The 2016 Collapse of the Republican Party

Lincoln Republicans

1968 Republican Platform brochure.

“Today we are in turmoil…many young people are losing faith in our society. Our inner cities have become centers of despair. Millions of Americans are caught in the cycle of poverty – poor education, unemployment or serious underemployment, and the inability to afford decent housing.

“Inflation has eroded confidence in the dollar at home and abroad. It has severely cut into the incomes of all families, the jobless, the farmers the retired and those living on fixed incomes and pensions. Today’s Americans are uncertain about the future, and frustrated about the recent past. America urgently needs new leadership – leadership courageous and understanding – leadership that will recapture control of events, mastering them rather than permitting them to master us, thus restoring confidence in ourselves and in our future.”

Does that pretty much sum up America’s mood and situation as the 2016 Presidential election shapes up? It’s a passage from the 1968 Republican Party platform which gave Richard Nixon a narrow election victory over Hubert Humphrey.

There are many forces on the move in 2015 similar to what was going on in 1968, not least of which were certain ideological and intellectual trends. In May of that year (which, like 2015, was a wild one) Nixon gave a CBS radio address titled “A New Alignment For American Unity” in which he quoted French thinker and politician Alexis de Tocqueville:

“Time, events or the unaided individual action of the mind will sometimes undermine or destroy an opinion, without any outward sign of the change. It has not been openly assailed, no conspiracy has been formed to make war on it, but its followers one by one noiselessly secede; day by day a few of them abandon it, until at last it is only professed by a minority…They are themselves unaware for a long period of time that a revolution has actually been effected…The majority cease to believe what they believed before, but they still affect to believe, and this empty phantom of public opinion is strong enough to chill innovators and to keep them silent and at a respectful distance.

This year saw the collapse of political correctness. From cultural gatekeepers insisting that a man is a woman if he says so, to the campus Victorians banning harmless Halloween costumes, and culminating in a San Bernardino man not reporting the suspicious activity of Islamist terrorists who murdered 14 out of fear of being called racist or bigoted, the whole thing has fallen apart. It’s just as de Tocqueville described, people have been silently defecting from the worldview mandated by political correctness for years, though the affectations of belief persisted. But 2015 has been the breaking point. One man is largely to thank for bringing out into the open and making it official: Donald J. Trump. As Monsieur Alexis said in one of his lesser known books: the mainstream media and political class have felt the cold stinging wind on their bare assess as they get caught with their pants down. And it’s beautiful to watch.

In Nixon’s “New Alignment” address he laid out five areas where the alignment had formed. Aside from the Republican Voice, there was “The Voice of the New Liberal” which called for a workable form of “‘participatory democracy.’ It demands a political order close to the people who are governed, in which the people play a vital part. That voice demands greater personal freedom and less government domination.” There are echoes of this in 2015. The Left still calls for “participatory democracy” and “fixing income inequality.” Conservatives are looking for the same thing, but with more of a “the glass is half full” approach usually expressed as “growing the middle class.” Nixon said “Let’s not oversimplify. The voices are not joined in harmonious chorus – far from it. The ideas of the new alignment differ in emphasis, not fundamentals; differences in the speed of change, not so much in the direction of change.” Again we have come to a point where the lines of Left and Right are somewhat dissolved if you look at the fundamentals. The more accurate dividing line is authoritarianism versus liberty – despite how it looks on the surface, there is a lot of overlap. This will continue as long as liberals are pushed out of the Democratic Party by the hard Left. Many of them are looking for alternatives but can’t yet bring themselves to vote Republican (who can blame them really?) Indeed, some of Trump’s support is said to come from Reagan Democrats.

The “Solid South” began making the switch slowly from Democrat to Republican in the 1930s (although it wasn’t solidly Republican until the late 80s and early 90s). The Democrats’ hold on the South was akin to their hold on New York and California today, but in ’68 Nixon spoke of the “Voice of the New South,” a South that was “in ferment.” It hasn’t been talked about much, but many staunchly Democratic areas are in ferment today in the face of municipal bankruptcy and school system failure. Hell, even Victor Davis Hanson holds out on the possibility that there will be a shift in the California political landscape back to something more conservative as the massive immigrant population moves up into middle class life.

Nixon’s fourth Voice was that of the “Black Militant.” “There is a deep and widening division between today’s black leadership and the doctrinaire welfarist,” he begins. “When you listen to these black voices, you hear little about ‘handouts’ or ‘welfare.’ Instead you hear the words ‘dignity,’ ‘ownership,’ ‘pride.’ They do not want to be recipients, they want to be participants.” The black militants are still with us alright. But if Nixon is accurate here in summing up their stance, I’ll take them over the screeching victicrats who occupy our universities today. Nixon called for “a share in American opportunity” and “a legitimate role in private enterprise.” I don’t get the sense that today’s black militants are very interested in these things. Most of them are rich already anyway. They want “the system” torn down in its entirety. The black militants are the one group today who have purposefully excluded themselves from any new alignment forming today, and I’m afraid the only solution here is widespread social opprobrium and ostracization until they grow the hell up. One of the dirty secrets of 2015 is the black (and Hispanic) support for allegedly racist Donald Trump. The reason? He came out swinging on illegal immigration which has hurt blacks the most, especially young blacks, by driving down wages and swelling the labor pool.

The last voice Nixon spoke of was “The Silent Center” – what he said was actually “a non-voice” of sorts. They are those who “do not demonstrate, do not protest or picket loudly. Yet, these people are no less committed to seeking out the new direction. They are willing to listen to new ideas, and they are willing to think them through.” The silent center or silent majority concept has been around for a long time, and though I think 2015 is overwhelmingly going to be a base election, I think the silent majority will also assert themselves like they haven’t in many years. A lot of them are the Trump supporters – or at least people who declare as much to pollsters. One thing the media doesn’t understand is that Trump supporters don’t necessarily actually support any of his stances or policy proposals – they are simply reacting to what they know they hate: the media, entrenched career politicians, the politically correct cultural climate. Trump has finally given everyone a runaway freight train to latch onto as it smashes all of these things, and most people are just going for the ride even if they are not going to the ultimate destination.

***

The Democrat Party has collapsed morally and ideologically, though not yet formally. That risk lies with the Republican Party, for it is in that party where there is debate and flexibility. On the Democratic side, there is the coronation of Hillary Clinton with all of its inevitability and predictability. Senator Bernie Sanders has been an interesting addition shaking things up a bit and bringing some honesty and integrity to the table (he’s still wrong about just about everything though), but so far his chances of winning the nomination look improbable and his campaign is largely symbolic. The Republican nomination, by contrast, is up for grabs.

With the Party looking at more than a dozen candidates (half of them imaginable) and the possibility of no one getting a clear majority of delegates in the primaries, there has been talk of a brokered convention and third parties. Donald Trump said in the Las Vegas debate that he was truly committed to the Republican Party, but the possibilities are still worrying. Trump has no discernible chance of winning a general election, and a Trump nomination will probably put the White House out of the Republicans’ reach for a generation or longer. Why? Four years of Democrat manipulated immigration and demographic trends will ensure it.

The next most likely Republican nominee at the moment, Ted Cruz, also has the specter of a Goldwater repeat looming over him. However, I don’t think this will happen because in 1964 President Lyndon Johnson had taken over for the slain President John F. Kennedy just a year earlier and due to public sympathy was probably unbeatable, no matter whom the Republicans nominated. The country at large was just not ready to take the sharp right turn the Republicans wanted to with Goldwater. The next two elections seemed to prove Nixon right in his assessment of the “New Alignment” as he won the next two elections – the first barely squeaking by, the second in a landslide. His resignation left a bad taste in the public’s mouth so Ford lost in ’76, but the “New Alignment” was still there and made itself heard in ’80,’84 and ’88 with Reagan’s elections and then Bush. Ted Cruz has plenty of enemies, but the Democratic Party of Obama and Clinton is more out of favor with America at the moment.

This does not guarantee victory for the eventual Republican nominee. It’s theirs to lose, and Republicans excel at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. A brokered convention will signal the demise of the Party because in a year of raging against the machine on the Right, the insider backroom dealing that will happen is exactly what the base is fighting against. The moment will come for a fracturing of the Party and the Right, thus putting both out of national power for a long time.

Nixon spoke of the 3 thirds of the 20th century – the first was the New Deal era, the middle was the shift, the last ended with the Reagan era. He was overall correct in that division, even though we are not entirely done with the New Deal era. 2016 is about setting the tone for the next century – will the Obama administration turn out to be the final gasp of the New Deal era, or its rejuvenation?

With the internet and the capabilities provided to individual citizens by the smartphone, American society and its economy have long discarded the New Deal/Great Society model and it is impossible for the State to catch up, but half the country hasn’t realized this yet. In short, we have a smartphone economy and a New Deal/Great Society government. Half the country still believes in continuing down the road of greater centralization – be it Obamacare or the proposals of Sanders and Clinton to centralize education. Just as the future of warfare is a micro affair, the future of economics and politics is diffused and decentralized. And that’s not a prediction – it has already happened. The choice is The Hyperloop “Race” or Jerry Brown’s choo choo chase. The choice is whether we want a government to catch up and serve this reality, or to stubbornly preserve the old bureaucratic armies of the past.

One can only hope that Nixon’s vision will come to pass again: “As we coalesce the elements of this new alignment, some surprising things will begin to happen. As frustration ends, violence will wane; as runaway government is curbed, personal freedom will grow; as demanding welfare systems are replaced, individual initiative will take the lead; as peace returns to the American city, America will be better able to build peace in the world.”

Advertisements

“We Are Mujahid” ISIS Makes Mandarin Song To Recruit Chinese Jihadis

On December 7 the Islamic State (ISIS) released a song in Mandarin in an effort to recruit Chinese Muslim fighters. Most jihadi propaganda targets Muslim Uighurs in China’s Xinjiang Province, but it’s rarely done in Mandarin; rather the calls come in the Turkic Uighur language. It’s hard to say who this song is dedicated to, but there is a chance that the aim is to rouse China’s Hui Muslim minority into waging war against the Communist Party. The Hui, like ISIS, practice a Sunni form of Islam and are considered very moderate.

According to Z News, the song was made in Pakistan by Al-Hayat Media Center, an Islamic State media outlet. And according to SITE intelligence group, it was released through Twitter and the messaging app Telegram.

Interestingly, one of the lines in the song talks about “a century of slavery” that has left “shameful memories” for Chinese Muslims, which could be a reference to the “Century of Humiliation” – a Chinese government narrative used to describe the West’s treatment of China from the Opium Wars to the founding of the People’s Republic. This use of language would sound familiar to any Chinese listener.

China has come into closer focus for the Islamic State in the last year and half since ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi said in a July 2014 speech that “Muslim rights are forcibly seized in China, India, Palestine…” The Hong Kong magazine Phoenix Weekly, which broke the story in China, noted that China was called out first on the list. The result was a spike in interest and outrage in China towards the Islamic State’s actions. That continued when in June of this year ISIS released a video featuring an 80 year old Uighur grandfather, said to be the oldest member of ISIS. In September, a knife attack by Uighur separatists prompted a government crackdown in Xinjiang, including an outright ban on several Muslim names. Then in November, the Chinese government confirmed that ISIS had executed Beijing native Fan Jinghui whom they had kidnapped in Syria and put up for ransom along with a Norwegian man. Later that month, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou “urged the public not to panic” when ISIS released a video in which a display of the flags of countries fighting against them included the flag of Taiwan, which was taken to mean ISIS recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign country.

This song, “We Are Mujahid”, came out just a couple of weeks later. If you didn’t know what it was, what is said, and who made it, you might actually like it. It’s hypnotically catchy. Now, the moment you’ve been waiting for, listen here and scroll down to sing along.

There were a couple parts I wasn’t sure about, so if you want to correct a translation, please do so in the comments. 


我们是 Mujahid, 无耻的敌人会恐慌,
Wǒmen shì Mujahid, wúchǐ de dírén huì kǒnghuāng,
We are Mujahid, our shameless enemies will be stricken with fear and panic,

站死在这沙场上就是我们的梦想.
Zhàn sǐ zài zhè shāchǎng shàng jiùshì wǒmen de mèngxiǎng.
To die on this battleground is our dream.

我们是 Mujahid, 无耻的敌人会恐慌,
Wǒmen shì Mujahid, wúchǐ de dírén huì kǒnghuāng,
We are Mujahid, our shameless enemies will be stricken with fear and panic,

站死在这沙场上就是我们的梦想.
Zhàn sǐ zài zhè shāchǎng shàng jiùshì wǒmen de mèngxiǎng.
To die on this battleground is our dream.

一个世纪被奴役, 留下那耻辱的回忆,
Yīgè shìjì bèi núyì, liú xià nà chǐrǔ de huíyì,
A century of slavery, leaving that shameful memory,

无知的沉睡下去, 噩梦就会直去.
Wǒ zhǐ de chénshuì xiàqù, èmèng jiù huì zhí qù.
Deep in ignorant slumber, the nightmare continues.

一个世纪被奴役, 留下那耻辱的回忆,
Yīgè shìjì bèi núyì, liú xià nà chǐrǔ de huíyì,
A century of slavery, leaving that shameful memory,

无知的沉睡下去, 噩梦就会直去.
Wǒ zhǐ de chénshuì xiàqù, èmèng jiù huì zhí qù.
Deep in ignorant slumber, the nightmare continues.

起来吧穆斯林兄弟, 现在是觉醒的时期,
Qǐláiba mùsīlín xiōngdì, xiànzài shíjiān xǐng de shíqí,
Get up Muslim brother, now is the time to awaken,

来上信仰和勇气, 履行丢失的教义.
Lái shàng xìnyǎng hé yǒngqì, lǚxíng diūshī de jiàoyì.
Take up your faith and courage, fulfill the lost doctrine.

起来吧穆斯林兄弟, 现在是觉醒的时期,
Qǐláiba mùsīlín xiōngdì, xiànzài shíjiān xǐng de shíqí,
Get up Muslim brother, now is the time to awaken,

来上信仰和勇气, 履行丢失的教义.
Lái shàng xìnyǎng hé yǒngqì, lǚxíng diūshī de jiàoyì.
Take up your faith and courage, fulfill the lost doctrine.

我们是 Mujahid, 无耻的敌人会恐慌,
Wǒmen shì Mujahid, wúchǐ de dírén huì kǒnghuāng,
We are Mujahid, our shameless enemies will be stricken with fear and panic,

站死在这沙场上就是我们的梦想.
Zhàn sǐ zài zhè shāchǎng shàng jiùshì wǒmen de mèngxiǎng.
To die on this battleground is our dream.

我们只遵守这古兰经和圣训,
Wǒmen shì zūnshǒu zhè gǔlánjīng hé shèng xùn
We only abide by the Koran and Sunnah,

没有任何力量能阻止我们的前进.
Méiyǒu rènhé lìliàng néng zǔzhǐ wǒmen de qiánjìn.
There is no power whatsoever that can impede our progress.

我们只遵守这古兰经和圣训,
Wǒmen shì zūnshǒu zhè gǔlánjīng hé shèng xùn
We only abide by the Koran and Sunnah,

没有任何力量能阻止我们的前进.
Méiyǒu rènhé lìliàng néng zǔzhǐ wǒmen de qiánjìn.
There is no power whatsoever that can impede our progress.

为祝祷而战斗, 为大阿拉的命令,
Wèi zhùdǎo ér zhàndòu, wéi dà āla de mìnglìng
To pray and wage war, for Great Allah’s commands,

拿起武器去反抗, 权谋胜的这里. (???)
Ná qǐ wǔqì qù fǎnkàng, quánmóu shèng de zhèlǐ. (???)
Take up arms and resist, deception/trickery will lead to victory. (Not sure about the second half, WSJ translates it as “To take up weapons in rebellion is Muhammad’s order.”)

为祝祷而战斗, 为大阿拉的命令,
Wèi zhùdǎo ér zhàndòu, wéi dà āla de mìnglìng
To pray and wage war, for Great Allah’s commands,

拿起武器去反抗, 权谋胜的这里. (???)
Ná qǐ wǔqì qù fǎnkàng, quánmóu shèng de zhèlǐ. (???)
Take up arms and resist, deception/trickery will lead to victory. (Not sure about the second half, WSJ translates it as “To take up weapons in rebellion is Muhammad’s order.”)

我们是 Mujahid, 无耻的敌人会恐慌,
Wǒmen shì Mujahid, wúchǐ de dírén huì kǒnghuāng,
We are Mujahid, our shameless enemies will be stricken with fear and panic,

站死在这沙场上就是我们的梦想.
Zhàn sǐ zài zhè shāchǎng shàng jiùshì wǒmen de mèngxiǎng.
To die on this battleground is our dream.

伊斯兰的辉煌在那里史上,
Yīsīlán de huīhuáng yíliú zài nàlǐ shǐshàng,
The brilliance of Islam is handed down through history,

让它重返光芒, 是奋斗的方向.
Ràng tā chóng fǎn guāngmáng, shì fèndòu de fāngxiàng.
To have a return to radiance, that is the direction of the struggle.

伊斯兰的辉煌在那里史上,
Yīsīlán de huīhuáng yíliú zài nàlǐ shǐshàng,
The brilliance of Islam is handed down through history,

让它重返光芒, 是奋斗的方向.
Ràng tā chóng fǎn guāngmáng, shì fèndòu de fāngxiàng.
To have a return to radiance, that is the direction of the struggle.

起来吧穆斯林兄弟, 现在是觉醒的时期,
Qǐláiba mùsīlín xiōngdì, xiànzài shíjiān xǐng de shíqí,
Get up Muslim brother, now is the time to awaken,

来上信仰和勇气, 履行丢失的教义.
Lái shàng xìnyǎng hé yǒngqì, lǚxíng diūshī de jiàoyì.
Take up your faith and courage, fulfill the lost doctrine.

起来吧穆斯林兄弟, 现在是觉醒的时期,
Qǐláiba mùsīlín xiōngdì, xiànzài shíjiān xǐng de shíqí,
Get up Muslim brother, now is the time to awaken,

来上信仰和勇气, 履行丢失的教义.
Lái shàng xìnyǎng hé yǒngqì, lǚxíng diūshī de jiàoyì.
Take up your faith and courage, fulfill the lost doctrine.

我们是 Mujahid, 无耻的敌人会恐慌,
Wǒmen shì Mujahid, wúchǐ de dírén huì kǒnghuāng,
We are Mujahid, our shameless enemies will be stricken with fear and panic,

站死在这沙场上就是我们的梦想.
Zhàn sǐ zài zhè shāchǎng shàng jiùshì wǒmen de mèngxiǎng.
To die on this battleground is our dream.

China Is Playing The West At The Paris Climate Conference

The Illuminati-One World Order-One World Government guys may be on to something this time. Well, it looks like it on the surface anyway what with words like “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” and sentences like UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s “The business community is asking for a clear signal from governments that the low emissions economy is inevitable” being spoken. Nearly 200 countries are in the middle of negotiations at the Paris climate conference, with the prospect of a legally binding grand bargain among the nations being hammered out.

As Shikha Dalmia recalls in The Week:

“Every major climate change initiative to date has gone up in smoke. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which sought to cut emissions 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, was doomed from the start. India and China, even then among the world’s top five polluters, refused to even participate. Meanwhile, President Bill Clinton supported the treaty, but he didn’t have a prayer of getting it past the U.S. Congress, so he didn’t even try. Canada ratified the deal but blew its target cuts by 25 percent and eventually quit. Japan and New Zealand similarly faced a compliance gap. Europe met its target but not because its cap-and-trade program was a roaring success, as environmentalists would have you believe. Rather, it was because the industrial emissions of former Soviet bloc countries were so awful in 1990 that minor access to better Western technology produced major gains. Also, Europe’s 2007 recession helped!

“The 2009 Copenhagen conference to hammer out a Kyoto sequel was an even bigger debacle. India and China participated — but only to play spoilsports. They rejected America’s proposed emission cuts as small potatoes that didn’t even come close to atoning for America’s historic role in causing the problem in the first place. The whole thing ended on a sour note with global leaders unable to muster anything beyond a statement noting the need to keep global temperatures 2 degrees centigrade below industrial levels.”

But as Ronald Bailey reports at Reasonthe atmosphere of this conference is a bit warmer than in the past:

“Paris, France – I’ve reported from so many U.N. climate change conferences that I’ve lost count (11 or 12, I think), but I have never before experienced what is happening in the slapped-together particle board hallways of the Le Bourget exposition site: Optimism. Even a bit of giddiness on the part of the diplomats, and even among the always dour environmentalist groups. At earlier meetings the set ritual has been for activists during the second week to issue a constant stream of urgent denunciations. Sure, one still hears here that there is only 24 hours to get this or that deal done, but the upbeat tone is nevertheless widespread…

“There is another reason for a feeling of serenity at the conference: the absence of mobs of protestors. The commotion produced by of masses of demonstrators inside and outside the climate conferences contributed significantly to the fraught atmosphere that pervaded previous meetings. The French government has used the terrorist atrocities in November as a justification to ban all public protests and marches. This seems to have taken the heart out of lot of would-be climate agitators. Yes, the occasional campaigner dressed in a polar bear costume does wander by, but participants are not being hectored by throngs of doomsters constantly crying climate calamity from their various soapboxes. The result is that the conference venue is imbued with an unaccustomed sense of orderly calm.”

That order and optimism should be worrying for the United States and anyone in any country who values free enterprise and national sovereignty.

One of the linchpins of the conference is funding for various climate change related initiatives, organized by the Obama administration at the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, in which rich countries have pledged to contribute $100 billion a year by 2020. President Xi Jinping said in Paris, “Developed countries should honor their commitment of mobilizing $100 billion each year before 2020 and provide stronger support to developing countries afterward.”

G77 Chairwoman Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko said, “We repeatedly call on developed countries to provide the necessary support to enable the members of the Group to take on their fair share of the global effort…many of these INDCs [intended nationally determined contributions] include a component on adaptation and action which we have to take as a result mostly of the historical emissions by developed countries…This was done without any concrete reassurances from our partners that post-2020 support will be available.”

The G77 Chairwoman added that these climate initiatives must be “supported by finance, technology development and transfer and capacity-building by developed country parties…The outcome regarding finance must provide clarity on the level of financial support that will be provided by developed country parties to developing country parties to allow for enhanced implementation of the Convention in the post-2020 period, as well as existing commitment on pre-2020 finance,” she stressed.

India is also a wrench in the gears. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that the threats posed by climate change are the result of “the prosperity and progress of an industrial age powered by fossil fuel. But we in India face its consequences today.” One of India’s negotiators proclaimed in a press conference that the financing is “not a donation, but is an obligation on the part of developed countries” and that there is “an entitlement to receive finance on part of developing countries.”

As Bailey also reports, “In Paris, poor countries are insisting that $100 billion is a floor and that climate finance should be substantially scaled up from there. The poor countries are also insisting that the accord adopt mechanisms that track and verify the amounts of climate finance flowing from rich countries.” (Italics mine.)

In other words, pay up or shut up.

Western leaders in those “developed” countries (as if development has an end) will play along because most of them believe in this guilt narrative. If you can stomach it, here’s Al Gore who “likened the fight against climate change to earlier great moral crusades such as the abolition of slavery and apartheid, the right of women to vote and civil rights for all. Just like them, Gore said, the climate change struggle has a simple ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer. ‘The right choice is to safeguard the future for the next generation and for the generations to come.’” President Francois Hollande struck a similar tone, “so many people and future generations will be very strict when they judge what was done by heads of state and government, especially when it comes to those who did not assume their responsibilities, who did not opt for a universal, legally binding, differentiated agreement.”

This is especially sad coming from the French president, when only a few weeks ago the ugly reality of the real global threat – radical Islamic terrorism – hit right in the face the very city where this conference to fight a highly questionable global threat is being held. As radio talk show host Dennis Prager often says, those who don’t fight evil hate those who do. Climate change is the one area where world leaders who have failed to deal with global jihad can feel like they are doing something good together.

***

In November 2014 during President Obama’s visit to Beijing, he announced alongside President Xi that the US and China had reached an agreement in which “The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030.” That’s right, the US will commit to meeting these targets by 2025, and China will commit to start thinking about reducing carbon emissions, which is not pollution, by 2030. Classic Obamadeal.

The entire reason behind it was to signal to all the countries now gathered in Paris that the two biggest economies in the world were on the same page, therefore everyone else should get on board.

That China has gone from climate conference foil to enthusiastic cheerleader (or Bali to 巴黎 ) is touted by President Obama as a victory for the cause. But an examination of China’s domestic energy policy points to another conclusion: China is doing what it would be doing anyway because of internal public pressure to deal with air pollution, and they have repackaged that policy to fit with the UN climate change agenda.

The Communist Party truly does want to improve the pollution situation in China, but it’s because dealing with that problem has become an internal legitimacy question, not because they want to “combat climate change.” Such questions are above all others for the Party. And, with good historical reason, the Chinese are very wary of jeopardizing their sovereignty to Western led institutions. In a report released last month by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Patricia Adams examines China’s positions and opens with this insight:

“The apparent contradiction between what the West wants and what China’s leadership needs is easily resolved. China’s leadership knows that what China says to the West is more important than what China does, absolving it of the need to make any binding commitment to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. China also knows that Western leaders’ have no firm expectation of concrete commitments in Paris. Rather, their paramount goal is to maintain face at the Paris talks, which would collapse without China’s presence.

“China is deftly preparing the stage in Paris to position itself as the Third World’s defender and also as a recipient of the billions in climate aid that it is demanding from the West. We can expect more announcements, agreements, and soaring rhetoric from global politicians at the Paris Conference, along with an agreement to meet again next year. What we cannot expect are reforms designed to reduce China’s carbon emissions.”

The Chinese have simply observed the scene and caught on to the game. They have also had more time since the last two climate conferences to observe the Obama administration and how willing it is to give away massive concessions, such as the November 2014 carbon emissions agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. Who can blame them really? They are just taking advantage of an opportunity to forward their national interests, an opportunity served on a silver platter by inept Western leadership making impossible demands on China. Adams puts it like this:

“The Chinese government communicates via slogans. Whether it is Premier Li’s ‘war on pollution’ or President Xi’s ‘energy revolution’, slogans represent the Communist Party’s operating principles. As such, they are both a signal to economic actors of how to justify their actions and a statement of best intentions that provides cover when the plan doesn’t work out. China’s Communist Party has realised that the UN war on global warming can legitimise its goals as well as extract concessions and cash from the West while establishing China as a ‘responsible world power’. Most of all, as a centralised, top-down mechanism that conditions investments globally, the UN climate negotiations speak the language of the Communist Party of China and entrench the Party’s role.”

Beijing is also bluntly calling Obama’s bluff. The Boston Herald reports,

“China’s chief negotiator at climate talks outside Paris says that any agreement adopted in the negotiations should be legally binding in its entirety, not just parts of it.

“Su Wei told reporters Saturday that if a treaty is adopted at the end of the Paris negotiations, then ‘all the provisions, starting from the preamble to the final clauses would be legally binding.’

“That contrasts with the U.S. position which is for some parts to be legally binding, but not countries’ pledges to limit the greenhouse gas emissions. Binding emissions cuts would likely require the Obama administration to send the deal to the Republican-controlled Congress, where it would likely be struck down.

“‘We cannot just identify one sentence or one provision or article as not legally binding,’ Su said. ‘That’s a general rule of international treaty laws. There’s no doubt about that.’

“After the news conference he indicated the issue was still up for negotiation.”

Beijing gets to claim “see, we’re all for this fighting climate change thing” knowing full well Obama can’t commit America to anything legally binding, absolving them from any such commitments as well. CNN quotes China’s vice-minister of the National Development and Reform Commission Xie Zhenhua, “As China gradually completes its industrialization, carbon emissions from industries may reach their peak earlier than expected — but the country still has a long way to go when it comes to urbanization. So emissions from construction, transportation and service sectors will keep rising. Looking at the broader picture, we feel the goal of having emissions peak around 2030 is a scientific one.”

Echoing Su Wei, Xie also said, “I’m actually worried that, after the next U.S. presidential election, if a Republican wins, will the United States keep its commitment to the climate change issue? You don’t have to worry about China’s commitment. It’s the United States that you should be concerned about — will it keep its current policy intact? That’s what worries me.”

***

France and the US, the two world leaders in nuclear power technology, could be selling that technology and know how to the developing world which would benefit their economies, help to keep the environment clean, and help poor countries advance all at the same time. Not to mention that being an incomparably easier and more accountable process than trying to get just under 200 countries to agree to emissions standards. Instead they are allowing themselves to be morally blackmailed into giving up the guilt money.

Progressivism is a luxury good, and “combating climate change” is the most expensive progressive luxury good. It’s one the Chinese can’t afford – the only luxury goods they are interested in are Gucci bags and Lamborghinis.

I Did It, I Solved Racial Tensions In America

I was taking a walk with my iPod on random and two songs I’ve never heard together played back to back:

“Answer To No One” by Colt Ford.

Then, “The Enemy” by Big L and Fat Joe.

Listening to the lyrics, it hit me: this is (pretty much) the same song. They’re both into the same things – cool cars, hot women, making money, tons of guns. And they essentially have the same message: My hood is the shit, lower my taxes and fuck the government.

Piggy backing on Henry Rollins’ theory that The Ramones could solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I think all we have to do is get coastal whites to listen to this Big L ditty and ghetto blacks to bump this Colt Ford joint over and over until they realize they’re the same. (Country blacks and whites get along way better.) Then we can wrap up the whole racial tension thing and call it a day.

Blog at WordPress.com.