Somebody Hacked Starbucks’ WiFi To Mine Cryptocurrencies

As the values of the largest cryptocurrencies have multiplied this year, so too have reports of digital-currency miners stealing resources to amplify the profitability of their operations.

In Venezuela, where electricity is heavily subsidized by the (crumbling) government, the government’s intelligence agents are ferreting out and jailing people caught mining bitcoin or other digital currencies.

Yesterday, we reported that the world’s largest oil-pipeline company discovered unauthorized digital-currency mining taking place on the company’s hardware.

And today, Cryptocoinsnews pointed out that a Starbucks in Buenos Aires had its wi-fi hacked to force a 10 second delay when connecting so it could mine Monero – currently the world’s 11th largest cryptocurrency – with people’s laptops.

The presence of the CoinHive code was discovered by the chief executive of a New York-based tech company, Noah Dinkin, who noticed something was off when he was connecting to the service. He then used Twitter to share what he found:


Initially, Dinkin believed his laptop was being forced to mine bitcoin, users noted Coinhive only works with Monero, a cryptocurrency optimized for CPU mining that recently hit a new all-time high above $300, and has surged over 1,500% this year so far, according to data from CoinMarketCap.

A few days after Dinkin shared his findings on Twitter, Starbucks responded. The company acknowledged the issue and announced that it’s been resolved.


A spokesperson later on clarified that this wasn’t an isolated incident, and that the problem stemmed from the internet service provider, not Starbucks. Speaking to Motherboard, the spokesperson added that Starbucks hoped to ensure its customers are “able to search the internet over Wi-Fi securely,” and that it’s working with its service provider to remedy the issue.

Earlier this year, CCN reported the Pirate Bay’s efforts to use visitor CPU to mine Monero in order to monetize its traffic and replace the ads on its pages. The torrent index website used Coinhive, a JavaScript code that allows website admins to mine the anonymity-centric cryptocurrency with visitor’s CPUs.

Ever since the Pirate Bay tested Coinhive on its website, various actors started using the code to access other CPUs. The code was even placed on Google Chrome extensions, and on a subscription streaming service called Fight Pass, which exists to stream UFC matches.

via Read More Here..


‘Murica? An Entire Arizona Family Now ‘Identifies’ As Transgender

Presented without comment…

DailyCaller's Grace Carr reports that an entire family in Arizona says every member now identifies as transgender.

“It feels like you’re getting to live for the first time,” said Daniel Harrott, who lived most of her life as a woman and is now transitioning to male, according to KJZZ.


“And my children are getting to be who they’ve always wanted to be,” she added, explaining that her family of four is happier now that they are all living according to the identities of their choice.

Harrott’s 11-year-old, Mason, is a girl but decided she wasn’t her biological gender and now goes by a boy’s name and sports boy’s clothes.

Harrott’s first child, 13-year-old Joshua – who is wheelchair bound – was born a male but now also says he is not of the right body and is choosing to become a female. Joshua says he was only 6 or 7 years old when he knew he was a girl.

The children’s mother, Daniel, is engaged to Shirley Austin, a man who identifies as a woman. Daniel said that Josh came out as transgender first, followed by Mason, after which Daniel felt it was okay to accept her male identity. Following their identity changes, Daniel met transgender Shirley, who joined their family to make up a family of four transgenders.

“The whole family is in transition,” Austin said.

Both Daniel and Shirley were previously married to partners opposite of their biological sex, and both had children in those marriages.

“They’re trans, and I know it’s true – because I am, too,” Daniel said, telling KJZZ that her son Joshua had wanted to join the Girl Scouts, which made her start to think the whole family must be transgender.

Daniel posits that transgenders have been in her family for at least 100 years, and recounts that people used to call her great aunt a cross-dresser.

One of the world’s leading experts in childhood gender dysphoria, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, lost his job for challenging the new orthodoxy that children know best and for presenting evidence that most children with gender dysphoria eventually overcome the feelings without transitioning.


via Read More Here..

Ready For The Revealing Of The Truth
    Ready For The Revealing Of The Truth   BZ Riger, Lisa Rush and I talk about what the unravelling of this paradigm looks like and how the simple act of noticing things are activating our DNA upgrades.     Join the Conversation! Join our Facebook Group; Contact Sheila Find Lisa’s Heart

Vía I UV

Congresswoman Says Rumor Is That Trump Will Fire Mueller Before Christmas

Republican lawmakers have been increasingly frustrated by revelations that one of the FBI agents who had a pivotal role in both the early stages of what became the Mueller investigation and the bureau’s decision to excuse Hillary Clinton shared anti-Trump sentiments with his mistress, also an FBI employee.

Earlier this week, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley fired off a letter to the DOJ asking Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to explain this and other disturbing revelations indicating bias toward Trump from within both the DOJ and the Mueller probe specifically. To wit, nearly every Mueller team member donated to at least one of Hillary Clinton’s campaigns. Furthermore, Mueller’s right-hand man Aaron Zebley represented the IT staffer who installed Clinton’s illegal server.

These frustrations came to a head earlier this week when Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Rosenstein engaged in a testy exchange during the latter’s public testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

Given the mounting pressure on Mueller, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said Friday that the rumor on Capitol Hill is that President Donald Trump is planning to fire Mueller before Christmas, but after Congress leaves Washington for the winter recess.

“The rumor on the Hill when I left yesterday was that the president was going to make a significant speech at the end of next week. And on Dec. 22, when we are out of D.C., he was going to fire Robert Mueller," Speier told California's KQED News.

According to the Hill, Speier, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that Trump was trying to shut down the committee's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. As evidence, she pointed to the lack of interviews scheduled for the new year.

The New York Times reported Friday that the committee is scheduling its final witnesses of the year to testify in New York despite important votes coming up in Washington, DC, and confirmed no additional witnesses are scheduled yet in 2018.

"We can read between the lines I think," Speier said. "I believe this president wants all of this shut down. He wants to shut down these investigations, and he wants to fire special counsel Mueller."

The ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), also said Friday that he is worried that Republicans leading the committee are seeking to shut down the committee's investigation by the end of the year.

"Republicans have scheduled no witnesses after next Friday and none in 2017 [sic]. We have dozens of outstanding witnesses on key aspects of our investigation that they refuse to contact and many document requests they continue to sit on," he tweeted Friday.

Of course, there’s also reason to take Speier’s comments with a grain of salt: Rumors that Trump might fire Mueller have been circulating since May.

"There is no intention or plan to make any changes in regards to the special counsel," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in October.

via Read More Here..

CSX CEO Hunter Harrison Dead, Days After Medical Leave

Just two days after taking medical leave from his role as CEO of CSX, the company has confirmed 73-year-old Hunter Harrison has passed away.

Bloomberg reports that E. Hunter Harrison, who turned around three railroad carriers during a five-decade career before being tapped by CSX Corp. to improve the company’s lackluster performance, has died, days after taking medical leave. He was 73.

Harrison, who had heart bypass surgery in 1998, occasionally used a portable oxygen tank to treat shortness of breath. Complications from an illness forced him to take time off from his duties as chief executive officer on Dec. 14, and CSX named Jim Foote as interim CEO a day later.

His reputation among analysts and investors was so strong that CSX shares jumped 23 percent on a single day in January 2017 when reports emerged that Harrison was in talks to take the helm. Shares fell almost 8 percent when the company announced his medical leave.

His health emerged as a concern for investors after he joined Canadian Pacific. In 2015, Harrison contracted pneumonia and missed several weeks of work after undergoing surgery to have stents implanted in his legs. In 2017, before being appointed by CSX, he turned down the company’s request that an independent physician designated by the board review his medical records.

Harrison and his wife, Jeannie, had two children.

via Read More Here..

To The Surface…

As the shift continues, many things will come to the surface that you thought you already handled.  Sadness, rage, resentments, feeling like a victim, fear or apathy…it will be ‘in your face’, demanding your attention.  The Universe wants you to know; this is not to open old wounds or to take you back to the place you were when you first experienced these feelings.  It is giving you an opportunity to take a closer look, to see what else needs to be taken care of and released.
The ‘fun’ all begins with a choice; to let go or hold on.  The free will you were gifted will be of utmost importance in the months ahead.  These wonderful, life-altering moments are one of the reasons you chose to be here….now!  As you work through them, please remember you are protected and loved beyond measure. ~ Creator


Vía The Galactic Free Press

The Great Oil Swindle

Authored by Chris Martenson via,

… is leading us to destruction.

When it comes to the story we're being told about America's rosy oil prospects, we're being swindled. 

At its core, the swindle is this: The shale industry's oil production forecasts are vastly overstated.

Swindle:  Noun  – A fraudulent scheme or action.

And the swindle is not just affecting the US.  It's badly distorted everything from current geopolitics to future oil forecasts.

The false conclusions the world is drawing as a result of the self-deception and outright lies we're being told is putting our future prosperity in major jeopardy. Policy makers and ordinary citizens alike have been misled, and everyone — everyone — is unprepared for the inevitable and massive coming oil price shock.

An Oil Price Spike Would Burst The 'Everything Bubble'

Our thesis at Peak Prosperity is that the world’s equity and bond markets are enormous financial bubbles in search of a pin. Sadly, history shows there’s nothing quite as sharp and terminal to these sorts of bubbles as a rapid spike in the price of oil.

And we see a huge price spike on the way.

As a reminder, bubbles exist when asset prices rise beyond what incomes can sustain.  Greece is a prime recent example. In 2008 when the price of oil spiked to  $147/bbl, Greece could no longer afford imported oil. But oil is a necessity so it was bought anyway, their national balances of payments were stressed to the point that they were exposed as insolvent and then their debt bubble promptly and predictably popped.   The rest is history.  Greece is now a nation of ruins and their economy might as well be displayed alongside the Acropolis.

What happened to Greece will happen to any and every financially marginal oil-importing nation. As a reminder, the US still remains a net oil importer (more on that below).

Well, if you thought that world debt levels were dizzyingly high back at the beginning of the Great Recession in 2008, then you might want a fainting couch nearby before looking at this next chart:


Global debt is a full $68 trillion higher in 2017 than it was in 2007(!). In terms of global GDP that represents a whopping increase of ~50% (from 276% to 327%). 

At approximately 96 million barrels per day of oil consumption, each $10 rise in the price of oil per barrel means that oil consumers have to redirect an additional $960 million dollars each day(!) away from such things as profits, discretionary spending, and debt payments. Instead, that money is sent to the oil producers. 

So a future price shock that tacks on an addition $50/bbl to the current price (bringing the total price of oil back over $100/bbl) would translate into $4,800 million ($4.8 billion) per day. That's some $1.7 trillion per year of “redirected spending” that used to go to some other purposes but will now go to oil producers and oil producing nations.

Without belaboring the details, at the margin plenty of economically viable companies, countries and individuals would suddenly become ‘unviable’ and go bankrupt. Their debt and equity holders, employees, and communities that service these companies, will be wiped out. 

This is why I love quoting Jim Puplava's observation that the price of oil is the new Fed Funds rate.  It has more ability to determine the future of the economy than interest rates.

For example, if you want to bring credit growth into a screeching halt, just jack up the price of oil. That's exactly what happened in 2008.

And it can — and very predictably will — happen again.

For reasons I'll explain shortly (in Part 2), I project the next major upwards-surprise oil price spike to arrive somewhere between the second half of 2018 and 2020.  

The Middle East Is Now A Lot More Volatile

Now, if there’s a war in the Middle East that accelerates my timetable. Higher prices would arrive within weeks of the outbreak of hostilities, especially if they impact shipping traffic through the all-critical Strait of Hormuz.

As a quick reminder, roughly one third of all exported oil in the world passes through the Strait of Hormuz:

It’s a critical bottleneck. Even one missile flying towards one oil tanker will halt all oil shipments for quite some time.

Maritime insurers do not cover acts of war (see Rule 58) and the ship owners themselves will quickly stop shipments if it worried about taking massive losses on sunk tankers. 

All of which means that the very first missile lobbed towards a vessel there will quickly result in no ships at all transiting the Strait.


I raise this risk again here, as I did in my report on the recent concerning developments in Saudi Arabia, to remind everyone that an outbreak of war in the Middle East will prick the world’s global set of financial bubbles (stocks, bonds, real estate, fine art, etc) via a very sharp oil price spike.

Oil Economics

To get to the heart of the swindle being perpetrated, we only need understand a very simply equation describing the oil business.  Money is spent drilling a hole in the ground, and then money is earned based on how much oil comes up out of that hole.

Money in, money out.

(Of course, there’s a lot of complexity involved in oil drilling and I don’t mean to diminish the incredible talents of the many gifted people who coax our energy out of the ground. But the high-level financial math isn't that hard to grasp.)

We can understand the oil industry's financial math using just three variables: C, P and A.

  • C –  the cost of drilling the well and then producing the oil.
  • P – the price of oil when we sell it
  • A – the amount of oil that comes out of the well. 

The formula for profits is simply the (price of oil) times (the amount) minus (costs).   (P * A) – C = profits

For example, let’s say that we spent $10 million drilling a well when oil commands a market price of $100 a barrel the entire time we’re selling it.  The ‘break-even’ for that well — i.e., when the money we spent was finally returned in full — would be when C = (P * A).

So break-even would be 100,000 barrels in this example. 100,000 bbls * $100/bbl = $10 million.

If instead our well ultimately produced 200,000 barrels, we’d have a lot of profits.  And of course, if we drilled a well that only produced 50,000 barrels, we’d lose money.

Now here’s where the swindle happens: 

The cost to drill and operate the well (C)?  That’s known with fine precision. 

The amount of oil that will come out of that well, or A?  That, too, is calculable and known. 

But the price of oil (P) a driller receives for the oil it produces?  Well, because that's an unknown it represents the major risk in the business.  There's just no way to predict the future price of oil.  So, what to do about this?

Well, one way to fix the price variable is to ask a different question than "how much will we make?" and instead ask "at what price of oil will our well break-even?"  This is a firm, calculable number and it brings us to the heart of the swindle.

How Much Oil Do Shale Wells Really Produce?

If you’ve been following the US shale industry over the past few years, you're likely quite perplexed.

On one hand, the shale oil producers sport negative free cash flows in every year of operation. They are cash burning machines.

But on the other hand, their reported break-even prices have been falling dramatically, and are often reported to be well below the current retail price of oil. Meaning they should be nicely profitable.

Which is it?

How is it possible to both produce above your break-even price point and be losing money hand over fist?

Well, one way is if the reported break-even prices aren't correct.  Let’s recall our simple formula for the break-even: C = (P * A).  

When break-even prices are being reported in the media, what the companies are really doing is answering to this question: At what average price of oil will this well, once fully exhausted, have fully paid itself back?

It works like this.  Suppose we knew a well costs $7 million to drill and operate over its lifetime, and we wanted to know what the breakeven price was.  Well, that all depends on something called the EUR. 

The total amount of oil that's projected to come out of a well over its lifetime (variable A in our equation) is called the Estimated Ultimate Recovery, or EUR. 

The following table shows that the reported break-even might be anywhere from $70 to $9 if the EUR varied from a lifetime output of 100,000 barrels to 800,000 barrels:

So, clearly the EUR is a very important number. And not just for reported break-even costs to investors.  Those EUR estimates form the basis for our expectations of how much oil is going to be produced from not only a given well, but from an entire shale basin, because the EUR's are baked into the production models.

In fact, they are the single most important number so getting them right, or close to right, is not just important, but absolutely critical.

Now let’s use that knowledge to read a recent article I came across in a prominent oil and gas journal.  The entire article is centered on the Bakken play in North Dakota. In both tone and conclusions, it’s exactly similar to articles we might read about the other large shale plays like the Eagleford and Permian basins.

The average well cost for drilling and completing a well in 2016 is estimated at around US$6.8 million, with the potential for additional reductions by year-end.

Based on the current well cost estimates, the average wellhead breakeven price is expected to average US$40 per bbl for 2016, about a 20% reduction from the 2015 level.

This is a big achievement for shale companies operating in the Bakken; operators have managed to increase the average well performance while reducing well costs.


Before we move onto the supporting charts from the article (below), let’s just note what we’ve read.  The average break even is now just $40 per barrel, a whopping 20% reduction from 2016 (which also saw a huge reported reduction from 2015).

If you stopped reading there you’d probably think, “Cool! We’re figuring out better and faster ways to drill and unlock tons more oil. I guess all of those projections of a US shale production bonanza for many decades to come are confirmed by this news.”

The first chart offered in this article supports that contention very nicely.  In it, we see that the break-even price has plummeted every year since 2013; going down from $70 to just $40. That’s amazing!

But a sharp eye would also notice that the drilling costs have not fallen nearly so much.  They’ve only fallen around 17% per well while the break-even cost has collapsed by 42%.

What accounts for the difference?  You already know, don’t you…it’s the EUR, the total amount of oil expected to come out of each well.

Here’s the supporting chart from the article:

Holey smokes!  The EUR has climbed from 400,000 barrels to 700,000 barrels.  That’s an increase of 75%!!

That one feature alone accounts for nearly all of the reported drop in the break-even case.  Again, the casual reader would be forgiving for thinking, Cool!  That confirms what I’ve been reading about all the amazing technological breakthroughs in horizontal drilling and fracking. We've got this!

Which brings us to…

The Great Oil Swindle

Our commitment at Peak Prosperity is to find the data and let that tell us the story. 

Fortunately, huge amounts of publicly available data exist on the production profiles of oil wells, right down to the monthly production values of each well.  Gigantic data sets exist containing the results for thousands and thousands of wells, carefully sorted by vintage (year started) and precise location.

Even more fortunately, there are a few analysts out there that carefully download that data and then present it to the world so we can form our own conclusions.

But much of that data is ignored or removed to make shale producers look healthier than they actually are. Here's a chart from the above article which has rather unhelpfully cherry picked the production data it used to make its point, But even with that attempt of duplicty, the chart still reveals the fraud:

The chart shows cumulative production over time.  It paints a story saying that for each vintage year more oil seems to be flowing out of the ground.  2013 is the lowest, 2014 is better, and finally 2016 seems to be on track for the best year ever.

Why is this data unhelpfully presented?  Because it stops at 18 months for each vintage even though we have many more years of data.  These wells are principally depleted in 36 months, so why not show each vintage for 36 or more months, where possible?  Is it because that might undermine the impression being conveyed, possibly?

Before we show that is indeed the case, just use your eyeballs and mentally carry those curves out. You can see them flattening even within the first 18 months.  The EUR and the cumulative production become the same number at the end of a well’s life (at ~30 years, or 360 months).  Can you mentally project any of those (asymptotic, flattening) curves ever reaching to 400,000 barrels on the y-axis?  How about to 500,000?  Could you make the case for 700,000? 

To my eye, those puppies are flattening out. Even if I give them a generously long time, I can see them getting to maybe 300,000 to 350,000 — tops.

Fortunately, we have more data to definitively address that question.

The first comes to us from Art Berman, who shows that when you allow the data from each vintage to run, you'll notice something quite obvious and very serious: faster initial rates of production cause faster rates of decline later on:


While this chart is showing monthly production rather than cumulative production (stay with me on this…I know it takes some mental effort) it’s not hard to appreciate that a faster initial rate of production will add to the amount of oil coming out of a well while a steeper decline rate later will subtract from that value.

In other words, all of the fancy new technology and drilling techniques seems to only have accelerated the initial rate at which oil comes out of the ground, not the total amount!

Next, let’s again look at the cumulative production values, this time by vintage, or year.  This data comes from the excellent website run by Enno Peters who has done all that heavy lifting of the data and then gone the extra mile to make it easily graphed.  Kudos Enno!

Shale wells deplete non-linearly.  There’s some complexity there but it’s not too inaccurate for the layman to think that they deplete exponentially.  Close enough to get you there. 

Accordingly, when the daily and cumulative output of those wells are plotted on a log chart, the resulting decline "curves" become straight lines.    To figure out how much oil is going to eventually come out of those wells over their lives, or the EUR, it is not too terribly inaccurate to simply extend a straight line through the data and see where it points.

When that's done for the Bakken wells we get this next chart:


Every single oil well is plotted for every year between 2010 and 2015, broken into vintages of a quarter of a year each.  That is, every well brought into production within a three-month window is lumped together and given a different color line.

First, the blue dotted line that I've extended on the chart suggests that the most stellar vintage is on track to produce an EUR of roughly 300,000 barrels, give or take.  The worst vintage might be expected to produce just 120,000 barrels.

To get to even 400,000 barrels (far less than the claimed 700,000 in the above article!) a very pronounced shift in the very best vintage would have to magically take place.  No such ‘line shift’ has ever been seen in any of this data by myself and I’ve looked through a lot of it. 

Remember, this is what is currently being widely reported for the Bakken right now:

There’s an enormous discrepancy between the above chart and the data we’ve got in hand and I’ve no good explanation for the difference except that they must come from different sources.  My preferred data comes from the well head, but other’s take theirs from company presentations.

Why does any of this matter at all?

Because the inputs to a great many energy reports and if the actual data is correct, then every assumption about the future prospects of the US as an oil producer are wildly, dangerously wrong.

For example, if the EURs are half what is being assumed, which seems likely, then every future oriented analysis depending on them will be overstating things by 100%.  A 2x error seems pretty significant to me.

For those who like their data, you could also read Art Berman who has done a similar (and far more sophisticated) analysis of the Permian basin and come to precisely the same conclusions (also deriving EURs roughly half of what’s being claimed). 

Or this analysis of the Eagleford basin which derived an EUR of 250,000:

This study derives typical production curves of tight oil wells based on monthly production data from multiple horizontal Eagle Ford shale oil wells. Well properties initial production (IP) rate and production decline rate were documented, and estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) was calculated using two empirical production decline curve models, the hyperbolic and the stretched exponential function.

IP = 500 bbl/day, D = 0.3 and b = 1 resulting in an EUR of 250 kbbl with a 30-year well lifetime, however, with the recognition that this extrapolation is uncertain.


Each of these analyses are pointing to EUR’s that are in the range of 250,000 to 350,000 barrels and across every shale basin. 

The Danger Of This Deceit

The summary is we have lots and lots of actual data and supporting studies all pointing to the idea that the amount of oil that will come out of these shale wells is half or less what’s being popularly reported.

In Part 2: The Massive Coming Oil Shock, we connect the remaining dots that show an oil price spike caused by an oil supply shortage is inevitable at this point, likely within the next 2 years. Thought $5 a gallon gas was bad back in 2008? You're really going to hate gas $10 a gallon (yes, it could get that ugly).

An oil price of this magnitude will smash many a budget. Families on the edge will not be able to afford the gas to get to their jobs, nor the commensurate rise in price of all the other goods and services they depend on to live (as oil is an input cost in nearly everything).  Millions of households will be financially wrecked many communities will become largely unlivable as they lose their anchor employers.

Add the popping of the financial markets on top of things, and we've got a true crisis greater than anything we've lived through so far.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

via Read More Here..

Targeting North Korea: Can a Nuclear War be Averted? Conversations with Michel Chossudovsky and Carla Stea

“Anybody who has a minimal understanding of nuclear radiation knows that this would not be a war against North Korea. It would be a war against China, Russia, South Korea and Japan.”

 – Professor Michel Chossudovsky (From this week’s interview.)…

Vía Global Research

Trump Set To Accuse China Of “Economic Aggression” On Monday

Just a few short days after Chinese regulators gave the greenlight to petro-yuan futures trading, signaling an escalation in the war against dollar hegemony, President Trump is reportedly set to accuse China of "economic aggression" in efforts to "undermine international order" during his national security strategy speech on Monday.

The last week has more intriguing than usual in the world of Sino-US relations – not only did China push ahead with its plans for a yuan/gold-backed oil futures contract, directly threatening the great military-servicing global petrodollar recycling scheme; but Washington appeared to do an about-face in its rhetoric towards North Korea, as Secretary of State Tillerson indicated that the US would be willing to hold talks with North Korea without any preconditions.

Both actions could be seen as tilting towards China (obviously with the oil trading and more what China had hoped for on North Korea), appear to have prompted Trump to go on the offensive, as The FT reports, Donald Trump will accuse China of engaging in “economic aggression” when he unveils his national security strategy on Monday, in a strong sign that he has become frustrated at his inability to use his bond with China’s President Xi Jinping to convince Beijing to address his trade concerns.

Several people familiar with the national security strategy – a formal document produced by every US president since Ronald Reagan – said Mr Trump would propose a much tougher stance on China than previous administrations.

“The national security strategy is likely to define China as a competitor in every realm. Not just a competitor but a threat, and therefore, in the view of many in this administration, an adversary,” said one person.


“This is not something that they just cooked up. Mar-a-Lago interrupted the campaign rhetoric, and Xi Jinping took a little gamble and came here and embraced Trump. Trump said ‘fine, do something on North Korea and on trade’, but that didn’t work out so well.”

Mr Trump castigated China repeatedly on the campaign trail. But in office, and particularly since his Mar-a-Lago summit with Mr Xi, he had taken a less combative stance, partly because the US believes Chinese pressure on North Korea is crucial to tackling the nuclear crisis.

“The national security strategy is the starting gun for a series of economic measures against the Chinese,” said Michael Allen, a former Bush administration official at Beacon Global Strategies.


“It is sort of the Rosetta Stone for translating campaign themes into a coherent governing document.”

Some people familiar with the strategy said it would be the most aggressive economic response to China’s rise since 2001 when the US backed its entry into the World Trade Organization. It points to the waning influence of Gary Cohn, the White House National Economic Council head who many people believe will leave the administration next year.

“It’s like a Peter Navarro PowerPoint presentation,” said one person, referring to the provocative economist and author of “Death by China” who is now a White House official.

And while 'trade' is the cover, perhaps it was comments from HR McMaster, US national security adviser who oversaw the strategy, this week that confirm the threat to dollar hegemony as he said China – along with Russia – was a “revisionist power” that was “undermining the international order."

And that would be the unipolar world order with Washington on top.

via Read More Here..