The Chinese EV Wall In Europe Is Breaking Despite EU investigations and jawboning from within the industry, it looks as though Europe has faced the inevitable: it needs to “face up” to the fact that Chinese EVs have arrived, and probably aren’t going anywhere, anytime soon. Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived in Paris on Sunday to ease trade tensions with a wary Europe. Accompanied by a business delegation focused on the electric vehicle industry, including Envision Group, SAIC Motor, and Xpeng Motors, the visit served as both a shopping trip and networking opportunity, Nikkei reported. “We want to welcome more Chinese investors to France,” President Emmanuel Macron said during the visit.  As we have been writing about extensively for the last 6 months, the shift to electrification has changed the global auto industry’s dynamics, which were once dominated by European brands. Now, China now leads in EV production, compelling European automakers to address the growing Chinese competition. According to Nikkei, with the EU set to ban combustion engines by 2035, China plans to expand exports and production, maintaining a significant lead in affordable EVs. As consumers shift to EVs, European manufacturers fear losing market share. Chinese brands, which made up only 7.9% of EU’s electric vehicle sales in 2023, up from 0.4% in 2019, are projected to reach a 20% market share by 2027, according to Transport & Environment. Felipe Munoz, senior analyst at JATO Dynamics told Nikkei: “When we’re talking about these mass market segments, it’s mainly about price … and when you look at [Chinese brands’] price positioning compared to European rivals, there is always an advantage.”  Gregor Sebastian, a senior analyst at Rhodium Group, told Nikkei Asia: “I don’t think in Europe there’s the necessary capital at the moment to really do this without China, and on top of that … in terms of the technology we’re also behind China.” Europe remains divided over the potential influx of Chinese EVs. The European Commission has launched an investigation into Chinese EV subsidies, potentially leading to preliminary duties in May and permanent tariffs in November. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently visited Beijing to ease trade relations, advocating for fair competition. While brands like Volkswagen and BMW welcome Chinese investment, others remain cautious.  Despite concerns, Europe is the largest destination for Chinese EV-related FDI, attracting $7.6 billion in 2023 following $11.8 billion in 2022. Chinese automakers like SAIC and BYD are investing in local factories to build tailored cars for European consumers. Xi Jinping’s trip includes a visit to Hungary, where BYD and Great Wall Motor are expanding, and Chery recently announced a joint venture plant in Spain. “The student has overcome the teacher,” Munoz added. He said Chinese cars are now “at the same level or even more in terms of quality, in terms of design, in terms of appeal, and in price.” Recall back in March we wrote about Mercedes CEO slamming the idea of import tariffs on Chinese EVs.  “Don’t raise tariffs. I’m a contrarian, I think go the other way around: take the tariffs that we have and reduce them,” Mercedes-Benz boss Ola Källenius said at the time. Källenius said that the increased competition would “help Europe’s carmakers produce better cars in the long run” and that government protectionism is “going the wrong way”, Financial Times reported this week.  He called Chinese companies looking to export to Europe a “natural progression of competition and it needs to be met with better product, better technology, more agility.” “That is the market economy. Let competition play out,” he added. “We did not ask for this [probe]. We as companies are not asking for protection, and I believe the best Chinese companies are not asking for protection. They want to compete in the world like everybody else.” “If we believe protectionism is the thing that gives us long-term success, I believe history tells us that is not the case,” he added. “We live in a pragmatic world and realize there are some expectations to the general market economy rule . . . but if we seek our fortune in increased protectionism, we are going the wrong way.” Recall back in September 2023 we wrote that the EU was opening an investigation into Chinese EV subsidies.  At the time, we noted that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was taking exception with the fact that “the global market is flooded with cheap Chinese cars”.  Tyler Durden Thu, 05/09/2024 – 04:15

Sport Is The Continuation Of Diplomacy By Other Means Authored by René Zittlau via VoiceFromRussia.ch, How the goals of Olympism are being undermined by Western politics – an analysis with a look back at the roots of the Olympic idea. International Olympic Committee established on 23rd June 1894, Paris, Francehttp://Image Source: Olympics.com Introduction “The aim of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humanity in order to promote a peaceful society committed to the preservation of human dignity. … Any form of discrimination against a country or a person on the grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or any other reason is incompatible with membership of the Olympic Movement.” OLYMPIC CHARTA Anyone who takes a closer look at the history of international sport will agree with the statement in the title of this article. There are countless incidents from the history of sport that support this thesis, and not just in terms of big politics. It was precisely the small, at first glance inconspicuous examples that shaped the character of non-political, international sports events. According to the founder of the modern Olympic movement, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, this was its most noble purpose. In 1891 he said: “I wanted to renew not so much the form as the principle of the more than thousand-year-old institution, because I had recognized something in it that was essential for the education of my own country and humanity. I therefore had to restore the most important pillars that had once sustained it: spirit and morality.” BARON PIERRE DE COUBERTIN He became even clearer a few years later, when he said in 1895: “For this reason, every four years, the revived Olympic Games should give the youth of the world the opportunity for a happy and fraternal meeting, in which the ignorance that characterizes the ideas of different peoples about each other will gradually disappear, this ignorance that keeps feelings of hatred alive, accumulates misunderstandings and often makes events rush towards a barbaric and merciless struggle.” BARON PIERRE DE COUBERTIN “[Asking peoples] to respect each other is not a utopia; but to respect each other, you first have to know each other.” SOURCE OF QUOTATIONS: “OLYMPISCHE SPIELE”, SPORTVERLAG BERLIN 1975, P. 196, 197 It is worth summarizing Coubertin’s statements once again in other words: The founder of the modern Olympic movement sees its purpose in the fact that the youth of the world meet regularly for fair sporting competition. The primary goal should not be competition, but getting to know each other. He was firmly convinced that this would reduce feelings of hatred and ignorance and prevent wars. This look back at the childhood of today’s sports movement is necessary in order to recognize the frightening discrepancy between today and the founding myth of Olympism. The current sports policy elite, i.e. the IOC and the other international sports federations, explicitly refer to Baron Pierre de Coubertin and the other founding fathers of the modern sports movement in their statutes and documents. Accordingly, the yardstick of their actions must also be measured against their noble goals. The state of the Olympic movement as a mirror of world politics The original idea of international sport was therefore to create the conditions for getting to know each other in order to develop “spirit and morality”. One could also say: sport as a means of diplomacy – i.e. politics – to promote good neighborly relations. It is therefore also possible to draw conclusions about the state of diplomacy and the state of the world from the behavior of the IOC, FIFA and the many other international sports federations. Even a superficial examination of the current situation opens up a view into abysses that the lessons of history seemed to have long since overcome. However, the strength of diplomacy in a world still fresh in the memory of devastating wars in an era of human history that now seems eons away had these abysses “under control” and only allowed small swings. Anyone who has learned in the course of their life to give the title of this article a positive connotation and digs a little deeper into today’s sporting world, which by definition is completely apolitical, will be shocked when they see the realities. Unfortunately, current sports policy decisions prove that these dark thoughts have never completely disappeared and are once again celebrating a sad resurrection. This gives rise to questions such as these: What is wrong with this world? How could this happen? Will the Olympics in Paris in 2024 outstrip those in Berlin in 1936? In Berlin in 1936, the participants saluted the German leader with the German salute in accordance with the IOC statutes. A gesture of submission with symbolic significance. Einmarsch der Mannschaften: Hier zieht das Olympiateam von Mexiko in das Stadion ein. Laut IOC-Satzung mussten alle Teilnehmer vor Hitlers Ehrenloge grüßen. Nicht nur die Zuschauer, auch die Teilnehmer waren von der Atmosphäre im Stadion beeindruckt. “Ohne Unterbrechung tobte und schrie und jubelte uns eine Menschenmasse von über 100.000 zu”, schrieb Fritz Roller, der Betreuer der österreichischen Boxer, an seine Frau. “Der Atem blieb uns aus, so gerührt waren wir alle.” Quelle: SpiegelThe teams march into the stadium: Here the Mexico Olympic team enters the stadium. According to IOC statutes, all participants had to salute in front of Hitler’s box of honor. Not only the spectators, but also the participants were impressed by the atmosphere in the stadium. “Without interruption, a crowd of over 100,000 roared and shouted and cheered for us,” wrote Fritz Roller, the Austrian boxers’ coach, to his wife. “We were left breathless, we were all so moved.” Source: Spiegel Paris – Olympia 2024 What is the threat in Paris? A “French salute” is not in sight. However, this does not mean that gestures of submission will not be demanded. They will be demanded. In a way that makes a mockery of the idea of peaceful, non-political sporting competition even before the Olympic Games begin. Some will be humiliated. Others will be abused with the support for this humiliation that is sold and demanded as a matter of course … and thus also humiliated. So that there is not even a hint of doubt about the attitude of official France towards Russian athletes – and everything currently revolves around this axis in terms of sports policy – the Mayor of Paris has already announced in advance that she hopes that Russian athletes will not be allowed to take part in the Olympic Games in Paris, even under a neutral flag. She also left no doubt that they would not be welcome at the opening ceremony on July 26. Statements and participation rules of this kind unfortunately do bring back memories of the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. Ban on participation for political reasons After the start of hostilities in Ukraine, the so-called Collective West unleashed a barrage of sanctions against Russia within just a few days. This incidentally showed the whole world where the dependence of practically all international organizations and institutions on the same seven Western states always leads in times of crisis. The IOC also followed the call of Western politics and their money and initially banned Russian and Belarusian athletes from taking part in the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris. In the course of 2023, it modified its ban to allow individual athletes from Russia and Belarus to take part in the Games under certain conditions. There was clearly a major dispute in the “Olympic family” over this issue. Just how deep the rifts have become in international sport is only apparent at second glance. This was the headline in Der Spiegel on 21.02.2023: “How the IOC is isolating itself on the Russia issue In Russia and Belarus, sport and politics are closely intertwined: 35 nations are resisting plans by IOC President Thomas Bach to allow Russian athletes to take part in the Olympic Games in Paris.” SOURCE: SPIEGEL What sounds so seemingly convincing has more than just one huge drawback. According to the IOC statutes, only the respective National Olympic Committees (NOCs) can become members of the IOC. When “35 nations are fighting back”, this obviously means that a certain number of NOCs are subject to pressure from the respective country’s political leadership to emphasize their political goals within the IOC. It is therefore clear that it is not only in Russia and Belarus that politics exerts an influence on sport. However, 35 NOCs are not a majority. According to IOC data, there are 206 National Olympic Committees. This in turn means that the political IOC decision against the participation of Russia and Belarus in the Olympic Games, which was pushed through by the West, probably does not have as much international support as the major Western media are trying to make us believe. After all, if one of the reasons why Russian athletes are not allowed to take part in the Olympics in Paris is the fact that there is a war in Ukraine, then it would be fair to exclude all NOCs from the Olympics whose countries are at war, including Israel, for example. Especially as in the case of Israel, there is a judicial accusation of genocide. However, according to French President Macron, Israeli athletes are expressly welcome. The question of when the USA should have been allowed to take part in peaceful Olympic Games at all since the founding of the Olympic movement is also compelling and justifiable. After all, there has hardly been a year since the first Games in Athens in 1896 in which they have not attacked another country somewhere in the world. Yemen, as well as Syria and Iraq, are the most recent examples. Conditions of participation in Paris It is very illuminating to consider the conditions of participation for Russian and Belarusian athletes. As already mentioned, the participation of individual athletes is permitted under certain conditions, but that of team athletes is not. There is a method to this. Anyone who has ever achieved a victory with a team knows about its euphoric effect. Such a victory creates a tremendously strong sense of togetherness and belonging. Imagine if Russia won the gold medal in men’s volleyball at the Olympics. The world would see people like you and me standing there. So teams were banned. There is a subtle but important exception for Russian individual athletes: participation is automatically excluded without any alternative if the athlete is under contract to military structures, i.e. the police or military. In doing so, the IOC is making the unsubstantiated claim that the athletes have any influence on their country’s military policy. That is of course nonsense. However, this condition affects a large number of athletes, and that was the aim. In Russia, many of them are traditionally socially protected in this way, without even being integrated into military structures. The same is known to be true for Germany. If this condition were to be applied to individual German athletes, e.g. to the so-called sports soldiers, Germany would have difficulty filling certain sports at all. For the neutral athletes at the 2024 Olympics, the IOC stipulates certain neutral clothing. At this point, I would like to mention the “efforts” that are getting completely out of hand to design this clothing as if the athlete had come straight from the slaughterhouse. A Czech journal excelled in this area, using artificial intelligence to give free rein to its ideas of decency and dignity. These efforts were unsuccessful, but the ban on participation in the opening and closing ceremonies was. There is no plausible reason for this other than the deliberate humiliation of the athletes concerned and their nations. The IOC’s shameful political game summarized in one condition Now we come to the main condition for Russian athletes to take part in the 2024 Olympics in Paris. In order to take part, they must distance themselves from Russian politics. To do this, each athlete must sign a declaration condemning the Russian military operation in Ukraine. The exact wording of this “document” is not yet public. As the Olympic Charter states: “Any form of discrimination against a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, sex or any other grounds is incompatible with membership of the Olympic Movement”. We will discuss below the perfidious strategies that the IOC not only but especially links to this condition and how it intends to organize control. An IOC training program – only for Russians Under its German head Thomas Bach, the hatred of everything Russian has reached a level unprecedented in the history of the IOC. The level falls below any standard and contradicts the Olympic Charter. On the IOC website, for example, there is a “collection of training tasks” – exclusively in Russian. Behind it are 60 pages of “exercises to teach Olympic values“. Well, why not, you might say. However, there are several buts: Firstly, the official languages of the IOC are English and French. Accordingly, the entire website is created in these two languages. So why is this document alone in Russian? These “exercises” were written exclusively in Russian, i.e. there is nothing comparable on the IOC website in any other language. In French or English, there are at most brief references to the topic, e.g. here. The Russian exercise program is also structured in such a way that reading it inevitably creates a feeling of humiliation and subtle contempt in the addressee. The entire work is written in an arrogantly instructive style. It was probably the aim of the IOC to use this document to ridicule the Russian sports movement, which has always played a key role in shaping the Olympic Movement over the decades, in front of the entire sports world. An interview with an “African politician” Quelle: Telegram The still image above is from an interview that two Russian pranksters, “Wowan” and “Lexus”, conducted first with IOC boss Thomas Bach and then together with the EU Vice-President, the Greek Margaritis Schinas. The latter is responsible in the EU for issues including sport and migration. Vladimir Kuznetsov is known as “Vovan” and “Lexus” is the stage name of Alexei Stoliarov. Both repeatedly call publicly known personalities under a fictitious identity in order to reveal the intentions of their actions. The targets are both Russian and international public figures. Greta Thunberg, for example, has been “interviewed” by them, as have Justin Trudeau and Christine Lagarde. At the top left of the still image we see IOC boss Thomas Bach, at the top right the EU Vice-President Margaritis Schinas. At the bottom we see “Lexus” in the role of a “high-ranking African politician”. The video itself was published on April 2, 2024. Some readers may already be familiar with parts of the interview. It exposes Western politics and therefore also the politics of the IOC in a way that is only communicated behind closed doors. The content itself is hardly surprising. What is surprising, however, is the openness bordering on naivety in the statements made by lawyer Thomas Bach to an “African politician” completely unknown to him. The aim of this “video prank” was probably to lure the IOC chief out of his shell regarding the participation of Russian athletes in the Paris Olympics and the IOC’s stance on the friendly games called by Russia in Moscow and Yekaterinburg in the summer of 2024. The head of the IOC was brutally clear on both topics. Based on the outcome, the only thing left to say is: Goal achieved. Thomas Bach literally told the “high-ranking African politician” about the friendly games in Russia: “We are categorically against these games. If you could do something with your reputation in relation to the African countries, we would be very, very grateful.” He would not be a representative of the West if he did not threaten the “Africans” if they took part in the games in Russia: “But in this context, they must be aware that they are taking sides by participating in these friendlies. That could entail risks, for example for the Olympic Games.” As far as the Olympics in Paris are concerned, the IOC boss does not hide the fact in the interview that the sports sanctions are exclusively political in nature, on the contrary: “We are punishing those responsible for the annexation, no Russian anthem may be played, the flag may not be raised. The Russian Olympic Committee, after we suspended it, made some pretty aggressive statements that this was discrimination and fascism.” IOC President Bach openly admitted that he had checked the Russian athletes with the help of internet tracking and had been supported by Ukrainians, among others: “We have a special monitoring commission. And they monitor the internet, the media and public statements. We have also offered and not only offered, but also asked the Ukrainian side to provide us with their information about the behavior of such athletes or officials.” With this approach, the IOC has disqualified itself in terms of fairness and impartiality and made it clear that its charter means nothing to the current IOC leadership. And then IOC boss Bach even boasted about the “dirty deeds” of the politicization of sport: “Last year, before the last BRICS Games in South Africa, we made sure that they had no resonance in the world of sport.” A sports association defies the dictates of the IOC The only Russian that Thomas Bach seems to seriously fear is the head of the International Amateur Boxing Association (IBA), Umar Kremlev. The IOC withdrew its recognition of this association in 2023. The IOC chief explained this decision to his “high-ranking African interlocutor” literally like this: “He is a corrupt guy. That’s why we had to exclude this international association.” The real reason is much more obvious. The IBA, under the leadership of Umar Kremlev, refused to comply with the sanctions against Russia and Belarus demanded by the IOC. The exclusion was the result of this courageous decision. Once again clearly and unequivocally: The IOC excluded the boxing association IBA because its president adhered to the rules enshrined in the Olympic Charter, not because of proven offenses. As a result, Russian athletes took part in the IBA’s European Boxing Championships, which took place in Belgrade, Serbia, in April 2024, on an equal footing and with full honors. It is images like these that the IOC under Thomas Bach, which is under Western curatorship, and Western politicians fear. Source: KP.ru Source: Match.ru The first shows Russian fans at the award ceremony for Yulia Chumgalakova at the European Boxing Championships in Belgrade. The second shows Yulia Chumgalakova herself. It wasn’t just her victory that moved her to tears. At the award ceremony, where the Russian anthem was of course also played, the technology failed, so that the anthem only played for about 20 seconds. She could not hold back her tears as the audience sang the anthem a capella. 🇷🇸🇷🇺At the European Boxing Championships in Belgrade, the Russian anthem was interrupted, but the fans in the hall supported Yulia Chumgalakova in unison. European_dissident pic.twitter.com/f1M1yx5d8E — dana (@dana916) April 29, 2024 Question for our German-speaking readers: Can you imagine this happening in a German, Swiss or Austrian victory in women’s boxing? The reference to Russian sources in this context is not accidental. On the German-language Internet and also in the English-language version of google, there was no serious mention of the European Boxing Championships in Belgrade from April 15-29, 2024. It practically did not take place – proof of the interplay between the IOC and big politics in action and also that German public broadcasting is not fulfilling its obligations under the state treaty. Russian athletes won a total of 20 medals in Belgrade, 11 gold, eight silver and one bronze. The head of the IOC disqualifies himself The scene represented by the still image above is probably the low point of the interview with Thomas Bach and Margaritis Schinas. The entire hubris and surreality of the conversation culminate in it. The “high-ranking African politician” asks out of tradition and respect for the “Saints Vovan and Lexus” to put his hand on his heart and pray for the Russian “Games of Friendship to stop”. And the high representative of international sport and the high representative of European politics follow the “ritual” without hesitation. Once again in slow motion: German lawyer and IOC boss Thomas Bach and Greek Vice-EU President Margaritis Schinas, also a lawyer, worship the (Russian) “Saints Vovan and Lexus” at the request of an African “high-ranking (!!) politician” who is completely unknown to them … What cinema. The official Russian position on the participation of Russian athletes in the Paris Olympics Of course, the Russian athletes want to take part in the Olympic Games like all other athletes. Like their competitors, they have spent years training for it and for many it is a unique opportunity in their lives. The disappointment about the sports policy situation is palpable, and you can find statements for and against participation in the Russian media. This constellation alone is probably incomprehensible to the IOC and large sections of the Western public. They were certainly expecting a huge outcry in Russian sport. However, this did not happen, at least not in the sense of the IOC. But that is not all. The Russian government did not even intervene to prevent Russian athletes from taking part in the Olympics. On the contrary. Those for whom participation is nevertheless an option, even under the conditions mentioned – the above list is not exhaustive – are free to travel to Paris. The assistant to the Russian President, Igor Levitin, commented on this question a few days ago to the Russian news agency TASS. With his statement, he also turned some sports policy facts upside down, saying: “The Olympic Games are not the Olympic Games of the countries, but of the athletes. The position here is that it’s every athlete’s right, and if an athlete decides to go to the Olympics, they go there as a neutral athlete.” IGOR LEWITIN At the same time, Igor Levitin made it unmistakably clear: “But the most important thing is that he shouldn’t sign any documents that discriminate against the work of the guys out there on the front line.” IGOR LEWITIN That was a very clear reference to the Russian legal situation. No one has yet seen the declaration that Russian athletes have to sign when participating. However, the statements made by the IOC so far suggest that signing this document could lead to a confrontation with Russian legal norms. Concluding Sport and politics are inseparable. For more than 120 years of its existence, the modern Olympic movement has survived very difficult times. And after the devastating wars of the last century, it was a very effective means of bringing people closer together again and building trust, in the spirit of Baron de Coubertin. Today’s developments in sports policy cannot be viewed in isolation from major politics. The former British diplomat Alastair Crooke said with regard to the recent attacks by Israel on the Iranian consulate in Damascus: “Israel’s goal is to destroy the norms, conventions and laws of warfare; to create a geopolitical anarchy in which anything is possible”. ALASTAIR CROOKE These are the same goals, the same methods that the USA created, covered up and made possible through its actions in the case of Israel, with which the Western countries, led by the USA, built up a global system of influence over the decades, with which they attempted to systematically place all areas of international life under their control. They have largely achieved this through political, economic and financial levers. Sport is a not insignificant link in this chain. Nevertheless, we are living in a time in which the old certainties of the West are rapidly disintegrating and new things are seeking and finding their place. As has so often been the case, sport will play a positive, peaceful and unifying role. Bernd Stange, coach of the GDR national soccer team until 1988 and later also worked in Syria, among other places, once said in an interview: “Football is peace, has a message and can achieve more than years of diplomacy.” BERND STANGE Tyler Durden Thu, 05/09/2024 – 03:30

UK Moves Against Russian Diplomatic Personnel & Sites ‘Used For Intel Purposes’ The British government announced Wednesday it has expelled an official of the Russian embassy for being “an undeclared military intelligence officer.” The action comes amid an apparent broader pressure and essentially a war on Russian diplomatic facilities and personnel in the UK, with interior minister James Cleverly briefing parliament that multiple Russian-owned properties will be downgraded from having diplomatic status and protections. He alleged that Russian sites in Sussex as well as in London will see their diplomatic immunity removed. Cleverly told parliament that “we believe have been used for intelligence purposes.” Via Reuters New restrictions will also be placed on the amount of time Russian diplomats can spend in the country, given recent “malign” Russian activity in the UK, according to the interior minister’s words. One reported example was an arson attack on a Ukrainian-linked business, which the UK alleged had ties all the way back to the Kremlin. All of this also comes as both countries are trading very serious and rapidly escalating threats in the wake of Foreign Secretary David Cameran saying while on a trip to Kiev earlier this week that the UK is fine with Ukraine using British-supplied weapons to attack Russian territory. He had stated provocatively, “Ukraine has that right. Just as Russia is striking inside Ukraine, you can quite understand why Ukraine feels the need to make sure it’s defending itself.” Russia’s foreign ministry in response promptly summoned UK Ambassador to Moscow Nigel Casey over the remarks. “Casey was warned that the response to Ukrainian strikes using British weapons on Russian territory could be any British military facilities and equipment on the territory of Ukraine and beyond,” the ministry stated after the meeting. Importantly, the Kremlin laid out that Cameron’s words mean he “de facto recognized his country as a party to the conflict.” This marked possibly the first time that the Russian government specifically threatened to attack British military installations and equipment within Ukraine and beyond. But on Wednesday Cleverly told parliament that the British people will not be bullied by Kremlin propaganda: “This is not new and the British people and the British Government will not fall for it, and will not be taken for fools by (President Vladimir) Putin’s bots, trolls and lackeys,” he said. “Russia’s explanation was totally inadequate. Our response will be resolute and firm,” he added of alleged Russian malfeasance on UK soil. “Our message to Russia is clear: stop this illegal war, withdraw your troops from Ukraine, cease this malign activity.” Tyler Durden Thu, 05/09/2024 – 02:45

The Machinery Of Fascism Revisited Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute, Fascism became a swear word in the US and UK during the Second World War. It has been ever since, to the point that the content of the term has been drained away completely. It is not a system of political economy but an insult.  If we go back a decade before the war, you find a completely different situation. Read any writings from polite society from 1932 to 1940 or so, and you find a consensus that freedom and democracy, along with Enlightenment-style liberalism of the 18th century, were completely doomed. They should be replaced by some version of what was called the planned society, of which fascism was one option.  A book by that name appeared in 1937 as published by the prestigious Prentice-Hall, and it included contributions by top academics and high-profile influencers. It was highly praised by all respectable outlets at the time.  Everyone in the book was explaining how the future would be constructed by the finest minds who would manage whole economies and societies, the best and the brightest with full power. All housing should be provided by government, for example, and food too, but with the cooperation of private corporations. That seems to be the consensus in the book. Fascism was treated as a legitimate path. Even the word totalitarianism was invoked without opprobrium but rather with respect.  The book has been memory-holed of course.  You will notice that the section on economics includes contributions by Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin. Yes, their ideas and political rule were part of the prevailing conversation. It is in this essay, likely ghostwritten by Professor Giovanni Gentile, Minister of Public Education, in which Mussolini offered this concise statement: “Fascism is more appropriately called corporatism, for it is the perfect merge of State and corporate power.” All of this became rather embarrassing after the war so it was largely forgotten. But the affection on the part of many sectors of the US ruling class had for fascism was still in place. It merely took on new names.  As a result, the lesson of the war, that the US should stand for freedom above all else while wholly rejecting fascism as a system, was largely buried. And generations have been taught to regard fascism as nothing but a quirky and failed system of the past, leaving the word as an insult to fling at in any way deemed reactionary or old-fashioned, which makes no sense.  There is valuable literature on the topic and it bears reading. One book that is particularly insightful is The Vampire Economy by Günter Reimann, a financier in Germany who chronicled the dramatic changes to industrial structures under the Nazis. In a few short years, from 1933 to 1939, a nation of enterprise and small shopkeepers was converted to a corporate-dominated machine that gutted the middle class and cartelized industry in preparation for war.  The book was published in 1939 before the invasion of Poland and the onset of Europe-wide war, and manages to convey the grim reality just before hell broke loose. On a personal note, I spoke to the author (real name: Hans Steinicke) briefly before he died, in order to gain permission to post the book, and he was astonished that anyone cared about it. “The corruption in fascist countries arises inevitably from the reversal of the roles of the capitalist and the State as wielders of economic power,” wrote Reimann.  The Nazis were not hostile to business as a whole but only opposed traditional, independent, family-owned, small businesses that offered nothing for purposes of nation-building and war planning. The crucial tool to make this happen was establishing the Nazi Party as the central regulator of all enterprises. The large businesses had the resources to comply and the wherewithal to develop good relations with political masters whereas the undercapitalized small businesses were squeezed to the point of extinction. You could make bank under Nazi rules provided you put first things first: regime before customers.  “Most businessmen in a totalitarian economy feel safer if they have a protector in the State or Party bureaucracy,” Reimann writes. “They pay for their protection as did the helpless peasants of feudal days. It is inherent in the present lineup of forces, however, that the official is often sufficiently independent to take the money but fails to provide the protection.”  He wrote of “the decline and ruin of the genuinely independent businessman, who was the master of his enterprise, and exercised his property rights. This type of capitalist is disappearing but another type is prospering. He enriches himself through his Party ties; he himself is a Party member devoted to the Fuehrer, favored by the bureaucracy, entrenched because of family connections and political affiliations. In a number of cases, the wealth of these Party capitalists has been created through the Party’s exercise of naked power. It is to the advantage of these capitalists to strengthen the Party which has strengthened them. Incidentally, it sometimes happens that they become so strong that they constitute a danger to the system, upon which they are liquidated or purged.” This was particularly true for independent publishers and distributors. Their gradual bankruptcy served to effectively nationalize all surviving media outlets who knew that it was in their interests to echo Nazi Party priorities.  Reimann wrote: “The logical outcome of a fascist system is that all newspapers, news services, and magazines become more or less direct organs of the fascist party and State. They are governmental institutions over which individual capitalists have no control and very little influence except as they are loyal supporters or members of the all-powerful party.” “Under fascism or any totalitarian regime an editor no longer can act independently,” wrote Reimann. “Opinions are dangerous. He must be willing to print any ‘news’ issued by State propaganda agencies, even when he knows it to be completely at variance with the facts, and he must suppress real news which reflects upon the wisdom of the leader. His editorials can differ from another newspaper’s only in so far as he expresses the same idea in different language. He has no choice between truth and falsehood, for he is merely a State official for whom ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’ do not exist as a moral problem but are identical with the interests of the Party.” A feature of the policy included aggressive price controls. They did not work to suppress inflation but they were politically useful in other ways. “Under such circumstances nearly every businessman necessarily becomes a potential criminal in the eyes of the Government,” wrote Reimann. “There is scarcely a manufacturer or shopkeeper who, intentionally or unintentionally, has not violated one of the price decrees. This has the effect of lowering the authority of the State; on the other hand, it also makes the State authorities more feared, for no businessman knows when he may be severely penalized.”  From there, Reimann tells many wonderful if chilling stories about, for example, the pig farmer who faced price ceilings on his product and got around them by selling a high-priced dog alongside a low-priced pig, after which the dog was returned. This kind of maneuvering became common.  I can only highly recommend this book as a brilliant inside look at how enterprise functions under a fascist-style regime. The German case was fascism with a racialist and anti-Jewish twist for purposes of political purges. In 1939, it was not entirely obvious how this would end in mass and targeted extermination on a gargantuan scale. The German system in those days bore much resemblance to the Italian case, which was fascism without the ambition of full ethnic cleansing. In that case, it bears examination as a model for how fascism can reveal itself in other contexts.  The best book I’ve seen on the Italian case is John T. Flynn’s 1944 classic As We Go Marching. Flynn was a widely respected journalist, historian, and scholar in the 1930s who was largely forgotten after the war due to his political activities. But his outstanding scholarship stands the test of time. His book deconstructs the history of fascist ideology in Italy from a half-century prior and explains the centralizing ethos of the system, both in politics and economics.  Following an erudite examination of the main theorists, along with Flynn provides a beautiful summary.  Fascism, Flynn writes, is a form of social organization:  1. In which the government acknowledges no restraint upon its powers—totalitarianism. 2. In which this unrestrained government is managed by a dictator—the leadership principle. 3. In which the government is organized to operate the capitalist system and enable it to function under an immense bureaucracy. 4. In which the economic society is organized on the syndicalist model; that is, by producing groups formed into craft and professional categories under supervision of the state. 5. In which the government and the syndicalist organizations operate the capitalist society on the planned, autarchical principle. 6. In which the government holds itself responsible for providing the nation with adequate purchasing power by public spending and borrowing. 7. In which militarism is used as a conscious mechanism of government spending. 8. In which imperialism is included as a policy inevitably flowing from militarism as well as other elements of fascism. Each point bears longer commentary but let’s focus on number 5 in particular, with its focus on syndicalist organizations. In those days, they were large corporations run with an emphasis on union organization of the workforce. In our own times, these have been replaced by a managerial overclass in tech and pharma that have the ear of government and have developed close ties with the public sector, each depending on the other. Here is where we get the essential bones and meat of why this system is called corporatist.  In today’s polarized political environment, the left continues to worry about unbridled capitalism while the right is forever on the lookout for the enemy of full-blown socialism. Each side has reduced fascistic corporatism to a historical problem on the level of witch burning, fully conquered but useful as a historical reference to form a contemporary insult against the other side.  As a result, and armed with partisan bête noires that bear no resemblance to any really existing threat, hardly anyone who is politically engaged and active is fully aware that there is nothing particularly new about what is called the Great Reset. It is a corporatist model – a combination of the worst of capitalism and socialism without limits – of privileging the elite at the expense of the many, which is why these historical works by Reimann and Flynn seem so familiar to us today.  And yet, for some strange reason, the tactile reality of fascism in practice – not the insult but the historical system – is hardly known either in popular or academic culture. That makes it all the easier to reimplement such a system in our time.  Tyler Durden Thu, 05/09/2024 – 02:00

Strengthening Our Beleaguered Military Starts With A Maritime Overhaul Authored by Brent D. Sadler via RealClear Wire, America’s security and prosperity is at high risk today, largely because of bad policies backed up by too weak armed forces. Consider our U.S. maritime complex. Decades of neglect and inadequate investment have left our shipping, shipbuilding, Navy, merchant marines, ports, and Coast Guard woefully behind the times. The Secretary of the Navy and a growing group in Congress are sounding the alarm, drawing attention to the plight of our weakened maritime sector. Recent headlines help tell the story. Since October 2023, the Navy has been engaged in a ‘whack-a-mole’ standoff with the Houthis, an Iranian proxy that has been attacking vessels in the Red Sea and damaging global trade. This confrontation expanded to include missile defense of Israel, culminating on April 13 with the shoot-down of several Iranian ballistic missiles targeting Israel by destroyers Arleigh Burke and Carney. This defensive effort is depleting expensive munitions that are in short supply. The Secretary of the Navy stated before Congress on April 15 that the Navy has responded to 130 attacks at a cost of $1 billion in munitions. At current procurement rates, it could take years to recover unless production capacity is greatly expanded in short order. Closer to home, on March 26 a container ship (the Dali) lost power and collided with, and collapsed the Key Bridge in Baltimore, killing six. The investigation is ongoing, but already it is clear our port infrastructure is not resilient enough to withstand errant modern shipping. Neither the Army Corps of Engineers nor Naval salvage capacity is adequate. Both have been unable to ensure the nation’s ports can be rapidly reopened if closed due to deliberate acts, accidents or acts of God. A month later, the port of Baltimore remains closed. For comparison, when the ultra-large containership Ever Given grounded and closed the Suez Canal, it was reopened in eight days. Effectively, the Dali has stranded four Navy logistics ships inside the harbor unable to meet national tasking – ships verified still stuck in port on April 29th. Finally, in a string of embarrassing events, the large amphibious warship Boxer had to return home, further delaying its deployment due to numerous and repeated mechanical problems. This means other warships must remain at-sea longer or forgo missions, further endangering U.S. interests. As this was playing out, ships directed by the President to assist in the delivery of aid to Gaza, had to turn back due to onboard fires (the venerable 39-year old Military Sealift Command ship 2nd Lt. John P. Bobo), too short endurance (Army’s Frank Besson Jr. refueling stop in the Azores), or weather avoidance (the likely reason USAV Wilson Wharf diverted to Tenerife). These disruptions are a symptom of a too small and aged fleet that has been over-used and under-maintained by over-worked crews. The root cause of these problems? Sea blindness – unawareness and underinvestment in the maritime and naval forces that keep the economy functioning and our people safe. But there are signs this may be changing. More Americans are demanding action, and members of Congress like Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) are spearheading a bipartisan and bicameral maritime agenda. The opening declaration of this was contained in a recent letter to the President demanding action signed by 19 Congressional leaders from both parties. The challenge is huge. Today only 0.4 percent of commercial shipping is American flagged, making the nation too often reliant on less than friendly nations to conduct its trade and move supplies sustaining military operations. But these tentative first steps are just a downpayment on a larger endeavor: regaining the nation’s maritime strength. The most urgent task is keeping the peace, and that means deterring China in Asia while safeguarding Americans and our interests abroad. The clock has run out for modest, long-term actions. The threat today demands a combination of actions: retaining useful warships, expanding maritime industrial capacity, and accelerating naval shipbuilding. This will be an expansive task, to be sure, but it is not revolutionary, nor is it impossible. Three past naval revivals can help point the way ahead. One dates back a little over 100 years ago. Britain’s First Sea Lord Admiral Sir John “Jackie” Fisher’s fleet modernization is what some today call “divest to invest” – the culling of outdated ships to redirect manpower and resources to delivering modern warships. At the time, the British Royal Navy had a still modest naval rival in the Imperial German Navy that was a decade or more away from achieving parity with the British fleet. Fisher’s efforts delivered the Dreadnaught – a warship that ushered in the modern battleship and revolutionized naval warfare, as demonstrated at the 1916 Battle of Jutland. Fisher had the time and commitment of resources by a nation with a long, proud, and politically dominant naval tradition behind him. He also had the luxury of a foe years from matching or exceeding his own fleet. China’s navy, by contrast, already exceeds ours and continues a breakneck modernization and readiness program that makes any U.S. divestment of naval capacity a strategic risk. The second revival was America’s rearming ahead of the war in the Pacific, made possible by several Naval Acts of the 1930s. Animating this revival was the still fresh memories of a near catastrophe during World War I. As that war raged in Europe, the nation’s economy was nearly collapsed without foreign shipping to carry its cargo to market, nor ships to move troops to Europe and back. One intent of the 1930s Naval Acts was to avoid the mismanagement and waste of the Shipping Act of 1916 and the U.S. Shipping Board. With that wisdom, the Acts of the 1930s funded a naval building campaign that invigorated the maritime industrial sector. Thanks to the Naval Act of 1938, the carrier Hornet was delivered in time to play an instrumental role in the victory in the Battle of Midway. The ships these naval acts authorized quadruple the number of shipyards and delivered in the first years of World War II the warships that turned the tide against the Axis. Had it not been done, the war in the Pacific would have had a very different outcome. A modern Naval Act is needed, but it cannot be limited to just considerations of naval shipbuilding. It must embrace efforts to rebuild the nation’s merchant fleet that today couldn’t sustain protracted military operations nor a wartime economy. Finally, President Ronald Reagan’s 600-ship naval build-up of the 1980s significantly contributed to bankrupting the Soviets and winning the Cold War. The shipbuilding goal was never achieved, but a massive rebuilding effort was accomplished by increasing defense budgets disproportionately directed to naval shipbuilding and the return to service of ships in the inactive fleet. In total, the combination of new shipbuilding and reactivation grew the Navy from a low of 521 ships in 1981 to 594 in six years. Today there isn’t really much in the inactive fleet to recall to service. Leading to circumstances that today dictate retaining ships on the Navy’s list for deactivation with more than three years of life, thereby adding 13 warships to the fleet. Furthermore, the fleet could grow a little more with the addition of 21 deployable unmanned (LUSV, MUSV, XLUUV) vessels. This would deliver a fleet of 331 warships by 2027, still short of the 355-fleet goal. To address that gap, conventional approaches to get the Navy and merchant marine needed will not suffice. The reality today is that the nation faces multiple threats and at least one existential foe taking increasing risks to reorder the world to its benefit: China. Pacing these challenges has proven inadequate. It is time to seriously enter the race to secure American security and prosperity, which begins with a national effort to rejuvenate our maritime power. Recovering and meeting the threats before the nation requires a multifaceted but coherent plan of attack – a National Maritime Initiative. This is critical as the Navy’s ships suffer from years of over work, sailors beaten down under unrelenting prolonged deployments, and an inconsequential U.S. flagged merchant marine. We are in effect living in an “AND” world where spending is needed to grow the maritime industrial base through orders for new warships learned during the Naval Acts era, AND modernizing but without divesting, AND retaining warships with life, AND dramatically increasing naval shipbuilding as done during the Reagan era. Anything less is unserious and ignores the world as it is today. Brent D. Sadler is a senior research fellow in naval warfare and advanced technologies at The Heritage Foundation. Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 – 23:55