globalresearch--2019-11-19--Europe’s Economy Today & Tomorrow

Europe’s Economy Today & Tomorrow

The Wall St. Journal page one article of November 18, 2019 broadcast: “Europe’s New Jobs Stoke Discontent”.  It asked: ‘why are workers so angry’, when millions more jobs have been created since Europe’s last recessions (2008-09 and 2011-13), when millions more job openings remain, and when minimum wages have been raised in most countries’?  The article then goes on to try to answer some of these questions. It suggested one problem is that the vast majority of new jobs created in Europe have been contingent (i.e. temp, part time, independent contractor, etc.). That has meant, in turn, lower aggregate pay and a lack of insurance, disability, pension (deferred wage) benefits. It also has meant less job security and longer total hours worked and more costs to workers trying to cobble together multiple part time jobs. Europe has developed a two tier labor force, of those that ‘have somewhat’ and those who ‘definitely have not’.  These 2nd tier conditions afflict mostly younger, under 35 years old workers. Apart from the substandard wages and benefits, the contingent work has left them with a sense of hopelessness that they’ll ever be able to get out of the ‘2nd tier worker’ hole, a kind of 21st century indentureship, that they know prevents them from living a normal life, having a family, obtaining reasonable housing, and so on.  The condition is not picked up by mainstream media referring to economy-wide gains in ‘average wages’, which mostly apply to regular, 1st tier workers. Job creation numbers also do not distinguish between the two tiers and the low quality (contingent, precarious) jobs that account for the vast majority of jobs created in recent years in Europe (as well as in the USA and Japan). Nor are contingent jobs reflected in the large number of unfilled job openings, which are for the highly skilled, technical workers that capitalism needs in greater numbers today but which the educational systems have failed to produce. In short, the data that mainstream media articles like the Wall St. Journal keep referencing as indications of a strong labor force and good job gains are irrelevant to the growing problem of temp and part time jobs that official government data either ignore or don’t accurately reflect.  Furthermore, the official mainstream press and media don’t connect the mass protests and demonstrations breaking out worldwide to the growing problem of contingent employment and its discontent. Beneath the apparent causes of the growing mass demonstrations and protests lies the mass discontent and growing hopeless of young people over their deteriorating work and living conditions.  Look beneath what’s happening with Yellow Vests in France, Hong Kong demonstrations, mass demonstrations across the South American continent, in North Africa and the Middle East, and what you will find is young workers growing desperate over their working conditions, over income inequality, the lack of jobs that provide a basic living, and their sense of hopelessness of change any time soon. In other words, discontent over their fate in emerging 21st century capitalism.  But the worse is still yet to come. Contingent, or so-called precarious, work and its condemning of workers to a ‘new indentureship’—a kind of 21st century capitalist serfdom—is now being intensified by new capitalist business models and technological change.  The new models are creating even more precarious work. They are what I call the ‘Amazon Effect’ and the ‘Uber Effect’. But these new business models are not the worst of it. Overlaid on contingency, precarious work, and the intensification by these new business models is the even greater negative impact now just emerging due to Artificial Intelligence. AI promises to exacerbate the problems of low pay, long hours, job insecurity and general hopelessness caused by precarious work, and the revolutions in capitalist business models from Amazon and Uber that are making that precarious employment even worse.  Europe’s economy has been even more devastated than America’s by the recent contingent-precarious job trends of capitalism. And AI will prove even more destructive when it comes.  This past spring 2019, this writer was interviewed for a book of interviews to be published soon in Poland. The following excerpt from the interview addresses the destruction of labor markets, jobs, incomes and lives of workers, going on in recent decades and coming in Europe in the decade ahead. Already reeling under the effects of precarious work and new business models, Europe’s workers are about to be further impacted by Artificial Intelligence. AI will come later in Europe than in the US and Asia. Its introduction will therefore be more intense and its effects therefore even more disruptive.  Interviewer: I was talking with Aleksandr Dugin, he is one of the top ideologists for Kremlin right now and he told me something quite interesting. He said that, the problem in Europe is not so economical problem, there is a deeper problem. He said that firstly, the whole population of Europe will be replaced by people from Africa and Middle East, and all these people will be replaced by robots, the whole labor will be replaced by automation, what do you think about that.  Dr. Jack Rasmus: Yes, well I don’t agree that you’re going to have a mass immigration into Europe. Europe is already closing off its’ borders in various ways from the immigration from North Africa and the Middle East. The problems in North Africa are part of the problems of global lack of real global economic recovery and the greater ease of transportation and communication of recent decades, so these folks are coming to Europe but that’s a symptom of the bigger problem. Not the problem itself.  The second part of your point is much more fundamental and structural, and that is what we are seeing now is changes in the labor markets and product markets globally and capitalist economies changing at a very rapid rate. What that means is that in order for capitalists to compete with each other globally and individually they have got to cut costs even more rapidly and the new technologies and business models are enabling it to do just that. Artificial intelligence is the next wave of massive change in the labour markets.  We’ve already seen the change in Europe where we’ve already had a shift to contingent employment, part time and temp jobs, in recent decades. Over the last ten years, most of the jobs created in Europe have been these second tier kind of jobs, part time, temp contingent jobs. Low paid, service jobs with no rights, less benefits than first tier. That labor market change is behind a lot of the yellow vests and protest in Europe. It’s economic, it’s jobs, hopeless jobs and hopeless futures and the elite’s ignoring that as it erupts. That’s already a big problem in Europe, where even in Germany 60% to 70% of the jobs created, according to data I’ve seen, have been these second-tier jobs and these second-tier workers are rebelling now.  Their unions are tied into the state apparatus, pretty much, so workers just expressing this individually, spontaneously. So that problem of widespread 2nd tier employment already exists in Europe, but now we’re going to have overlaid on it this new wave of technology, driven by A.I. that will make it much worse. And what is Artificial Intelligence? It’s simply eliminating decision making, simple decision making in the economy. More sophisticated decision making, more complex will still be there. In fact you’ll see an increase in jobs in data science and statistical analysis and so forth but these are high level and highly skilled jobs and not everyone can do them. And the education system has not been preparing people to do those jobs. So we’re going to see the jobs that were simple decisions jobs, a lot of these second tier contingent jobs, are even going to disappear.  A McKinsey report in the United States, McKinsey Consultants, recently came out this year and said in the U.S alone AI will mean 30% of the occupations will either be eliminated or significantly reduced in terms of hours worked. 30% of occupations, that’s roughly of one third of 165 million jobs in the US, are going to be either eliminated or reduced in hours and therefore pay. The same thing’s going to happen in Europe. This is artificial intelligence, which is simply large databases, massive computing power and statistical analysis to develop machine learning so that the machinery, the automation, makes the decisions and you don’t need simple people making simple decisions. Well that’s going to have a massive impact by the middle of the next decade to the economies. It’s going to allow business that make this shift—those who don’t will go under—to be more profitable and to survive the new capitalist competition that will continue to intensify. But it’s going to wipe out a lot of businesses and a lot of jobs in the process. Now all that AI effect is coming on top of the crisis of slow economic growth since 2009 that already exists as well as the economic recession that’s just around the corner. How will they deal with that, how will the elites of these countries in Europe, and the U.S and Japan, deal with this convergence of AI, slow growth, and recession is going to be interesting because we are going to have far more people unemployed and under-employed and we’re going to be in a situation of very low growth in general with segments, pockets, of explosive economic growth by those companies and industries that are able to exploit these changes in technology. It will be a very ‘dual track’ world economy, with the gap between haves and have nots growing even more than today.  I: I’m still wondering what will happen with this working class in Europe, and basically everywhere, who cannot compete with Artificial intelligence. Young people are going to study something, but they know they cannot compete in one decade or two decades, they won’t be able to get any job in the market because the Artificial Intelligence can just replace you. So, I was talking with people who are involved deeply with artificial intelligence, they are building artificial intelligence at MIT or wherever and they just told me “OK, maybe the government will send you some money every month and that will fix the problem” but this from my perspective sounds like bullshit to be honest.  DJR: Well you know, there will be more chronic unemployment and especially underemployment. We will have a larger based of unemployed in relationship to the employed. There will be many more underemployed than we have now, that’s going to get even worse. The question is how that affects the consumption potential of the system when we don’t have job growth. We already see a chronic slow economic growth since 2010. It will mean there will be more debt-financed consumption. They will allow more people to survive more on borrowing, more on credit. Which is just a way of taking away your future wages, but they’ll rely on debt much more. More underemployed, more unemployed, and more credit and household debt. Some people are talking that a universal basic income will have to occur.  I think that might be a partial solution in theory but it will never fly politically, at least not in the USA. The political forces will never agree to UBI, universal basic income, as long as they have control of the political system to the extent they do. So I don’t see that actually happening over the next decade. Not in the USA. I think the recession is coming soon and it will accelerate AI. You know the McKinsey study predicted that by 2025 you’re going to have maybe thirty to fifty percent of all the companies implementing some form of AI. And again, A.I.is just a new business model to reduce cost even more. That’s what it’s all about. AI is very much like Amazon and it’s very much like the sharing economy. See this is the new product revolution in capitalism.  Capitalism is evolving and changing more rapidly than ever before. It’s always been a dynamic system. But It’s accelerating in its rate of change and we see this is in the labor markets and we see this in the product markets and these new business models now emerging. And we see it in changes in fiscal and monetary policy and we’re seeing it in trade policy. What is Trump’s trade offensive all about? Well it’s about positioning the U.S capitalist class, and U.S business elite, to maintain hegemony over the global economy as all these changes occur over the next decade. They are restructuring particularly the relationship with China, the biggest US competitor, so the U.S business elite can remain dominant and the dollar, the global trading currency, can remain dominant. They are preparing for this and that’s how I see all this Trump trade war.  Trade is a response to capitalist restructuring underway. Changes in trade relations have to occur after we have had all these structural changes in the finance markets, product markets and the labor markets. Capitalism is changing.  Capitalist change means that if you’re not a capitalist, you’re going to make even less, they’re going to squeeze you with these new business models, you the worker, and they’re going to squeeze their capitalist competitors to whatever extent they can with these new business models. If you look at France, what are all the changes Macron is trying to do? Well he wants to change the product market, he wants France to become more like the U.S in terms of Uber, Amazon and A.I. and that’s true for all of Europe.  They are all trying to do this. Germany is still based on the old business model largely, i.e. to make things, but it knows it’s going to have to change more rapidly in the future. Europe knows this, they know they’ve got to make these changes and they know they are behind the global curve.  They’re playing catch up to the USA and China. The changes are coming rapidly in China and in the U.S. Britain wants to attach itself more to the U.S, that’s partly why you have this Brexit thing. It knows what the future is going to be, France knows, but they can’t make the change fast enough you see because they don’t have the banking system, the financial system, to pull off the financial restructuring. They don’t have the higher education system to prepare the labor markets for AI and the new models, and to be able to do this on the massive scale necessary, that’s already occurring in the U.S and China.  So Europe is the weak link, as I said, because it’s not been able to make this capitalist evolution fast enough in product markets, and its attempts to radically change labour markets in favor of capitalists is producing blowback and discontent and creating working class eruptions both in the streets, like in France, and at the ballot box, like in Brexit in England and other places, in Italy.  I: Well it sounds like some dystopian movie from the future, so what do you think is inclusive capitalism is some kind of solution for this? For example, like Lynn Forester de Rothschild she’s proposing inclusive capitalism as a solution for economy right now, so what do you think about that, is it a real solution or some kind of hoax?  DJR: Well I think that’s an ideological phrase, we’re all inclusive in capitalism, we’re all a part of capitalism. If she thinks that the solution is to make everyone a capitalist, that’s nonsense. That kind of ideology has always been around in one form or another, in other words. It’s a way of deflecting the problem of capitalism itself by saying we’re going to reform capitalism and you can all be capitalists. In other words you’re all going to make more money. It’s an ideological response to a crisis of the system itself in my view. You know, it’s a phrase, sounds nice: inclusive. You don’t have to be a worker and worry about whether you’ve got a job or you can feed your family, you can be a capitalist too. How that actually works, I don’t know. It’s more a way of deflecting discontent than any realistic solution.  I: What do you think is the real solution here, because people are proposing the sharing of the economy which is new.  DJR: Yeah, the sharing economy, or the gig-economy, whatever you want to call it, this is one of the new business models at the leading edge of capitalism. Whether or you talk about Uber or Airbnb or all the other “sharing”. What is the essence of the sharing economy? Well it’s a way of capitalist businesses to figure out how to pass their cost of production off to the work themselves. Let’s take Uber. It’s model makes them more profitable than other businesses models. With the changes of technology, we’re getting new business models. Uber is an example of a new business model of the gig-economy. Amazon is an example of a new kind of business model as well.  Artificial intelligence, and the businesses and industries they will spin off, are the ‘next generation’ of the shift to new capitalist business models. The old industrial business model where you make things, make goods, where you have a chain of suppliers and you hire workers to make the things… that is dying. It is not dead by any means, but the leading edge of capitalist evolution are the new business models. Take the Uber business model. Think about it right, Uber has software and Uber has control of the customer, but instead of Uber building a physical infrastructure or investing in physical capital, i.e. the transport equipment, it gets their worker to use his physical capital, his car and to use his working capital meaning paying for insurance and gasoline and so forth. So they are making the worker bear the cost of the physical and working capital, which reduces the money wage Uber pays the worker. It’s a form of intensifying exploitation. Uber sits back, and it controls the cost, it has no cost of goods. It’s a service that doesn’t have to produce anything physical. It doesn’t have to pay the worker a higher union wage, in fact the laws prevent the workers from organising as workers because they’re supposedly small businesses themselves you see. It’s a new form of more intense exploitation of the working class, that result in greater profits for Uber. Why do you think Uber is able to raise billions of dollars? Because investors know the business model is so profitable. And this is what all the sharing economy is about, whether it’s Airbnb or whatever. In Airbnb, you get the homeowner to use his own physical capital, his home, as the hotel. The sharing economy company has the software that identifies the customers and puts the customer in connection with the ‘worker’, whether he is the car-driver or the homeowner, and reaps super profits off the top. You see it’s a much more efficient, much more profitable business model and that’s why it’s booming.  We’re going to see the same thing happen with Amazon where you’ve got a new business model as well. Where you don’t have brick and mortar and no worries of the cost of facilities and so forth. You just have transport and moving goods around, that’s another new business model that’s already wiping out other big box retail stores and small retailers everywhere in the cities it does business. It will soon destroy millions of trucking jobs as well and automate out its warehouse jobs. That’s a new business model. Then we’re going to see newer business models with AI, because it’s all software manipulation and eliminating the cost of production, the cost of goods, and putting that cost on the backs of workers, who are hired as small businesspeople. That’s the AI model.  I: Exactly, so it is in other terms the person who is involved in that kind of sharing economy is in some way a capitalist.  DJR: Yeah, In other words you make the worker assume the worst part of being a capitalist, in other words, the costs. You don’t let the worker, who becomes a kind of blended worker, part worker/part small businessperson, share in the profits. It’s the company sitting on top of it all, the Uber, the Airbnb, whatever that skims off the lion’s share of the profits, and you don’t even allow the new worker businessperson to organize collectively amongst themselves to negotiate a share of the super profits for themselves. You use the laws to prevent that. Maybe that’s what this other person meant by inclusive capitalism. The worker becomes a businessperson in the view of the law, and his exploitation is intensified in the process. You know it’s simply a justification for the intense exploitation these new business models represent.  I: So what is the solution here for this sharing economy, to be shareholder of Airbnb or other platform or whatever it is, I’m not just a worker who is involved with Airbnb, I am a shareholder of this stock of this company, maybe this is the solution if you know what I mean?  DJR: Yeah, well I know what you mean but individual share holding of stock of a company doesn’t give you any control over their business practices and strategies and policies of that company. It just means you’ve given some of your money to someone else to invest somewhere. You need to have sufficient control of the stock, 5 or 10 percent to affect the business policies of the company. So just owning stock, if you’re a small stockholder, doesn’t provide any control, it’s control that we should be talking about not ownership of a piece of paper and a formal, infinitesimal share of a company.  What needs to happen is that the laws need to change so that the worker-employee/small businessperson, whatever this new blend of worker is in the labour market, can organize collectively to get a collective voice to defend themselves. That hasn’t happened yet, and you’re not going to stop this new business model of capitalism, but the question is how vulnerable do you leave those whose are being exploited by it. I really think they need to unionize in a new form of union. Not the old form of union based on the old company structures, but some kind of new form. But the capitalist states are making sure that they block that by legal means. And as far as the rest of society is concerned, what we got in the 21st century here is the state, and the government, engaging increasingly in subsidizing business and capital incomes. Both with monetary and fiscal policy. With monetary policy they’ve bailed out the banks and investors, then they’ve given them free money for ten years now. Everywhere in the advanced economies, and especially in Japan, and to some extent in Europe, they’re propping up bond and stock markets by central banks buying private securities. That increases the demand for bonds and stocks that keeps up the price of both that protects the wealth of investors.  Financial assets like stocks and bonds keep rising, but it’s all artificial. They’re being subsiding more and more by the state. Fiscal policy in the form of tax cuts for corporations, investors, and the rich more and more. In the U.S in 2018 they’ve passed four trillion dollars in tax cuts for businesses and investors. So the state, fiscal and monetary policy and other forms of policy, like trade policy, are being employed by states to subsidize capital incomes like never before. we now see a trade war with Trump who is trying to restructure the global trading system for that purpose. The state is increasing propping up the capitalist economy and capital incomes.  Before, state policies would share with labor, and small businesses, but now you’ve got capital, big capital, particularly finance capital which has absorbed more and more political control, and thus we see fiscal monetary policies more and more reflecting the interest of corporations, professional investors, and the wealthy at the expense of the rest, until you get an eruption like the yellow vests in France. There the government had to back off a little, Macron backed off a little, threw a few crumbs to pacify it. Teresa May backs off a little bit, reduces austerity just a little, and throws a few crumbs, to the working classes of Britain. These responses are temporary responses, however, to relieve the pressure while the main policies continue to subsidize with monetary and fiscal measures, i.e. subsidize the business class. How long can that go on, well history will tell.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  Dr. Rasmus is author of the just published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump‘, Clarity Press, October 2019, available for purchase at discount from this blog. Click on the book icon.


labourlist--2019-08-23--HS2 will help us build an economy for the many

Doom-mongers and NIMBYs are out in force. Our poor excuse for a Prime Minister, Boris ‘piffle’ Johnson, has given them hope.  Johnson’s review of High-Speed Two (HS2) is as ill-conceived as it is needless. The only questions which remain to be answered regarding this vital piece of infrastructure are: why didn’t we build it at least a decade ago and why doesn’t the line go all the way to Scotland?  Nay-sayers say it’s expensive. No shit Sherlock. You simply can’t build new railways lines on the cheap. A large chunk of the money being spent is in compensation for compulsory purchase orders – any new line would need to foot a similar bill. Then we also have lots of tunnels – many of them not an engineering necessity – due to the public’s demand for the removal of what they deem eyesores. Sadly, many people simply don’t appear to appreciate the majestic look of a train going much faster than any other land-based vehicle.  Let’s face it, our need for HS2 is down to capacity, capacity and more capacity! Our current network is bursting at the seams. If nothing is done, our West Coast Mainline will soon be full between London and Coventry. Our East Coast Mainline from London to Peterborough is not in much better shape. The country needs new railway lines to avoid bottlenecks in our existing network, slow running of trains due to congestion and to increase services.  We also need new lines to move freight from our roads onto our railways as we take the challenges of climate change head-on. Given all this, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to conclude that new lines should be built to 21st Century standards so they can provide the fastest and most efficient train services possible today. This means building a high-speed line to connect our major conurbations and to free the existing rail network, mostly for shorter distance travel and freight. That’s why our union, supportive as we are of HS2, doesn’t feel that the current project is ambitious enough. The new high- speed line should go all the way to Scotland.  Once built, HS2 will be around for a very long-time – perhaps well over a century. Its maintenance and renewal costs for the first decades of operation will be considerably lower than what we currently spend on our Victorian network. From its signalling system to its rolling stock, everything, will be brand spanking new. This should be blindingly obvious but gets lost in the debate about HS2’s up-front costs.  We will also have increased rail capacity making most intercity journeys quicker with far less delays. If the new line went all the way to Scotland then most long-distance journeys will be on the high-speed network for a large chunk of their trajectory if not for their entirety. Of course, the connectivity HS2 brings will put rocket boosters under the economies of the North. As well as that the building stage will support thousands, upon thousands, of good jobs. The HS2 college in Doncaster is already starting to train the new generation of engineers that our railways and our economy so badly needs.  The icing on the cake could be the return of real train manufacturing to our country. One of the companies bidding to build the high-speed rolling stock has promised to erect a brand-new factory in Fife, creating 1000 well-paid skilled jobs. They are also looking to open a research and design facility in Derbyshire which will create another 500 jobs mainly for scientists and engineers and which will once again see trains designed from scratch within our shores.  In addition, their plans include creating around 6500 jobs within their supply chain across the length and breadth of Britain, thus making sure that most of the components on these trains are home-made. On top of that they will be looking to export their British-made trains across the world, making a positive contribution to our balance of trade. So frankly, when you weigh-up the economic, social and environmental gains of HS2, keeping the show on the road – or rails, rather – is a no-brainer.  I am therefore somewhat disappointed that our Labour Party has also been calling for a review. If we are dead serious about wanting to create a new economic settlement for the many, which also combats the real menace the climate emergency poses and puts in place an industrial strategy with strong links to our public procurement, then HS2 is the kind of investment which ticks all these boxes.  This is right-up John McDonnell’s street – using public investment and procurement to boost our skills, our manufacturing base and help spread economic well-being across our country. What’s not to like? We need more infrastructure projects of this nature – and fast – if we are to create an economy for the many, where no one is left behind.  **James Kelly is editing _LabourList_ while Sienna Rodgers is away.**  ### Value our free and unique service?  LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.  [Support LabourList](/donate)


Dead Economy Walking

Germany is the key to the EU economy. This is not news.  What is news is that Germany’s economy is in the toilet. Not slowing down…. not hitting some bumps.  The Germans are industrial and exporting powerhouses. And the trends for those two things have been in decline for over a year.  Balance of trade for the past two quarters have been the lowest they’ve been since 2016. And the euro has backed off 13% since January of 2018. That’s because so much of Germany’s exports are to other EU countries and they are loaded to the gills with debt.  Furthermore, a big miss to the German Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) in March was confirmed this week by April’s number which was just as horrific. The March 22nd release missed by over 3 points to come in at 44.7 versus expectations of 48.0 (Anything under 50 is considered contraction). Contraction happened (again surprising the market) in February.  In fact, it’s been nothing but misses, some of them similarly horrible, since the beginning of last year.  This is putting Germany on the road to recession.  Again, this isn’t news to anyone watching markets carefully. I present it to cut through the insanity surrounding Brexit and provide some context.  I’ve described Brexit as an existential threat to the EU. It is that and so much more. And it is why everyone on both sides of the channel are working so hard to undermine it.  In my latest for Strategic Culture I name names.  The EU does not want Brexit and if it were to happen it will inflict incredible damage to the British political system and its integrity.   This is really no different than what happened in Greece in 2015. And it was directed by Angela Merkel than and it is being directed by Merkel today.   The EU’s intransigence in negotiations, aside from it having no other option, is an elaborate bluff to separate and divide the British political class, now that the people have voted to leave.  How an Economy Grows a... Peter D. Schiff, Andre... Best Price: $2.79 Buy New $5.95 (as of 07:30 EDT - Details) I find it pathetic to see Merkel on a charm tour in Ireland this week to present her Mutti Merkel side to help ease the pain of Theresa May’s open betrayal of the British political system.  Now that the fix is nearly in Merkel and Donald Tusk are playing good cop to Guy Verhofstadt’s frothing-at-the-mouth bad cop.  Germany’s descent into economic malaise now is Merkel’s biggest problem, though I doubt she’s fully cognizant of the implications. Everyone suffers from normalcy bias and for her the European project should be strong enough to weather any storm.  But, what if it isn’t?  The conventional wisdom is keeping the U.K. in the EU as a tax cow is paramount to ensuring continued German dominance over the bloc. And, I agree that is the thinking in Brussels.  But, I’m coming to believe that the reality is different than the mindset of the perpetrators.  So, I make the counter-argument that, in fact, Germany and Merkel have already lost the war to hold the EU together, regardless of Brexit. Destroying the British political system will not make the Brits easier to control, but rather harder.  It will not scare the recalcitrants like Matteo Salvini of Italy and Marine Le Pen in France. It will enrage them.  A failure of Germany’s economy to hold the bloc together will ricochet back on Germany’s leadership of the EU very quickly. We’re seeing this in French President Emmanuel Macron’s open defiance of Germany on Brexit.  So many people, including Remainers in London, make the argument that they can’t survive against a bigger, stronger economy like the EU’s, namely Germany’s.  So much of what the EU is built on has been the willingness of everyone else to suffer Germany’s visions for integration as long as Germany was willing to fund it.  But, that’s looking more and more to not be the case into the future. The EU has nearly reached the limit of internal transfers which paper over how weak Germany’s long-term economic prospects are under the current political rubric.  There comes a point when a simple slide into recession is not just another cyclical downturn that can be papered over by more central bank credit and wizardry.  It becomes something the politicians can’t strong-arm away and the media can’t sugar-coat. The Real Crash: Americ... Peter D. Schiff Best Price: $3.52 Buy New $10.95 (as of 10:45 EDT - Details)  Germany’s recession is here because of the structural problems of the EU’s fiscal black hole. It’s resulting in obvious capital flight into U.S. assets — the dollar, stocks and bonds simultaneously.  It has pushed up the price of safe-haven assets in Europe beyond absurd levels. And yet, no one dare call this a crisis!  And because there is still some slack yet in the German economy, it hasn’t fully expressed itself yet at the consumer level. So, that gives everyone enough wiggle room to talk the talk. But, savings is rising rapidly while consumer spending is topping out.  The news is still mixed enough that it hasn’t begun to hurt Merkel further politically.  Just wait. It will be.  The Best of Thomas Luongo


lewrockwell--2019-07-02--How the Fed Wrecks the Economy Over and Over Again

When people talk about the economy, they generally focus on government policies such as taxation and regulation. For instance, Republicans credit President Trump’s tax cuts for the seemingly booming economy and surging stock markets. Meanwhile, Democrats blame “deregulation” for the 2008 financial crisis. While government policies do have an impact on the direction of the economy, this analysis completely ignores the biggest player on the stage – the Federal Reserve.  You simply cannot grasp the economic big-picture without understanding how Federal Reserve monetary policy drives the boom-bust cycle. The effects of all other government policies work within the Fed’s monetary framework. Money-printing and interest rate manipulations fuel booms and the inevitable attempt to return to “normalcy” precipitates busts.  In simplest terms, easy money blows up bubbles. Bubbles pop and set off a crisis. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.  How an Economy Grows a... Peter D. Schiff, Andre... Best Price: $1.56 Buy New $2.99 (as of 04:50 EDT - Details) In practice, when the economy slows or enters into a recession, central banks like the Federal Reserve drive interest rates down and launch quantitative easing (QE) programs to “stimulate” the economy.  Low interest rates encourage borrowing and spending. The flood of cheap money suddenly available allows consumers to consume more – thus the stimulus. It also incentivizes corporations and government entities to borrow and spend. Coupled with quantitative easing, the central bank can pump billions of dollars of new money into the economy through this loose monetary policy.  In effect, QE is a fancy term for printing lots of money. The Fed doesn’t literally have a printing press in the basement of the Eccles Building running off dollar bills, but it generates the same practical effect. The Federal Reserve digitally creates money out of thin air and uses the new dollars to buy securities and government bonds, thereby putting “cash” directly into circulation. QE not only boosts the amount of money in the economy; it also has a secondary function. As the Federal Reserve buys U.S. Treasury bonds, it monetizes government debt. The central bank can also buy financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities as it did during QE1 in 2008. This effectively serves as a bank bailout. Big banks get to remove these worthless assets from their balance sheets and shift them to the Fed’s. Theoretically, this makes the banks more solvent and encourages them to lend more money to ease the credit crunch that occurs when banks become financially shaky.  This monetary policy results in a temporary boom. All of that new money has to go somewhere. It could result in rising consumer prices (inflation), but generally, it pumps up the price of assets such as real estate and stock markets, creating a fake wealth effect. People feel wealthier because they see the value of their assets rapidly increasing. With plenty of debt-driven spending and rapidly increasing asset prices, the economy grows, sometimes at a staggeringly fast rate.  This process also creates inequality. The first receivers of this new money – generally bankers and politically-connected individuals and institutions – get the most direct benefit from the newly-minted dollars. Their decisions on where to spend the money create artificially high demand in the chosen industries or asset classes. Think the housing market in the years leading up to ’08 or tech companies during the dot-com boom. This amplifies distortions in the capital structure. The first receivers also get to spend the new money before the inflationary effects take hold and prices rise. Those who receive the money later on down the line, say through pay raises, don’t get the same benefits as the first users. Price inflation eats up their gains.  Meanwhile, surging economic growth, shrinking unemployment and rising stock markets driven by money-creation give the illusion of a healthy economy, but the monetary policy hides the economic rot at the foundation.  In order to sustain an economic expansion, you need capital goods — factories, machines, natural resources. Capital goods are produced through savings and investment. When central banks juice consumption without the requisite underlying capital structure, it will eventually become impossible to maintain. You can print all the dollars you want, but you can’t print stuff. At some point, the credit-driven expansion will outstrip the available stock of capital. At that point, the house of cards begins to collapse.  Imagine you plan to build a giant brick wall. With interest rates low and credit readily available, you borrow all the money you need to complete the job. But two-thirds of the way through, a brick shortage develops. You may have plenty of money, but you’ve got no bricks. You can’t finish your project.  This scenario provides a simplified picture of what happens in the economy during a Fed-fueled economic expansion. Flush with cash, investors begin all kinds of projects they will never be able to complete. Eventually, the malinvestments become apparent and the boom teeters and then collapses into a bust.  Of course, the Fed helps this process along as well.  Once the apparent recovery takes hold, the Fed tightens its monetary policy. It ends QE programs and begins to nudge interest rates back up. When the recovery appears to be in full swing, the central bank may even shift to quantitative tightening — shrinking its balance sheet. During the boom, governments, consumers and companies pile up enormous amounts of debt. Rising interest rates increase the cost of servicing that debt. They also discourage new borrowing. Easy money dries up. This speeds up the onset of the next recession and the cycle repeats itself.  To understand this, we can look back at the past three boom-bust cycles.  In October 1987, the stock markets crashed. The following year, inflation rose above 5 percent, prompting then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to raise interest rates to a peak of 9.75 percent in late 1988.* This led to a mild recession in the early 1990s. Greenspan pushed rates down to a low of 3 percent in late August 1992, then began to slowly nudge them upward in 1994. But the Fed never got rates anywhere near the pre-recession level. With the economy plugging along, rates peaked at 6 percent in February 1995.  From there, Greenspan held rates in the 5 percent range through 2001.  As the New York Times put it, “Greenspan makes a winning bet in the mid-1990s, resisting pressure to raise interest rates as unemployment declines. He argues that increased productivity, including the fruits of the computer revolution, have increased the pace of sustainable growth. Indeed, the Fed finds itself debating whether there is such a thing as not enough inflation, and a new Fed governor named Janet L. Yellen plays an important role in convincing Mr. Greenspan that a little inflation helped to lubricate economic growth.”  In December 1996, the dot-com boom was in full swing. Greenspan actually warned of “irrational exuberance” in the markets, even as he fed it with artificially low – for the time – interest rates.  And then the dot-com bubble popped in the spring of 2001.  In response, Greenspan slashed rates, eventually dropping them all the way to 1 percent in June 2003. This set the stage for the 2008 financial crisis.  The Fed began nudging rates higher in the summer of 2004. By February 2005, we were already seeing ripples of trouble in the over-inflated housing market, but the Federal Reserve continued nudging rates up. Of course, mortgage rates moved upward along with the federal funds rate. More homeowners began to default. In late 2007, the bottom fell out and in 2008, the entire system imploded, kicking off the Great Recession.  By December 2008, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had dropped rates to .25 percent – effectively zero – and he launched what would become three rounds of quantitative easing. The Fed held rates at that historically low level for seven years.  And now we find ourselves in the midst of a new bubble. The economy is loaded up with government, corporate and consumer debt. The stock markets have been juiced to record levels. We also see other asset bubbles in high-yield bonds, housing (again), and commercial real estate, along with a lot of other assets you don’t hear as much about – such as art and comic books.  Investment strategist and author Peter Schiff says the current bubble economy has grown far bigger than it was in the months leading up to the 2008 crash.  Janet Yellen nudged rates up for the first time in 2015, followed up with one hike in 2016. It wasn’t until 2017 that the central bank began to normalize in earnest, hiking rates seven times over the next two years. After the last hike in December 2018, the Fed funds rate stood at 2.5 percent. The Federal Reserve also began to unwind quantitative easing in 2018 by shedding assets from its balance sheet. The Real Crash: Americ... Peter D. Schiff Best Price: $1.99 Buy New $8.95 (as of 02:35 EDT - Details)  Last fall, the impact of rate hikes and quantitative tightening began to ripple through the economy. The stock market tanked. It was the first sign that the cycle was about to turn from boom to bust. Current Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell rode to the rescue, signaling that interest rate normalization was over and announcing the end of quantitative tightening. This monetary policy 180 has stabilized the markets for the time being. But it is only a matter of time before the bubbles pop and the economy moves into the downward spiral.  Not only is the existence of a central bank-fueled business cycle rooted in sound economic theory, we see the impact of Federal Reserve monetary policy in the ups and downs of the business cycle as it has played out through time.  The bottom line is that we can’t “fix” the economy by electing Republicans or Democrats. We can’t put the country on sound economic footing by tweaking this or that policy in Washington D.C. The only way to put the economy on a sound footing is to deal with the root cause of the problem — the Federal Reserve and its constant meddling. As long as the Fed controls the monetary system, there will never be a “free market” in America. The central bankers always have their fingers on the economic scales.


mercurynews--2019-04-10--Letter A healthy planet and a healthy economy dont have to be treated as mutually exclusive

Letter: A healthy planet and a healthy economy don’t have to be treated as mutually exclusive

#### A healthy economy and   planet is a viable option  Re: “[Climate change overreaction is a bigger man-made threat](https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/05/letter-climate-change- overreaction-is-a-bigger-man-made-threat/)” (Letter to the editor, April 5):  When considering the letter-writer’s opinion, one must balance the projections of what is to come if we don’t react or if we underreact.  These projections, which have been offered for decades, are proving not only to be true, but even understated. They indicate that future generations will see collapses of flora and fauna, devastating and unpredictable natural weather patterns and food scarcity our modern society has never seen.  A healthy planet and a healthy economy don’t have to be treated as mutually exclusive, as the letter implies. Surely, we humans are smart enough to negotiate terms that will support both goals – examples are HR 763’s carbon fee and dividend, or a Green New Deal.  Doing nothing just isn’t a viable option.  **Laura Porter**   _San Mateo_    Submit your letter to the editor via [this form](/letters-to-the-editor)   Read more [Letters to the Editor](/opinion/letters)


therussophileorg--2019-11-01--Greek Hierarchs Initiate Pan-Orthodox Council to Resist ‘Independent’ Ukrainian Orthodox Church

This post was originally published on this site  Throughout history, America’s CIA has always viewed religious institutions and movements around the world as an access point – in order to insert US influence, and to divide and destabilize regions along geopolitical lines.  One such example is the current US and CIA-backed effort to split the eastern Orthodox Church and thereby limiting ‘Russian influence’ in a coveted NATO possession like Ukraine. The recent move towards ‘autocephaly’ of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church would certainly be a high-value objective of Washington which has openly expressed its desire for regime change in Moscow, and to bring the fringes of eastern further into the western fold.  Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus and Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira and Antikythera have sent a joint letter-appeal to all local Orthodox churches calling on them to hold the Pan-Orthodox Council on the Ukraine question, Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus told vimaorthodoxias.gr.  He noted that the recognition of the Orthodox Chruch of Ukraine (‘independent’) by the Greek Orthodox Church may lead to tragic consequences. According to him, the flock is extremely divided and is watching the developments with anxiety as the new Schism is a fact.  Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus emphasized that no local Orthodox church has recognized the recently created Orthodox Church of Ukraine and that the Greek Orthodox Church made a historical mistake, when it decided that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople had a right to support the Ukrainian schism.  The actions of the top Greek metropolitans regarding the Ukraine question demonstrates that despite the tactical administrative success of Constantinople in Greece, it remains in a very complicated situation because of its actions in Ukraine. In this situation, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is in fact fueling a conflict within the Orthodox World to pursue own political goals.

religious institutions and state relations


therussophileorg--2019-10-19--RN questions foreign funding for Strasbourg mosque

This post was originally published on this site  The Alsatian capital in the heart of Europe is also a privileged target for political Islam. And between troubled financing and complacency of the municipality, nothing seems to slow down its progress. This was denounced by the councilor and regional RN representative Andréa Didelot.  At the beginning of October, the people of Strasbourg learned with amazement from the local press that their municipality, through its director charged with religious institutions, had participated in a so-called “courtesy” visit to the NGO Qatar Charity.  This was allegedly carried out in order to obtain funding to finish the construction of the Eyyub Sultan Mosque affiliated to the Turkish movement Milli Görus, in the district of Meinau. Muslims are now the second largest religious group in this region of 2,9 million people, and there is considerable debate about whether Islam should receive the support given to other religions.  The NGO Qatar Charity, under cover of humanitarian aid, is strongly suspected of participating in the financing of Islamist terrorism and maintaining close links with terrorist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaida, AQIM, as well as the Syrian Islamic Front.  Beyond the dangerousness of these fundamentalist movements, Qatar Charity has never hidden its desire to influence Islam in Europe by promoting a vision of society at odds with any republican principles, a certain vision of women and a conception of human rights and democracy.  Nicolas Matt, councilor delegate of LREM charged with religious institutions, is surprised that he is questioned about this trip, while no one had found anything wrong with a previous visit to Russia in connection with the funding of an Orthodox church he said.  France is however not currently suffering from terrorism related to “Putinist obedience”…  This matter will no doubt animate discussions over the Christmas market, in a city which was bruised by the “imbalance” of an Islamist less than a year ago.  A jihadist killed three people at a Christmas market in Strasbourg before he was shot dead by French police. The Islamic State jihadist group claimed him as one of their “soldiers” before 700 French security forces hunted down 29-year-old Cherif Chekatt.  Interior Minister Christophe Castaner said at the time three police officers had tried to question Chekatt after spotting him on the street in the Neudorf area of the northeastern French city where he grew up, but he opened fire.  Writer Joachim Véliocras has complained about the Islamisation in the Regional Council of Alsace. Thanks to a Concordat , a special agreement decreed by Bonaparte dating from 1801 that grants public status to religion and permits priests to be paid by the State, Islam can count on public funding too.  In 1801, Alsace was part of France. However, when in 1905 the law separating Church and State went into effect in France, Alsace was part of Germany. Thus, when Alsace again became French it never renounced the Concordat.  The project is large: 5500 m2 including 900 prayer rooms and a mezzanine reserved for women. It will be one of the largest mosques in Europe built in the Ottoman style.  It is also the fourth mosque built in Strasbourg, after that of Heyritz in 2012, Robertsau in 2015 and Hautepierre in 2017. The laying of the first stone was done under the watchful eye of the faithful who came in great numbers and with many officials: elected officials of Strasbourg, members of the council of Muslims and the ambassador of Turkey in France.


therussophileorg--2019-11-15--Tatarstan invites Saudi foundation to jointly present Islamic culture to Europeans

This post was originally published on this site  KAZAN, November 14. /TASS/. Tatarstan President Rustam Minnikhanov invited the secretary of the Alwaleed Philanthropies charity foundation, the princess of Saudi Arabia, HRH Lamie bint Abdelmajid Al Saud to jointly implement projects that would introduce Islamic culture to the Europeans, the presidential press service announced on Thursday.  The president of Tatarstan and the princess of Saudi Arabia met on the sidelines of the World Tolerance Summit in Dubai. The Alwaleed Philanthropies Foundation organizes various events in European countries that enable their residents to get acquainted with the Islamic culture. Rustam Minnikhanov praised the foundation’s mission and proposed to jointly develop it.  “I agree with you on this, Islam has a great history and rich culture. It is important to show this to other countries. We are also actively working on this matter in Tatarstan. Perhaps we could add our works to your collection,” he said. The princess supported the idea.  The head of the Russian region went on to speak about the work underway in Tatarstan on restoring religious sites and strengthening multicultural harmony. He invited the princess to visit Tatarstan during her trip to Russia.  Alwaleed Philanthropies Charity Foundation operates in 180 countries. The foundation implements charity projects in education, healthcare, natural disaster response, women’s rights, and also boosting multicultural dialogue.  The II World Tolerance Summit is being is held in Dubai on November 13-14 bringing together representatives of various states, religious institutions, educational institutions, cultural associations, non-governmental organizations and influencers. The summit is dedicated to tolerance and cultural understanding aimed at strengthening peace and mutual understanding between people. Special attention will be paid to enhancing cooperation to ensure security and stability all over the world.


therussophileorg--2019-11-15--Tatarstan leader discusses multicultural dialogue at Dubai summit

This post was originally published on this site  KAZAN, November 14. /TASS/. President of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov shared his experience in develpoing multinational and multireligious tolerance with the participants of the World Tolerance Summit in Dubai, said the presidential press service on Thursday.  “The Council under the President of Tatarstan on multinational and interreligious relations is working in the republic. We adopted a concept on national state policy. A scientific and expert council operates on the basis of Kazan Federal University. And of course, in our affairs we rely on our muftiate and metropolis which allows us to ensure peace, harmony and stability,” said Minnikhanov.  The president noted that in total about 4 million people live in Tatarstan — representatives of 173 nationalities. According to him, the republic has extensive experience of muslims and orthodox christians living side by side. They have a mutual understanding them, he noted. A lot of mosques and cathedrals were lost during the Soviet period. Since the 90s to the present day, a number of religious sites are still being restored, noted the president.  “But our main task was to prepare people, theologists, who could properly build this system. At present, the Tatarstan Metropolis and the Spiritual Administration of Muslims make a huge contribution to strengthening tolerance and stability in the republic. All events in Tatarstan are held with the participation of our main religious figures,” he added.  According to the Tatarstan leader, the republic simultaneously restoring both Muslim and Orthodox shrines. For example, the Kul Sharif Mosque and the Orthodox Annunciation Cathedral are located on the territory of the Kazan Kremlin. The republic’s fund for the revival of historical and cultural monuments did an enormous job to restore Ancient Bolgar and the island city of Sviyazhsk. Work on recreating the Cathedral of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God is underway, the Bolgar Islamic Academy was opened.  The republic pays special attention to issues of religious education. “People can be swayed by different beliefs. Thus, we make sure that the system of Islamic and Orthodox education is structured and that various harmful trends do not cause any problems,” said Minnikhanov.  The II World Tolerance Summit is being is held in Dubai on November 13-14 bringing together representatives of various states, religious institutions, educational institutions, cultural associations, non-governmental organizations and influencers. The summit is dedicated to tolerance and cultural understanding aimed at strengthening peace and mutual understanding between people. Special attention will be paid to enhancing cooperation to ensure security and stability all over the world.


shtfplan--2019-12-20--The Child That Christmas Forgot: How Would Jesus Fare in the American Police State?

This article was originally published by John W. Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute.  The Christmas story of a baby born in a manger is a familiar one.  The Roman Empire, a police state in its own right, had ordered that a census be conducted. Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary traveled to the little town of Bethlehem so that they could be counted. There was no room for the couple at any of the inns, they stayed in a stable (a barn), where Mary gave birth to a baby boy, Jesus. Warned that the government planned to kill the baby, Jesus’ family fled with him to Egypt until it was safe to return to their native land.  Yet what if Jesus had been born 2,000 years later?  What if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, Jesus had been born at this moment in time? What kind of reception would Jesus and his family be given? Would we recognize the Christ child’s humanity, let alone his divinity? Would we treat him any differently than he was treated by the Roman Empire? If his family was forced to flee violence in their native country and sought refuge and asylum within our borders, what sanctuary would we offer them?  A singular number of churches across the country are asking those very questions, and their conclusions are being depicted with unnerving accuracy by nativity scenes in which Jesus and his family are separated, segregated and caged in individual chain-link pens, topped by barbed wire fencing.  These nativity scenes are a pointed attempt to remind the modern world that the narrative about the birth of Jesus is one that speaks on multiple fronts to a world that has allowed the life, teachings, and crucifixion of Jesus to be drowned out by partisan politics, secularism, materialism, and war.  The modern-day church has largely shied away from applying Jesus’ teachings to modern problems such as war, poverty, immigration, etc., but thankfully there have been individuals throughout history who ask themselves and the world: what would Jesus do?  What would Jesus—the baby born in Bethlehem who grew into an itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist, who not only died challenging the police state of his day (namely, the Roman Empire) but spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, and pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire—do?  Dietrich Bonhoeffer asked himself what Jesus would have done about the horrors perpetrated by Hitler and his assassins. The answer: Bonhoeffer risked his life to undermine the tyranny at the heart of Nazi Germany.  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn asked himself what Jesus would have done about the soul-destroying gulags and labor camps of the Soviet Union. The answer: Solzhenitsyn found his voice and used it to speak out about government oppression and brutality.  Martin Luther King Jr. asked himself what Jesus would have done about America’s warmongering. The answer: declaring “my conscience leaves me no other choice,” King risked widespread condemnation when he publicly opposed the Vietnam War on moral and economic grounds.  Even now, despite the popularity of the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD) in Christian circles, there remains a disconnect in the modern church between the teachings of Christ and the suffering of what Jesus in Matthew 25 refers to as the “least of these.”  “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’”  This is not a theological gray area: Jesus was unequivocal about his views on many things, not the least of which was charity, compassion, war, tyranny, and love.  After all, Jesus—the revered preacher, teacher, radical and prophet—was born into a police state, not unlike the growing menace of the American police state. When he grew up, he had powerful, profound things to say, things that would change how we view people, alter government policies and change the world. “Blessed are the merciful,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and “Love your enemies” are just a few examples of his most profound and revolutionary teachings.  When confronted by those in authority, Jesus did not shy away from speaking truth to power. Indeed, his teachings undermined the political and religious establishment of his day. It cost him his life. He was eventually crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be.  Can you imagine what Jesus’ life would have been like if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, he had been born and raised in the American police state?  Consider the following if you will.  Had Jesus been born in the era of the America police state, rather than traveling to Bethlehem for a census, Jesus’ parents would have been mailed a 28-page American Community Survey, a mandatory government questionnaire documenting their habits, household inhabitants, work schedule, how many toilets are in your home, etc. The penalty for not responding to this invasive survey can go as high as $5,000.  Instead of being born in a manger, Jesus might have been born at home. Rather than wise men and shepherds bringing gifts, however, the baby’s parents might have been forced to ward off visits from state social workers intent on prosecuting them for the home birth. One couple in Washington had all three of their children removed after social services objected to the two youngest being birthed in an unassisted home delivery.  Had Jesus been born in a hospital, his blood and DNA would have been taken without his parents’ knowledge or consent and entered into a government biobank. While most states require newborn screening, a growing number are holding onto that genetic material long-term for research, analysis, and purposes yet to be disclosed.  Then again, had Jesus’ parents been undocumented immigrants, they and the newborn baby might have been shuffled to a profit-driven, private prison for illegals where they first would have been separated from each other, the children detained in make-shift cages, and the parents eventually turned into cheap, forced laborers for corporations such as Starbucks, Microsoft, Walmart, and Victoria’s Secret. There’s quite a lot of money to be made from imprisoning immigrants, especially when taxpayers are footing the bill.  From the time he was old enough to attend school, Jesus would have been drilled in lessons of compliance and obedience to government authorities while learning little about his own rights. Had he been daring enough to speak out against injustice while still in school, he might have found himself tasered or beaten by a school resource officer, or at the very least suspended under a school zero-tolerance policy that punishes minor infractions as harshly as more serious offenses.  Had Jesus disappeared for a few hours let alone days as a 12-year-old, his parents would have been handcuffed, arrested and jailed for parental negligence. Parents across the country have been arrested for far less “offenses” such as allowing their children to walk to the park unaccompanied and play in their front yard alone.  Rather than disappearing from the history books from his early teenage years to adulthood, Jesus’ movements and personal data—including his biometrics—would have been documented, tracked, monitored and filed by governmental agencies and corporations such as Google and Microsoft. Incredibly, 95 percent of school districts share their student records with outside companies that are contracted to manage data, which they then use to market products to us.  From the moment Jesus made contact with an “extremist” such as John the Baptist, he would have been flagged for surveillance because of his association with a prominent activist, peaceful or otherwise. Since 9/11, the FBI has actively carried out surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations on a broad range of activist groups, from animal rights groups to poverty relief, anti-war groups and other such “extremist” organizations.  Jesus’ anti-government views would certainly have resulted in him being labeled a domestic extremist. Law enforcement agencies are being trained to recognize signs of anti-government extremism during interactions with potential extremists who share a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”  While traveling from community to community, Jesus might have been reported to government officials as “suspicious” under the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” programs. Many states, including New York, are providing individuals with phone apps that allow them to take photos of suspicious activity and report them to their state Intelligence Center, where they are reviewed and forwarded to law-enforcement agencies.  Rather than being permitted to live as an itinerant preacher, Jesus might have found himself threatened with arrest for daring to live off the grid or sleeping outside. In fact, the number of cities that have resorted to criminalizing homelessness by enacting bans on camping, sleeping in vehicles, loitering and begging in public has doubled.  Viewed by the government as a dissident and a potential threat to its power, Jesus might have had government spies planted among his followers to monitor his activities, report on his movements, and entrap him into breaking the law. Such Judases today—called informants—often receive hefty paychecks from the government for their treachery.  Had Jesus used the internet to spread his radical message of peace and love, he might have found his blog posts infiltrated by government spies attempting to undermine his integrity, discredit him or plant incriminating information online about him. At the very least, he would have had his website hacked and his email monitored.  Had Jesus attempted to feed large crowds of people, he would have been threatened with arrest for violating various ordinances prohibiting the distribution of food without a permit. Florida officials arrested a 90-year-old man for feeding the homeless on a public beach.  Had Jesus spoken publicly about his 40 days in the desert and his conversations with the devil, he might have been labeled mentally ill and detained in a psych ward against his will for a mandatory involuntary psychiatric hold with no access to family or friends. One Virginia man was arrested, strip-searched, handcuffed to a table, diagnosed as having “mental health issues,” and locked up for five days in a mental health facility against his will apparently because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait.  Without a doubt, had Jesus attempted to overturn tables in a Jewish temple and rage against the materialism of religious institutions, he would have been charged with a hate crime. Currently, 45 states and the federal government have hate crime laws on the books.  Had anyone reported Jesus to the police as being potentially dangerous, he might have found himself confronted—and killed—by police officers for whom any perceived act of non-compliance (a twitch, a question, a frown) can result in them shooting first and asking questions later.  Rather than having armed guards capture Jesus in a public place, government officials would have ordered that a SWAT team carry out a raid on Jesus and his followers, complete with flash-bang grenades and military equipment. There are upwards of 80,000 such SWAT team raids carried out every year, many on unsuspecting Americans who have no defense against such government invaders, even when such raids are done in error.  Instead of being detained by Roman guards, Jesus might have been made to “disappear” into a secret government detention center where he would have been interrogated, tortured and subjected to all manner of abuses. Chicago police have “disappeared” more than 7,000 people into a secret, off-the-books interrogation warehouse at Homan Square.  Charged with treason and labeled a domestic terrorist, Jesus might have been sentenced to a life-term in a private prison where he would have been forced to provide slave labor for corporations or put to death by way of the electric chair or a lethal mixture of drugs.  Indeed, as I show in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, given the nature of government then and now, it is painfully evident that whether Jesus had been born in our modern age or his own, he still would have died at the hands of a police state.  Thus, as we draw near to Christmas with its celebrations and gift-giving, we would do well to remember that what happened on that starry night in Bethlehem is only part of the story. That baby in the manger grew up to be a man who did not turn away from evil but instead spoke out against it, and we must do no less.


therussophileorg--2019-02-07--The Pope And Islams Most Important Imam Just Signed A Covenant That Pushes Us Much Closer To A One

The Pope And Islam’s Most Important Imam Just Signed A Covenant That Pushes Us Much Closer To A One World Religion

This  [post](https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/the-pope-and-islams-most-important- imam-just-signed-a-covenant-that-pushes-us-much-closer-to-a-one-world- religion/)  was originally published on  [this site](http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/)  InvestmentWatchBlog  by [Michael Snyder](http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-pope-and- islams-most-important-imam-just-signed-a-covenant-that-pushes-us-much-closer- to-a-one-world-religion)  A historic interfaith covenant was signed in the Middle East on Monday, and the mainstream media in the United States has been almost entirely silent about it.  Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb is considered to be the most important imam in Sunni Islam, and he arrived at the signing ceremony in Abu Dhabi with Pope Francis [“hand-in-hand in a symbol of interfaith brotherhood”](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/04/pope-and-grand- imam-sign-historic-pledge-of-fraternity-in-uae "“hand-in-hand in a symbol of interfaith brotherhood”").  But this wasn’t just a ceremony for Catholics and Muslims.  According to [a British news source](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/04/pope-and-grand-imam- sign-historic-pledge-of-fraternity-in-uae "a British news source"), the signing of this covenant was done “in front of a global audience of religious leaders from Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other faiths”…  > The pope and the grand imam of al-Azhar have signed a historic declaration of fraternity, calling for peace between nations, religions and races, in front of a global audience of religious leaders from Christianity, [Islam](https://www.theguardian.com/world/islam "Islam"), Judaism and other faiths.  >  > [Pope Francis](https://www.theguardian.com/world/pope-francis "Pope Francis"), the leader of the world’s Catholics, and Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the head of Sunni Islam’s most prestigious seat of learning, arrived at the ceremony in Abu Dhabi hand-in-hand in a symbol of interfaith brotherhood.  In other words, there was a concerted effort to make sure that all of the religions of the world were represented at this gathering.  According to [the official Vatican website](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-02/pope-francis-uae- press-inflight-press-conference.html "the official Vatican website"), a tremendous amount of preparation went in to the drafting of this document, and it encourages believers from all religions “to shake hands, embrace one another, kiss one another, and even pray” with one another…  > The document, signed by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb, was prepared “with much reflection and prayer”, the Pope said. The one great danger at this moment, he continued, is “destruction, war, hatred between us.” “If we believers are not able to shake hands, embrace one another, kiss one another, and even pray, our faith will be defeated”, he said. The Pope explained that the document “is born of faith in God who is the Father of all and the Father of peace; it condemns all destruction, all terrorism, from the first terrorism in history, that of Cain.”  There is a lot of language about peace in this document, but it goes way beyond just advocating for peace.  Over and over again, the word “God” is used to simultaneously identify Allah and the God of Christianity.  Here is just one example…  > We, who believe in God and in the final meeting with Him and His judgment, on the basis of our religious and moral responsibility, and through this Document, call upon ourselves, upon the leaders of the world as well as the architects of international policy and world economy, to work strenuously to spread the culture of tolerance and of living together in peace; to intervene at the earliest opportunity to stop the shedding of innocent blood and bring an end to wars, conflicts, environmental decay and the moral and cultural decline that the world is presently experiencing.  On top of that, the document also boldly declares that “the diversity of religions” that we see in the world was “willed by God”…  > Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;  In essence, this is saying that it is the will of God that there are hundreds of different religions in the world and that they are all acceptable in His sight.  We know [that the elite want a one world religion](https://amzn.to/2Gf8u40 "that the elite want a one world religion"), but to see the most important clerics from both Catholicism and Islam make such a dramatic public push for it is absolutely stunning.  You can find the full text of the covenant that they signed [on the official Vatican website](http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/travels/2019/outside/documents /papa-francesco_20190204_documento-fratellanza-umana.html "on the official Vatican website").  I have also reproduced the entire document below…  —–  INTRODUCTION  Faith leads a believer to see in the other a brother or sister to be supported and loved. Through faith in God, who has created the universe, creatures and all human beings (equal on account of his mercy), believers are called to express this human fraternity by safeguarding creation and the entire universe and supporting all persons, especially the poorest and those most in need.  This transcendental value served as the starting point for several meetings characterized by a friendly and fraternal atmosphere where we shared the joys, sorrows and problems of our contemporary world. We did this by considering scientific and technical progress, therapeutic achievements, the digital era, the mass media and communications. We reflected also on the level of poverty, conflict and suffering of so many brothers and sisters in different parts of the world as a consequence of the arms race, social injustice, corruption, inequality, moral decline, terrorism, discrimination, extremism and many other causes.  From our fraternal and open discussions, and from the meeting that expressed profound hope in a bright future for all human beings, the idea of this Document on  _Human Fraternity_  was conceived. It is a text that has been given honest and serious thought so as to be a joint declaration of good and heartfelt aspirations. It is a document that invites all persons who have faith in God and faith in  _human fraternity_  to unite and work together so that it may serve as a guide for future generations to advance a culture of mutual respect in the awareness of the great divine grace that makes all human beings brothers and sisters.  DOCUMENT  In the name of God who has created all human beings equal in rights, duties and dignity, and who has called them to live together as brothers and sisters, to fill the earth and make known the values of goodness, love and peace;  In the name of innocent human life that God has forbidden to kill, affirming that whoever kills a person is like one who kills the whole of humanity, and that whoever saves a person is like one who saves the whole of humanity;  In the name of the poor, the destitute, the marginalized and those most in need whom God has commanded us to help as a duty required of all persons, especially the wealthy and of means;  In the name of orphans, widows, refugees and those exiled from their homes and their countries; in the name of all victims of wars, persecution and injustice; in the name of the weak, those who live in fear, prisoners of war and those tortured in any part of the world, without distinction;  In the name of peoples who have lost their security, peace, and the possibility of living together, becoming victims of destruction, calamity and war;  In the name of  _human fraternity_  that embraces all human beings, unites them and renders them equal;  In the name of this  _fraternity_ torn apart by policies of extremism and division, by systems of unrestrained profit or by hateful ideological tendencies that manipulate the actions and the future of men and women;  In the name of freedom, that God has given to all human beings creating them free and distinguishing them by this gift;  In the name of justice and mercy, the foundations of prosperity and the cornerstone of faith;  In the name of all persons of good will present in every part of the world;  In the name of God and of everything stated thus far; Al-Azhar al-Sharif and the Muslims of the East and West, together with the Catholic Church and the Catholics of the East and West, declare the adoption of a culture of dialogue as the path; mutual cooperation as the code of conduct; reciprocal understanding as the method and standard.  We, who believe in God and in the final meeting with Him and His judgment, on the basis of our religious and moral responsibility, and through this Document, call upon ourselves, upon the leaders of the world as well as the architects of international policy and world economy, to work strenuously to spread the culture of tolerance and of living together in peace; to intervene at the earliest opportunity to stop the shedding of innocent blood and bring an end to wars, conflicts, environmental decay and the moral and cultural decline that the world is presently experiencing.  We call upon intellectuals, philosophers, religious figures, artists, media professionals and men and women of culture in every part of the world, to rediscover the values of peace, justice, goodness, beauty, human fraternity and coexistence in order to confirm the importance of these values as anchors of salvation for all, and to promote them everywhere.  This Declaration, setting out from a profound consideration of our contemporary reality, valuing its successes and in solidarity with its suffering, disasters and calamities, believes firmly that among the most important causes of the crises of the modern world are a desensitized human conscience, a distancing from religious values and a prevailing individualism accompanied by materialistic philosophies that deify the human person and introduce worldly and material values in place of supreme and transcendental principles.  While recognizing the positive steps taken by our modern civilization in the fields of science, technology, medicine, industry and welfare, especially in developed countries, we wish to emphasize that, associated with such historic advancements, great and valued as they are, there exists both a moral deterioration that influences international action and a weakening of spiritual values and responsibility. All this contributes to a general feeling of frustration, isolation and desperation leading many to fall either into a vortex of atheistic, agnostic or religious extremism, or into blind and fanatic extremism, which ultimately encourage forms of dependency and individual or collective self-destruction.  History shows that religious extremism, national extremism and also intolerance have produced in the world, be it in the East or West, what might be referred to as signs of a “third world war being fought piecemeal”. In several parts of the world and in many tragic circumstances these signs have begun to be painfully apparent, as in those situations where the precise number of victims, widows and orphans is unknown. We see, in addition, other regions preparing to become theatres of new conflicts, with outbreaks of tension and a build-up of arms and ammunition, and all this in a global context overshadowed by uncertainty, disillusionment, fear of the future, and controlled by narrow-minded economic interests.  We likewise affirm that major political crises, situations of injustice and lack of equitable distribution of natural resources – which only a rich minority benefit from, to the detriment of the majority of the peoples of the earth – have generated, and continue to generate, vast numbers of poor, infirm and deceased persons. This leads to catastrophic crises that various countries have fallen victim to despite their natural resources and the resourcefulness of young people which characterize these nations. In the face of such crises that result in the deaths of millions of children – wasted away from poverty and hunger – there is an unacceptable silence on the international level.  It is clear in this context how the family as the fundamental nucleus of society and humanity is essential in bringing children into the world, raising them, educating them, and providing them with solid moral formation and domestic security. To attack the institution of the family, to regard it with contempt or to doubt its important role, is one of the most threatening evils of our era.  We affirm also the importance of awakening religious awareness and the need to revive this awareness in the hearts of new generations through sound education and an adherence to moral values and upright religious teachings. In this way we can confront tendencies that are individualistic, selfish, conflicting, and also address radicalism and blind extremism in all its forms and expressions.  The first and most important aim of religions is to believe in God, to honour Him and to invite all men and women to believe that this universe depends on a God who governs it. He is the Creator who has formed us with His divine wisdom and has granted us the gift of life to protect it. It is a gift that no one has the right to take away, threaten or manipulate to suit oneself. Indeed, everyone must safeguard this gift of life from its beginning up to its natural end. We therefore condemn all those practices that are a threat to life such as genocide, acts of terrorism, forced displacement, human trafficking, abortion and euthanasia. We likewise condemn the policies that promote these practices.  Moreover, we resolutely declare that religions must never incite war, hateful attitudes, hostility and extremism, nor must they incite violence or the shedding of blood. These tragic realities are the consequence of a deviation from religious teachings. They result from a political manipulation of religions and from interpretations made by religious groups who, in the course of history, have taken advantage of the power of religious sentiment in the hearts of men and women in order to make them act in a way that has nothing to do with the truth of religion. This is done for the purpose of achieving objectives that are political, economic, worldly and short-sighted. We thus call upon all concerned to stop using religions to incite hatred, violence, extremism and blind fanaticism, and to refrain from using the name of God to justify acts of murder, exile, terrorism and oppression. We ask this on the basis of our common belief in God who did not create men and women to be killed or to fight one another, nor to be tortured or humiliated in their lives and circumstances. God, the Almighty, has no need to be defended by anyone and does not want His name to be used to terrorize people.  This Document, in accordance with previous International Documents that have emphasized the importance of the role of religions in the construction of world peace, upholds the following:  – The firm conviction that authentic teachings of religions invite us to remain rooted in the values of peace; to defend the values of mutual understanding, _human fraternity_  and harmonious coexistence; to re-establish wisdom, justice and love; and to reawaken religious awareness among young people so that future generations may be protected from the realm of materialistic thinking and from dangerous policies of unbridled greed and indifference that are based on the law of force and not on the force of law;  – Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;  – Justice based on mercy is the path to follow in order to achieve a dignified life to which every human being has a right;  – Dialogue, understanding and the widespread promotion of a culture of tolerance, acceptance of others and of living together peacefully would contribute significantly to reducing many economic, social, political and environmental problems that weigh so heavily on a large part of humanity;  – Dialogue among believers means coming together in the vast space of spiritual, human and shared social values and, from here, transmitting the highest moral virtues that religions aim for. It also means avoiding unproductive discussions;  – The protection of places of worship – synagogues, churches and mosques – is a duty guaranteed by religions, human values, laws and international agreements. Every attempt to attack places of worship or threaten them by violent assaults, bombings or destruction, is a deviation from the teachings of religions as well as a clear violation of international law;  – Terrorism is deplorable and threatens the security of people, be they in the East or the West, the North or the South, and disseminates panic, terror and pessimism, but this is not due to religion, even when terrorists instrumentalize it. It is due, rather, to an accumulation of incorrect interpretations of religious texts and to policies linked to hunger, poverty, injustice, oppression and pride. This is why it is so necessary to stop supporting terrorist movements fuelled by financing, the provision of weapons and strategy, and by attempts to justify these movements even using the media. All these must be regarded as international crimes that threaten security and world peace. Such terrorism must be condemned in all its forms and expressions;  – The concept of  _citizenship_ is based on the equality of rights and duties, under which all enjoy justice. It is therefore crucial to establish in our societies the concept of  _full citizenship_ and reject the discriminatory use of the term  _minorities_ which engenders feelings of isolation and inferiority. Its misuse paves the way for hostility and discord; it undoes any successes and takes away the religious and civil rights of some citizens who are thus discriminated against;  – Good relations between East and West are indisputably necessary for both. They must not be neglected, so that each can be enriched by the other’s culture through fruitful exchange and dialogue. The West can discover in the East remedies for those spiritual and religious maladies that are caused by a prevailing materialism. And the East can find in the West many elements that can help free it from weakness, division, conflict and scientific, technical and cultural decline. It is important to pay attention to religious, cultural and historical differences that are a vital component in shaping the character, culture and civilization of the East. It is likewise important to reinforce the bond of fundamental human rights in order to help ensure a dignified life for all the men and women of East and West, avoiding the politics of double standards;  – It is an essential requirement to recognize the right of women to education and employment, and to recognize their freedom to exercise their own political rights. Moreover, efforts must be made to free women from historical and social conditioning that runs contrary to the principles of their faith and dignity. It is also necessary to protect women from sexual exploitation and from being treated as merchandise or objects of pleasure or financial gain. Accordingly, an end must be brought to all those inhuman and vulgar practices that denigrate the dignity of women. Efforts must be made to modify those laws that prevent women from fully enjoying their rights;  – The protection of the fundamental rights of children to grow up in a family environment, to receive nutrition, education and support, are duties of the family and society. Such duties must be guaranteed and protected so that they are not overlooked or denied to any child in any part of the world. All those practices that violate the dignity and rights of children must be denounced. It is equally important to be vigilant against the dangers that they are exposed to, particularly in the digital world, and to consider as a crime the trafficking of their innocence and all violations of their youth;  – The protection of the rights of the elderly, the weak, the disabled, and the oppressed is a religious and social obligation that must be guaranteed and defended through strict legislation and the implementation of the relevant international agreements.  To this end, by mutual cooperation, the Catholic Church and Al-Azhar announce and pledge to convey this Document to authorities, influential leaders, persons of religion all over the world, appropriate regional and international organizations, organizations within civil society, religious institutions and leading thinkers. They further pledge to make known the principles contained in this Declaration at all regional and international levels, while requesting that these principles be translated into policies, decisions, legislative texts, courses of study and materials to be circulated.  Al-Azhar and the Catholic Church ask that this Document become the object of research and reflection in all schools, universities and institutes of formation, thus helping to educate new generations to bring goodness and peace to others, and to be defenders everywhere of the rights of the oppressed and of the least of our brothers and sisters.  In conclusion, our aspiration is that:  this Declaration may constitute an invitation to reconciliation and fraternity among all believers, indeed among believers and non-believers, and among all people of good will;  this Declaration may be an appeal to every upright conscience that rejects deplorable violence and blind extremism; an appeal to those who cherish the values of tolerance and fraternity that are promoted and encouraged by religions;  this Declaration may be a witness to the greatness of faith in God that unites divided hearts and elevates the human soul;  this Declaration may be a sign of the closeness between East and West, between North and South, and between all who believe that God has created us to understand one another, cooperate with one another and live as brothers and sisters who love one another.  This is what we hope and seek to achieve with the aim of finding a universal peace that all can enjoy in this life.  _Abu Dhabi, 4 february 2019_  Related Posts:     **If everyone who reads our story, who likes it, helps fund it, our future would be much more secure.[For as little as $10, you can support the IWB – and it only takes a minute.](https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s- xclick&hosted_button_id=DAKZTAE6PJLGW) Thank you.** 400 views  Related Posts:  from https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/the-pope-and-islams-most-important- imam-just-signed-a-covenant-that-pushes-us-much-closer-to-a-one-world- religion/