Newsletter: Power Dynamics Changing In World Order

Print Friendly

The G-20 summit highlighted a transition in geopolitical power that has been developing for years. The process has escalated in recent months since President Trump took office, but its roots go much deeper than Trump. Europe is tired of the US spying on its leaders and creating a massive refugee crisis from its chaos creating wars. Russia and China are being pulled together as the US threatens both with missiles and bases on their borders. Now Trump seeks more money from everyone to reduce the US trade deficit and holds the world back on the climate crisis. The United States is losing power, a multi-polar world is taking shape and people power is on the rise as the world unites for people and planet before profits.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the President of the European Council Donald Tusk and US President Donald Trump. Reuters.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the President of the European Council Donald Tusk and US President Donald Trump. Reuters.

The G-20 bordered on being a G-19, with the US a loner on key issues of climate change, trade and migration. These are some of the biggest issues on the planet. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been saying lately “We as Europeans have to take our fate into our own hands.” This is an indication they no longer see the US as the leader or even a reliable partner on key issues. In a summation of the G-20, Politico writes: “Hamburg will also go down as a further mile marker in Europe’s slow emancipation from the U.S.” We may be witnessing the beginning of the end of US Empire.

The United States Loses World Power

At the same time that Europe is setting its own course, Russia and China have been moving toward each other and acting in tandem, often with positions opposite the United States. While Washington was trying to isolate Russia, it has been building new friendships and alliances.

Presidents Putin and Xi have met on more than 20 occasions over the past four years. Xi now refers to Russia as China’s foremost ally. In that time, the United States built a wall of bases and missiles around both countries, intruded on China’s maritime space in the Asia Pacific and fomented regime change in Ukraine to turn that country against Russia. US aggression is backfiring and creating a multi-polar world. After meeting with Russia, President Xi met with Chancellor Merkel to sign trade deals.

Vladimir Putin (R) and  Xi Jinping following the talks at the Kremlin, July 4, 2017. Reuters

Vladimir Putin (R) and Xi Jinping following the talks at the Kremlin, July 4, 2017. Reuters

Presidents Putin and Xi met before the G-20 to continue to build their alliance. Putin and Xi made  deals on trade agreements and energy sales, created a $10 billion joint investment fund and came to a common approach regarding North Korea. Their approach: “dialogue and negotiation”, coupled with firm opposition to the THAAD missile system being installed by the US in South Korea.

North Korea is another issue where the US is out of step with the world. While the US was lobbying for an aggressive confrontation with North Korea over nuclear weapons, other countries were not joining in and Russia and China were urging restraint and diplomacy. The Los Angeles Times reports “White House officials have been dismayed to see China and Russia teaming up to advocate for a ‘freeze for peace’ strategy in which North Korea agrees to stop moving forward with its nuclear weapons development, in exchange for the international community easing sanctions and making other concessions.” Even Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has been a lap dog for the United States, called on China and Russia to help mediate the Korean crisis.

US B-1 Lancer nuclear bombers

US B-1 Lancer nuclear bombers

Instead of diplomacy, President Trump sent B-1 Lancer bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons toward the North Korean border where they released 2,000 pound inert bombs. Others in Congress are suggesting more economic sanctions, including sanctions that will negatively impact China and other countries. These actions are driving North Korea to develop ICBM nuclear missiles in order to protect itself from the United States, and driving other nations away from the US.

North Korea responded by calling the US’ action a dangerous provocation that could lead to nuclear war.  “More of the same” will not only continue to raise tensions but misses a tremendous opportunity to transform the relationship with North Korea and end the Korean War. Russia sought to reduce tensions by providing the United Nations with information demonstrating North Korea did not produce an ICBM, but only a mid-range missile. The world knows that North Korea is not the real threat to world peace, the United States is the problem, as William Boardman explains.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in waves from a car after inauguration. Reuters.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in waves from a car after inauguration. Reuters.

President Moon, the new president of South Korea, wants a ‘sunshine policy’ of constructive engagement with North Korea, including building economic ties. Already divisions are showing between the US and South Korea, especially over the THAAD missile system. The system was rushed into Korea during the recent elections, despite Moon’s warnings. Moon has said that South Korea must take a lead role in reducing tensions. He ordered an investigation of bringing THAAD equipment into the country.

Globalization is Leaving the United States Behind

While Trump is calling for trade that puts America first, i.e. decreases the massive US trade deficit through trade protectionism, other countries are taking a different approach. Pepe Escobar reports “At the BRICS meeting on the sidelines of the G-20, they called for a more open global economy and for a rules-based, transparent, non-discriminatory, open and inclusive multilateral trading system.”

Throughout the Obama term, trade negotiations were bogged down because the US was out of the mainstream, calling for greater transnational corporate power than other countries would accept. This was one reason why negotiations slowed and the TPP was killed under election year pressure that made the agreement toxic. Now Trump wants to be even more extreme in favoring US corporations.Stop TPP protest sign by John Zangas

As Finian Cunningham writes, the world understands US economic problems better than US leaders. He writes the world knows that US “trade imbalances with the rest of the world are not because of ‘rotten deals’, as Trump would have it, but rather because the American economy has ruined itself over many decades. The off-shoring of jobs by American corporations and gutting of American workers with poverty wages are part of it.”

Some Good News

One potential piece of good news this week was President Trump meeting with President Putin for more than two hours. The meeting overcame the Russia-phobia put forth by a barrage of anti-Putin, anti-Russian propaganda that has been produced for many years. The US desperately needs a positive relationship with Russia, not just to avoid conflict with a nuclear and economic power, but because the US is becoming isolated. While not a lot came out of this first meeting, it did provide a good start for the potential resolution of many conflicts – Syria, Ukraine, North Korea, Iran and nuclear weapons (where they should work to achieve the goal of no more nuclear weapons voted for in the UN), to name a few.

The meeting produced a small step that could grow into a significant positive change. The US and Russia announced a ceasefire in part of southwestern Syria that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have been discussing for weeks. This could allow the US to play a positive role in Syria, in a war it has been losing.Putin Trump in Hamburg July 2017

But, this is also a test for President Trump – is he in control of the US government? Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, who led the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and gave the daily intelligence briefing to multiple presidents, asks whether the Trump-Tillerson ceasefire will survive better than an Obama-Kerry ceasefire also negotiated with Putin-Lavrov. In the Obama case, four days into the ceasefire, the US air force attacked Syrian troops, sabotaging the agreement. McGovern asks two questions critical to the lives of Syrians and the future of Europe and the Middle East:

“Will the forces that sabotaged previous ceasefire agreements in Syria succeed in doing so again, all the better to keep alive the ‘regime change’ dreams of the neoconservatives and liberal interventionists?”

“Or will President Trump succeed where President Obama failed by bringing the U.S. military and intelligence bureaucracies into line behind a ceasefire rather than allowing insubordination to win out?”

G-20  German riot police clash with protesters on July 6, 2017. By Fabrizio Bensch for Reuters.

G-20 German riot police clash with protesters on July 6, 2017. By Fabrizio Bensch for Reuters.

The RussiaGate myth was the top priority of the media and bi-partisans, rather than the potential Syria breakthrough. While the propaganda on alleged Russia interference continues, the US political class ignores the positive potential of the cease fire in Syria, closes its eyes to the potential undermining of the agreement by the Pentagon and talks about the myth that Russia elected Trump. As each new RussiaGate myth is published, it is shown to be false.

People Over Profit

Finally, another lesson from the G-20, people around the world are angry at political leaders who are failing them, including Donald Trump for holding back urgent action on climate change, fed up with globalization that puts people’s needs far behind the profits of transnational corporations, and are demanding changes to a system that does not listen.

Protests began before the summit and grew in size and anger as the summit progressed – always met with extreme police violence. The protests in Hamburg were large and loud. The rioting got a good deal of attention, but people expressed their concerns on multiple issues in many ways. Srecko Horvat writes about the importance of protests to show opposition and power, but also the need to continue the work of building alternatives to the current failed systems.

G-20 Hamburg For our childrenA growing political movement is expressing what is so desperately needed. People look at world leaders posing in group photo to show an image of success as false emperors and empresses wearing no clothes. Angel Merkel, the host of the event was careful not to exaggerate, summing up the meeting merely saying “The summit took place.” The realities are growing inequality, increasing impact from climate change and political systems that are less responsive to the people and more corrupted by transnational corporate power.

The root problem for the G-20 is they are unable to break from free market neoliberalism that is bringing devastation to the world. The people must force them to face the reality that transformation to economic democracy is needed — a new economy where people share the wealth and have influence in the direction of economic policy.

This new global alignment is a positive. The US has dominated the world for too long and must learn to become a cooperative partner. And as US power is waning on the world stage, there is an opening for people power in solidarity across borders to grow.

  • Aquifer

    Fact of the matter – our domestic economy took a decided turn for the worse when we abandoned “protectionism” of our domestic industry – if one notices, previous WTO rounds broke down because we wanted to dismantle other countries’ “protectionism” of their agricultural sectors …. methinks the left has to stop decrying “protectionism” and instead embrace it as a laudable goal for ALL countries – a necessary tool for them, and us, to use to be as self sufficient as they (we) can using the resources within their (oury own borders …. “protectionism” is not equivalent to “isolationism” – in fact could be quite the opposite – if our foreign police were to help other countries sustain their own populations …. if we want to break the back of “transnational’ corporations, seems to me a pretty good way would be to keep them from being “transnational” ….

    Resource wars, which, let’s be honest, are what most wars are – would be rendered “obsolete”, economically necessitated immigration would trickle to a halt – . Trade induced green house gas emissions would plummet and the seas and air would be so much quieter – left to the critters for whom it is home … the only thing that should be “globalized” is communication.

    Frankly I don’t really understand why.lefties, so intent on fostering “localization” don’t seem to get this ….

    Read Ha-Joon Chang’s “Bad Samaritans” …..

  • jimmywalter

    Please show your proof of the climate Crisis!

    The “97%” Myth is based on two publications—the first by Doran and Zimmerman (2000) and a later one by Cook et al. (2013″). The Doran and Zimmerman paper was a University of Illinois master’s thesis by Maggie Zimmerman and her thesis advisor, Peter Doran, who claimed that “97% of climate scientists agree” that global warming is caused by rising C02. They sent an Internet survey to 10,257 people working at universities and government agencies and received 3146 replies. Of these, only 5% identified themselves as “climate scientists.” Only two questions were asked:
    (1) “When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think that global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remain relatively constant?”
    and (2) “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor
    in changing mean global temperature?” Of the 3146 replies, Doran and
    Zimmerman arbitrarily selected 79 responses, of whom 77 replied
    “yes.” They divided 77 by 79 to get 97%, which was then elevated to
    “97% of all scientists” by various proponents of C02. The proper
    number should have been 77 divided by 3146, which equals 2%.

    The Cook et al. (2013) paper was based on counting abstracts of climate papers. The authors contended that “Among [4014] abstracts expressing a position of AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 97% endorsed the consensus position humans are causing global warming.” However, Legates et al. (2013*) point out that “the author’s own analysis shows that only 0.5% of all 11,944 abstracts,and 1.6% of the 4014 abstracts expressing a position, endorsed anthropogenic warming as they had defined it.”
    (2013″) and Bast and Spencer (2014*) conclude
    “The 97.1% consensus claimed by Cook et al. (2013) turns out upon
    inspection to be not 97.1% but 0.3%. Their claim of 97.1% consensus, therefore, is arguably one of the greatest items of misinformation in history.”
    Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming, Don Easterbrook

    Thus, the
    contention that “97% of all scientists agree that global warming is caused
    by C02″ is simply not true, and those who continue to assert
    this are either uniformed or perpetuating a false statement. Legates et al.

  • kevinzeese

    Sad to see we have climate deniers reading these pages. When someone is in denial, facts just do not matter. The UN report is a consensus document and has been consistently conservative in its predictions. http://www.ipcc.ch/

    There are multiple sources showing very broad scientific consensus. Here are some more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

    Here is more on the Koch Brothers funded climate denier you are quoting, https://www.desmogblog.com/david-legates As you can see he has done very well in his role as climate denier. The oil companies are funding him with big money!

  • mwildfire

    some good points here.

  • Aquifer

    Thanx!

  • ThisOldMan

    “Now Trump wants to be even more extreme in favoring US corporations.” This is an extremely naive statement, even if it may well be how Trump sees it: The biggest corporations on earth are all transnational with stockholders hailing from the 1% around the globe, and have no loyalty to any country or indeed the planet itself.

  • jimmywalter

    Sad to see we have climate alarmists reading these pages. When someone is freaking out over nothing, facts just do not matter. You did not address any of my FACTS while you performed character assassination on me. Please refute the facts! Science is not a democracy. Many, many times has the majority been wrong. When you have no answer for the facts, either you do not know what you are talking about or you are pushing propaganda.

  • Margaret Flowers

    It seems that you are the one bucking the consensus and have the burden of proving your position.

    From NASA:

    Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

    “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)2

  • jimmywalter

    Science is not a democracy. The majority have been proven wrong time and time again. I have provided the evidence which no one has rebutted. You just rattle credentials and ignore the facts:

    The”97%” Myth is based on two publications—the first by Doran and Zimmerman (2000) and a later one by Cook et al. (2013″). The Doran and
    Zimmerman paper was a University of Illinois master’s thesis by Maggie
    Zimmerman and her thesis advisor, Peter Doran, who claimed that “97% of
    climate scientists agree” that global warming is caused by rising C02.
    They sent an Internet survey to 10,257 people working at universities and
    government agencies and received 3146 replies. Of these, only 5% identified
    themselves as “climate scientists.” Only two questions were asked:
    (1) “When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think that global temperatures
    have generally risen, fallen, or remain relatively

    constant?”
    and (2) “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor
    in changing mean global temperature?” Of the 3146 replies, Doran and
    Zimmerman arbitrarily selected 79 responses, of whom 77 replied
    “yes.” They divided 77 by 79 to get 97%, which was then elevated to
    “97% of all scientists” by various proponents of C02. The proper
    number should have been 77 divided by 3146, which equals 2%.

    The Cook et
    al. (2013) paper was based on counting abstracts of climate papers. The authors
    contended that “Among [4014] abstracts expressing a position of AGW
    [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 97% endorsed the consensus position humans are
    causing global warming.” However, Legates et al. (2013*) point out that
    “the author’s own analysis shows that only 0.5% of all 11,944 abstracts,
    and 1.6% of the 4014 abstracts expressing a position, endorsed anthropogenic
    warming as they had defined it.”

    Every day,
    the news media, activists, politicians, and some climate scientists proclaim
    that 97% of all scientists agree that atmospheric C02 causes global warming and
    rising C02 will lead to global catastrophes. This claim has been echoed by the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), various scientific organizations,
    governments, President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry*, and many others.

    (2013″) and Bast and Spencer (2014*) conclude
    “The 97.1% consensus claimed by Cook et al. (2013) turns out upon
    inspection to be not 97.1% but 0.3%. Their claim of 97.1% consensus, therefore,
    is arguably one of the greatest items of misinformation in history.”

    Evidence-Based
    Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global
    Warming, Don Easterbrook

    Thus, the
    contention that “97% of all scientists agree that global warming is caused
    by C02″ is simply not true, and those who continue to assert
    this are either uniformed or perpetuating a false statement. Legates et al.

  • jimmywalter

    Science is not a democracy. There is no consensus:

    The
    “97%” Myth is based on two publications—the first by Doran and
    Zimmerman (2000) and a later one by Cook et al. (2013″). The Doran and
    Zimmerman paper was a University of Illinois master’s thesis by Maggie
    Zimmerman and her thesis advisor, Peter Doran, who claimed that “97% of
    climate scientists agree” that global warming is caused by rising C02.
    They sent an Internet survey to 10,257 people working at universities and
    government agencies and received 3146 replies. Of these, only 5% identified
    themselves as “climate scientists.” Only two questions were asked:
    (1) “When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think that global temperatures
    have generally risen, fallen, or remain relatively

    constant?”
    and (2) “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor
    in changing mean global temperature?” Of the 3146 replies, Doran and
    Zimmerman arbitrarily selected 79 responses, of whom 77 replied
    “yes.” They divided 77 by 79 to get 97%, which was then elevated to
    “97% of all scientists” by various proponents of C02. The proper
    number should have been 77 divided by 3146, which equals 2%.

    The Cook et
    al. (2013) paper was based on counting abstracts of climate papers. The authors
    contended that “Among [4014] abstracts expressing a position of AGW
    [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 97% endorsed the consensus position humans are
    causing global warming.” However, Legates et al. (2013*) point out that
    “the author’s own analysis shows that only 0.5% of all 11,944 abstracts,
    and 1.6% of the 4014 abstracts expressing a position, endorsed anthropogenic
    warming as they had defined it.”

    Every day,
    the news media, activists, politicians, and some climate scientists proclaim
    that 97% of all scientists agree that atmospheric C02 causes global warming and
    rising C02 will lead to global catastrophes. This claim has been echoed by the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), various scientific organizations,
    governments, President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry*, and many others.

    (2013″) and Bast and Spencer (2014*) conclude
    “The 97.1% consensus claimed by Cook et al. (2013) turns out upon
    inspection to be not 97.1% but 0.3%. Their claim of 97.1% consensus, therefore,
    is arguably one of the greatest items of misinformation in history.”

    Evidence-Based
    Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global
    Warming, Don Easterbrook

    Thus, the
    contention that “97% of all scientists agree that global warming is caused
    by C02″ is simply not true, and those who continue to assert
    this are either uniformed or perpetuating a false statement. Legates et al.

  • jimmywalter

    Please address my post, not your made up consensus:

    The “97%” Myth is based on two publications—the first by Doran and
    Zimmerman (2000) and a later one by Cook et al. (2013″). The Doran and
    Zimmerman paper was a University of Illinois master’s thesis by Maggie
    Zimmerman and her thesis advisor, Peter Doran, who claimed that “97% of
    climate scientists agree” that global warming is caused by rising C02.
    They sent an Internet survey to 10,257 people working at universities and
    government agencies and received 3146 replies. Of these, only 5% identified
    themselves as “climate scientists.” Only two questions were asked:
    (1) “When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think that global temperatures
    have generally risen, fallen, or remain relatively

    constant?”
    and (2) “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor
    in changing mean global temperature?” Of the 3146 replies, Doran and
    Zimmerman arbitrarily selected 79 responses, of whom 77 replied
    “yes.” They divided 77 by 79 to get 97%, which was then elevated to
    “97% of all scientists” by various proponents of C02. The proper
    number should have been 77 divided by 3146, which equals 2%.

    The Cook et
    al. (2013) paper was based on counting abstracts of climate papers. The authors
    contended that “Among [4014] abstracts expressing a position of AGW
    [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 97% endorsed the consensus position humans are
    causing global warming.” However, Legates et al. (2013*) point out that
    “the author’s own analysis shows that only 0.5% of all 11,944 abstracts,
    and 1.6% of the 4014 abstracts expressing a position, endorsed anthropogenic
    warming as they had defined it.”

    Every day,
    the news media, activists, politicians, and some climate scientists proclaim
    that 97% of all scientists agree that atmospheric C02 causes global warming and
    rising C02 will lead to global catastrophes. This claim has been echoed by the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), various scientific organizations,
    governments, President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry*, and many others.

    (2013″) and Bast and Spencer (2014*) conclude
    “The 97.1% consensus claimed by Cook et al. (2013) turns out upon
    inspection to be not 97.1% but 0.3%. Their claim of 97.1% consensus, therefore,
    is arguably one of the greatest items of misinformation in history.”

    Evidence-Based
    Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global
    Warming, Don Easterbrook

    Thus, the
    contention that “97% of all scientists agree that global warming is caused
    by C02″ is simply not true, and those who continue to assert
    this are either uniformed or perpetuating a false statement. Legates et al.

  • AlanMacDonald

    “Hamburg will also go down as a further mile marker in Europe’s slow
    emancipation from the U.S.” We may be witnessing the beginning of the
    end of US Empire.

    Really, Kevin?

    You, of all people, should know that it’s much more than a U.S. Empire, and that it is sufficiently disguised that none dare call it Empire —- nor does even the required 3% to 5% even understand that it is a Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE (only nominally HQed in, and merely ‘posing’ as, America, let alone enough to ignite the essential Second American “Political/economic/social Revolution against EMPIRE”.

  • jimmywalter

    You have yet to refute what I have reported. You are the ones making the assertion that CO2 and 97% of all climate scientists support it. You have to prove it, not me! I have given proof, with references, that prove the original 97% claim was entirely bogus. All you do is rattle credentials and avoid answering my arguments.

  • AlanMacDonald

    Yes, OldMan, Trump’s goal of “Making American Great Again” is merely parroting the 2011 CFR ‘Plot-Tank’ goal of its “Renewing America Initiative” from which the megalomaniac’s campaign slogan was named.

    “The year 2011 also saw a major new CFR program, the Renewing America Initiative, [later renamed 'Make America Great Again'] a prime example of “mission creep,” that is, the recent tendency for the Council to expand its focus of activity beyond foreign policy to the domestic realm. The CFR leadership believes that this new initiative is needed because the underpinnings of U.S. global power are weakening as unsolved problems grow within the country.”

    Shoup, Laurence H. (2015-08-22). Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2014 (Kindle Locations 1586-1589). Monthly Review Press. Kindle Edition.

  • AlanMacDonald

    Kevin (and Margaret), looks like we can ignore jimmywelter, as he’s only a Welter lightweight Troll trying to punch above his class.

    He’s certainly trying, very trying.

  • kevinzeese

    As I said when I first responded that when you are talking to someone who denies reality no matter what you say, he is unlikely to change.

    You claimed there was no scientific consensus — the comments on here provided numerous sources that show the very broad consensus. You rely on one study,critiqued by a guy who is not a climate scientist and who has been paid well by the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil to be a denier.

    You will believe what you want no matter what the facts. People reading these comments can decide for themselves who has made a better case for their position.

  • AlanMacDonald

    Aquifer, your’s are ‘nice thoughts’, except for the fact that in addition to communications being “globalized” (which is good between people), the awful reality of EMPIRE also being “globalized” has already occured, and now has to be the first and most important thing to be overthrown by an essential Second American “Political/economic/social Revolution against EMPIRE”.

    Oh, BTW, Aquifer, as I mentioned to Kevin, there is no “decline in Empire”, since what many in the American Empire Project called a specific “American Empire” per se up into the early 2000′s has now been more accurately and fully superceded, eclipsed, and metastasized into a fully Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE as properly diagnosed by Prof. Robinson:

    “The U.S. state is a key point of condensation for pressures from
    dominant groups AROUND THE WORLD to resolve problems of GLOBAL capitalism and to secure the legitimacy of the system overall. In this regard, “U.S.” imperialism refers to the use by TRANSNATIONAL ELITES of the U.S. STATE APPARATUS (both hard and soft) to continue to attempt to expand, defend, and stabilize the global capitalist system.

    We are witness less to a “U.S.” imperialism per se than to a GLOBAL CAPITALIST imperialism. We face an EMPIRE of global capital, headquartered, for evident historical reasons,in Washington.” [CAPS ADDED]

    Robinson, William I. (2014-07-31). Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (p. 122). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

  • Aquifer

    Yeah, but not all those transnationals are big political donors – just the ones nominally based in the US enjoying the legal and financial benefits of being so and, to serve their interests (after all he is one of them), he has to be in a position of power to do so – i.e. get elected, and he wouldn’t win with a slogan of “Make Transnational Corp Great Again!” or even, i suspect, with “Make American Corporations Great Again!” So he just shortened it a bit … :)

  • AlanMacDonald

    Actually, Aquifer, as I said below, Trump expropriated — as he often does — his campaign slogan from the Council on Foreign Relations 2011 #1 program strategy:

    “The year 2011 also saw a major new CFR program, the Renewing America Initiative, [later renamed 'Make America Great Again'] a prime example of “mission creep,” that is, the recent tendency for the Council to expand its focus of activity beyond foreign policy to the domestic realm. The CFR leadership believes that this new initiative is needed because the underpinnings of U.S. global power are weakening as unsolved problems grow within the country.”

    Shoup, Laurence H. (2015-08-22). Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2014 (Kindle Locations
    1586-1589). Monthly Review Press. Kindle Edition.

  • Aquifer

    “The “97% claim was bogus” do you mean that what the 97% claim is bogus or that it is not 97% that claim it …

  • Aquifer

    Empire goes by many names and comes in many guises – I suggest that one of my “nice thoughts” is the key – ” …if we want to break the back of ‘transnational’ corporations, seems to
    me a pretty good way would be to keep them from being ‘transnational’ “.- And that can be done, in effect, by “globalizing” “localization” of life …..

  • Jon

    Lenin’s “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism” is relevant here, speaking 100 years ago he makes the point that while collusion between the “great states” certainly exists, competition is primary.

  • jimmywalter

    I have proven the first, the original 97% claim is bogus. If you have another, please present it. I will prove any and all of them are not supported by 97% of all climate scientists!

  • jimmywalter

    I have presented facts. You have only performed character assassination. If you have facts, present them

  • Aquifer

    No, you have not “proven” the first – you have presented some “facts” that have been interpreted by some to disprove the claims of that 97% – all you have presented is what amounts to a difference of interpretation – that is not irrefutable “proof” that those claims are false … There are some folk who would argue that the world is flat, as well, or that it does not orbit around the sun ….

    How can you claim that any or all of them are not supported by 97% – so what % of scientists do support any or all of those claims ….

    Let’s see – 97% of docs, say, you have appendicitis and need an operation – 3% don’t – who ya gonna go with?

  • Aquifer

    He did …read the studies, for Pete;s sake ….

  • Jimmy Walter

    I did. You read the references, for Pete’s sake!

  • Jimmy Walter

    Wrong. These are the facts, Not opinion.

    “They sent an Internet survey to 10,257 people working at universities and government agencies and received 3146 replies. Of these, only
    5% identified themselves as “climate scientists.” Only two questions were asked: (1) “When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think that
    global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remain relatively constant?” and (2) “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor
    in changing mean global temperature?” Of the 3146 replies, Doran and Zimmerman arbitrarily selected 79 responses, of whom 77 replied “yes.” They divided 77 by 79 to get 97%, which was then elevated to “97% of all scientists” by various proponents of C02. The proper
    number should have been 77 divided by 3146, which equals 2%.”

  • Aquifer

    So let’s see. 5% of the 3,146 replies were from “climate scientists” – meaning 157.3 were – so how did those 157.3 feel – just because only 79 responses were selected doesn’t mean the others felt differently –

    Sorry, you haven’t “proven” anything except that 3% of folks in some arbitrary selection said no …

  • Jimmy Walter

    It was an arbitrary selection by the people who originated the claim that 97% support AQW.