LSE's Sinophobic** bluffmaker Elizabeth Ingleson's racist talk riot on Doom & Gloomberg contributes to inciting even more anti-Chinese hatred. A useful idiot for $-thief US' disastrous anti-China policies?

Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.

Read how climate change made human evolution possible in SE Asian volatile archipelago - not on a continent like Africa. 

Read Peter Klevius opposite reading and correction of Greenland data compared to researchers biased with climate hysteria.

Read how two craniopagus twins born 2006 solved the "greatest mystery in science" - and proved Peter Klevius theory from 1992-94 100% correct.

LSE iQ* must be way below average! Peter Klevius names deeply** racist** extremnist** Sinophobic** Elizabeth Ingleson (LSE) economic bluff-maker of the year. Dear reader, while reading this, also keep in mind US' and Israel's genocide against Palestinians! And that >40% of "Chinese looking" people in the West are racially attacked - with almost no mentioning by BBC etc! 

Acknowledgement: Peter Klevius blogs are 100% AI free so all the flaws are copyrighted to himself. However, Pentagon steered Google's flip-flopping AI is remarkably consistent in making Peter Klevius almost invisible.

* LSE, London School of Economics. LSE iq (sic) is a collaboration with the LSE Phelan US Centre's podcast, The Ballpark. Sue Windebank and Chris Gilson speak to LSE’s Elizabeth Ingleson and John Van Reenen and Ashley Tellis from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Do note that Carnegie's previous boss William J. Burns is now leading CIA, the world's worst warmongering agency together with its affiliate NED (National Endowment for Destabilization, sorry, Democracy).

** Peter Klevius of course excuses her if she is really that dumb/ignorant, but if not, then she should be aware of the 1971 "Nixon chock", i.e. when US essentially stole the world dollar, divided it in two (by violating the agreed gold standard while keeping full control over the world dollar), and started an inflation roulette and dollar printing that has accelerated in US in vain effort to beat China. Elizabeth Ingleson could also easily have educated herself about China's R&D etc. (or listened to a real economist like e.g. Jeffrey Sachs), and taken a brief gaze at ultra high technologies already in the pipeline in China, such as e.g. analogue photonic chips, large scale quantum computing,  robotics etc. But she hasn't! Or if she has then she hides it! Why? The only possible answer is extreme US steered Sinophobia racism, which is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Chinese under the cover of blaming Xi. Primarily, antisinetic tendencies may be motivated by negative sentiment towards Chinese as a people or by negative sentiment towards Chinese with regard to Confucianism and or Atheism and Communism. In the former case, usually presented as racial antisinetism, a person's hostility is driven by the belief that Chinese constitute a distinct race with inherent traits or characteristics that are repulsive or inferior to the preferred traits or characteristics within that person's society. Against this background Elizabeth Ingleson ticks every box of institutional Sinophobia. Persistent negative stereotypes fuel institutional racism. Racial stereotyping contributes to patterns of racial segregation and redlining. Institutional racism is racial profiling by security agencies use of stereotyped racial caricatures, the under- and misrepresentation of a certain racial group in the mass media, and race-based barriers to gainful employment and professional advancement. Additionally, differential access to goods, services and opportunities of society can be included within the term "institutional racism". Structured racialization is the  the interactions among institutions, which interactions produce racialized outcomes against Chinese. An important feature of structural racism is that it cannot be reduced to individual prejudice or to the single function of an institution.

IQ+ people in China and US understand what Elizabeth Ingleson doesn't get, i.e. that nothing can stop China from accelerating even further ahead of US, and that this will inevitably severe US last hope, its s.c. "allies" willingness to follow US command when China's trade appeal wins over US on outdated and poor quality technology based militarism.

Peter Klevius is astonished by how China still tries to offer a friendly hand to the criminal desperado US. But of course, China is the only country that can resque the US wreck from sinking and contaminating the world before it's repaired. And the refurbishment of US may cost too much for it to bear, so it may decompose in lesser parts - back to where it started as a remnant of European colonialism that wanted (Jefferson) to become a colonial power itself. One coulkd even say that US is still a colony to which the European colonizers have moved their headquarter. US is no real nation state because it lacks roots and language of its own - much like England which is a Fennoscandian colony. English is a creole of Old Nordic and brought in by Fennoscandian people (see Peter Klevius analysis of the origin of the Vikings).  

Elizabeth Ingleson: In the long term China is no threat to US dollar. It would need a much larger global structural change.

Peter Klevius: "A much larger global structural change" is already happening and open for everyone to see. This is the very reason to US evil behavior that has so contaminated Elizabeth's thinking. Ironically it's precisely in the longterm US, not China, is doomed - and those in US who are smarter than Elizabeth Ingleson, can clearly se how US (stolen, not earned) dollar printing and manipulation will dry up when enough consumers around the world (incl. in US) demand Chinese products. Only racist Sinophobia and its dollar dictatorship keeps US still being an anomaly in economic theory. After all, no other country can print over its deficit. This also explains why US mother-country England has a per capita GDP less than half that of US if London finance is excluded - and if incl. then still less than 2/3 of US.

How $-embezzler US robs the world - click to release the bomb.

Elizabeth Ingleson: The Chinese are bluffing. A long held belief has been that US sanctions are just helping rebuilding and strengthening our country starting in the 1950s and 60s when US sanctions were much more strict than they are today with completely no trade, but it didn't help China's economy.

Peter Klevius: You're bluffing or just ignorant. Almost childish ranting considering it was US "exorbitant privilege" under the Bretton Woods agreement from 1944 that together with US "Red Scare" propaganda and siding by the Taiwan tyrant Chiang Kai-shek, that hampered a China that had suffered tremendously from Western and Japanese attacks. Add to this the consecutive 1971 theft of the world dollar that "helped" US war economy in Korea and Vietnam. Moreover, all of this must be counted for when assessing China today, which leads to the very opposite conclusion, namely that not only is China the real super power, but unlike criminal $-freeloader US, China doesn't need war but is developing so fast that even the other half of the Taiwan population will soon start longing to belong. After all, China is a regulated capitalist country that has managed to combine the best parts from capitalism and socialism into a functioning colossal unit where non-monotheist (i.e. Atheist) Taoist and Confucianist tradition can appeal to anyone no matter of race, roots etc. because they use universal values, much like Human Rights (UDHR of 1948) which US, but not China, has abandoned with a Supreme Court decision! Moreover, although US works hard to send those it doesn't like to ICC in the Hague, US isn't a member state, but has instead a law that gives it the right to free with military force those those US likes from the court.

Yes, US dictated international trade controls with China were even harsher than those imposed on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. US China differential trade embargo was removed in 1957. Changing US dictated "international policy" on trade with China in the period 1958–1971, culminated in Nixon’s decision in April 1971 to end the embargo on non-strategic sales to China. Nixon’s historic visit to China and the signing of the Shanghai Communique in February 1972 happened as a consequence of US dollar theft in 1971.

Deng Xiaoping radically ended Maoism and used reform and opening up as the main policy. In 1982 he established a new Commission for Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense. He advanced the three steps suitable for China's economic development strategy within seventy years: the first step, to double the 1980 GNP and ensure that the people have enough food and clothing, was attained by the end of the 1980s; the second step, to quadruple the 1980 GNP by the end of the 20th century, was achieved in 1995 ahead of schedule; the third step, to increase per capita GNP to the level of the medium-developed countries by 2050, at which point, the Chinese people will be fairly well-off and modernization will be basically realized. Even here the development is far ahead of the schedule.

China’s hybrid “state capitalist”* system, is driven by centralized planning and fierce competition, that has led to dominance in critical technological fields and emerging markets. Western multinational corporations are advised to adopt a pragmatic approach to capitalize on four key strengths of China’s economy: its innovation ecosystem, its investment in the Global South, its ultra-competitive markets, and its vast consumer base. Those who fail to engage risk losing global revenue and strategic opportunities. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping launched his “Reform and Opening” policy to leverage Western technology and know-how for China’s development. It was a politically risky move: Ideological hardliners in the Communist Party resented the implicit assumption of China’s economic backwardness under socialism — and the superiority of the capitalist West. But Deng recognized that China’s modernization required both pragmatism and humility.

* This incl. Xi Jinping's successful moderation of excessive capitalism. 

How democratic is it that the US congress since WW2 has dictated other countries incl. "allies" and "democracies" relations with China?

US Congress pursued a policy of outspoken support for the tyrant Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists and urged the president to commit the United States to the defense of Taiwan. After all, it was US military that colonized Taiwan after Japan's war with China. During that time, US Congress continued to approve legislation imposing an international trade embargo against China and often passed resolutions to discourage the administration's recognition of the Beijing government. Congress also launched a campaign in the 1950s and 1960s to forestall moves to bring China into the United Nations. Congress refused any changes in China policy until the 1960s. Then some congressional legislators began to criticize China policy and openly called for changes: Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was the first to voice criticism of China policy in 1964. The 1966 Senate hearings on China were possibly the most notable attempt to expand the public's knowledge of China, and the most important consequence of the hearings was the beginning of a more open public debate on China policy, which contributed to public pressure on the administration to modify its China policy. Thus, the Nixon administration was credited with bringing about a dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward China, but Congress was active in effecting these changes. However, Nixon's main motive was to hinder China's cooperation with Russia.

LSE iQ (sic), in a collaboration with the LSE Phelan US Centre's podcast, The Ballpark, Sue Windebank and Chris Gilson speak to LSE’s Elizabeth Ingleson and John Van Reenen and Ashley Tellis from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Peter Klevius: CIA Fuhrer William J. Burns used to be director for Carnegie before. This is how US criminal tentacles work for "peace" while igniting conflicts and proxy wars conducive to US dictated world order.

LSE iQ: Why is America* (sic) so successful?

* Using 'America' alone instead of USA - or preferably US - is the very root of the rot. 'America' comes from Amerigo Vespucci who went to what is now called South America, after the original name of North-America, i.e. Parias was abandoned. Sad, isn't it, because it would fit US much better - from a parias (protection money) to a pariah state. 

Peter Klevius: Because US lives on stolen money it has embezzled since before 1971 - and continues to do in an accelerating tempo to balance its constant deficit.

LSE iQ: The answer is US size, immigration, openess, innovation, and digital companies which started off in US.

Peter Klevius: China is way bigger. China is much more self-sufficient with talents. China is more innovative - as it has been through history and prehistory.          US used its stolen dollar to suck the world of talents and to monopolize digital tech - just check out how US crashed Japan's much more advanced digital tech in the 1980s.

LSE iQ: And Google is so big compared to Bing MS.

Peter Klevius: Competition, huh!

LSE iQ: Strong military. If there are threats to US world order and security (defined by US) - wherever in the world - then US can shoot until US world order is in place again.

Peter Klevius: Right, but Westerns are old fashioned, and the best, the s.c. "spaghetti Westerns", were made in Europe!

LSE iQ: A threat to US supremacy is a capitalist dictatorship like China.

Peter Klevius: China's meritocracy is way more democratic than the one party dollar voting system via electoral in US where only a quarter of the population get the name on the ticket right, although not the policy - it doesn't fit in a tick box. So a tick in a box can never compete with meritocracy from the grassroots up. 

Elizabeth Ingleson was "surprised" that already during Mao's rule China started to open up thanks to US and its off-shore manufacturing policy.  

 

Peter Klevius: She must be easily surprised! US relaxed its criminal embargo on China to improve its own poor competitiveness and to get China on its side against Russia. And US 1974 Trade Act (which later became GATT) was created solely to expand US already unfair trade practices made possible with the stolen world dollar. She also sees "paradoxes" where there are none. China's housing problem was a direct consequence of US trade manipulations at a time when the rural population was expected to continue to urbanize. But China again made the best of it by transforming rural China. And China's superior green energy production isn't an "anomaly" but part of China's overall R&D superiority. Dear Elizabeth, the only thing that remains is conventional production of the smallest chips - which US itself can't make, because only the Chinese in Taiwan master to manufacture them. And this only because US criminal global trade practices stopped mainland China from accessing the same Dutch (ASML) made machinery that TSMC in Taiwan uses! And because this machinery is so expensive to build and no one foresaw US criminal behavior, no one thought it necessary to build their own until US stopped ASML's export to China.

Ashley Tellis: We need guns against China: 1) increased US militarism is sound and good, 2) cut off China from technologies previously free to buy for anyone, 3) lock US "allies" against China. Russia's partnership with China rests on their both view that US is the main threat to them both. 

Peter Klevius: Duh!

LSE iQ: India has the fastest growing economy and has the world's largest population. 

Peter Klevius: Not at all, because the 2% difference in growth is easily outperformed by China's much larger economy and tech size - moreover, China's much bigger pool of talents and the world's most advanced infrastructure. Also do realize how far behind India is when it comes to enhance its poor and rural population. Last but not least, India's minorities will become a problem which might even affect population size. 

Ashley Tellis: India has to find out how to utilize its resources. India has been quite successful the last decades consistently increasing GDP by 5-6%. 

Peter Klevius: So wrong! Compared to the s.c. "non-democratic" China, "democratic" one party India has clearly performed extremely badly both re. growth and to decrease poverty. China's growt rate has constantly been higher than India's until quite recently.

LSE iQ: India needs constantly at least 8% growth for at least 20 years. I can't see any threat against US hegemony for the next decades.

Peter Klevius: Something like that if India continues as a militaru puppet for US. However, if it continues to buy high tech from China (compare e.g. Tata's battery deal) then India would develop much faster - and might, like China, even get the "hostile state"  award from US - cause then "democracy" wouldn't count anymore. 

Ashley Tellis: US with the help of its "allies" will remain hegemonic because there are no other competitive constellations. 

Peter Klevius: China in itself is precisely such a "constellation"! Don't you understand that it's China that will dominate the next decades thanks to its superior R&D, infrastructure and talent pool. US hegemony will only cut off US itself and its "allies" from the best - a fact consumers worldwide already are starting to recognize. It's almost tragicomic that "experts" like these seem to be the last to get it. 

John Van Reenen: US is the only one to have hard and soft power enough to continue US "rule based world order" in terms of size, competition, openness, innovations. Lack of freedom and democracy will hurt China's growth and innovation. China doesn't bother about privacy which gives it an advantage with big data collection. 

Peter Klevius: Really! US bothers about privacy! Absurd ignorance (or worse). US soft power is crumbling under its own sanction policies, and China is already ahead in hard power. Moreover, China doesn't need 1,000 military basis, simply because its non-aggressive multipolar policy is the opposite to US aggressive uni-polar "world  order". And re. soft power, is he unaware of the open "secret" that US via its stolen media monopoly spies, hacks, and collects data of not only US people but all around the world - except for China now after US attacks on it which forced China to build its own defense. It's US that tries to stop China's openness! Also, as China is the technological world leader (compare e.g. Baidu's old multi purpose super app that no one in the West has still managed to produce - although Musk tries hard) new Chinese tech to avoid criminality and ID theft etc. is in the old West always "explained" as "surveillance" despite US surveillance is all over the place without managing to stop criminality. 

John Van Reenen: We need to utilize our data collection to win over China.

Peter Klevius: China doesn't need to be "won over" because it's already all for cooperation. It's US (and its useful idiots) that sits with its self inflicted problem. 

LSE iQ: The capacity to rival China is dependent on using (stolen) private data and innovation.

Peter Klevius: Although US media and web censorship makes it almost impossible to get fair info about China, what you still get of US edited one, should be enough to convince anyone interested to see that China is way ahead - except in utilizing the web US controls, spies and collects data from around the world. However, China's "only" 1.4 Billion of own data is qualitatively of much higher standard. And even the language divide is rapidly vanishing in the near future.

Elizabeth Ingleson: The biggest question is how to respond to the climate crisis. 

Peter Klevius: "Re-shoring" away from China is re-shoring away from green top technology! Moreover, it's not the "climate" but the healthiness of people globally that matters. And in this respect China is since long the undisputed super power re. green infrastructure and green technology. And when it comes to climate, China should worry more about the incipient process of cooling rather than warming. See Peter Klevius climate analysis links at the top.

Acknowledgement: Anyone with a human brain should understand that Peter Klevius doesn't, unlike US, dislike certain people - only US dangerous hegemonic sentiments!

Will US end up in self-containment and isolation?

When the world dollar inevitably becomes useless, or in other words, when consumers start seriously demanding Chinese goods despite made in US trade embargo and barriers, then the only option (unless total collapse) would be for US to become self-sufficient, which in turn would mean a very harsh regression, both in terms of consumer goods quality, but also in terms of domestic problems.  

The "per capita" delusion, and how Swedish "alternative media" shares the same racist Sinophobia as does Elizabeth Ingleson. She could fit well in an anti-China interview with Mikael Willgert.

Unlike the West, China still has a hangover from its encounter with the West in the form of a huge (albeit nowhere close to India) rural population which traditionally doesn't contribute much to GDP. So if one compares urban China with the West in PPP and infrastructire terms then China is already clearly ahead.

So the Swedish "alternative media" censor clown Mikael Willgert got his anti-China ranting wrong again.

 

Swedish "alternative" Swebbtv is equally Sinophobic as the mainstream media - and led by a dictatorial intellectually dwarfed China hating clown.

Peter Klevius: Sadly, Swebbtv's main asset Lars Bern is completely wrong when thinking US goal is to get access to Russian raw materials, when in fact the real motive is to contain China, i.e. the same as everywhere else around China. And weakening or even splitting Russia is even that a secondary goal, while the most important is to surround Russia with US short distance "low yield" nukes, i.e. what was ultimately behind Obama's threat 2013 to ploace US nukes on Crimea around Sevastopol, and the push to get NATO closer to Russia which forced Russia to invade Ukraine 2022.US knows that China's progress means US losing its stolen dollar hegemony if it can't stop China

Swedish white "alternative" supremacists* prefer Russia but are against China because Russians are seen positively as "monotheist" Caucasians while Chinese are seen negatively as Atheist Mongoloids - despite the fact both Russians and Chinese speak languages most Swedes don't master, and use a scripts system foreign to most Swedes.

* Do realize that the whole of US dictated West - not only "alternative" mental clowns like Willgert on Swebbtv - suffers from a white (incl. s.c. "uncle Toms", i.e. colored Western Sinophobes) supremacism, i.e. the completely unfounded and debunked (by e.g. the existence of Japan and China) delusion that West's "monotheistic" "democracy" is somehow superior to China's meritocracy, the world's oldest civilization and country. And when Japan stopped making war, it easily outperformed the West in every aspect. The 12 times bigger China repeats it, and restores its position as it was before the Western colonialism and imperialism made possible with copied/stolen Chinese inventions.