilous straits of death perform feats of noble sacrifice or dig into the dark battalions of cowardice.

  War films also provide viewers with a way to vicariously experience combat, but the great ones are not merely vehicles for escapism. Instead, they provide a source of inspiration, while touching upon the fundamental issues at work in wartime scenarios.

  As film director Sam Fuller points out, “You can’t show war as it really is on the screen, with all the blood and gore. Perhaps it would be better if you could fire real shots over the audience’s head every night, you know, and have actual casualties in the theater.”

  While there are many films to choose from, the following 10 classic war films touch on modern warfare (from the First World War onward) and run the gamut of conflicts and human emotions and center on the core issues often at work in the nasty business of war.

  The Third Man (1949). Carol Reed’s The Third Man, which deals primarily with the after-effects of the ravages of war, is a great film by anyone’s standards. Set in postwar Europe, this bleak film (written by Graham Greene) sets forth the proposition that the corruption inherent in humanity means that the ranks of war are never closed. There are many fine performances in this film, including Orson Welles, Joseph Cotten and Alida Valli.

  Paths of Glory (1957). This Stanley Kubrick film is an antiwar masterpiece. The setting is 1916, when two years of trench warfare have arrived at a stalemate. And while nothing of importance is occurring in the war, thousands of lives are being lost. But the masters of war pull the puppet strings, and the blood continues to flow. This film is packed with good performances, especially from Kirk Douglas and George Macready.

  The Manchurian Candidate (1962). John Frankenheimer’s classic focuses on the psychological effects of war and its transmutation into mind control and political assassination. All the lines of intrigue converge to form a prophetic vision of what occurred the year after the film’s release with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. This chilling film is well written (co-written by Frankenheimer and George Axelrod) and acted. Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey and Angela Lansbury head a fine cast.

  Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (1964). One of the great films of all time, Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove burst onto the cinematic landscape and cast a cynical eye on the entire business of war. Strange and surreal, this film is packed full of amazing images and great performances. Peter Sellers should have walked off with the Oscar for best actor (but he didn’t). Sterling Hayden and George C. Scott are excellent in support.

  The Deer Hunter (1978). Michael Cimino’s Academy Award-winning film is one of the most emotion-invoking films ever made. This story of a group of Pennsylvania steel mill workers who endure excruciating ordeals in the Vietnam War is one film that makes its point clear—war is the horror of all horrors. Superb performance by Christopher Walken, who won a best supporting actor Oscar.

  Apocalypse Now (1979). I consider this Francis Ford Coppola’s best film. Based on Joseph Conrad’s novella, The Heart of Darkness, Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) treks to the Cambodian jungle to assassinate renegade, manic Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando). This antiwar epic is a great visual experience with fine performances from its ensemble cast.

  Platoon (1986). This is not Oliver Stone’s best film, but it is one helluva war movie. Set before and during the Tet Offensive of January 1968, this is a gritty view of the Vietnam War by one who served there. Indeed, when Stone is not filling the screen with explosions, he makes the jungle seem all too real—a wet place for bugs, leeches and snakes, but not for people. Fine performances by Willem Dafoe and Tom Berenger.

  Full Metal Jacket (1987). Stanley Kubrick’s take on Vietnam is one of the most powerful and psychological dramas ever made. Focusing on the schizophrenic nature of the human psyche—the duality of man—Kubrick takes us through a hell-like Parris Island boot camp and into the bowels of a surreal Vietnam through the eyes of Joker (Matthew Modine). Every facet of this film, as in all of Kubrick’s work, is top notch.

  Jacob’s Ladder (1990). Adrian Lyne’s thriller hits the psyche like a thunderbolt. A man (Tim Robbins) struggles with what he saw while serving in Vietnam. Back home, he gradually becomes unable to separate “reality” from the surreal, psychotic world that intermittently intervenes in his existence. This bizarre film touches on the sordid nature of war and the corruption of those who manipulate and experiment on us while we fight on their behalf. Good cast (especially Elizabeth Peña), an excellent screenplay (Bruce Joel Rubin) and adept directing make this film one nice trip.

  Jarhead (2005). Sam Mendes’ film follows a Marine recruit (Jake Gyllenhaal) through Marine boot camp to service in Operation Desert Storm, winding up at the Highway of Death. But what Mendes serves up is war as a phallic obsession in the oil-drenched sands of Kuwait and Iraq. Here soldiers fight not for causes but to survive in the nihilistic pursuit of destruction. Fine performance by Jamie Foxx as Sergeant Sykes.

  As these films illustrate, war is indeed hell.

  As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, what we must decide is whether we’re stuck with the grim reality of war, or whether we’re prepared to do as Martin Luther King suggested in his Nobel Peace Prize lecture and find an alternative to war.

  Speaking in Oslo in 1964, King declared:

  Man’s proneness to engage in war is still a fact. But wisdom born of experience should tell us that war is obsolete. There may have been a time when war served as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an evil force, but the destructive power of modern weapons eliminated even the possibility that war may serve as a negative good. If we assume that life is worth living and that man has a right to survive, then we must find an alternative to war.

  

• China's Military To Help Assad Retake Rest Of Syrian Territory, Ambassador Suggests

  The Chinese Ambassador to Syria, Qi Qianjin, has shocked Middle East pundits and observers with statements this week indicating the Chinese military may directly assist the Syrian Army in an upcoming major offensive on jihadist-held Idlib province.

  The “[Chinese] military is willing to participate in some way alongside the Syrian army that is fighting the terrorists in Idlib and in any other part of Syria,” the ambassador said in an interview with the pro-government daily newspaper Al-Watan, subsequently translated by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

  

  Substantial rumors from pro-Damascus sources of a major Syrian-Russian led offensive to take back Idlib, held since 2015 by a Nusra Front dominated coalition (since rebranding itself as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham/HTS), have been swirling since the now successful Assad campaign to take back the whole of the south was initiated, and these sources indicate the battle could begin as early as September.

  But crucially, Idlib province is now the ground zero gathering point of nearly all jihadist and ISIS factions remaining in Syria, including foreign fighters. According to some estimates there are upwards of 40,000 armed jihadists within the main anti-Assad factions in Idlib, embedded within a population of about 2 million civilians and internally displaced persons (IDP’s). Thus the coming battle for Idlib is expected to be among the most bloody and grinding of the entire seven years of war, similar to Aleppo in 2016.

  China is chiefly interested in allying with Syrian government forces to root out the significant component of Chinese Muslim foreign fighters operating in Idlib. The hardline Islamist Uyghur militants have entered Syria in the thousands over the past few years from the western Chinese province of Xinjiang, where the minority ethno-religious group has found itself under increased persecution and oversight by the state. 

  In 2017 the Syrian government estimated their numbers at around 5,000.

  Chinese Ambassador To Syria says: “We Are Willing To Participate In Some Way In The Battle For Idlib Alongside The Assad Army Because of The Uyghur Jihadists Fighting with the Opposition https://t.co/MhSO56oAm1

  — Joshua Landis (@joshua_landis) August 3, 2018

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Chinese Ambassador to Syria Qi Qianjin emphasized mutual counter-terror interests in his comments while making indirect reference to Uyghur jihadists, telling Al-Watan: “…There is positive military cooperation between China and Syria in the domain of counterterrorism. We know that the war on terror and Syria’s campaign against the terrorists serve not only the interests of the Syrian people but also the interests of the Chinese people and of [all] the peoples of the world.

  He explained further of Chinese interests in the war: “There has been close cooperation between our armies in fighting the terrorists [who came to Syria] from all over the world, including terrorists who came from China. This cooperation between the armies and [other] relevant elements will continue in the future…”

  

  When asked about the upcoming Idlib offensive, Qianjin replied that China “is following the situation in Syria, in particular after the victory in southern [Syria], and its military is willing to participate in some way alongside the Syrian army that is fighting the terrorists in Idlib and in any other part of Syria.”

  

  And in a separate statement to Al-Watan, a Chinese military attaché to Syria, Wong Roy Chang, backed the ambassador’s statement, albeit in a more reserved tone. Chang said, “The military cooperation between the Syrian and Chinese armies is ongoing. We have good relations and we maintain this cooperation in order to serve the security, integrity and stability of our countries. We – China and its military – wish to develop our relations with the Syrian army.”

  However, when pressed over whether Chinese troops would assist in the Idlib campaign, Chang said it was a “political decision” to be decided by Beijing.

  Meanwhile in the broader context of this week’s broader escalating trade war with Washington, and as China has long eyed being first in line torebuild Syria in close economic partnership with Damascus, Chinese companies in the Middle East will increasingly find themselves targeted by the West, as the US is seeking to prevent further Chinese and Russian entrenchment in the Middle East. 

  

• Portland Braces For Saturday Bloodshed As Antifa Plans "Direct Confrontation" At Conservative Rally

  Officials in Portland, Oregon are bracing for violence during tomorrow’s conservative “Patriot Prayer” rally, a little over one month after “Rose City” Antifa squared off with conservatives in a violent altercation that took place in the middle of Second Avenue.

  The result was a viral video of a “one-punch” knockout of a masked leftist by Proud Boy Ethan Nordeen. 

  In response to the knockout, Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes told Big League Politics: “F#&k around and find out,” stating that Antifa “found out.” 

  Ahead of Saturday’s conservative rally, Antifa is back at it again – planning a “direct confrontation” with participants, according to a call to action on the leftist website “It’s Going Down.“

  “Rose City Antifa has continued their great work of doxxing the Portland area Proud Boys involved in this violence, and is also calling for militant antifascist resistance against Patriot Prayer,” reads the posting.

  

  A spokesperson for Rose City Antifa told It’s Going Down said that the group plans to “show that the community will not allow violent nationalist opportunists to threaten our city and target our people. We will overwhelm them both by force of numbers and commitment to defending our community. Whatever it takes.“

  

  Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson noted on Facebook that the rally would be held in an area which allows members to carry handguns. 

  

  The report comes days after Gibson said in a Facebook post last week that the “Freedom March” would be held at a location that could allow attendees to carry handguns. Portland prohibits weapons in parks, but guns carried by those with a valid Oregon concealed handgun license are allowed, according to The Oregonian. –The Hill

  “Better bring our own guns too”

  Journalist Tim Pool noted a Reddit discussion last week in the “Anarchism” subreddit in which Antifa members discuss arming themselves ahead of the event. 

  “Only thing I’m worried about is some nut with a gun and a bunch of bullets,” says one user, to which another replied “Better bring our own guns too just to be safe.”

  

  August 4th in Portland is already sounding like it is going to get really bad.

  Activists call for bringing guns in preparation for escalation. pic.twitter.com/f0IZO387Bi

  — Tim Pool (@Timcast) July 28, 2018

  No wonder authorities are concerned…

  

  

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  

• Two Knockout Blows To US Imperialism: De-Dollarization & Hypersonic Weapons

  Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  In the current multipolar world in which we live, economic and military factors are decisive in guaranteeing countries their sovereignty. Russia and China seem to be taking this very seriously, committed to the de-dollarization of their economies and the accelerated development of hypersonic weapons.

  

  The transition phase we are going through, passing from a unipolar global order to a multipolar one, calls for careful observation. It is important to analyze the actions taken by two world powers, China and Russia, in defending and consolidating their sovereignty over the long term. Observing decisions taken by these two countries in recent years, we can discern a twofold strategy. One is economic, the other purely military. In both cases we observe strong cooperation between Moscow and Beijing. The merit of this alliance is paradoxically attributed to the attitude of various US administrations, from George Bush Senior through to Obama. The special relationship between Moscow and Beijing has been forged by a shared experience of Washington’s pressure over the last 25 years. Their shared mission now seems to be to contain the US’s declining imperial power and to shepherd the world from a unipolar world order, with Washington at the center of international relations, to a multipolar world order, with at least three global powers playing a major role in international relations.

  The Sino-Russian strategy has shown itself over the last two decades to consist of two parts: economic clout on the one hand, and military strength on the other, the latter to ward off reckless American behavior. Both Eurasian powers have their respective strengths and weaknesses in this regard. If Russia’s economy can hardly be compared to China’s, China plays second fiddle to Russia’s conventional and nuclear deterrents, and is quite some way behind Moscow in terms of hypersonic weapons. The cooperation between Moscow and Beijing aims to synergize their respective strengths.

  Economic sovereignty

  Both de-dollarization and the development of hypersonic weapons serve the purpose of defending both countries’ sovereignty. Economic sovereignty entails, among other things, elimination of dependence on the US dollar, the abandonment of an international banking system based on the SWIFT payment system, the inclusion and increase in the share of the yuan in the basket of international currencies, the reduction of dollar-denominated public debt, the constant accumulation of gold, and, of course, the elimination of any residual debt with international institutions that are part of the world governance model controlled and manipulated by Washington for its own interests.

  Beijing, rather than seeking to replace the central role of the United States, seeks instead to expand its influence in existing organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

  From an economic point of view, the international order is very similar to a duopoly rather than anything multipolar, without forgetting that the European Union has an important role to play should it regain some form of sovereignty by freeing itself from dependence on Washington. For Moscow and Beijing, reducing public debt is one of the best ways of achieving strong economic sovereignty. The Russian Federation has reduced its public debt in relation to GDP from 92% at the beginning of 2000 to 12.9% today. The People’s Republic of China, over 20 years, has increased its public debt from 20% of GDP to around 48%. Compared to the public debt of European countries (Italy and Greece are over 120%, France 100%, the EU average is 85%), Japan (240%) and the United States (110%), Beijing and Moscow have paid particular attention to keeping their accounts in order. Another important strategy involves the steady accumulation of gold in the reserves of these two countries.

  China and Russia are once again trending in an opposite direction to that of the West. Since 2005, Russia and China have accumulated huge amounts of gold, with the clear intention of diversifying their reserves. Both Moscow and Beijing are among the top 10 countries in terms of gold reserves, with an exponential increase over recent years.

  Thanks to a limited public debt, huge quantities of gold, and a progressive reduction in the amount of US government bonds held, Moscow and Beijing have embarked on the path of full economic sovereignty, independent of the US dollar system and strongly protecting themselves against any future financial crises. In this respect, the creation of international financial bodies, to be added to those already existing, has the clear purpose of diluting Washington’s institutional influence over the economic affairs of the world.

  A decided acceleration in this general direction was made following the exclusion of the Islamic Republic of Iran from the SWIFT system, a ringing alarm bell for the Eurasian duo. Despite their reduction of public debt and significant de-dollarization, both countries remain dependent on, and therefore vulnerable to, an economic and financial system that orbits around Washington and London. The workaround has therefore been to create two alternative bank-payment systems to SWIFT. In the case of Russia, there is the so-called system for the transfer of financial messages (SPFS), and in China, the Cross-Border Inter-Bank Payments System (CIPS). Initially conceived as a fallback in the event of exclusion from the SWIFT system, the SPFS and CIPS projects currently strongly intertwine with the energy agreements reached in 2015. Moscow’s selling of liquid natural gas (LNG) to Beijing takes place through an international payment system based on Chinese renminbi that is immediately converted into gold thanks through the innovative mechanism inaugurated at the Shanghai Gold Exchange. It is not excluded that these operations could not directly occur through the SPFS or CIPS systems in the future. Never mind the petrodollar system that is one of the main problems that China and Russia face when dealing with the international financial system. Efforts to progressively switch from USD to Yuan in paying oil commodities have been in place for years especially by Beijing.

  This is an example of how countries like Russia and China have found ways of circumventing the means used to limit their sovereignty. The inclusion of the yuan in the IMF basket of world reserve currencies is associated with the Chinese strategy of supporting the renminbi for export, reducing the share of the US dollar. The strategy adopted by Moscow and Beijing seems to leave Washington unable to stop the protective measures of these two Eurasian powers.

  In practice, we are already beginning to see the effects of this alternative economic world order. The sanctions imposed by Washington and her satraps on Moscow and Tehran are easily circumvented by Russia and Iran, with exchanges denominated in currencies other than the dollar (often gold), or simply through bartering.

  China and Russia, with strongly diversified economies, with treasuries chock full of gold, and with minimal public debt, leave very little room for international speculators to have an effect on their domestic economies with actions that amount to financial terrorism.

  Being able to minimize the impacts and risks of a new financial crisis, or resist the threats and blackmail of the international bodies steered largely by Washington and London, are the key means of being able to chart an economically independent course and ensure national sovereignty.

  The military is the definitive guarantor of sovereignty

  Without a clear and inviolable military sovereignty, the economic measures implemented can become ineffective in the event of war. For this reason, China and Russia continue to implement nuclear-weapons strategies, the ultimate and definitive deterrent. Moscow is at least equal to Washington in this regard, just as Beijing is at least equal to Washington in the economic field. China and the United States have an interconnected economy, but in the event of total war, Washington would suffer the greatest damage. The transfer to China of almost all American industry has a cost, and in the case of a complete rupture in relations between the two countries, Washington is well aware of its economic vulnerability to China.

  In military terms, the strategy for ensuring territorial sovereignty focuses on certain key areas, namely the defense of airspace and maritime borders, and the ability to discourage any nuclear attack by guaranteeing a second-strike capability.

  I have written about this in the past, noting that Russia and China have implemented complex and advanced systems in recent years to close the technological gap with the West, Moscow being at least equal to Washington in this regard, and sharing with Beijing some of its most important innovations. The sale of S-400s to China paves the way for a future joint defense of Eurasian airspace. As the process of union and cooperation between the two countries increases, their respective militaries will have the task of discouraging outside attempts to destabilize the region. This is the reason why the United States sees the sale of the S-400 systems (to Turkey, for example) as a red line not to be crossed. The ability to prevent access to one’s airspace upsets one of Washington’s principal doctrines of war. Without air supremacy and the ability to operate in an uncontested airspace, the American way of war is severely hobbled, it becoming practically impossible for the United States to impose its will militarily.

  The second military focus for the Eurasians concerns the defense of their maritime borders, reflecting Moscow and Beijing’s need to keep the US Navy a good distance from their shores. The development of anti-ship weapons has been a priority for Beijing in recent years, as has been the development of islets in the South China Sea to ensure a constant protection of its borders, given the aggressive presence of the US Navy. Beijing aims to create areas of denial for the US military. Initially keeping US forces about 180 miles from their coast, the future intention is to push them even further back, to a distance of about 700 miles, thus obtaining an effective anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) space that prevents any amphibious assault or a maritime blockade of China’s sea lines of communication.

  In the same way that de-dollarization represents an economic nuclear weapon in the hands of Russia and China, the development of hypersonic weapons is the linchpin of the Sino-Russian alliance’s ability to defend its territorial sovereignty. I wrote two very detailed articles on these amazing weapons, and so did my colleagues at the Strategic Culture Foundation. It is an exciting topic because for the first time in years, Washington has faced the accomplished fact of its geopolitical adversary’s impressive technological progress. Hypersonic weapons have no present weaknesses, and Moscow is the only country in the world capable of producing and using them. With this new capability, the range of action of the Russian Federation reaches unprecedented levels.

  Hypersonic weapons have the crucial advantage of being able to hit mobile or fixed targets with unprecedented speed and power. The ability to obliterate in a matter of minutes a US Navy carrier group or ABM systems in Romania and Poland undoubtedly has a sobering effect on the US military. This is to leave aside the fact that the future S-500 system will have anti-satellite capabilities as well as ballistic-missile defense, and the new SS-28 Sarmat will not be able to be stopped by any current or future ABM system.

  With the use of hypersonic weapons (some already operational) and the sophisticated S-400 and S-500 systems, US naval and air power is being strongly challenged. With nuclear weapons, even the Russian first- and second-strike capabilities become impossible for the US to overcome.

  It is only a matter of time before hypersonic technology is brought to bear by the People’s Republic of China, probably with Moscow’s crucial assistance. The level of mutual trust and cooperation has never been so high between the two countries, and it is natural for them to collaborate militarily and economically, spurred by their common opponent.

  Conclusion

  The challenge for Russia and China is complex and ongoing. The transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order is occurring as we speak, enabled by economic and military sovereignty. The challenge for these two Eurasian countries will be to increase their military and economic power, and correct the obvious imbalances in the current world order, without destroying it.

  If this strategy proves successful, it will only be natural to start offering other countries the opportunity to hop onto the Eurasian train, enabling those willing to shift their military, economic and diplomatic leaning from the Atlantic to the Eurasian world. Given the momentous significance of India and Pakistan’s accession to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as permanent members, it would seem that Moscow and Beijing are on track to eliminating the central role of the United States in international relations in favor of a multilateralism that will benefit everyone.

  

• A Gaunt Tommy Robinson Recounts Horrible UK Prison Experience

  Tommy Robinson told Fox News‘ Tucker Carlson about the conditions he suffered in a UK jail after his May 25th arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court. Robinson was taken into custody while filming and broadcasting from outside a pedophile grooming trial over Facebook Live. 

  The UK activist, whose real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, was released on bail Wednesday after three London judges ordered him retried on the contempt charge, citing in part the mere five hours between his arrest and imprisonment by a smirking Judge Geoffrey Marson QC. 

  

  Once a judge heard what happened in the trial, we found so many illegal and wrongdoings within this kangaroo court that then it took another two weeks before I was freed. -Tommy Robinson

  Robinson says that after being initially housed in a prison with a low Muslim population of just 7 percent, he was transferred to another prison with the largest Muslim population in the UK, and housed directly across from the mosque. Robinson tells Tucker: “What I’m known for is criticizing Islam, so there’s been many planned attempts to murder me and kill me in this country.” 

  He said he was placed in solitary confinement where he spent “two months not seeing or speaking to anybody,” during which he lost 40 pounds from a diet of “one tin of tuna and a piece of fruit a day.” 

  

  I was supposed to be in Her Majesty’s prison service, not Guantanamo Bay. I couldn’t open my windows because I have excrement and spit put through them. I believe this whole piece – and, Tucker, this isn’t the first

  So, every prisoner would walk past my cell window. Everyone, as they walk out. So, when my windows were open, every prisoner is walking past. But the mosque for the prison was directly opposite my cell. -Tommy Robinson

  Robinson said he had to close his window amid sweltering heat spells to avoid all the excrement and spit flying into his cell from passersby. 

  He also said, reluctantly, also admitted that he was diagnosed with a form of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which he has never spoken about publicly “because I don’t want to insult members of the military who have witnessed war to try and compare to being locked in a cell in solitary confinement.” 

  Robinson also describes his arrest, and claims his lawyer (solicitor) has evidence that authorities said he was being released – only to be jailed hours later: 

  CARLSON: I just want our viewers to understand why this happened to you in the first place. You went to prison in a supposedly free country for expressing unfashionable opinions in public. 

  ROBINSON: There was a court case going on where 29 people were in court for gang raping up to 100 young children. 

  Now, I stood outside of the court and I spoke. And all I had done was read a BBC news article, a BBC news article that is still online now for millions of people to see. And I was taken.

  And everyone would I watch the video. They said for a breach of the peace. They transported me to a police custody. And then, my solicitor contacted the police custody. Then, they emailed my solicitor. So, the solicitor has this email, saying I was being released.

  Then they took me in a van back to the court through the back door. They put me up before a judge. And the media reports have said that I pled guilty. At no point was I even asked whether I was guilty or not guilty.

  Watch:

  

• Bill Binney In His Own Words: "A Collaborative Conspiracy To Subvert The US Government"

  Via Jesse’s Cafe Americain,

  “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free.”

  – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  

  William Edward Binney is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security Agency (NSA) turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more than 30 years with the agency.

  He was a high-profile critic of his former employers during the George W. Bush administration, and later criticized the NSA’s data collection policies during the Barack Obama administration.

  In 2016, he said the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election was false.

  – Wikipedia, Bill Binney

  Because of his analysis in conjunction with Veteran Intelligent Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) that has tended to carefully debunk the Russia Russia narrative, Binney has not been given much airtime on certain channels within the mainstream news media.

  I found this recent interview to be very interesting.  I am not qualified or sufficiently well-informed to assess it, but listen to it for yourself and see what you think. It would seem to be worth your time at least.

  He has some good things to say about Donald Trump and draining the swamp. And you know how I feel about his Presidency. So there must be something there for me to find it worth hearing.

  He discussed a number of controversial topics including 9/11, etc.

  Binney certainly has the right pedigree to be an informed whistleblower, and he has never been brought to heel or silenced, so he must have something going for him.  He does seem to be extraordinarily well-informed. I would imagine that if it was possible that he would be charged or discredited or smeared.

  

• China Defies Trump, Rejects US Request To Halt Iran Crude Imports

  Though no shocker as we predicted previously, China has refused to cut Iranian oil imports at the United States’ request in a severe blow to White House efforts to intensify pressure and economically isolate the Islamic Republic after the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal. However, Beijing has reportedly agreed not to accelerate purchases. 

  China, itself a target of ratcheting US economic pressure especially after Wednesday’s shock news that President Trump may impose a 25 percent tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, remains the world’s top crude importer and is Iran’s top buyer.

  

  Bloomberg reported overnight, citing two officials familiar with the negotiations, that limited concessions have been made, however:

  Beijing has, however, agreed not to ramp up purchases of Iranian crude, according to the officials, who asked not to be identified because discussions with China and other countries continue. That would ease concerns that China would work to undermine U.S. efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic by purchasing excess oil.

  China has long been on record as opposing unilateral sanctions and further according to Bloomberg accounted for 35 percent of Iranian exports last month, based on ship tracking data. 

  Meanwhile Iran’s foreign minister welcomed the news: “The role of China in the implementation of JCPOA, in achieving JCPOA, and now in sustaining JCPOA, will be pivotal,” Mohammad Javad Zarif said, according to Reuters.

  The Trump White House currently has teams of negotiators around the world pressuring European and other capitals to cut off trade with Iran — largely unsuccessful to date — in an attempt to cut its oil exports to zero by November 4.

  This has been accompanied by the threat of sanctions for those who don’t comply with US demands to show “significant” progress in reducing Iranian oil purchases. Bloomberg reports that a US team led by Francis Fannon, the assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Energy Resources, recently visited China to discuss sanctions, confirmed by a State Department spokesman. 

  

  Crucially, it is as yet unclear how severe a toll this will take on the global oil market, as Bloomberg discusses the variables and unknowns at play:

  The oil market has been speculating about how much of Iran’s exports could be eroded by the U.S. sanctions, with analysts from BMI Research to Mizuho Securities predicting that China might boost its imports of cheap supplies from the state and offset cuts by other nations. Countries including South Korea and Japan are reducing purchases from OPEC’s third-largest producer before the deadline to avoid the risk of buyers losing access to the U.S. financial system.

  …The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Saudi Arabia, has pledged to fill any supply gaps in the market after Trump’s complaints. That’s helped limit a rally in global benchmark Brent crude, which is trading near $73 a barrel after falling 6.5 percent last month. The London marker is still up about 40 percent from a year earlier.

  Saudi Arabia, for geopolitical reasons, remains a close American oil partner in lobbying for global isolation of Iran at a moment when Iran’s military has threatened to block all regional exports from the Persian Gulf, initiating war games this week near the vital Straight of Hormuz, prompting the Pentagon to deploy additional US warships to the area. 

  Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told Fox Business Network on Thursday that there’s more pain ahead for Beijing while also attempting to calm fears of potential blowback on US consumers and businesses, assuring the public, “It’s not something that’s going to be cataclysmic”.

  “We have to create a situation where it’s more painful for them to continue their bad practices than it is to reform,” Ross said of ratcheting up the pressure on China and in defense of the president’s escalatory rhetoric on tariffs. 

  “The reason for the tariffs to begin with was to try and convince the Chinese to modify their behavior. Instead they have been retaliating. So the president now feels that it’s potentially time to put more pressure on, in order to modify their behavior,” he said.

  Ross tried to calm fears further by saying Wednesday’s announcement of potentially raising planned tariff’s on $200 billion of Chinese imports from 10 percent to 25 percent would only amount to $50 billion — according to him a negligible fraction of the Chinese economy.

  But the Chinese aren’t seeing it that way, as on Thursday Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi slammed talk of possible 25 percent tariffs: “Instead of achieving one’s own goal by doing this, we believe it will only hurt one’s own interests,” he told reporters at a press conference in Singapore. He continued, “Sixty per cent of Chinese exports to the US are actually made by foreign companies, including American firms in China. Is the US trying to put tariffs on its own companies?“

  “For Chinese exports to the US, many of them are no longer produced in the US itself. Is the US administration trying to raise the living cost of its own consumers?” the Chinese FM said.

  FM Wan Yi called for cooler heads to prevail: “While China is ready to talk to anyone ready to talk to us, including the US, this kind of dialogue has to take place on the basis of mutual respect and equality,” he concluded.

  * * *

  While as much as 2.3 million barrels a day of crude from the Persian Gulf state at risk per Trump’s sanctions, the White House has has now as predicted gotten the door slammed by China, while India or Turkey have already hinted they would defy Trump and keep importing Iranian oil. Together three three nations make up about 60 percent of the Persian Gulf state’s exports.

  While next steps remain unclear, the potential outcome for the US isn’t: should China fully pivot away from US exports and replace them with Iranian product, the US trade deficit will resume rising, further adding to the pressure of what is Trump’s biggest economic hurdle: the double US deficits.

  The flipside is that since less Iranian oil exports will go unused, it may provide a solace to the US consumer facing the highest gas prices in four years. However, if the ongoing pipeline bottleneck in the Permian is not resolved soon, said solace will prove to be short-lived.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest