Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 2, 2025

Trump's Reconfiguration Of Global Conflict: What It Means For Asia And Europe

 by Joseph Yizheng Lian via The Epoch Times,

Two months into his second term, President Donald Trump was accused by some politicians in the West of abandoning Washington’s longstanding allies as a result of his stance on the war in Ukraine. But one doesn’t have to look very far back in history to note that a similar act of “unfriending” had occurred from continental Europe and wasn’t unjustified.

In 1988, the late British Prime Minister Lady Margaret Thatcher, speaking at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium, advised her audience thus:

“We must strive to maintain the United States’ commitment to Europe’s defence. And that means recognising the burden on their resources of the world role they undertake and their point that their allies should bear the full part of the defence of freedom, particularly as Europe grows wealthier.”

Unfortunately, those mild words of the Iron Lady fell on deaf ears.

Eleven years later, her tone had changed into one of disdain and spite, when in a Conservative Party conference in Blackpool she shockingly declared, “In my lifetime all the problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions have come from the English-speaking nations across the world.”

Between Bruges and Blackpool, Thatcher morphed from a 30-year supporter of European integration into a fierce opponent

She decried the “British malaise”—a term used by Conservative politician and historian Sir Ian Gilmour in his 1969 book “The Body Politic”—to characterize the economic stagnation, the social decline, and the sense of futility and hopelessness that seemed to pervade British society.

Thatcher abhorred the European welfare state, criticized intransigent unionism, and loathed the power wielded by unelected Brussels bureaucrats, who had virtually forgotten NATO by the mid-1990s, even though Europe had grown rich. She won her battle posthumously, in 2020 (BREXIT).

U.S. President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher pose for photographers on the patio outside the Oval Office in Washington on July 17, 1987. Mike Sargent/AFP via Getty Images

Since then, primarily by default, Britain has gone out of Europe and built partnerships in the Indo–Pacific, a region that it is historically familiar with, signed bilateral free trade agreements JapanSouth KoreaAustraliaNew Zealand, and is in talks for new ones with the United States and India. The UK has recently gained membership in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP. The new Labour government has not tried to bend back the arc.

The United States is on a similar trajectory. Trump also spurns Big Government and bureaucratic multinational agencies. Like Thatcher almost 40 years ago—but much more vehemently—he has criticized other NATO countries for spending far too little on defense—a constant gripe of U.S. presidents, especially Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.

Trump’s associates readily criticized certain European countries for abandoning basic Western values, such as adopting free speech, abolishing secure national borders, and letting in gangsters and fanatical Jihadis who unleash terrorist attacks on innocent citizens. Trump also thinks all these are happening in the United States.

The Russia–Ukraine war has caused rifts between Trump and other NATO members. He wants the war to end so that Washington can “pivot” to the Indo–Pacific to squarely face the “pacing threat” of communist China, which he, since his first term, has rightly regarded as America’s major adversary.

So, almost simultaneously, the two major English-speaking countries, the United States and the UK, are extricating themselves from entanglements in Europe and reaching out to Asia. Their “leaving Europe to enter Asia” is going full circle from the time when Japan’s most famous 19th century reformist, Fukuzawa Yukichi, advocated the opposite, “leaving Asia to enter Europe” (1885), under very different circumstances.

If U.S. Commodore Matthew Perry’s arrival in Tokugawa Japan in 1853 and World War II marked the first and second historic coming of America to Asia, respectively, then the “Trump pivot” may well be the third. It could add enormously to the prosperity in Indo–Pacific Ex-China, for two reasons. First, as the U.S.–China decoupling continues, much American money leaving China will go into other Indo–Pacific economies. Second, when greater American military might, coupled with increased defense spending and capabilities in East Asian countries, is realized under Trump’s pressures, it will be deployed to contain the Chinese regime and achieve greater regional stability, and new investment money will arrive with more confidence.

But then what about Europe, which the United States and perhaps Britain are leaving behind? It will do fine, but in a previously unexpected way.

This will be the scenario: Trump 2.0 will continue to goad Europe to pony up for its own defense, necessarily at the expense of its welfare state, climate policy, and open borders, and damage the transatlantic relationship if it must. Trump will be much maligned in the process.

For example, a recent BBC article accused the U.S. president of “blow[ing] up the world order.” 

But that is sheer Eurocentrism, because Trump is merely resetting Washington’s relationship with Europe and Europe is not the whole world.

In fact, there are good signs that Europe is reacting to Trump in a healthy way; for example, the newly elected German leader has decided that Germany must spend huge amounts in upgrading its military, notwithstanding that it necessarily will have to cut welfare spending and retune its growth model.

Expectedly, when Europe is strong and wholesome again, Trump will be gone from the stage and his successors will be able to mend fences with all obstacles removed. At that point, the world will still be essentially bipolar: the open society camp versus the authoritarian-or-worse camp.

There will be two main theaters where the conflict between the two camps will be played out. 

First is Asia, in which the United States—rid of its European baggage and in some kind of alliance with Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Australia—will face off against the Chinese regime. 

The mightiest power on Earth will try to roll back and contain the most dangerous. 

Next is Europe, where a reformed and repowered European Union will take on Russia. 

A second-rate power will try to keep a third-rate one in check. 

It will be a much more rational conflict configuration and manageable division of labor for the West than it is now.


https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trumps-reconfiguration-global-conflict-what-it-means-asia-and-europe

Google executive discriminated against male employees, lawsuit alleges

 A senior executive at Google subjected male employees to a “relentless campaign” of hostility and discrimination – systematically targeting men to be fired, denying them promotions, refusing to allow them to contribute in meetings and even distributing memberships to professional organizations that only served women as Christmas gifts — a bombshell lawsuit alleges.

Marco Meier, a former German pro-basketball player, joined the tech giant in 2011 and worked on the ads team for nearly 13 years. He claims in a newly filed lawsuit that he was routinely passed over for promotions and ultimately fired under false pretenses by a discriminatory boss who said that male employees were “too aggressive and too competitive.”

Meier was a “stellar employee,” the lawsuit claims, and worked himself up to the role of Head of Google Marketable Products – Big 5 Agencies and secured one of the biggest ad sales deals in Google’s history, but things took a turn for the worse when he began reporting to the executive, the lawsuit states.

“We need more leaders like Marco. I strongly endorse his promotion,” Google Vice President Torrence Boone wrote in a 2021 email reviewed by Fox News Digital. 

Meier claims he was fired under false pretenses by a discriminatory boss who said that male employees were “too aggressive and too competitive.”Linkedin/Marco Meier

In 2022, 14 people from Meier’s department received promotions to director positions, 13 of which were women, the lawsuit alleges. Fox News Digital reviewed an email announcing the promotions. A Google representative said the company always “hires the best people for the job.”

When Meier began working under the executive in 2019, the team comprised seven male team leads and two female team leads. In four years, that number was completely flipped. The executive had fired all but two of the male team leads, Meier being one of the two that remained, according to the suit, and replaced them with women, in what the lawsuit alleges was “nefarious and systematic elimination.” The executive allegedly said that male employees were “too aggressive and too competitive,” court papers say.

“I was planning to spend my career at Google and I really enjoyed my career at the company until it was derailed,” Meier told Fox News Digital.

In 2022, 14 people from Meier’s department received promotions to director positions, 13 of which were women, the lawsuit alleges.Christopher Sadowski

The executive’s alleged discriminatory behavior even expressed itself in the Christmas presents she awarded her team. In a Dec. 2021 email reviewed by Fox News Digital, the executive announced she had signed her team up for the professional organization Step Up, which, according to its website, is “a mentorship nonprofit providing the structure for girls (and those who identify with girlhood).” This gift appeared to disregard Meier and the other remaining man on his team completely.

Meier filed an HR complaint about the gender discrimination he was allegedly experiencing in Nov. 2022, according to the lawsuit. Google allegedly failed to conduct a proper investigation into his claims, the lawsuit states, and Meier was subsequently moved to a different team.

During a transition meeting with his new supervisor, the executive allegedly lied about Meier’s record, claiming he didn’t meet his performance goals and “abandoned his employees,” with the intent of establishing a paper trail to support his inevitable termination, according to the lawsuit. It goes on to claim the beleaguered employee was “stunned” by the allegations and left the meeting with “tears in his eyes.”

“I felt depressed and hopeless to be honest – I always gave my absolute best for my team… I felt that I was with my back against the wall,” Meier told Fox News Digital. 

Meier filed an HR complaint about the gender discrimination he was allegedly experiencing in Nov. 2022.wittayayut – stock.adobe.com

Meier claimed to have evidence that he in fact had exceeded his performance goals. In a subsequent meeting, Meier alleges that the executive lashed out at him, and said that “the women on my team have better leadership skills and are better prepared.” Meier filed a second HR complaint in August 2023 in response to these meetings and was let go eight months later while working under his new manager, who was a man.  

Meier’s last day at Google was April 17, 2024. He was told that his position was being eliminated as part of a corporate restructuring, according to the suit. However, the lawsuit claims that his role was not eliminated and that he wound up being replaced by a woman who lacked the necessary experience.

“We looked into these allegations when they were first raised and found they are entirely without merit. We have a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination and retaliation, and are reviewing the lawsuit for any new claims,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement.

A leaked January 2024 memo revealed that Google was laying off hundreds of members of its ad sales team as the company moved away from larger to more medium-sized clients. The larger customer sales team – where Meier worked — seemed to be the primary target of the cuts, Business Insider reported.

A former Google employee familiar with the situation supported Meier’s claim that he was replaced by a woman, but said that his role had actually been divided in two with two female managers taking over his case. The source, who worked under Meier briefly during his 12-year tenure at the company, said that Meier’s ouster triggered a morale crisis on his former team.

Meier was told that his position was being eliminated as part of a corporate restructuring.Christopher Sadowski

“His team was taken, and it was divided into two different teams. The two leaders who came in have zero background of the role he was previously at. Under those two leaders, we had probably about 80% attrition,” the source told Fox News Digital. “Marco had zero attrition. People were leaving without jobs. That’s how toxic the environment was.”

Four of Marco’s direct reports resigned within the first ten weeks after he was let go, the lawsuit claims.

“When I went to the company, I thought I’d be going to the smartest people in the room, but I was working with the most insecure people in the room,” the source said.

Another former Google employee, who worked at the company for roughly a decade, spoke to Fox News Digital on the condition of anonymity out of fear of professional retaliation. They corroborated some of Meier’s accounts, and claimed he witnessed overt discrimination of his own.

“Thirteen out of the fourteen promotions [to director] were women, that’s statistically impossible. If it were the reverse, people would throw up their arms,” the source said.

The source also said that the men who got axed from Marco’s team were “good people.” In his telling, Marco’s troubles were the result of DEI policies that were installed in the company “from the top down” that “100 percent hurt the business.” The search engine began dismantling their DEI programs in February, discontinuing their diversity hiring initiatives and ending their “equity and inclusion employee trainings.”

Four of Marco’s direct reports resigned within the first ten weeks after he was let go, the lawsuit claims.REUTERS
“When I first got hired at Google it was much more merit-based, but it migrated left… soon at the beginning of every meeting someone had to apologize about something,” they said.

The source said White men at the company began to feel that they were at a disadvantage within the company because they didn’t meet “intersectional” criteria, but whenever one would speak up about it, they’d be told “that’s the way everyone else used to feel.”

“OK, two wrongs make a right I suppose,” the source said. “I found the whole thing nauseating, but I knew I had to keep my mouth shut.”

https://nypost.com/2025/04/02/business/google-executive-discriminated-against-male-employees-bombshell-lawsuit-alleges/

Washington Sheriff Won't Allow Non-Citizens To Work As Police Officers, Despite Political Pressure

 A state county sheriff in Washington may be the only person left in the state with common sense. 

He is rejecting a new state senate bill that would allow non-citizens to serve in public roles such as police officers, judges, and teachers, according to Breitbart.

Sheriff Keith Swank

Despite unanimous support in the legislature, Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank said he won’t comply. “I have a problem with non-citizens being cops and arresting our citizens in Pierce County. Therefore, we’re not going to hire non-citizens for the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office,” he told KIRO-TV.

Washington’s SB5068, which would allow non-citizens with federal work authorization—including DACA recipients—to serve as police, judges, and other public officials, passed the state senate unanimously in February.

All 30 Democrats backed it, but notably, so did all 19 Republicans.

Supporters argue there’s no difference between non-citizens in the military and in law enforcement, but Sheriff Keith Swank disagrees.

“There’s a difference between law enforcement and the military. In law enforcement, we arrest people. We take away their constitutional rights. We lock them up in jail. We don’t use our military to do that,” he said.

Legislators claim the bill addresses Washington’s police shortage, but Swank isn’t buying it.

“The real problem is the reason it’s hard to hire people in Washington State… Cops don’t want to work here when they’re afraid to do something they might be put in prison for,” he said. The bill passed out of a House committee 6–3 and is headed for a full House vote.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/washington-sheriff-wont-allow-non-citizens-work-police-officers-despite-political-pressure

Seattle Economic Crisis: Proof That Democrat Wealth Taxes Lead To Disaster

 To look at the Pacific Northwest today one would never know that 25 years ago the region was an economic powerhouse at the forefront of technology and business innovation.  At the time Portland and Seattle were known for constant rain as well as raining cash, and the "millionaire density" of the Seattle area was at historic highs.  The tech boom and international trade with Asia had created a Silicon Valley of the northern coast.  

Companies like Nike, Starbucks, Microsoft and Amazon established corporate offices and generated tens of thousands of jobs, and many of those jobs were considered high income.  People can debate the overall effects of the population surge to the region; there are many who would argue that Washington and Oregon were better off when they were considered backwoods fishing and lumber states.  That said, it's undeniable that for a time the Northwest was one of the most desirable and lucrative places to live in the US.  

That's all gone now.  The wealthy are leaving Seattle like it's a leper colony and all that's left are millions of broke activists, poverty stricken residents and illegal immigrants.  Some blame the constant riots or the steady stream of welfare recipients. Others say that the draconian covid mandates caused people to jump ship.  However, a primary factor in businesses (and money) leaving the city was the institution of a progressive "Payroll Expense Tax".  

The PET is a quarterly tax approved by the Seattle City Council in 2020 in the middle of the Covid hysteria.  It increases taxes on businesses depending on how many employees they hire and how much their employees get paid.  In other words, it punishes companies that hire more people and pay them a good salary.  The conditions of the PET are very similar to what Democrats say they want for their "Wealth Tax" - An extra tax on top earners and large companies beyond the income tax.  

Democrats were high on their own supply in the early 2020s and in their fervor to destroy conservatives they instituted every suicidal policy imaginable, from defunding police to near-zero prosecution for property theft under $1000.  It's not surprising that wealth taxes were established at the same time to "stick it to the capitalists".  What they seem to have forgotten, though, is that communist tactics don't work if people and businesses are able to walk away, and that's exactly what has happened in Seattle.

Larger businesses are packing up and leaving the Northwest as quickly as they arrived.  Amazon, Meta, Google and Expedia are the most prominent examples of companies exiting the Seattle labor market and hiring elsewhere to avoid the Payroll Tax, but there are numerous others

The Emerald City is facing a dangerous budget shortfall which has the council and the mayor in a panic.  Payroll Tax revenues indicate a surprise decline of over $47 million, far less than expected.  To understand why this is such a big deal, keep in mind that Democrat cities have a habit of budgeting based on projected earnings.  Meaning, they launch various programs based on the money they assume they will get instead of the money they actually have.  

Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell acknowledged that the drop in payroll tax revenue will significantly impact the city’s budget for future years. He blamed Seattle’s large businesses for shifting employees to offices outside of the city to avoid the tax (everyone warned Democrats that this would happen and they didn't listen). 

“Large corporations should pay their fair share and we should be wary when they use job placements to avoid paying funding that our communities rely on, but we also must recognize businesses will make choices based on their bottom line...We need to design our tax policies with the full context of our economy and a comprehensive view that ensures we raise the revenue needed to support all of our residents in a progressive way, aligned with our values.”

How does the mayor suggest the problem be solved?  Well, Seattle is already stuck with a multitude of programs they slated for funding before revenues were counted.  So, Harrell hinted that "additional sources" may need to be taxed to fill the gap left by the PET.  What does that mean?  Most likely, new taxes on the middle class.  As Harrell notes...

“We will be closely monitoring OERF’s April forecast to understand the full implications and what steps are necessary to maintain a balanced budget. As we develop the City’s 2026 budget, my office will consider all options, including additional revenue sources and appropriate expense reductions, to ensure we are making the priority investments and funding the essential services that matter to our residents..."

When wealth taxes fail, the Democrat Plan B is always to feed off the middle class through methods like new sales taxes or gas taxes.  Seattle is already in the midst of an economic decline and a budget shortfall of this size is a crisis.  Not only did their new taxes cost tens of thousands of jobs for the area, but they increased their spending projections, counting their chickens before they hatched.

Insanely, Democrats in Washington still want to pass a similar Payroll Tax system for the entire state (due to their own budget problems) despite the fact that it has been an unmitigated disaster in Seattle.  The economic events in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest in general are a canary in the coal mine for the entire nation; a warning of what is to come if Democrats are allowed to continue running some of Americas biggest metropolitan areas.  

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/seattle-economic-crisis-proof-democrat-wealth-taxes-lead-disaster