|
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2021-045
Last week’s posts at Moon of Alabama:
> A mystery bidder paid $28 million at auction Saturday for a seat alongside Jeff Bezos on board the first crewed spaceflight of the billionaire’s company Blue Origin next month. <
Elon Musk?
Jack Parrock @jackeparrock – 9:29 utc · Jun 11, 2021
The lateral flow COVID tests we have to do every day at the #G7 summit are “Made in China”. 🇨🇳
Western powers still need a bit of help from the East.
—
Other issues:
Censorship:
Atlantic Council is now policing the content on Facebook and on Reddit.
The fleecing rich:
Covid-19:
> In May 2018 and 2019, Madhya Pradesh saw a little over 31,000 deaths over the month on average. This grew slightly to 34,000 in May 2020. However in May 2021, Madhya Pradesh saw over 1.6 lakh reported deaths, or nearly five times the usual number of reported deaths.
…
Officially, Madhya Pradesh reported just 4,461 Covid deaths between January 1 and May 31, 2021. The excess deaths seen in the same period are 42 times the reported Covid death toll. <
Keith Humphreys @KeithNHumphreys – 16:27 UTC · Jun 12, 2021
Circus performers line up to get a COVID vaccination in London. Photo by Matt Crossick.
bigger
China:
Fifteen years ago Franz Gayl blew the whistle over unprotected troops in Iraq. He has now committed an even bigger sin:
Tigray:
Use as open thread …
Aaron Maté’s take on the case of the TYT kinda confirms my suspicions about this new American Leftist journalism.
I’m late to the party (I’ve been just following this imbroglio since last year), but, to me, it looks like something special happened during the Invasion of Libya of 2011. Almost all of these new American Lefist journalists were born out of nowhere during that event.
To me, it looks like this phenomenon of the “New American Leftist Journalism” is the result of a mix of:
1) excess and blind (borderline personality cult) support for Obama (“Hope and Change”, “Yes, you can”), which, after his degeneration, pulled them to the “party discipline” trap of having to support him all-in in the invasion of Libya and, later, of Syria;
2) the very nature of the American economy and society, where everything is “pay to play”, which eventually led to the cooptation of these journalists (where they weren’t complete artificial creations) by the Democratic Party “establishment” (both the party machine itself and the billionaires who support it). That is, you can play the rebel and idealist journalist when you’re young in the USA, but, eventually, when you reach the age of 30, 35, 40, 45, you have to start to earn money with the least physical effort;
3) a byproduct of #2, the fact that the USA is the land of astroturfism. Everything in the USA, grassroots or not, take a lot of money to be done. That makes the lure of astroturfism both inevitable and irresistible. They’re both the contraries of a dialectical unity: grassroots attracts astroturf, which generates more grassroots and “pure” astroturfs (i.e. movements that are astroturf from day one). Also, because sponsorship is the only way of longevity in the USA, many grassroots movements eventually have to become at least a little bit astroturfist. The synthesis of this process is that the dominant form of movements in the USA is a hybrid of grassroots and astroturf – a process where only the USG and the capitalist elites win;
4) as a result of #2 and #3, but also as a result of the hegemony of the two-party system, this “new leftist journalists” have been all reinforcing the message the Democratic Party is the only viable path for an ultimate victory of socialism in the USA. That is, the GOP cannot be saved and any attempt at a third party is treated as a joke. The solution is to fall in line with the Democratic Party, whatever the cost (i.e. the Democratic Party is elevated to the status of the CPSU). This ends up reinforcing #1; it also explains the virulence and aggressiveness of these “new leftist” journalists towards the American Green Party and any proposal of the Left of founding a new party (e.g. a Democratic Socialist Party);*
5) even taking all of these previous factor into account, the timing of the rise of all these “new leftist journalists” was too well synchronized for the whole thing to have been entirely organic. They all can be traced back to the Invasion of Libya of 2011 (when the honeymoon with Obama was still on, it’s true) and they all can be suspected to have been somewhat sponsored by some organization or institution connected with NATO and the USG. My bet is the CIA did what it knows to do best – create a center-left movement, narrative and consensus – in order to gather support for the annihilation of Libya among the Obama supporters and sympathizers. That may or may not have directly involved some NATO organization.
I also suspect that, if #5 was indeed the case, then I don’t think there was a greater scheme by the CIA: it only wanted an immediate popular support for the destruction of Libya. It was probably an ad hoc operation that gained a life of its own. But then the American economy continued to deteriorate after a short-lived recovery from the 2008 meltdown, and Obama suddenly found himself in the need to destroy Syria. There go the “new leftist” journalists to do what they were created to do. The operation should be routine, except for two unexpected outcomes: a) the USA lost the war against Syria, and b) Obama (Hillary R. Clinton) lost the 2016 elections to Donald Trump.
That put the “new leftist journalists” – who were up to then still basking on the glories of the obliteration of Libya – in a very uncomfortable situation: the American people, after all, doesn’t like losers. much less double-losers. In such dire situation (in a situation where they would lose at least four years of extra cash from hidden government sponsorship), doubling-down on Russiagate and the “Assad is a brutal dictator” was the logical outcome of the “new leftist journalism”, who survive essentially through viewership, subscriptions and donations (without them, there’s no USG hidden cash: propaganda has to reach the masses to be profitable).
Some intelligent American Ph.D. candidate must dedicate his/her next 10 years of life investigating and studying this hypothesis of mine. This is a very fascinating subject of scientific investigation – specially for American Contemporary History. I would read such thesis in a heartbeat if it ever came to fruition, as it touches how the American Empire operates at the micro level, i.e. how the average Joe in the Late Period of the American Empire thinks and lives. In History, the lives of the average people are the most valuable, as they are, statistically, the closest to the truth.
But there’s more from which we can extract from this hypothesis of mine. We can put this hypothesis to the scientific test right now.
If my hypothesis is true, then we should expect a sudden surge of Sinophobia from these “new American leftist journalists”, because the Democratic Party has returned to power (and, with it, more cash) and the line of “democratic centralism” will come back with a vengeance. We’re already seeing some timid attempts of this: the sudden support of the Wuhan Lab leak theory and the sudden support of what they call “industrial nationalism” (which they condemned when Trump did it). Not to talk about the immediate hyping up of the “Uighur genocide” conspiracy theory.
–//–
@ Posted by: Down South | Jun 13 2021 13:03 utc | 1
Nah. I don’t think there any “sinister plan”.
It’s simple, really: California is mainly a huge desert which was initially colonized because it was awash with gold (and, later, oil). It was never intended to be heavily populated. It just happened that it then became the most prosperous State of the most prosperous Empire in History.
It was just a matter of time before a natural catastrophe a la the extinction of the Aral Sea happened in California. You cannot fit an economy bigger than Brazil’s in a relatively tiny desert.
Posted by: vk | Jun 13 2021 16:24 utc | 16
“The Magnificent Seven”
@ karlof1 | Jun 13 2021 18:22 utc | 26
@ Don Bacon | Jun 13 2021 16:08 utc | 14
At the end of the movie [French titled “les 7 mercenaires”], Chris admits, “The Old Man was right. Only the farmers won. We lost. We’ll always lose.”
Ours [7] are far from magnificent, even beautiful, but there are many similarities.
They lie about everything and to everyone and first of all to themselves. They claim to defend the village but are guided only by their sole interest, to live as parasites of those who produce.
I don’t have the courage to read their entire statement, the summary on PressTv is enough for me. https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2021/06/13/658929/G7-leaders-China-BRI-project-infrastructure-
Our “Seven” are all fake! They don’t fight to protect the village from supposed Villains, they are the parasites. They themselves do not believe in their propaganda, forced to go to 9 to represent 7 countries! To look richer and stronger, you have to count Europe several times! Ridiculous.
“This is not just about confronting or taking on China,” a senior official in the Biden administration said. “But until now we haven’t offered a positive alternative that reflects our values, our standards and our way of doing business.”
Perhaps this alternative is not a good one, a positive one? And your way of doing business just as Pompeo Finally Told The Truth: ‘We Lie, We Cheat, We Steal’….
Tectonic plates have been shifting for years. China, world champion, produces on its own as much as the next 4 together!
China’s manufacturing value-added output has been growing at a 12.8% average annual clip, according to Oxford Economics, compared with 1.9% growth in Japan, 1.8% in Germany, 1.4% in the US, and virtually no growth in the UK. China now accounts for 27% of global manufacturing value added—1.7 times more than the US, 2.8 times more than Japan, and 4.4 times more than Germany. (See Exhibit 1.)
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/china-next-leap-in-manufacturing
The small crunches emitted by countries like France, Italy or England are no longer significant. Even the US whose industrial statistics are spiked by useless, highly overvalued weapons production is dependent on China [and even Russia]
9
French quote: “le ridicule ne tue pas, pas encore ” … (Ridiculous doesn’t kill, not yet)
To compete with the belt and the road, the G7 estimates the world’s infrastructure needs at 40 trillion… And all seven together, they pledge to mobilize hundreds of billions. 1%!
… concrete actions to help meet the tremendous infrastructure need in low- and middle-income countries.”
The White House added that the G7 initiative would be similarly global in scope, estimating that more than $40 trillion was needed for building infrastructure in developing nations in a “values-driven, high-standard and transparent” partnership.
“B3W will collectively catalyze hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure investment for low- and middle-income countries in the coming years,”
“Magnificent two”
The three surviving gunmen ride out of town. As they stop atop a hill overlooking the village, Chico parts company with them, realizing he wants to stay with Petra. Chris and Vin bid farewell to the village elder, who tells them that only the villagers have really won, whereas the gunslingers are “like the wind, blowing over the land and passing on.”
Posted by: Rêver | Jun 13 2021 20:31 utc | 36
Below is a Xinhuanet posting about the results of the G7 meeting and they are not kind
”
FALMOUTH, Britain, June 13 (Xinhua) — The Group of Seven (G7) on Sunday wrapped up its first in-person summit in almost two years against the backdrop of protesters taking to the streets and beaches and accusing the world’s richest countries of making “empty promises.”
Critics said the three-day gathering, held in Britain’s southwestern resort of Carbis Bay in Cornwall, is a “historic missed opportunity” as it only threw up more questions than answers to some of the world’s thorniest issues.
With various agendas and interests, the sense of unity that the rich club is trying to hype up remains elusive.
HISTORIC MISSED OPPORTUNITY
In a joint communique issued after the summit, the G7 leaders belatedly pledged to provide 1 billion doses of coronavirus vaccine to the less developed countries over the next year.
While the gesture is seen as a step in the right direction, campaigners and critics feel it lacks ambition and is far too slow as it was not enough to cover the needs of these countries.
“We need more than that,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said of the G7 plan. “We need a global vaccination plan. We need to act with a logic, with a sense of urgency, and with the priorities of a war economy, and we are still far from getting that.”
The World Health Organization estimates that at least 11 billion doses are needed to stand a chance of beating the COVID-19. Countries like Britain, Canada and the United States have ordered enough doses of vaccines to immunize their entire populations multiple times over.
Commenting on the shortfall in vaccines, former UK prime minister Gordon Brown said the summit would “go down as a missed opportunity”, and “an unforgivable moral failure” when the world’s richest countries didn’t come up with a comprehensive plan to deliver vaccination by the middle of next year.
The leaders also agreed to take measures to speed up economic recovery after the pandemic by investing in infrastructure and driving innovation, and to secure future prosperity by championing freer and fairer trade.
On climate change, the G7 leaders agreed to adopt strict measures on coal-fired power stations and reaffirmed to raise 100 billion U.S. dollars a year to help the less developed countries cut emissions.
The plan, with an apparent lack of binding agreements and timetables, has drawn strong criticism.
According to Teresa Anderson from Action Aid, an international charity, the pledges by the G7 didn’t come close to addressing the urgency and scale of the crisis.
“Rich countries have so far failed to deliver on climate finance pledges. The majority of what has been provided so far has been in the form of loans, which are pushing vulnerable countries further into debt and poverty,” she said.
Kirsty McNeill from Crack the Crises, a coalition of charities and NGOs, believed that the G7 summit was a “historic missed opportunity” on COVID-19 and climate change.
Leaders arrived “with good intentions but without their cheque books,” she noted.
IN THE NAME OF “RULES-BASED SYSTEM”
Unsurprisingly, on China, the G7 joint communique did not fail to mention issues such as Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan and East and South China Seas, in the name of “upholding the rules-based international system and international law,” despite pledging to cooperate with China to tackle “shared global challenges” like climate change and biodiversity loss.
In an earlier statement, a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Britain said: “The days when global decisions were dictated by a small group of countries are long gone. There is only one system and one order in the world, that is, the international system with the United Nations at the core and the international order based on international law, not the so-called system and order advocated by a handful of countries.”
“There is only one kind of multilateralism, that is, the genuine multilateralism based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law, and featuring equal treatment, cooperation and mutual benefits, not pseudo-multilateralism serving the interests of a small clique or political bloc,” the spokesperson added.
During the summit, the G7 leaders also adopted the U.S.-backed Build Back Better World (B3W) plan to support lower- and middle-income countries in building better infrastructure, which is deemed by many as an attempt to rival the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative.
In an earlier report, the London-based Financial Times (FT) stated that on his first overseas visit, U.S. President Joe Biden may try to “coax a wary Europe to work more closely with Washington on China,” among his priorities.
Martin Jacques, a senior fellow at Cambridge University, said it’s not surprising that the “greatly diminished” G7 took a very negative view about China, “because it’s only defensive and it’s kind of embattled.”
The G7 would be making a “mistake” if they seek to exclude or contain China in the face of global challenges, he told Xinhua. “I think it’s a mistake for the G7 to do what they did. They should be seeking ways of developing cooperation with China, not thinking to contain or rebuff China.”
INTERNAL DIVISIONS
Despite a seemingly unified image and claims that “America is back”, issues such as NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) defense budget, Airbus-Boeing dispute, and more recently, Northern Ireland in the context of Brexit, have threatened to divide the Western allies.
Notably, doubts still remain among the Europeans as to how sincere the United States is to cooperate with Europe on international issues after four tumultuous years of the Donald Trump administration.
“Beneath the likely statements of unity, Biden will have to deal with an awkward reality… It (Europe) has different economic and strategic priorities from the U.S. and there is a constant risk of those divisions breaking into the open,” the FT reported.
Some EU leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, are wary of Cold War-style rhetoric aimed at China and some do not like the term “adversary”, which is often used by Washington when referring to Beijing, according to the FT.
“I think there’s a certain amount of weariness (in Europe) after four years of Trump and four years of pushback against the Transatlantic Alliance, NATO and, and so forth,” Rajneesh Narula, an expert of international relations at University of Reading, told Xinhua.
The British expert believes that Biden, who has not reverted everything Trump has done, is still advocating “America First”, just without saying it aloud.
“Biden hasn’t shown the intention of reverting everything Trump has done. He understands that there are enough people voting in America who care about the ‘America First’ agenda. So he is saying America first but without using those words,” Narula said.
Julian Mueller-Kaler, a researcher at the Berlin-based thinktank German Council on Foreign Relations, also agreed that Europe would be “very cautious” when dealing with transatlantic relations.
“A lot of Europeans will be very cautious when it comes to this renewal of transatlantic relations,” he said.
“So I think it will be a challenge for Biden and the European leaders to come up with concrete policy proposals instead of just good and empty words,” he added.
”
Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 14 2021 4:48 utc | 82
|
