…”we really want to slow down China’s rate of innovation…hence we need to work with Europe”
Note-1 -- Well-being of China’s population and human progress in general is of no importance
Note-2: -- The budget the U.S. passed for the 2022 fiscal year, which commenced 1 October, includes $180 billion for research and development in the technologies of the future. This amount is to be spread over eight years, for an annual R&D expenditure of $22.5 billion.
The budget Beijing passed last year provides for annual expenditure on R&D in new technologies of $560 billion—slightly more than triple, each year, what Washington just allotted for eight years or 25X higher per year that of the US…
Americans especially don't have stories about making peace to fall back on, which is why no matter how many "Hitler Invades Poland" type scares they are sold, the propaganda continues to work. If you can't make a crazy appropriation of the Americanized WWII story, or the story of Stalin's gulags/"The Evils of CommunismTM", it might as well have never happened. That's why peace, coexistence, cooperation, as well as things like public health, just aren't in our vocabulary or minds.
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.""
America, who willingly pissed all over sections of the Constitution after the relatively light loses sustained on 9/11 as well as immolate hundreds of thousands of innocents, proved its in no shape to accurately gauge the real costs of war, either here or abroad. Nothing's changed since. Americans are a people all too easily stampeded by bad stories and patriotic lollipops.
The only upside I could see to such apocalyptic rambunctiousness with China is that maybe, just maybe, a few of the bastards beating the drums for these sorts of confrontations may for once personally suffer the built-in costs of their actions calculated to be paid by others. I'm well aware that this falls under the category of cold comfort.
I'll say it again: We need a draft. Involve We The People in the process and take it away from our defense contractors and standing mercenaries. Heck, as long as we're dreaming, let's bring those irresponsible dandies -- Congress -- back into the business of declaring war. With the lives of their children on the line parents are more likely to cast a skeptical eye to some profitable dick-wagging in the Taiwan Straight, by way of Washington.
Naturally. This draft would also include an option for firefighting, land management, conservation, public works, and national defense, which would be for actual national defense; not for maintaining the BS imperialist outposts we have today.
I guarantee you if we'd had the draft the 20 year rape of Afghanistan would never have taken place. There would have been thousands in the streets. We pretty much have a draft now -- it's just an economic one.
I value your views on this topic, though I don't fully know where I stand on this yet - but you have absolutely accurately captured the crux of the narrative on this topic, particularly comparisons to appeasement of Germany and such.
I do think there is a significant chance of a China/US conflict over Taiwan turning into something involving nuclear weapons - and today we seem to be absent the benefit of the public being extraordinarily fearful of nuclear war, like was the case during the Cold War.
It almost feels as if a nuclear war is a science fiction concept to the average person, today.
To be honest, though - I still feel that it would be appeasing China, to allow Taiwan to be taken - and I could see China invading more of South East Asia, in the future. The historical borders of the various political leaders/groups that can be hand-waved as representing 'China', historically - can easily reach all the way to parts of Europe, and certainly a lot of SE Asia.
My experience of the Chinese style of rhetoric so far - and it's possible those I encounter are agent-provocateur trying to make China look bad, but that's stretching it a bit - is that they have a style of brass authoritarian arrogance (which does not even have the 'lip service' towards upholding ethics/morals that Western imperial arrogance has - the attitude/words are directly more crass, to the point of being tone deaf, even if they haven't had as much opportunity to act on it yet) - and I interpret this as them being game for invading whoever the fuck they like, that once they set their sights on what they want, those who seed their narrative will follow the party line uncritically and with unconcealed arrogance.
So, if that's how things really are, and I'm interpreting that right (I'm just a random layman, so maybe this is all bollocks :)) - then if that is right, it's extremely dangerous to appease that. If it's not nipped in the bud (and Taiwan, being an island far removed from the mainland, is probably the only true opportunity to nip that in the bud) - then I think it only heightens to chances of a new world war and nuclear conflict, as more territories/nations are invaded by China.
No matter what I or anyone else says, it's essential to have strong voices pushing back against any conflict with China over Taiwan, definitely needs more representation - so I'd encourage using any comments like mine to hone superior arguments against that. Ya though, if China is going to instigate something, here (even though it's felt this is within their sphere of influence) - then I do worry that long-term things may become a lot worse/dangerous to deal with if that is allowed to happen, than if it's opposed and stopped at the beginning.
Surely you aren't suggesting the Republicans too aren't screaming for war. Caitlin's post of the Kristol/Horton debate was priceless. Kristol is an obvious fool. Horton runs: https://www.antiwar.com
But Trump is gone and we have a different brain-dead clown on the political stage and THEY are still very much in power so I don't see the point of your point. That's why they're called the deep state, because they are in power regardless of who sits in the White House.
Perhaps it is a quirk of mine, but if someone says Democrats without saying Republicans, it sounds to me as if they are denying that the Republicans are part of the Deep State.
I have the same problem with posts that center on Trump, but fail to bring up Obama or Biden when they are guilty of the same thing that Trump is being accused of.
Boy, I had a bellyful of this during the 2016 election. Any discussion where I criticized Trump would automatically trigger assumptions that I was a Clinton supporter, and vise versa. I despised both, for sometimes overlapping reasons.
It's hard -- and tiring -- in any given context to always include both sides. Some folks dump on Jimmy Dore because he spends so much time trashing democrats. But the idea that the republicans are no real alternative is a given, so they aren't mentioned as much.
Some folks actually do believe that most of what's wrong rests with one party, so it never hurts to ask, just as you're doing.
Where was Russia-gate discussed in this article? Why bring up what we already know? Like I said, if you're going to point fingers solely at the Democrats, I'm going to ask you to clarify why you left out the Republicans.
..."They (DNC and Deep State) like and NEED the incompetent clown Trump to stay on political stage (he is not yet gone and they want him to stay) -- the only way they will remain in power".
I see. I did read that incorrectly. Yes, the DNC loves keeping Trump alive, but judging from their behavior, I'm not really convinced that the democrats actually care that much about staying in power. When not in power they get to fundraise like crazy, and the same twenty or so corporations/interest groups fund both parties so they are never out of the game.
Thank you -- we fully agree. We have one War party, with two right wings, DNC and GOP. Everything else is a distraction for population control -- "left"-"right", red - blue
I agree with you in any way possible with what you say about war. And I appreciate to be informed that there seems to be a propaganda war going on to get support for an aggressive political attempt to 'contain' Chinese influence in the Indo-pacific.
I have two not very much connected questions to your report, though.
1. If the comparison of China or its leader and their politics toward Taiwan can't be done without exaggeration, when compared to 'Hitler s' attack on Poland in 1939, and so is a propaganda trick to get support for a military action against China, could this not mean that the accusation of 'Hitler' in 1939 was a similar or the same propaganda trick to get support for the Anglo-Saxon imperial project to conquer Europe? Which Britain and the USA then indeed did to the successfull accomplishment of the mission?
2. You seem to suggest, that China indeed has the intention to 'unite' with Taiwan, even against the collective will of its population, and you seem to say that if China indeed forced this union by whatever means against the will of the population of Taiwan, you would not regard this to be a violent action that cannot be allowed, but only the natural and harmless wish to unite itself with a part that was separated from China by a civil war, an inner problem of China. So it would not be worth to make this a military conflict, since China would be content to get back what 'belongs' to it anyway. But what does 'belong' mean here? Isn't this aggressive nationalism, even if the population of the homecoming isle would give in to this wish of a longing partner waiting for the lost kid to come home?
Wouldn't this be propaganda as well?
Remember, that 'Hitler' claimed that he had enough of polish bandits massacring people of German ethnicity in Poland and promoting riots in Danzig to provoke Germany and to draw Britain and France into the war, according to the 'Nibelungentreue' they had sworn to Polish war mongeteres, who boasted, they would take Berlin in two days, and that this was the reason for the decision to intervene in Poland in the face of the consequences, that had to be borne by the people of Britain and France.
So, since my attention is before everything else directed against being duped by anyone's propaganda, and since the option is so clearly against what made Europe a colony of Anglo-Saxon conquest, followed by the intellectual colonialism of the English language intellectual products and advertising models inclusive the propaganda machines developed in the 20ties in the US, I will not follow your or anyone's commendations here, while I think it is in accord with democratic standards to hear what the people of Taiwan have to say to their case, and as I understand it, until it is revealed as another propaganda trick, when I will opt out of everything and stop to care for whatever happens to whom why and when as long as I must not be concerned about it.
And why should I. If everything is propaganda in the end, or at least cannot be discerned from it reliably, I give a damn for whatever political project.
You all should see that the inundation with an opportunistic rhetoric without clear cut connection to an identifiable notion of truth will in the end kill you all. It's
Perhaps, rather than concentrating on rebuttals to ahistorical hyperbole, your time (and those of the people reading your comment) might be better spent learning about the 20th-century history of China.
Among the anti-China rhetoric I have seen is the Chinese buying Smithfield food products without considering what would likely happen if an American interest bought it, which might divest the company so they could raise and process pigs overseas and make more money. The fact that the Chinese are willing to invest and keep manufacturing and farming intact in the US should be seen as a good thing and I saw nothing in the article to suggest there was anything underhanded in their intent.
It's the Taiwanese and Chinese that would suffer greatly in a limited conventional war. a few Aussies and Yanka and Brits and others from the Nato club would die, but nothing compared to what would happen when missiles start to fly across the strait.
I love most of your stuff. Your views on China are preposterous. I wouldn't want to go to war with China over Taiwan. But their wanting to take over the world and ruin everyone's lives? That's right on the money. I'd go to war with them, pre-emptively, any day of the week. Would be a whole lot easier if something had destroyed social cohesion, mutilated the emotional resilience of their health care workers, ravaged their lands with floods, gutted their reputation by baiting state media into underplaying flood deaths, crippled their energy system, and poisoned their soldiers. Now THAT would be a pre-emptive strike.
"But their wanting to take over the world and ruin everyone's lives? That's right on the money"
Where did you get that idea? China doesnt have history of invading others, plundering their wealth, enslavement nor toppling govts and bombing civilians...guess who does.
Gina Raimondo, Biden administration’s commerce secretary (int’w with CNBC – Sept. 28, 2021):
…”we really want to slow down China’s rate of innovation…hence we need to work with Europe”
Note-1 -- Well-being of China’s population and human progress in general is of no importance
Note-2: -- The budget the U.S. passed for the 2022 fiscal year, which commenced 1 October, includes $180 billion for research and development in the technologies of the future. This amount is to be spread over eight years, for an annual R&D expenditure of $22.5 billion.
The budget Beijing passed last year provides for annual expenditure on R&D in new technologies of $560 billion—slightly more than triple, each year, what Washington just allotted for eight years or 25X higher per year that of the US…
Perhaps the US is depending on private capital? IOW, are you comparing apples and oranges? I wouldn't know, just wondering.
One thing I know: China isn't pissing away billions of dollars supporting Israel.
Did you purposefully edit out the "If" at the beginning of the quote?
“If we really want to slow down China's rate of innovation, we need to work with Europe,” Raimondo said.
Americans especially don't have stories about making peace to fall back on, which is why no matter how many "Hitler Invades Poland" type scares they are sold, the propaganda continues to work. If you can't make a crazy appropriation of the Americanized WWII story, or the story of Stalin's gulags/"The Evils of CommunismTM", it might as well have never happened. That's why peace, coexistence, cooperation, as well as things like public health, just aren't in our vocabulary or minds.
Hermann Goering on War:
"
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.""
Now why couldn't we have a nation of people clamoring to put these words on courthouse walls? Instead, they want commandments.
holy fudge man... you surely can answer that for yourself.
America, who willingly pissed all over sections of the Constitution after the relatively light loses sustained on 9/11 as well as immolate hundreds of thousands of innocents, proved its in no shape to accurately gauge the real costs of war, either here or abroad. Nothing's changed since. Americans are a people all too easily stampeded by bad stories and patriotic lollipops.
The only upside I could see to such apocalyptic rambunctiousness with China is that maybe, just maybe, a few of the bastards beating the drums for these sorts of confrontations may for once personally suffer the built-in costs of their actions calculated to be paid by others. I'm well aware that this falls under the category of cold comfort.
I'll say it again: We need a draft. Involve We The People in the process and take it away from our defense contractors and standing mercenaries. Heck, as long as we're dreaming, let's bring those irresponsible dandies -- Congress -- back into the business of declaring war. With the lives of their children on the line parents are more likely to cast a skeptical eye to some profitable dick-wagging in the Taiwan Straight, by way of Washington.
More than a simply instituting draft, we need to apply a draft without fear or favor.
Naturally. This draft would also include an option for firefighting, land management, conservation, public works, and national defense, which would be for actual national defense; not for maintaining the BS imperialist outposts we have today.
Get the hell away from me you authoritarian mind slug.
I guarantee you if we'd had the draft the 20 year rape of Afghanistan would never have taken place. There would have been thousands in the streets. We pretty much have a draft now -- it's just an economic one.
shame on you for using a cat as your avatar.... what cat would stand for a draft?
so the answer to a free nation is to use force....
I value your views on this topic, though I don't fully know where I stand on this yet - but you have absolutely accurately captured the crux of the narrative on this topic, particularly comparisons to appeasement of Germany and such.
I do think there is a significant chance of a China/US conflict over Taiwan turning into something involving nuclear weapons - and today we seem to be absent the benefit of the public being extraordinarily fearful of nuclear war, like was the case during the Cold War.
It almost feels as if a nuclear war is a science fiction concept to the average person, today.
To be honest, though - I still feel that it would be appeasing China, to allow Taiwan to be taken - and I could see China invading more of South East Asia, in the future. The historical borders of the various political leaders/groups that can be hand-waved as representing 'China', historically - can easily reach all the way to parts of Europe, and certainly a lot of SE Asia.
My experience of the Chinese style of rhetoric so far - and it's possible those I encounter are agent-provocateur trying to make China look bad, but that's stretching it a bit - is that they have a style of brass authoritarian arrogance (which does not even have the 'lip service' towards upholding ethics/morals that Western imperial arrogance has - the attitude/words are directly more crass, to the point of being tone deaf, even if they haven't had as much opportunity to act on it yet) - and I interpret this as them being game for invading whoever the fuck they like, that once they set their sights on what they want, those who seed their narrative will follow the party line uncritically and with unconcealed arrogance.
So, if that's how things really are, and I'm interpreting that right (I'm just a random layman, so maybe this is all bollocks :)) - then if that is right, it's extremely dangerous to appease that. If it's not nipped in the bud (and Taiwan, being an island far removed from the mainland, is probably the only true opportunity to nip that in the bud) - then I think it only heightens to chances of a new world war and nuclear conflict, as more territories/nations are invaded by China.
No matter what I or anyone else says, it's essential to have strong voices pushing back against any conflict with China over Taiwan, definitely needs more representation - so I'd encourage using any comments like mine to hone superior arguments against that. Ya though, if China is going to instigate something, here (even though it's felt this is within their sphere of influence) - then I do worry that long-term things may become a lot worse/dangerous to deal with if that is allowed to happen, than if it's opposed and stopped at the beginning.
"Taiwan is where the Gulf of Tonkin is! They're going to attack us again! You need to learn your history, man!"
Leni Riefenstahl would be proud to see all the bullshit Americans believe today.
DNC and Deep State are playing us like a violin.
They like and NEED the incompetent clown Trump to stay on political stage -- the only way they will remain in power.
Surely you aren't suggesting the Republicans too aren't screaming for war. Caitlin's post of the Kristol/Horton debate was priceless. Kristol is an obvious fool. Horton runs: https://www.antiwar.com
Thank you -- I didn't know about Horton.
Kristol is a paid criminal and -- an unregistered foreign agent.
But Trump is gone and we have a different brain-dead clown on the political stage and THEY are still very much in power so I don't see the point of your point. That's why they're called the deep state, because they are in power regardless of who sits in the White House.
You specifically pointed out the DNC.
Perhaps it is a quirk of mine, but if someone says Democrats without saying Republicans, it sounds to me as if they are denying that the Republicans are part of the Deep State.
I have the same problem with posts that center on Trump, but fail to bring up Obama or Biden when they are guilty of the same thing that Trump is being accused of.
This doesn't apply to all posts of course.
Boy, I had a bellyful of this during the 2016 election. Any discussion where I criticized Trump would automatically trigger assumptions that I was a Clinton supporter, and vise versa. I despised both, for sometimes overlapping reasons.
It's hard -- and tiring -- in any given context to always include both sides. Some folks dump on Jimmy Dore because he spends so much time trashing democrats. But the idea that the republicans are no real alternative is a given, so they aren't mentioned as much.
Some folks actually do believe that most of what's wrong rests with one party, so it never hurts to ask, just as you're doing.
Russia-gate was concocted by DMC leadership and Deep State. That GOP is equally repulsive and same (same donors) is not at all disputed.
Where was Russia-gate discussed in this article? Why bring up what we already know? Like I said, if you're going to point fingers solely at the Democrats, I'm going to ask you to clarify why you left out the Republicans.
DNC is now in FULL control -- Presidency, Congress, Senate.
They will stay in power as long as the insane clown Trump stays on stage for 2024.
I was a Democrat -- never again.
The DeLorean Motor Company? I'd no idea that it was still around.
You didn't read correctly my comment:
..."They (DNC and Deep State) like and NEED the incompetent clown Trump to stay on political stage (he is not yet gone and they want him to stay) -- the only way they will remain in power".
I see. I did read that incorrectly. Yes, the DNC loves keeping Trump alive, but judging from their behavior, I'm not really convinced that the democrats actually care that much about staying in power. When not in power they get to fundraise like crazy, and the same twenty or so corporations/interest groups fund both parties so they are never out of the game.
Thank you -- we fully agree. We have one War party, with two right wings, DNC and GOP. Everything else is a distraction for population control -- "left"-"right", red - blue
So many factual errors. So many distortions of reality. So much concentrated delusions. Far too much effort involved in debunking your lunacy.
If I get another answer of this Niveau from you I delete RT from my device.
I agree with you in any way possible with what you say about war. And I appreciate to be informed that there seems to be a propaganda war going on to get support for an aggressive political attempt to 'contain' Chinese influence in the Indo-pacific.
I have two not very much connected questions to your report, though.
1. If the comparison of China or its leader and their politics toward Taiwan can't be done without exaggeration, when compared to 'Hitler s' attack on Poland in 1939, and so is a propaganda trick to get support for a military action against China, could this not mean that the accusation of 'Hitler' in 1939 was a similar or the same propaganda trick to get support for the Anglo-Saxon imperial project to conquer Europe? Which Britain and the USA then indeed did to the successfull accomplishment of the mission?
2. You seem to suggest, that China indeed has the intention to 'unite' with Taiwan, even against the collective will of its population, and you seem to say that if China indeed forced this union by whatever means against the will of the population of Taiwan, you would not regard this to be a violent action that cannot be allowed, but only the natural and harmless wish to unite itself with a part that was separated from China by a civil war, an inner problem of China. So it would not be worth to make this a military conflict, since China would be content to get back what 'belongs' to it anyway. But what does 'belong' mean here? Isn't this aggressive nationalism, even if the population of the homecoming isle would give in to this wish of a longing partner waiting for the lost kid to come home?
Wouldn't this be propaganda as well?
Remember, that 'Hitler' claimed that he had enough of polish bandits massacring people of German ethnicity in Poland and promoting riots in Danzig to provoke Germany and to draw Britain and France into the war, according to the 'Nibelungentreue' they had sworn to Polish war mongeteres, who boasted, they would take Berlin in two days, and that this was the reason for the decision to intervene in Poland in the face of the consequences, that had to be borne by the people of Britain and France.
So, since my attention is before everything else directed against being duped by anyone's propaganda, and since the option is so clearly against what made Europe a colony of Anglo-Saxon conquest, followed by the intellectual colonialism of the English language intellectual products and advertising models inclusive the propaganda machines developed in the 20ties in the US, I will not follow your or anyone's commendations here, while I think it is in accord with democratic standards to hear what the people of Taiwan have to say to their case, and as I understand it, until it is revealed as another propaganda trick, when I will opt out of everything and stop to care for whatever happens to whom why and when as long as I must not be concerned about it.
And why should I. If everything is propaganda in the end, or at least cannot be discerned from it reliably, I give a damn for whatever political project.
You all should see that the inundation with an opportunistic rhetoric without clear cut connection to an identifiable notion of truth will in the end kill you all. It's
Athens before its crash.
Perhaps, rather than concentrating on rebuttals to ahistorical hyperbole, your time (and those of the people reading your comment) might be better spent learning about the 20th-century history of China.
With or without us, peace will come.
Among the anti-China rhetoric I have seen is the Chinese buying Smithfield food products without considering what would likely happen if an American interest bought it, which might divest the company so they could raise and process pigs overseas and make more money. The fact that the Chinese are willing to invest and keep manufacturing and farming intact in the US should be seen as a good thing and I saw nothing in the article to suggest there was anything underhanded in their intent.
Is the paradigm too big for American brains? Is the propaganda that effective? Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Enough said.
It's the Taiwanese and Chinese that would suffer greatly in a limited conventional war. a few Aussies and Yanka and Brits and others from the Nato club would die, but nothing compared to what would happen when missiles start to fly across the strait.
I love most of your stuff. Your views on China are preposterous. I wouldn't want to go to war with China over Taiwan. But their wanting to take over the world and ruin everyone's lives? That's right on the money. I'd go to war with them, pre-emptively, any day of the week. Would be a whole lot easier if something had destroyed social cohesion, mutilated the emotional resilience of their health care workers, ravaged their lands with floods, gutted their reputation by baiting state media into underplaying flood deaths, crippled their energy system, and poisoned their soldiers. Now THAT would be a pre-emptive strike.
Yeah that's stupid and crazy.
Stupid. You know, there's an argument there. Crazy? Most certainly. And the right decision. 100%.
Cope whitey
"But their wanting to take over the world and ruin everyone's lives? That's right on the money"
Where did you get that idea? China doesnt have history of invading others, plundering their wealth, enslavement nor toppling govts and bombing civilians...guess who does.
If China wants to ruin our lives, they're going to have to get into line.
Another unconscious neocon???
The Juice Media discusses AUKUS.
https://www.thejuicemedia.com/honest-government-ad-aukus-🇦🇺-🇬🇧-🇺🇸/