"Chrislam" - Europe Folds To The Islamization Of Christmas

Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

The re-theologizing of Christmas is based on the false premise that the Jesus of the Bible is the Jesus (Isa) of the Koran. This religious fusion, sometimes referred to as "Chrislam," is gaining ground in a West that has become biblically illiterate.

• A school in Lüneburg postponed a Christmas party after a Muslim student complained that the singing of Christmas carols during school was incompatible with Islam. Alexander Gauland, the leader of the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), said the school"s action was "an unbearable, involuntary submission to Islam" and amounted to a "cowardly injustice" toward non-Muslim children.


• "The word "Christmas," a symbol of our faith and our culture, does not discriminate against anyone. Striking the emblems of Christmas does not guarantee anyone"s respect, does not produce a welcoming and inclusive school and society, but fosters intolerance towards our culture, our customs, our laws and our traditions. We firmly believe that our traditions must be respected." — Milan politician Samuele Piscina.

This year"s Christmas season has been marked by Islam-related controversies in nearly every European country. Most of the conflicts have been generated by Europe"s multicultural political and religious elites, who are bending over backwards to secularize Christmas, ostensibly to ensure that Muslims will not be offended by the Christian festival.

Many traditional Christmas markets have been renamed — Amsterdam Winter Parade, Brussels Winter Pleasures, Kreuzberger Wintermarkt, London Winterville, Munich Winter Festival — to project a multicultural veneer of secular tolerance.

More troubling are the growing efforts to Islamize Christmas. The re-theologizing of Christmas is based on the false premise that the Jesus of the Bible is the Jesus (Isa) of the Koran. This religious fusion, sometimes referred to as "Chrislam," is gaining ground in a West that has become biblically illiterate.

In Britain, for instance, the All Saints Church in Kingston upon Thames recently held a joint birthday celebration for Jesus and Mohammed. The "Milad, Advent and Christmas Celebration" on December 3 was aimed at "marking the birthday of Prophet Mohammed and looking forward to the birthday of Jesus." The hour-long service included time for Islamic prayer and was followed by the cutting of a birthday cake.

The prominent Christian blog "Archbishop Cranmer" rebuked the church for its lack of discernment:

"Note how this event is "Marking the birthday of Prophet Mohammed," but not looking forward to the birthday of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mohammed gets his prophethood, while Jesus gets neither his prophethood nor his priesthood; neither his kingship nor his messiahship. It"s the exalted Prophet Mohammed along with plain old Jesus, because to have added any of his claims to divinity would, of course, have alienated many Muslims (if they hadn"t already been alienated by the haram [forbidden by Islam] celebration), which wouldn"t have been very interfaith or sensitively missional, would it?"

The blog added that exalting Mohammed in churches effectively proclaims that Mohammed is greater than Jesus:

"Every time a church accords Mohammed the epithet "Prophet," they are rejecting the crucifixion, denying the resurrection of Christ, and refuting that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, for Mohammed denied all of these foundational tenets of the Christian faith."

Previously, a passage from the Koran denying that Jesus is the Son of God was read during a service at a Scottish Episcopal Church in Glasgow on Epiphany, a festival commemorating the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. One of the Queen"s chaplains, Gavin Ashenden, referred to the Koran reading as "blasphemy." He added that "there are other and considerably better ways to build "bridges of understanding"" with Muslims.

In London, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, a parliamentary group composed of members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, issued a report, "A Very Merry Muslim Christmas," aimed at drawing attention to the "humanity" of Muslims during Christmas. The report states:

"Too often, Muslim charities come to our attention because of negative media coverage... What we hear even less about is the "Muslim Merry Christmas." The soup kitchens, the food banks, the Christmas dinners, the New Year clean-up — work Muslim charities will be busy doing during the Christmas period."

In Scotland, the regional government was accused of "undermining" Britain"s Christian heritage by promoting "winter festivals" for ethnic minorities while ignoring Christmas. Scotland"s International Development Minister, Alasdair Allan, pledged nearly £400,000 ($535,000) to fund 23 events during the winter months. He described them as "key dates in our national calendar" and said the "exciting and diverse" program would help Scots "celebrate everything great about our wonderful country during the winter months." None of the events, however, has any connection to Christmas. A spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland said:

"It is deeply disappointing that the Scottish Government has chosen not to recognize the religious reality of Christmas in its Winter Festival events. Over half of the population stated their religion as Christian in the last census. Catholics, and other Christians, may quite rightly wonder why this publicly-funded Festival does not include any events designed to help Scots celebrate the birth of Christ which is undoubtedly the most significant celebration in the winter months."

Gordon Macdonald, of Christian charity CARE, added:

"It is part of the general secularization that has been taking place within the Scottish Government for a number of years where our Christian heritage and value system has been undermined as a direct result of government policy."

In Denmark, a primary school in Graested cancelled a traditional church service marking the beginning of Christmas in order not to offend Muslim pupils. Some parents accused the school of having double-standards: it recently held an event called "Syria Week" in which children immersed themselves in Middle Eastern culture. Ignoring parents, the school board sided with the school:

"The board backs the school"s decision to create new traditions [emphasis added] that involve children and young people."

Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who attended the school as a child, said the decision should be reversed. Health Minister Ellen Trane Norby added:

"Danish primary schools have a duty to spread education — and teaching the cultural values and knowledge connected to Christmas is an essential part of that."

In France, the annual Christmas market in the Croix-Rousse district of Lyon was cancelled because of exorbitant security costs associated with protecting the event from Islamic terror. The city"s annual festival of lights did go ahead this year. The military governor of Lyon, General Pierre Chavancy, said that, because of the "sensitivity" of the event, 1,500 soldiers and police, backed up by dogs, river brigades and mine-clearers, would be deployed to provide security.

In neighboring Belgium, the head of the Red Cross in Liège, André Rouffart, ordered all 28 offices in the city to remove crucifixes to affirm the organization"s secular identity. Critics said the decision was part of a broader effort to "modify certain terminologies" and to "break with our traditions and our roots" in order to appease Muslims. "We once said Christmas holidays, now we say winter holidays," said a local Red Cross volunteer. "The Christmas market in Brussels has been renamed "Winter Pleasures." Let things remain as they are."

In Germany, a school in Lüneburg postponed a Christmas party after a Muslim student complained that the singing of Christmas carols during school was incompatible with Islam. The school"s decision to reschedule the event as a non-compulsory after-school activity generated "a flood of hate mail and even threats against school management and school board," according to Focus. In an effort to appease angry parents, Headmaster Friedrich Suhr said that "non-Christian" Christmas songs such as "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" would not be banned. Alexander Gauland, the leader of the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), said the school"s action was "an unbearable, involuntary submission to Islam" and amounted to a "cowardly injustice" toward non-Muslim children.

In Munich, ads for a multicultural "winter market" depicted a snowman covered in a burqa. The chairman of the AfD in Bavaria, Petr Bystron, noted the irony: "A burqa snowman as a tolerance symbol?" In Halle, the Christmas market was renamed "Wintermarket."

In Berlin, the traditional Christmas market was protected by walls of concrete barriers to prevent a repeat of last year"s jihadist attack in which 12 people were killed and more than 50 injured. In Stuttgart, a 53-year-old man was arrested at the Christmas market after he claimed to carrying a bomb in his backpack. In Potsdam, the Christmas market was closed after a nearby pharmacy received a letter bomb. In Bonn, the Christmas market was evacuated due to a bomb threat.

In Italy, a school in Milan removed references to Christmas at a party and renamed the holiday as "The Great Festival of Happy Holidays." Writing on Facebook, local politician Samuele Piscina accused the school of implementing "a politically correct leftist policy" that deprives Italian children the joy of Christmas:

"After the nativity scenes and the crucifixes, now even Christmas parties are hindered in schools. The word "Christmas," a symbol of our faith and our culture, does not discriminate against anyone. Striking the emblems of Christmas does not guarantee anyone"s respect, does not produce a welcoming and inclusive school and society, but fosters intolerance towards our culture, our customs, our laws and our traditions. We firmly believe that our traditions must be respected."

In Bolzano, a cardboard Christmas tree was ordered to be removed from the town hall because "it could have offended the sensibilities" of Muslims. A local politician, Alessandro Urzì, expressed outrage at the decision: "The bureaucratic rigor with which the tree was removed to avoid the risk of annoying someone reflects the barbarization of the cultural climate."

In Norway, a primary school in Skien announced that its Christmas festivities this year would include not only the usual reading by pupils of verses from the Bible but also two verses from the Koran which refer to Jesus. The inimitable Bruce Bawer explained the implications:

"Stigeråsen School"s Christmas plans provide yet another example of dhimmitude: craven European submission to Islam. This year, there might be a couple of Koran verses in a Christmas show; next year, a yuletide event at which both religions are celebrated on an even footing; and not too many years after that, perhaps, a children"s celebration at which there is no cross and no Christmas tree, only prayer rugs, benedictions in Arabic, and hijabs for the girls."

In Spain, the Madrid City Council replaced Christmas festivities in the capital with a neo-Pagan "International Fair of the Cultures." According to Madrid Mayor Manuela Carmena, a former member of Spain"s Communist Party, the express purpose of the month-long event is to de-Christianize Christmas to make it more inclusive:

"We all know that Christmas is a festival of religious origin, but it is also a celebration of humanity, solidarity. Therefore, the Madrid City Council wants to do everything possible so that everyone who is in this city, from wherever they may be, can enjoy Christmas."

Breaking with tradition, the Madrid city hall also refused to place a nativity scene at the Puerta de Alcalá, one of the city"s most iconic monuments. Local politician José Luis Martínez-Almeida accused Carmena of "enthusiastically collaborating in the celebration of Ramadan" but "trying to hide all the Christian symbols of Christmas." He added: "We want to reclaim our cultural and religious roots."

 

China"s Raging Against Dying Of The Light (Or Why Peak Employment Is Imminent)

Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,

China"s working age population is clearly defined as those aged 16 to 50 years old for females (55 for "white collar" females) and 16 to 60 years old for males.  China mandates retirement at these outer age limits.  Perhaps of some interest should be that this working age population peaked in 2011 and has been declining since.  This decline will continue indefinitely as China has a collapsing childbearing population (detailed HERE), net emigration (outflow), and a still decidedly negative birthrate.

There is no evidence to believe the working age declines will abate any decade soon.  As the chart below shows, China"s potential workforce will be shrinking indefinitely... and by 2030 China"s potential workforce will be over 100 million fewer than the 2011 peak (an 11% decline)...and only further down from there.

China has one of the youngest average retirement ages in the developed world.  On average, according to a recent study (HERE), Chinese leave the work force by age 55 compared to age 63 in the US (Norway has the latest average departure at age 67).  So, perhaps China will be raising the retirement age to curb the ballooning 60+yr/old population entering retirement (chart below)?  More on that later.

Comparing the working age population versus the 60+yr/old population (chart below).  A shrinking potential workforce since peaking in 2011 and a rapidly growing elderly population.

Below, that elderly growth versus the working age depopulation as a % of all adults (chart below)...think hockey stick.  After nearly six decades of maintaining a consistent 60+yr/old % of the adult population...the elderly explosion is just beginning.

If we take the now declining total potential working age population vs. China"s still rising total number of employed individuals (according to Statista)...the chart below shows that if China adds just a mere million employees a year (about a third of the annual average employment growth seen from "06 through "16)...that by 2030 China"s employment will exceed 100% of the potential workforce.  Wait...what?!?  Or perhaps working from the premise that people who don"t exist can"t be employed...it"s time to start considering China"s employed population is set to begin falling.

This idea that there are "millions upon millions of Chinese just waiting to be incorporated into the workforce"...not so much.  While a continuing shift from rural to urban is likely, China has already or will soon experience peak employment. Simply put, there will be fewer consumers of everything (homes, cars, appliances, etc.) every year than the year before. 

Whatever overcapacity exists now will be joined by massive increases in excess housing, excess production, excess shopping malls as this depopulation plays out over the coming years and decades.

Five big points here:

1) China ends one child policy, with little to no impact...

• 
  

  Although China implemented its one child policy in 1979 and officially phased it out in 2015, China"s birthrate was actually consistently higher than most of the other major economies in East Asia (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore...chart below) and only N. Korea"s fertility rate is currently higher.

  
  

• 
  

  None of these other East Asia nations ever implemented birth restrictions.  Instead, their populaces chose not to replace themselves responding to the availability of birth control, surging costs of child rearing, and inclusion of females into the workforce, etc.  Simply put, the one child policy was inevitable and has now organically gone global.  The phase out of this policy will have little to no impact of China"s fertility rates.

  
  

2) China to raise retirement age, but no time soon...

• 
  

  In early 2015, China suggested it would detail in 2017 (which I still have not seen) a gradual, multiyear process to raise the retirement age (China"s version of political suicide).  Suggestions focused on slowly, incrementally, raising female retirement ages to match males and likewise, pushing retirements out by a month or two per year.  However, none of this was even suggested to start within the next five years and like most things, almost surely be back-end loaded so any real impacts are overstated.  Regardless Communist or "Capitalist" politicians, the game is the same.  A little "razzle-dazzle" that ensures any negative policy impacts never occurs on your watch.

  
  

3) China to institute Universal Pension Plan...

• 
  

  In late 2015, China said "We will achieve a basic pension for all employees nationally".  Currently, about 800 million of China"s 1.3 billion are eligible for state pensions.  According to Sinosphere, pensions for non-state employees vary widely, as high as 3000 RMB ($480) month in Beijing to as little as 80 RMB for rural farmers.  Civil Servants pensions are generally higher than those of non-state employees.  The party statement said, China would be;

  
  
  • 
    

    “Building a fairer and more sustainable social welfare system.

    
    
    
    

    Implementing plans for every person to take part in social insurance.

    
    
    
    
    
    

    Diverting capital from state-owned enterprises to social security funds.

    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    

    Offering all urban and rural residents insurance for serious illness.”

    
    

    
    
    
    
  
  

4) Chinese wages & average per capita disposable income rising but gains are hugely variable...

• 
  

  While Chinese factory wages in tier 1 urban areas are now inline with Portugal or S. Africa, this terrific rise has created it"s own problems.  The rise in wages has been met with inflationary spikes in rents, fuel, food, etc. etc.  Average disposable income has risen in the urban areas but flat at best across rural China.  However, the response of employers to the spectacular rising wages has been automation, a shift away from labor intensive production, and outsourcing to lower cost countries.  This is at odds with the generally low skill/low education rural population looking for opportunity in the urban areas.  The breadth and size of further gains in disposable income is likely to be limited.  Economically, a declining total number of workers making marginally more money will not provide the desired growth.

  
  

5) China cannot export its way out of this...

• 
  

  The annual change to the 0-64yr/old combined populations of the 35 OECD nations (US, Canada, Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Australia/NZ) plus China, Brazil, and Russia begin declining in 2018 (chart below).  The core populations of the nations responsible for consuming 80%+ of all Chinese exports have peaked and begin shrinking.  Fewer consumers every year than the year before, indefinitely.  As for the nations that are doing all the growing, India and Africa, they consume about 4% of all Chinese exports.  BTW, the chart below shows when each nation/region 0-64yr/old population began declining.

  
  

Simply put, China is offering to increase and broaden it"s pension system to a ballooning population of elderly but will have a decreasing potential number of employees from which to pay for that increase?!? 

How will China achieve this?  Well, as the chart below shows, as Chinese core population growth has been decelerating, Chinese debt growth has been accelerating. 

While China"s GDP and energy consumption have led the world, they have not responded in kind to China"s debt explosion and exponentially more will be necessary to continue to show "growth".  Over a third and perhaps half of all the debt has been mal-invested in a housing bubble for a population that is never coming. 

What comes next isn"t going to be good for China nor the rest of the world as China looks to flood a depopulating nation with new debt only creating more housing overcapacity... China will look to beat the Japanese at the debt game.

For instance, the Chinese public-pension system as of 2014, took in 2.33 trillion yuan in revenue and paid out almost 2 trillion...with 3 trillion in net funds.  The net outflows and drawdown of those net funds is imminent.

But not to worry, the Communist Party explained that..."We will look at some opportunities with higher yields but will contain risk".  Again, no details were offered.  However, one asset it is clear the Chinese will not be buying...US Treasury"s (chart below, showing the net purchases since the debt ceiling debate of July 2011 according to TIC).  Since that date, China has been a net seller of US Treasury debt despite running record US dollar surplus" (BLICS = Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Cayman Island, Switzerland).

From 2000 "til July 2011, China recycled 50% of its dollar trade surplus into US Treasury debt accumulating over $1.3 trillion.  Since July 2011, China has net sold over $100 billion and as of October, held about $1.2 trillion (chart below).

But I"m pretty sure those dollars aren"t sitting fallow and are finding their way into some asset, probably one in particular that is selling on the cheap about right now.

 

US Tax Cut and Rate Hikes Threaten China Currency

Authored by Valentin Schmid via The Epoch Times,

Seven was the line in the sand.

But the Chinese yuan never crossed that line vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar. It only crept up to 6.96 yuan per dollar on Dec. 16, 2016, before starting an impressive comeback, down to 6.5 in the middle of this year.

Last year was a bad one for the Chinese economy. Growth was slow, and the world was worried China would finally land the hard way, as many have been predicting for years.

And more than GDP growth or any other metric, the Chinese currency was the barometer of whether China could keep things stable - stability is the mantra of the ruling communist regime - or suffer a crisis of debt deflation.

If it declined in value, it meant citizens and companies were moving money out of the country in droves because they didn’t believe in the Chinese dream anymore.

So another measure of how bad things had gotten in the second-largest economy of the world was capital outflows.

According to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), a record $725 billion left China in 2016, putting pressure on the currency and the Chinese interbank market.

All these factors have changed in favor of the dollar in the last quarter, and it’s going to be hard for China to compete.

Trying to stem the tide, the central bank sold record amounts of foreign currency. Chinese foreign exchange reserves, $4 trillion at the peak in 2014, went down to $3 trillion, and analysts started to question whether this was enough to finance the world’s largest trading economy.

Then, miraculously in time for the 2017 National Congress of the Communist Party, all of this stopped. The yuan never went above 7, the exchange reserves never went below 3, and capital outflows subsided thanks to draconian regulations making it harder for individuals and companies to move money out of the country.

Weak Dollar

But something else helped China to strengthen its currency to reduce capital outflows and to balance foreign exchange reserves: a weak dollar.

The dollar didn’t only decline against the yuan. It declined against virtually all of its major trading partners in 2017, dropping 12 percent from its Jan. 2 peak to its Sept. 4 trough.

A weak dollar takes pressure off the yuan and makes it less desirable for Chinese to invest in U.S. assets if they stand to lose money on the currency. A weak dollar makes Chinese foreign currency holdings in other currencies worth more.

But the weak dollar is bound to reverse in 2018, and for China, this means going back to the uncertainty of 2016.

Currencies move for a myriad of reasons, but this year’s drop in the dollar had three major pillars.

The first one was political. After the dollar spiked 8 percent in the wake of the election of President Donald Trump last November, it dropped when it became clear Trump could not quickly push through his “America first” agenda, which included tax cuts and getting tough on trade with China and Mexico.

 

The second pillar was the interest policy of the Federal Reserve. The Fed always lagged behind its announced rate hiking schedule for 2016 and 2017, thereby disappointing market expectations of higher interest rates and a higher yield for the U.S. dollar.

 

The third pillar was the economy. Relative to expectations, the United States underperformed against the emerging markets, including China and even Europe and Japan in the first half of the year.

Strong Dollar

All of these factors have changed in favor of the dollar in the last quarter, and it’s going to be hard for China to compete.

Trump managed to deliver on key campaign promises in the last inning of 2017. The tax bill is a boon for national and international corporations, making it more competitive to invest in the United States again. It also incentivizes companies to bring back trillions in offshore money. Although this money likely won’t come from China, it will boost the dollar and indirectly punish the yuan.

China, on the other hand, has become ever less competitive both regarding taxes (the corporate rate is 45 percent) as well as cheaper wages. Its main advantage nowadays is scale. So according to a report by The Wall Street Journal, China is already preparing a contingency plan to counter the Trump reforms by raising interest rates, tightening capital controls, and micromanaging the currency by intervening in the foreign exchange markets.

President Trump managed to deliver on key campaign promises in the last inning of 2017. The tax bill is a boon for national and international corporations, making it more competitive to invest in the United States again

Lower taxes for companies and individuals in the United States should also boost an already much-improved economy and therefore make U.S. assets like stocks and real estate more attractive for foreign buyers again.

But the United States is also threatening China on trade, whose $309 billion good trade surplus in 2017 provides powerful support for the yuan.

In late November, the United States filed a legal submission to the World Trade Organization (WTO) as a third party in a case China had brought against the European Union (EU) in late November. China is unhappy that, despite some WTO provisions, the EU has not granted it “market economy” status 15 years after joining. The United States rejects China’s arguments and sides with the EU.

On Dec. 18, Trump accused China of challenging American power and stealing intellectual property as he unveiled his national security strategy.

“The United States will no longer tolerate economic aggression or unfair trading practices,” his letter states, without mentioning China by name.

If the administration follows through with its tough talk and uses the investigation into Chinese intellectual property theft under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose sanctions on China, a smaller trade surplus will hurt Chinese exports and the currency at the same time. Although a trade war will be costly for both sides, China has more to lose here.

Independent of politics, the Fed is also starting to deliver on its interest rate hikes, making the dollar more attractive in international markets. It raised its benchmark policy rate 0.25 percent to 1.50 percent at its December meeting on Dec. 13.

The Chinese promptly followed suit, with the People’s Bank of China raising its benchmark rate by 0.05 percent to 3.25 percent. But research firm Capital Economics believes this won’t be a game changer and that financial conditions in China are still relatively loose.

“Despite this, we aren’t convinced by the narrative of policy tightening. A five basis point move in rates is too small to have a meaningful impact,” it writes in a note to clients.

However, if China doesn’t deliver on its reform schedule sooner than anticipated, it’s going to be 2016 all over again.

The U.S. Is Not A Democracy, It Never Was

Authored by Gabriel Rockhill via Counterpunch.org,

One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy. Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental exceptions to core American values or foundational principles. For instance, aspiring critics frequently bemoan a “loss of democracy” due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption, deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic exceptions. The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.

The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history.

What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth—a plutocratic colonial oligarchy, in short—has succeeded not only in buying the label of “democracy” to market itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and well-documented arguments to the contrary.

To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present).

To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people. Those who settled on the shores of the “new world,” with few exceptions, did not respect the fact that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living there for centuries. As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the free and equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the overwhelming majority, meaning “the people,” was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and unremitting socio-economic oppression.

Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called “founding fathers,” the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the “subordination” so necessary for politics. When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than “the filth of the common sewers” by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves—meaning the overwhelming majority of the population—were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: “it is not a democracy.” George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as “a despotic aristocracy.”

When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a “democracy,” there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term “democracy” to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. This began around the time of “Indian killer” Andrew Jackson’s presidential campaign in the 1830s. Presenting himself as a ‘democrat,’ he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and Massachusetts. Slowly but surely, the term “democracy” came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos. Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.

In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary “democratic” publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a “democracy” because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives. However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights (Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country’s history, and still today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, “criminals,” minors, the “clinically insane,” political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the majority of whom do not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the “choice”—overseen by an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme—regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress them for the next four years. “Multivariate analysis indicates,” according to an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination […], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy.”

To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power. Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy, grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home front is just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the 1960s, and likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau “extended its earlier clandestine operations against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement, and the ‘New Left’ in general” (Cointelpro: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom, p. 22-23). Consider, for instance, Judi Bari’s summary of its assault on the Socialist Workers Party: “From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000 days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing.” In the case of the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (AIM)—which were both important attempts to mobilize people power to dismantle the structural oppression of white supremacy and top-down class warfare—the FBI not only infiltrated them and launched hideous smear and destabilization campaigns against them, but they assassinated 27 Black Panthers and 69 members of AIM (and subjected countless others to the slow death of incarceration). If it be abroad or on the home front, the American secret police has been extremely proactive in beating down the movements of people rising up, thereby protecting and preserving the main pillars of white supremacist, capitalist aristocracy.

Rather than blindly believing in a golden age of democracy in order to remain at all costs within the gilded cage of an ideology produced specifically for us by the well-paid spin-doctors of a plutocratic oligarchy, we should unlock the gates of history and meticulously scrutinize the founding and evolution of the American imperial republic. This will not only allow us to take leave of its jingoist and self-congratulatory origin myths, but it will also provide us with the opportunity to resuscitate and reactivate so much of what they have sought to obliterate. In particular, there is a radical America just below the surface of these nationalist narratives, an America in which the population autonomously organizes itself in indigenous and ecological activism, black radical resistance, anti-capitalist mobilization, anti-patriarchal struggles, and so forth. It is this America that the corporate republic has sought to eradicate, while simultaneously investing in an expansive public relations campaign to cover over its crimes with the fig leaf of “democracy” (which has sometimes required integrating a few token individuals, who appear to be from below, into the elite ruling class in order to perpetuate the all-powerful myth of meritocracy). If we are astute and perspicacious enough to recognize that the U.S. is undemocratic today, let us not be so indolent or ill-informed that we let ourselves be lulled to sleep by lullabies praising its halcyon past. Indeed, if the United States is not a democracy today, it is in large part due to the fact that it never was one.

Far from being a pessimistic conclusion, however, it is precisely by cracking open the hard shell of ideological encasement that we can tap into the radical forces that have been suppressed by it. These forces—not those that have been deployed to destroy them—should be the ultimate source of our pride in the power of the people.

China Slams "Wrong" US Sanctions Against North Korea-Linked Trading Firms

A day after China’s state-run airline closed its last remaining routes to North Korea – a decision the airline’s executives blamed on a sharp decline in business travelers due to restrictive UN Security Council sanctions – Communist Party spokespeople slammed new US sanctions targeting Chinese traders doing business with North Korean businessmen, calling them “wrong” while reminding the US that China has vigorously enforced the UN sanctions.

After announcing that the US would once again designate North Korea a state sponsor of terrorism due to its missile and nuclear tests and its trading in illegal arms with terrorist groups and unsavory governments, President Donald Trump revealed that the Treasury Department would be rolling out new sanctions over the next two weeks, the US’s latest volley in a "maximum pressure campaign" against Kim Jong-Un"s regime, AFP reported.

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

As had been expected, the US Treasury Department announced on Tuesday that the list of North Korean and Chinese companies targeted by existing US sanctions has been expanded. It was this decision that angered the Chinese.

Only last week, Trump returned to the US from a five-nation tour of Asia with assurances from Chinese President Xi Jinping that China, the North’s primary benefactor which is responsible for 90% of its trade, would do more to economically pressure its restive neighbor.

 

Treasury sanctions trading, labor, and shipping companies and vessels
to further isolate North Korea and disrupt illicit funding of its unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Targets include one individual, 13 entities, and 20 vessels: https://t.co/CT9hMx3d6p

— Treasury Department (@USTreasury) November 21, 2017

 

The Treasury has added to a list of 10 Chinese companies believed to be doing business with the North in violation of international sanctions.

In response, a Chinese spokesman reiterated that China rejects unilateral sanctions against its companies and North Korea, saying these issues should be worked out through the Security Council.

"We consistently oppose any country adopting unilateral sanctions based on its own domestic laws and regulations and the wrong method of exercising long-arm jurisdiction," foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a regular news briefing.

The sanctions are a sign that, despite Xi’s assurances, many doubts remain about China’s efforts to contain the North’s nuclear ambitions.

The spokesman called on Washington to provide "any solid evidence" that Chinese companies have violated the UN sanctions, according to AFP.

 

He added that if any companies or individuals have violated domestic laws, "we will severely deal with that in accordance with our laws and regulations".

While China has backed the Security Council sanctions – which it easily could’ve blocked with a veto – the country has been reluctant to take the more drastic step of cutting off oil supplies through a pipeline to North Korea"s lone refinery, fearing that regime collapse could lead to a flood of refugees and chaos on the China-North Korea border.

Still, US authorities believe some Chinese banks and trading firms continue to do business with the North in defiance of UN sanctions, US threats of unilateral action and warnings from the Chinese government.

Since the verbal standoff between Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump began shortly after the latter’s inauguration, China has pressed for dialogue between the two countries, saying this week that "more should be done" to hold talks to resolve the crisis. Specifically, both Beijing and Moscow have pushed for a "dual track approach" which would see the US freeze its military drills in South Korea while North Korea would halt its weapons programs. Ultimately, the Chinese hope the US will remove its THAAD missile defense systems from South Korea, since the Chinese see the purportedly defensive systems as a potential offensive threat.

A Chinese special envoy also wrapped up a four-day trip to the North on Monday, during which the two sides discussed regional concerns but made no direct statements about the nuclear standoff.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the sanctions would not only increase Pyongyang"s isolation but also expose "its evasive tactics."

"These designations include companies that have engaged in trade with North Korea cumulatively worth hundreds of millions of dollars," Mnuchin said.

 

"We are also sanctioning the shipping and transportation companies, and their vessels, that facilitate North Korea"s trade and its deceptive maneuvers."

In all, the new measures add one individual, 13 trading entities and 20 ships to US sanctions lists.

Any property or assets of the firms involved found to be in areas under US jurisdiction are to be frozen, and Americans are banned from trading with them. Three Chinese firms - Dandong Kehua Economy and Trade, Dandong Xianghe Trading Company and Dandong Hongda Trade - are said to have sold computers, minerals and ore to North Korea. Chinese businessman Sun Sidong and his company Dandong Dongyuan Industrial are accused of exporting vehicles, machinery, radio navigation and "items associated with nuclear reactors.” A woman who answered the phone at the company said it was not doing business with North Korea and suggested that the firm had halted its operations.

"We are not operating," she said.

Another woman at Dandong Kehua Economy and Trade denied knowing about the sanctions.

"We have temporarily suspended (trading)," she said.

In a surprise move, in addition to slapping sanctions on firms and North Korean ships, the Treasury added the Korea South-South Cooperation Corporation to its sanctions list. The firm is alleged to have sent North Korean guest workers to China, Russia, Cambodia and Poland. Foreign workers are a major source of income to the regime. Trump has repeatedly exhorted the US’s allies to expel North Korean guest workers, whose remittances provide a vital source of foreign currency to the regime.

Ironically, the stringent sanctions are being applied even as North Korea has, at least temporarily, ceased its missile tests. The North hasn’t launched a missile test since Sept. 15 – more than two months ago.

Some believe the North’s reticence is due to Chinese pressure. If this is accurate, we imagine Xi’s government might loosen its grip.
 

Victoria"s Secret Staff Think The Chinese Are Spying On Them

Stories about the shambolic Victoria’s Secret fashion show – which is slated to take place Tuesday Nov. 28 in Shanghai – just keep getting weirder.

Chinese bureaucrats have so far refused to cooperate with the show’s producers and planners, denying visas to Gigi Hadid, one of the show’s highest-profile models, and Katy Perry, the US pop superstar who was slated to be the musical guest.

The Communist Party has also inexplicably refused to issue press passes and visas to members of the western media who were supposed to travel to China to cover the event.

Already, we imagine the marketing brass at L Brands have learned their lesson, and that this will be both the first, and the last, VS fashion show held in China.

But as if all this weren’t enough, the New York Post is now reporting that the show’s organizers believe the Chinese government is spying on them. Which, of course, is probably true, given Chinese authorities’ well-known penchant for monitoring foreigners.

The Post says e-mails of VS show staffers and production crew are apparently being monitored by Chinese authorities.

TV and media-industry insiders who are desperately trying to figure out what’s going on amid the production chaos are getting frustrated by messages from colleagues in China simply saying that they can’t speak frankly about the issues with the government because their communications are being watched.

Perry had her visa application declined because she once showed support for Taiwan (which is in an independence struggle with China) during a Beijing concert. Hadid’s was denied because of a picture her sister, Bella Hadid, published on Instagram that the Chinese public deemed offensive. Plus, fellow Angel Adriana Lima’s visa application has been imperiled by an unknown “diplomatic issue.” Meanwhile, a host of other models have also had their visas denied.

Many fashion bloggers have also been denied visas, and TV producers have discovered that they need permits to shoot outside of the Mercedes-Benz Arena, where the show, which is slated to air on CBS later this month, is set to take place.

As one source put it, “If you’re going to China you want to show that you’re in China!”

The surveillance is apparently making it difficult for the show’s organizers to find replacements for the models who have been denied entry. Harry Styles has already been booked to fill in for Perry.

“They want to discuss what’s going on as far as replacements for those denied visas and alternative arrangements, but they have to be tight-lipped because it seems that the government is watching their e-mails,” said a source.

With more than a week to go before the show, we can only imagine what fresh entanglements will crop up as the date draws nearer.
 

Katy Perry, Gigi Hadid Banned From China As Victoria"s Secret Fashion Show Unravels

As we reported yesterday, this year’s Victoria’s Secret fashion show, which is slated to take place in Shanghai in just two weeks, is unraveling like a cheap lace thong thanks to Chinese authorities’ refusal to cooperate with its producers, and Communist Party"s decision to deny visas to some of the biggest stars who were slated to participate in the show.

The latest update on the deteriorating state of affairs comes via the New York Post, which has reported that US pop sensation Katy Perry – who was slated to perform at the show – and supermodel Gigi Hadid, who was supposed to walk in the show, have been indefinitely banned from China.

Sources told the Post’s infamous Page Six gossip section that the “Roar” singer had tried applying for a visa to enter the Communist nation, but was denied by Chinese officials.

And while she was initially informed that she’d be able to gain access, the decision was apparently reversed after the government caught wind of a controversial incident from 2015, in which Perry donned a bright, glittery dress with sunflowers on it during a performance in Taipei, the capital of Taiwan.

Gigi Hadid

The innocent gesture wound up causing widespread outrage in China because the sunflower had been adopted the year before by anti-China protesters.

However, Perry also waved a Taiwanese flag during the concert in show of support for the country, which has been clashing with the mainland for years over its autonomy.

“She was initially granted a visa to perform at the VS show in Shanghai, then Chinese officials changed their minds and yanked her visa,” a source explained. “For every artist who wants to perform in China, officials comb through their social-media and press reports to see if they have done anything deemed to be offensive to the country. Maroon 5 was banned a few years ago because one band member wished the Dalai Lama happy birthday on Twitter.

Meanwhile, Hadid and a handful of other models were banned because of social media posts that apparently offended Chinese government officials.

Hadid, who was booked for the show back in August, was banned because of a February Instagram video — in which she held up a biscuit shaped like a Buddha and imitated the religious figure by squinting her eyes.

The clip was posted by the model’s sister, Bella Hadid, in February. It was later deleted following a storm of criticism as Chinese social-media users warned her not to come to Shanghai, calling her racist.

Apparently, Victoria’s Secret has decided that the show will go on, with or without Hadid:

 

I’m so bummed I won’t be able to make it to China this year. Love my VS family, and will be with all my girls in spirit!! Can"t wait to tune in with everyone to see the beautiful show I know it will be, and already can"t wait for next year! :) x

— Gigi Hadid (@GiGiHadid) November 16, 2017

 

Some of Victoria’s Secret’s biggest names have been denied entry to China, in addition to lesser-known models, such as Julia Belyakova, Kate Grigorieva and Irina Sharipova.

Model Adriana Lima’s visa has been held up due to an ongoing “diplomatic problem."

Harry Styles will reportedly replace Perry as the show’s performing artist.
 

The Split Personality Of The Russian Soul: Moscow And Kiev

Via GEFIRA,

All nations can be made to suffer from disturbed or split personality, becoming "unhappy after their own fashion"... toys in the hands of the powers that be.

All healthy nations are alike, but an unhealthy nation is unhealthy after its own fashion. This paraphrase of the opening sentence from Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina neatly serves the purpose of analyzing the Ukrainian soul, a soul that has dissociative identity disorder. A transgender man has an identity disturbance in that he thinks or feels he was born a woman and other females are not his sexual partners. The same is true of peoples. A Ukrainian thinks or feels he is not Russian and, consequently, that Russians are not his brothers. A transgender man physically looks like a man and still thinks he is not a male; a Ukrainian speaks Russian, professes Orthodox Christianity, writes Cyrillic and still says he is anything but.

We from such European countries as Poland, France or Germany may ask ourselves, what is the origin of the Ukrainian state? What is the origin of the Russian state?

Ukrainian and Russian children learn about the same beginnings of their respective countries, read stories about Rurik, Oleg and Olga, Vladimir the Great and Yaroslav the Wise. Polish and Czech, French and Spanish, British and Norwegian children do not learn that their respective nations share the same origin whereas Ukrainian and Russian children do. Kiev is regarded as the mother of Russian cities. True, there was a time when the Russian vast lands were split into a number of principalities, but then Italian, Polish, and German were too.

The land east of the Bug River and west of the Urals is historically, ethnographically, culturally and emotionally referred to russkiy mir (Russian world, Russian civilization). In the Middle Ages it was known as Rus’ or Ruthenia and was comprised of Great Russia with its centre in Moscow, Little Russia with its centre in Kiev and White Russia with its present-day centre in Minsk. They all three share one and the same founding legend.

Parts of Rus’ (or Ruthenia) were once conquered and held by the Tartars (Mongols), Lithuania and Poland, which might have contributed to the split in the collective psyche of the people inhabiting these areas. Yet, Poland too, was partitioned by three foreign powers and kept in subjugation for more than a hundred years. The occupying forces made various attempts to either Germanize or Russify its population, and still Poland emerged as one nation.

True, some Ukrainians, especially in the western parts of the country speak a variety of Russian, which they call a separate language. Yet the Ukrainian language is not more different from Russian than the Bavarian or Liverpudlian dialects are different from German or English. Surely, nobody says we have the Bavarian or Liverpudlian languages? In the 19th century the Ukrainian dialect of the Russian tongue was forcibly turned into a language by deleting some of the Russian and taking on some of the Polish vocabulary and affirming the local west-Ukrainian pronunciation. The Russian Cyrillic alphabet used for Ukrainian has as many as… three ‘new’ characters. Well, the American variety of English, too, has some spelling and pronunciation peculiarities that make it a tiny bit different from its British counterpart, yet American children are taught English at school, not American.

Of course, such differences are skilfully exploited by the powers that be just as it was done in the case of Yugoslavia, where Westerners could be easily duped into believing that Croats and Serbs speak two entirely different languages because… the former use the Latin whereas the latter the Cyrillic script, while in point of fact they speak the same language. The Turkish language has not changed simply because Kemal Atatürk had the Arabic script done away with and decreed the use of Latin characters, or did it?

What’s the matter with Ukrainian identity disturbance? The whole can be traced back to the times of Peter the Great and then again to 19th century when among the Russian intelligentsia the movement of Westernizers (?????????????) came into being, which reflected the split Russian soul. Part of it wants to stay Russian, Slavophile, the other part is ashamed of being Russian. A split personality syndrome. Ukrainians for the most part represent the pro-Western inclination of the Russian soul. In a similar case of the Southern Slavs, Croats have been westernized since the dawn of their history as they accepted Christianity from Rome; Serbs became easterners as they accepted Christianity from Byzantium. A Ukrainian is a Russian desperately in need of westernizing himself and his country. The tighter is the leash on which Moscow holds him, the more disruptive tendencies a Ukrainian will show. This pro-Western strand in the Russian soul is being skilfully exploited by the West for its own purposes. Nations, as we know, can be created when it suits someone’s purposes. At present Germans in Austria are Austrians, not Germans, but there was a time when they were Germans; Catalans are Spaniards or they are not Spaniards, as the case may be; not long ago citizens of the German Democratic Republic would have fought against their historical compatriots from the Federal German Republic. Did we have two German nations?

Ukrainians cutting themselves off from Moscow are like the British colonists across the Atlantic cutting themselves off from the British crown. The difference is, however, that the thirteen colonies at least comprised a significant number of nations other than English, Welsh or Scottish and they were mostly religious rebels from the Church of England. Ukrainians, on the other hand, are like their Russian compatriots Orthodox Christians and have no significant national or religious minorities. Furthermore, throughout history Ukrainians have hardly ever rebelled against Moscow. They willingly declared their allegiance to the Great Russian capital in 1654 (Treaty of Pereyaslav) at the climax of the largest revolt against the Polish Crown. Prior to that event Kiev was part of the the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Thus Little Russians broke away from a culturally western country to happily let themselves be embraced by their eastern brothers. The Russian soul subconsciously knew where it belonged. In Poland Ukrainians were called Cossacks and later Rusini (which in Polish is as close to the word denoting Russians as in English Germanic is to German).

Ukraine’s territory after World War One and the Russian Civil War was carved out of Russia by the Bolsheviks, who happily joined to Ukraine vast eastern areas, without the Crimea, though. The Bolsheviks themselves were mostly of non-Russian nationality or indifferent to national questions, so they didn’t care about such things as delineating territories. In 1956 Nikita Khrushchev, Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (for all practical purposes the Soviet Union’s president), himself a Ukrainian, carved the Crimea out of Russia (then a Soviet Socialist Republic) and had it joined to Ukraine (then, too, a Soviet Socialist Republic). Thus the peninsula was not Russian only for a few decades (1956-2014) and only formally because it was and is inhabited by Russians. When it was incorporated back into Russia, not a shot was fired on the Ukrainian side.

Now the West-prone Russians (centred around Kiev) are being played off against the West-averse Russians (centered around Moscow) and both are presented to the world as two separate nations. Were the Americans two separate nations when they fought the Civil War of 1861-1865? The resentment in the southern states against the North has persisted ever since. If Russia were the world’s superpower rather than the United States, she might as well choose to play the southern American states off against Washington. Then, conversely, rather than having Ukrainians jumping in the city squares and shouting “??? ?? ??????, ??? ???????!” (Who is not jumping [with us] is Moscow’s [lackey (useful idiot)]), we would have Southerners jump and shout “Who’s not jumping with us, is Washington’s lackey”. And surely, in due time we would learn that Southerners speak a language other than the Northerners and have every right to be recognized as a separate nation.

Kyle Bass Warns: Xi Has "Built The Chinese Economy On A Foundation Of Sand"

Earlier this week, Chinese leader Xi Jinping became the third ruler in the communist country’s history to have his named enshrined in its constitution – and the first to receive this honor while still alive. But as China celebrates its most popular, and most powerful, leader since at least Deng Xiaoping, Kyle Bass, hedge fund manager and noted China bear, told Bloomberg the Communist Party will one day regret standing idly by as Xi consolidated his power.

“Today Xi is celebrated in media reports, but when future historians look back, he will be blamed for recklessly building the Chinese economy on a foundation of sand,” Bass, founder of Hayman Capital Management, said in an email Wednesday.

“Xi desperately seeks credibility, but true developed economies do not impose severe capital controls or move short-term rates hundreds of basis points overnight in attempts to manipulate their own currency.”

Xi, who launched the twice-a-decade National Party Congress last week with a three-hour speech where he laid out his vision for “communism with Chinese characteristics in a new era,” the philosophy that was enshrined in the country’s constitution by a unanimous vote. In a move that seemingly confirms suspicions that Xi plans to break with precedent and seek a third term after his second ends in 22, Xi appointed five new members to the Politburo,

China’s most powerful body, all of whom are too old to be viewed as credible heirs. Typically, Chinese leaders have pointed to a successor or possible successors by the time they begin their second term, ensuring that there’s a clear path of leadership transition.

Of course, Bass and others have been highly critical of the Communist Party’s heavy handed tactics. For example, the PBOC and the Chinese ‘National Team’, which exert powerful influence over the company’s financial market, have successfully tamped down equity market trading volume and volatility in the runup to the Congress, while guiding the yuan higher against the dollar.

However, China’s closed financial system and manipulated markets aren’t the only target of Bass’s criticism. He also pointed to China’s ever-growing pile of debt. Borrowing has swelled to 260 percent of gross domestic product at the end of 2016, Bloomberg Intelligence data show. Earlier this year, the country’s soaring debt burden inspired Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings to downgrade the country’s sovereign credit rating.

In an interview earlier this month, Bass, who has called for a 30% drop in the Chinese yuan, said he expects the government to relax its grasp on the exchange rate after the National Party Congress. He said he believed once Xi consolidates power, he’ll allow natural economic forces to reassert themselves in the country’s banking system.

Since the yuan joined the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket a year ago, China has made little progress in making its currency more convertible and accessible. To wit, the yuan remains a secondary currency for settling global payments.

“China remains an emerging backwater when it comes to global currency settlements,” he said Wednesday.

As Bloomberg pointed out, Bass, who made a fortune betting against U.S. subprime mortgages, said in early 2016 that losses in Chinese banks could be four times bigger than those suffered by American lenders during the global financial crisis. He has said that crucial figures, like the share of non-performing loans, have been understated.

“Recklessly growing a banking system in pursuit of global economic growth and respect will cause severe financial instability in the years to come,” he said on Wednesday.

 

“The dangerous $40 trillion credit experiment with Chinese characteristics will run its course.”

As reported earlier this month, Bass has stuck to his pessimistic views on China (though he has moderated his view a bit, pushing back his expected timeline for signs of instability in the country’s debt market to emerge) while other noted bears reversed their positions as the next big yuan devaluation failed to materialize.

While China bears have underestimated the nation’s unique ability to control its market, the sheer pace and volume of credit creation can’t possibly be sustained forever, Bass said.
 

All Hail Chinese Emperor Xi Jinping: Will He 'Make China Great Again'?

Perhaps no event embodies the unyielding abstruseness and the unforgiving hierarchy of China’s ruling Communist Party as much as its Party Congress, the government’s most important leadership conference. Attended by some twenty-three hundred delegates from across the country, it is held every five years in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People—and when the weeklong meeting finally begins, one can be certain that the crucial politicking has already concluded. What proceeds is a choreographed spectacle bearing fastidiously scripted speeches, pro-forma elections of what has heretofore been determined (a leadership reshuffle in the seven-member Politburo, the highest echelon of power), and, in the case of the 19th Communist Party Congress, which opened today, high-spirited, propagandistic posters reminding the masses that “Life in China Is Good! Everyday Is Like a Holiday!”

This is a message that Xi Jinping, who was appointed President at the previous Party Congress, in 2012, is eager to instill in a country that continues to grapple with a vertiginous pace of change and the outsize influence of politics in everyday life. Xi is almost certainly guaranteed another five-year term, if not longer. Since taking office, he has sought to launch the greatest ideological campaign since the days of Mao.

Xi has made clear from the outset, he is intent on both defining a new world order and restoring to Chinese culture its former esteem.

Yet Xi’s mission should be regarded in the context of a collective and profound post-traumatic stress disorder, the result of almost two centuries of cataclysmic events in China. For every Tang Taizong, who ushered in the golden years of the Tang Dynasty, there were many others like Empress Dowager Cixi, who usurped the throne, crippled the path of progress, and contributed to the downfall of the Qing Dynasty.

As Xi made clear today, during his three-hour address to the Party Congress, he sees this moment as “a new historic juncture in China’s development”—and himself as the man to seize it. He seems to believe that the more power he amasses, the easier it will be for him to enact the kind of monumental changes necessary to transform China into the world’s leading superpower. In this sense, he is positioning himself as a savior with a cause noble enough to justify his autocratic turn. The logic is akin to that which animated the ambition of many of the Middle Kingdom’s five-hundred-odd emperors. Sure, Xi has rerouted all tributaries of power to run upstream to him, but isn’t it in the service of rejuvenation?

Xi has also used his growing power to curb that of his citizens. Under his rule, China has become increasingly repressive. The media is censored and civil society has been muted. Activists have been silenced and human-rights lawyers arrested. More than a million officials have been disciplined. Despite paying lip service to the constitution—the Party devoted an entire plenary session during the 18th Congress to a discussion of “judicial independence”—Xi is steering the country away from the rule of law and toward the rule of the Party.

Xi’s vision for China’s future suggests a great leap backward, in which old lessons remain unlearned.

The 7 Key Takeaways From Xi Jinping's Vision For "A New Era" In China

As reported first thing this morning, China"s President Xi Jinping outlined his vision for the next five years, ushering in a "new era" (a term he repeated 36 times) of development in China, as the Communist Party’s 19th Congress opened in Beijing on Wednesday. During a 3½-hour long speech, Xi said the internal and external situations facing China were undergoing complicated changes which the party needed to address. Xi started with the opening remark that “the prospects are bright while the challenges are also grave”, before reminding his audience of his achievements over the past five years, which included: poverty reduction, strengthening the one party rule, national security, cutting down pollution and the Belt and Road infrastructure initiatives. One can also throw in "nationalizing China"s capital markets" in this list.

Further, as DB"s Jim Reid wrote overnight, Xi"s anti-graft drive has achieved an “important and irreversible’ momentum and he insisted that China has ‘zero tolerance” on corruption. On the long term, he wants to set the agenda for the country to be “a modern, socialist power” by 2050. On the economy, he says the liberalisation of both interest rate exchanges will continue as "the door China opened will not close but will open wider and wider".

Elsewhere, Xi wants China to make the "quality and efficiency" of growth a priority and deepen supply side reforms as well as insisting on the need to reduce excessive capacity and debt ratios. On housing, he said "houses are for people to live in, not for speculation" and he promised to provide more homes through a variety of different channels.

Before his formal address, Deputy central bank chief Pan also noted that he expects that the Yuan will have a more secure foundation after the congress allowing the central bank to push exchange rate market reforms.

Xi also vowed to step up ideological guidance within the party, strengthen its anti-corruption campaign, retain the government’s grip on Hong Kong and Macau, and oppose any moves towards independence in Taiwan.

Courtesy of SCMP, here are the seven major takaways from Xi"s report:

1. A new name for Xi’s political philosophy

Xi said China has formed “socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era”. The idea will be the guiding principle for the country’s development in the coming years. The slogan was released amid speculation about how Xi’s political thought would be enshrined into the party’s constitution. There are 14 elements behind the concept, with one key idea being that the party should lead in every aspect of life in China.

Xi said the dream of national rejuvenation would only be a fantasy without the leadership of China’s Communist Party. The party should lead in all areas and the authority of the party central leadership should be respected, he said. Cadres should keep in line with the party leadership, while the party should tighten its lead on ideological work. “The party resolutely opposes all attempts that will weaken, distort or reject the leadership of the party and the implementation of socialism,” he said adding that a “principal contradiction” had emerged in Chinese society because of uneven development and the public’s demand for a better life.

2. Becoming a nation with leading, global influence by 2050

Xi laid out some ambitious targets for the next 30 years and more. The first batch should be achieved from 2020 to 2035, Xi said. China will be a top ranked innovative nation by 2035 with a large middle-income population and narrower wealth gap. China’s soft power should be boosted, Xi said. From 2035 to 2050, China should become a nation with pioneering global influence.

3. Keeping up with the “irreversible” momentum of anti-corruption campaign and maintaining the rule by law

China will set up a leading group for comprehensive rule by law. Xi repeatedly talked about the concept during his speech and vowed the party and the government would rule the country under the law and through public oversight. No one would be able to put themselves above the law, he said. He added that China must watch out for any attempt to copy Western-style democracy.

Xi also issued a warning to delegates at the Great Hall of the People on corruption, saying China insists on “zero tolerance” of graft. He said the government has been unswerving in “fighting tigers, destroying flies and hunting down foxes”, referring to the government’s sweeping anti-corruption campaign. He said a national supervision law would be formulated and shuanggui – a party disciplinary practice – would be replaced.

4. Protecting national sovereignty

China’s capability to deal with national security should be boosted as the nation will resolutely protect its sovereignty and interests. Xi said China has made a “historical breakthrough” in national defence and military reform. The navy has protected the nation’s maritime interest and its army rapidly upgraded its weaponry. For the coming years, China will continue pushing for integration between the civilian and the military sector. The People’s Liberation Army should be a “world class” force by 2050. China also opposes separatism under the guise of religion or extremist thought, Xi said.

5. Upholding central government authority over Hong Kong and Macau and opposing Taiwan independence

Xi said the “one country, two systems” principle will not be changed nor distorted in Hong Kong. The central government’s jurisdiction over the two Special Administrative Regions, which also includes Macau, should not be shaken, he said.  On Taiwan, Xi said Beijing has properly handled the changing situation facing the island and will continue to resolutely oppose any move to seek independence for Taiwan.

6. Creating a level playing field for foreign businesses

Countering foreign diplomats and business concerns that the government was blocking overseas investment, Xi said China would give equal treatment to all businesses. “The China which has opened up will not close, but will open wider and wider,” he said. China’s GDP has increased from 54 trillion yuan (US$8.2 trillion) five years ago to 80 trillion yuan and the government would aim for growth that is of higher quality and sustainable, he said.

7. Protecting the public interest

Fighting poverty was crucial for China to become a moderately prosperous society, Xi said. All provinces which are under the poverty line should climb above that threshold by 2020. He also pledged to create more jobs for college graduates and migrant workers. Addressing concerns over rising property prices, Xi said houses were for people to live in, not for speculation.

* * *

Not enough? Then here are 6 more key highlights, this time from Goldman"s China economist, Yo Song, who writes that "overall the report sent few new signals on either near-term cyclical policy or longer term structural policy, in our view, although there are a few changes/ highlights/ new concepts to note, which we outline below."

• Change in the “principal contradiction facing Chinese society,” which is usually viewed as the guidance on the Party"s key area of focus. In the report, Xi said that “the principal contradiction facing Chinese society has evolved to be that between unbalanced and inadequate development, and the people"s ever-growing needs for a better life,” a change from previously, “the principal contradiction in our society is still between the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people, and the backwardness of social production.” (This statement had been in place since 1981.) We view this change in “principal contradiction” as an acknowledgement of the need for more efficient and balanced economic development. Instead of purely focusing on the speed of economic growth, policy makers now also emphasize higher productivity, higher profitability, more innovation and efficient distribution, as well balanced development between urban and rural areas, and among different regions of the country. This is also consistent with the tone from policy makers in recent years (e.g., the “new norm” from Xi, and “focusing on not just the quantity but also the quality of development” in the Central Economic Working Conference).


• Xi’s thoughts on socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era. The report came up with thoughts on socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era, which should be effectively a summary of Xi’s thoughts and will likely be incorporated into the Party Constitution during the Congress. There are 14 fundamental principles, which have been mentioned previously in different situations, with the first being “ensuring Party leadership over all work.” On economic areas, Xi mentioned “continuing to comprehensively deepen reform and “adopting a new vision for development,” which reiterated Xi’s five development concepts (i.e., innovation, coordination, green development, opening and sharing), and reemphasized letting the market play a decisive role in resource allocation. Environmental issues are listed as a separate principle under “ensuring harmony between human and nature,” and the report mentioned plans to “implement the most rigorous ecological and environmental protection system.”


• A new two-stage development plan. In the report, Xi emphasized importance of the period up to 2020 as "the decisive stage in building a moderately prosperous society," and said that "all requirements on building a moderately prosperous society from the 16th, 17th, 18th Party Congress must be followed." Presumably, this would include the goal of doubling income by 2020 established in the 18th Party Congress, though it was not explicitly mentioned here. Then Xi proposed a two-stage development plan from 2020 to the middle of the 21st century, with the first stage from 2020–2035 to see that socialist modernization is basically realized, and the second stage from 2035 to the middle of the 21st century to develop China into a great modern socialist country. However, there are no quantitative details in the plan currently.


• Characterizing the economy as turning from a high-growth phase to a high-quality development stage. The report also mentioned building a modern economic system. Major measures for this include deepening “supply side” reforms (e.g., reiterating key structural tasks such as over-capacity cuts and de-leveraging), strengthening innovation, promoting SOE reforms with mixed ownership, developing a twin policy management framework with both monetary policy and macro-prudential tools, “significantly” loosening market access to domestic service sectors and protecting foreign enterprises’ legal rights in China.


• Other highlights included a proposal to establish a central leading working group on the comprehensive rule of law, although the exact form of the group has not yet been specified. In social areas, Xi highlighted a policy intention to widen the coverage of education, reduce income gaps between low- and high-income groups, strengthen social protection (e.g., retirement, unemployment), reduce poverty and deepen ongoing medical service reforms. He also reiterated that, “houses are for living, not for speculation” and mentioned plans to “speed up the development of a housing system with supply from multi entities, protection from multi channels and combination of rental and sale.”


• The next publication will be the list of Central Committee members on Oct 24, followed by revealing of appointments to the Politburo Standing Committee on Oct 25.

The above was summarized best by UBS" chief economist, Paul Donovan, in just one sentence: "China"s economic challenge is that the successful model of the last twenty years will not work in the next twenty years."

And while we previously gave a full preview of what to expect from the 19th Congress, here is a 2 minute summary for those pressed for time: