Eric St-Pierre

Trump is not, even remotely, copying China. If he was he would be: - Promoting free trade - Promoting multilateralism and international institutions - Embracing regional economic integration - Pursuing consistent long-term planning and maintaining policy stability - Investing massively in public infrastructure - Doing grand social programs such as poverty alleviation - Going all-in on renewable energy - Massively boosting public R&D - Placing societal harmony and cohesion above all - Etc I don't know how to best characterize Trump's approach (other than, maybe, NY real estate shakedown politics) but "copying China" is most definitely not it. This article is in the grand tradition of Americans having so propagandized themselves about China that it now stands for the useful "other" that allows the country to define itself by negation - simply declare whatever you dislike "Chinese". I have made this point many times before: this means that, in a very real way, America isn't in fact competing with China but with a mirage - it's competing against "what we tell ourselves we're not". This article overall pictures China as a caricatural communist country with no free market, when the truth is that China's actual model today involves an almost libertarian belief in market competition and creative destruction (although, unlike in the US, the government remains firmly above capital rather than its servant). Which makes the article particularly ironic because it means that "copying China" would actually mean moving more in the direction of what the article's authors recommend, namely a place that "encourages innovation" where "markets are large, rules are stable and opportunities are open to those willing to take risks" - which describes China's current approach (massive support for R&D, massive markets, consistent long-term policy, fierce competition) much better than Trump's chaotic brand of NY real estate capitalism. Which ironically gives China a massive strategic advantage: the US is busy fighting whatever projection it believes China is, while they can compete with the real America. This is something so many people struggle with: you think you're being patriotic by demonizing China, but you're actually sabotaging your own country's ability to learn and adapt.

This is how he did it:

I have never seen it expressed exactly like that, but I wholeheartedly endorse it: Feedback beats planning. My plea at Meta was “No grand plans, follow the gradient of user value”.

So @MarkJCarney comes to Edmonton and says he opposes an oil and gas production cap; then heads back to Ottawa and promises an oil and gas production cap costing Albertans and Canadians tens of thousands of jobs. The more things change the more they stay the same. The Liberals clearly have not learned their lesson and have no plan to make our country into the independent economic powerhouse it could be.

New scientific paper demolished the myths about low carb and ketogenic diets! Share widely with the haters mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/6…

Special Saturday Broadcast: BlackRock Hedge Funds Make Massive Bet Against The Stock Market As The Desperate Globalist System Strikes Back Against Trump’s Populist Agenda This Is A Must Watch/Share Emergency Saturday Broadcast x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Performed and repeated for emphasis and clarity. Any comment @AOC?

New essay. China's coal consumption probably rose for the year (boo, hiss). The whole-of-economy carbon emissions probably declined anyway (hooray, yippee). But I don't think that's the key point anyway, as I describe in this new LinkedIn piece: 🧵 linkedin.com/pulse/focusing…

😂

@MarioNawfal x.com/RnaudBertrand/…

🇬🇧🇨🇳ROYAL MESS: PRINCE ANDREW CAUGHT IN CHINESE SPY SCANDAL Prince Andrew invited an alleged Chinese spy into royal palaces for a decade, giving him "trusted advisor" status and access to business deals. MI5 is now investigating Chinese money flowing into Andrew's ventures. Palace officials admit they have no clue where Andrew gets his millions—not even King Charles knows how his disgraced brother funds his $5M security bill and massive royal estate. Looks like the royal black sheep found a new way to embarrass the family just in time for Christmas. Source: Telegraph, Daily Mail

The case of Prince Andrew and the "Chinese spy", as well as its treatment by UK media, is frankly one of the most dystopian instances of "yellow peril" paranoia that I've ever witnessed. When you look into the facts, it sets an absolutely insane precedent. In effect it means that any Chinese national - heck they don't even need to be Chinese, it can be anyone with links to China - can be permanently banned from the UK if they develop relationships with prominent UK figures. Let me explain. First of all, let's take a look at how this case is framed by the media. Here's what the headlines say: "Chinese spy linked to Prince Andrew. MPs warn he ‘was not a lone wolf’." (The Independent: independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi…) "Prince Andrew spy scandal may have further exposed threat posed by China." (The Guardian: theguardian.com/world/2024/dec…) "Chinese ‘spy’ linked to Prince Andrew is ‘tip of the iceberg’." (Politico: politico.eu/article/china-…) Every major UK media outlet reporting on this "Chinese spy" story paints a sinister picture of infiltration at the highest levels of British society, with it being "proof" of the terrible "threat posed by China". Incredibly, none of this is true. When you look at the actual reality of the case (the court judgment can be read here: judiciary.uk/judgments/h6-v…) these accusations are totally empty. There is no evidence of espionage. No proof of any wrongdoing. In fact there is even NO allegation of actual wrongdoing. None. Zero. Nada. Instead, here's what the government's case actually consists of: - Yang has connections to Chinese institutions (specifically the United Front Work Department and the Communist Party) - something the court itself admits "may apply to every Chinese businessperson" - He allegedly wasn't sufficiently vocal about these connections. The case isn't even that he lied about them - he acknowledged such connections were 'unavoidable' for Chinese businesses (which is simply a fact about how business works in China) - but apparently didn't elaborate enough about them, despite the court acknowledging in its judgment that there was "not an abundance of evidence" for these connections in the first place - He formed relationships with UK figures (mainly Prince Andrew) through legitimate business initiatives like Pitch@Palace, which the government argues "could be leveraged" for influence at some theoretical point in the future, even though the court writes this "may be nothing more than normal business practice" That's it. That's literally the entire case. You can check it yourself if you don't believe me: judiciary.uk/judgments/h6-v… That IS literally the entire case. There is no evidence, nor even allegation (!), of spying for a case the entirety of the media present as that of a "Chinese spy". Yang's fault was to be a Chinese businessman with links to Chinese institutions - which the court itself acknowledges is unavoidable - who successfully built relationships with British elites through legitimate business ventures. And the mere fact that these relationships could theoretically be 'leveraged' for influence at some point in the future was enough to get him permanently banned from the UK, even though there's no evidence he ever intended to do so or did anything improper. And here's where it gets truly dystopian. Yang has been permanently banned from the UK not based on any law or evidence of wrongdoing, but under an ancient monarchical power called the "Royal Prerogative." The government doesn't even need to prove he did anything wrong - they just need to argue it's "rational" to think his business relationships COULD theoretically be used for influence someday. Think about what this means in practice. Any Chinese business person who: - Develops relationships with prominent UK figures (which is often necessary for doing business) - Has unavoidable connections to Chinese institutions (which is almost always the case) - Is arbitrarily deemed to not be vocal enough about these connections can be permanently banned from the UK without having committed any crime or wrongdoing. The government just needs to wave the magic wand of "national security" and suggest some theoretical future risk. And what's even more concerning is how the media has completely failed to scrutinize this. Instead of questioning why someone can be labeled a "spy" and banned from a country based on zero evidence of espionage, they're amplifying the paranoia with sensational headlines and quoting MPs warning this is just the "tip of the iceberg" and that he is "not a lone wolf." We're essentially watching the creation of a legal framework for discriminating against Chinese nationals (and potentially anyone with links to China) based not on what they've done, but on what the government thinks they might theoretically do in some hypothetical future on the simple basis that they are Chinese. All while the press cheerleads this erosion of basic legal and moral principles with inflammatory and evidence-free "spy" rhetoric. It's completely kafka-esque. Imagine for an instant if the shoe was on the other foot and China started to permanently ban British businesspeople from entering the country because they had connections with British institutions and had developed relationships with Chinese officials that 'could be leveraged' for influence. This describes almost all UK businessmen in China with some degree of seniority, so we'd be looking at an almost total deportation of the UK business community from China... It doesn't even make sense from the point of view of the UK's national interests: they should actually want well-connected Chinese businesspeople to do business there because these connections are vital for business. If they're concerned about these relationships potentially being leveraged for improper influence, their response should to strengthen their domestic anti-corruption measures, not to ban Chinese businesspeople for building the exact kind of relationships that facilitate trade and investment between the two countries. This approach doesn't protect British interests; it damages them by creating a chilling effect on legitimate business relationships that benefit both countries. The Yang Tengbo case represents another sad milestone in the unraveling of what the West claimed were its "fundamental values": when we start punishing people not for what they've done but for what they might theoretically do because of their nationality, we've crossed a line that should worry anyone who believes in the rule of law and basic fairness. This doesn't make us safer nor more prosperous - it just makes us less just. If this doesn't set off alarm bells about the direction we're heading, I don't know what will.

C’est parti: démantèlement du complexe médiatico-politique.

@elonmusk @CommunityNotes It's as if their goal is to turn the world of "Idiocracy" into reality. youtu.be/NNl7GQFTULU?si…

Is this seriously what the current administration considers discrimination? @CommunityNotes

@carolmswain Mr conspiracy theory

@CournoyerMyriam @mitchgarber Love your answer! 🎯je rajouterai cette image. 🫡

Biden’s out, Kamala is in. Don’t be fooled: policies won’t change. Just like Biden wasn’t the one calling the shots, Kamala Harris won’t be either. She is the new figurehead for the deep state and the maidservant of Hillary Clinton, queen of the cabal of warmongers. They will continue their efforts to engulf the world in war and taking away our liberty.

First day at Crowdstrike, pushed a little update and taking the afternoon off ✌️

Patrick Provost congédié par l’Université Laval #censure #sanitarisme libre-media.com/articles/patri…

Allison Neitzel, who made a series of false allegations of fraud, just issued a statement correcting and clarifying her earlier words and apologizing to me and @PierreKory for what she said.