Pelosi is SUCH a tacky old whore. It’s frustrating for me to issue such a negative statement, because I realize that I’ve been carefully programmed to feel this way about that murdering old succubus. But facts are facts.
Pompeo is filthy zit whose name is ironically reminiscent of an ancient city BURIED alive in B.C. 79 by unavoidable circumstances. The thing perhaps most freaky about him is that he has, so we’re led to believe, some measure of popular support affecting a ‘cult of personality’ (WTF!) . I just have trouble believing it.
Hong Kong and Formosa have already been curled back into Beijing’s claim, expressly because of American imperialism. So these D.C. wankers are just throwing bourgeois tantrums for thrills at the expense of humanity’s future. Why? Because they’re idiots, I guess.
The influence of Christian eschatology on US foreign policy is nil and always has been. The psyops people in the intelligence services used to play that card with the buffoons in the media back in Reagan's day. They still play that card and people still fall for it; academics and 'activists' are desperate to develop narratives over religion because it allows them to explain everything with a cheap put-down or a lazy bit of name-calling. To understand US foreign policy we need to focus on finance, industry and control of strategic resources, above all energy.
Nuland and co support Pompeo because he is a serious contender for a spot on the Republican ticket in 2024. That is why he has lost weight. There is a very good chance he will end up as Vice President. People like Nuland (those with serious careers within the Beltway) adhere to those most likely to help their careers.
I think you’re at proper depth. It’s my understanding of the Christian gospel that, mass-murdering, warmongering “Christians” are not, strictly speaking, Christians actually. They are, rather, heretical. The reverend journalist Chris Hedges makes this particular point occasionally.
Secularly speaking anyway, people like eschatologist Paul Kagan and his hideous toiletmonster wife are still warmongering mass-murderers. They are, therefore, constitutionally, not incumbent. (Like much of the derelict D.C. swamp.) Suggested Journo 101 question: what states, organizations, or individuals, do people like Pelosi, Kagan, and Nuland represent? Horton’s book Enough Already does a fantastic job of explicitly naming and roundly indicting the footprint of “neocon” individuals involved with instigating D.C.’s unprecedentedly catastrophic “war on terror.” Good morning all, ~C.G.
Queen Nancy, CIA Chief Pompeo, Mitch, Kevin, Lindsey, etc. they all worship the same god, the god of power and money. Their principles are deception, infidelity, revenge and self promotion. They speak in tongues, steal from the tithes, and crucify their detractors. It seems to me they have substituted one delusion from ancient history for another grander heaven that will prove themselves all saints of the new utopia. To top it off they have chosen Mr Magoo as a figure head to spout idiotic doublespeak about the progress the faithful have accomplished. Why hasn’t Ray Epps been arrested?
the global colonialist imperialists are hopping mad because China's getting ahead of the US in key sectors and there's not a damn thing their thugs can do about it. China has just developed the most advanced generation nano chips and expanded their manned space station successfully and all on their own, despite sabotage of all kinds by the "west" plus japan.
Brilliant article - once again, Showcasing the theatre of DEMS vs. GOP. Reminds me of George Carlin's joke = "Whenever the government does something they deem "Bi-partisan" - that's when you know they have just done some real evil shit."
Washington sinks ever deeper into collective delusion. The US cannot hope to ever win a land-war war in Europe against Russia or in Asia against China. For twenty years in succession war games at the Rand have indicated that China would win a naval war against the US. The 7th Fleet (which is based in the Pacific) is a joke. It's senior officers are deeply corrupt, as the Fat Leonard scandal demonstrated (https://www.rt.com/usa/542682-fat-leonard-francis-scandal/). Belligerence towards China over Taiwan is beyond reckless.
Perhaps Washington wants to provoke a crisis by turning Taiwan into an East Asian version of Ukraine in order seize China's cash reserves and prevent China from selling any more US Treasury bonds? In any case, the unipolar moment came and went years ago. The reality of this is slowly sinking in. The US is a de-industrialised basket-case with a low trust, low cohesion society. It cannot reindustrialise on any great scale because it lacks the infrastructure and the skilled workers to do so. Its education system is dysfunctional. Its people live in debt peonage and its currency is useless as a store of value and of diminishing relevance as a medium of exchange. There are no longer any national institutions that inspire trust or respect. As America rots, the only strategy of its leaders is distraction and misdirection.
****The US is a de-industrialised basket-case with a low trust, low cohesion society.****
And yet they are lined up thousands deep to get in. They keep coming in droves from blissful paradises. I don't get it. How can they not see America is a "de-industrialised basket-case with a low trust, low cohesion society?"
How do you know that thousands want to get in? I'm betting that is just another myth concocted to let "real Americans" feel superior because their country is so great.
The myths that are spun from immigration are endless. The truths are more complex. The US attracts enormous numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, but the bulk are desperately poor people whose poverty is alleviated to a limited agree by joining the ranks of the poor in the US. The US also attracts rich people and a steady stream of skilled immigrants. Just about no ordinary middle-class European or Japanese in their right mind, however, migrate to the US because their standard of living would fall if they did so. In addition, there are refugees.
In 2020 America admitted legally just over 700,000 immigrants. That's the latest year for statistics. The numbers were down in 2020 because of COVFEFE-45. It averages over a million per year.
That old parasite has been living off the largesse of the US taxpayer for most of her life and getting unbelievably rich through insider trading with her husband. I don't think anyone would shed a tear if she went out in a puff of smoke from a Chinese missile.
The largesse of the US taxpayer is nothing compared to what she and her husband would have made off of their other deals. Insider trading is the number one business of Congress.
Expectations of America to keep world order is becoming unrealistic and unreliable. But rather seen as warmongering megalomaniac. Who is after imperialistic approached dividing world. The U.S and NATO Vs rest of the world.
We start a proxy war with Russia--and their economy is going gangbusters and gasoline in the US spiked. We start up a proxy war with China and I wonder what will happen to their economy and what will happen to our gas prices? Hmm...
If what I have read elsewhere at the Moon of Alabama and other places, China would be within their rights to at a minimum take Ms. Pelosi as a criminal offender if she sets foot in Taiwan and I believe they have expressed this sentiment in no uncertain terms.
I read Moon all the time. I didn't see anything to suggest Pelosi would be arrested. There is a lot of speculation among the barflies about what kind of action China might take -- ranging from nothing to a full-on invasion. In Lira's Round-table 4, the consensus seems to be "nothing", but that's because they believe China is taking the "long" view, like Russia did before it responded to the SMO.
Hey! Iran is going to join the SCO in the next few months. LOL
I quoted Moon in my episode on The West vs the Rest, but I haven't read him since. If you're both reading him, I better start. He did have info I wasn't finding anywhere else. And what is Lira's Round-table 4, John? And your source for Iran and the SCO?
Escobar and all the others were laughing about Iran joining the SCO so they all knew.
Escobar has several articles on the SCO and I guess I knew that Iran was joining the SCO for at least 2 maybe 3 months. I think Michael Hudson has also talked about it.
Multipolarista with Ben Norton has all kinds of information about the end of American Hegemony. I already have mentioned his youTube series with Aaron Good. Norton and Blumenthal have a great interview with Michael Hudson talking about de-dollarization, which is the rubric under which Iran joins the SCO.
I guess, for me, Iran joining the SCO has been 'common knowledge" for months. I don't listen to WaPo or NYT and Google News, what in the world are they trying to tell me?
I probably pumped out more than you wanted to hear.
I think we need a new acronym to describe what Putin/ Glazyev is setting up with China, India, Iran and the other 80% of the non-NATO world. We need to distinguish it from the neo-con or Davos New World Order. I'd like to suggest the Multi-Polar Ordered World or M-POW! We could think of it as 'empowered' but I like it pictured in a superhero cartoon bubble with spiky borders.
GREAT article and very funny: "You simply cannot beat the Times for reductionist rubbish when a major development does not match America’s fictions. The task is to keep its readers’ heads buried so far into the sand they have no hope of pulling them out."
Definitely not more than I wanted to hear, John! I think that I've already reported on a lot of the sources you read. I have several episodes on Michael Hudson, who's my go-to geo-economist. He's one of the people that most informed my book, especially the sections World on FIRE and The Petroapocalypse. And I love Escobar, and quote him in The West vs. the Rest. And I'll check out Multipolarista, but it sound like Ben concurs with my episode on Ukraine: the Hegemon's Last Stand. Thanks for the other sources for Lira and Aaron Good, and the Norton and Blumenthal interview. I talk a LOT about de-dollarization in ones like Putin's Peace, Petrodollar Pain, and I talk about how we can save our communities by doing the same.
John - I admit, I may have read more into it, but I think there is some legal documentation that really ought have standing and being we are discussing China, a right proud large country with some citizens not entirely thrilled presently, this whole situation seems like a setup, and I refute it, just like Nancy Pelosi is evidently an old hag.
Tis better than cokie-coka-cola and Pelosi needs to just be sent to an old folks home - her and the fella biding his time in the not so white house in the district a great embarrassment to those of us who love good discourse.
2. Is it "aggressive" to threaten countries for visiting a country?
This article exclusively focused on question #1 and completely ignored question 2.
A very strange way of framing the issues.
It's "aggressive" to tell countries not to work with another country, because you are claiming ownership of that country. But wait a second, if you "owned" the country, why would you be making threats to other countries?
And why is China militarizing the S. China sea? Is "that" aggressive?
Why is China funding US and other world media to repeat their talking points? That's another question I have.
In Journalism, it is easy to miss "bias" through the misleading framing of issues. Sometimes this bias is "unconscious" and is not deliberate. I hope that is the case here.
Authoritarian regimes can only "survive" by being aggressive. That means jailing their population for dissent (99% conviction rate--China literally jailed COVID whistleblowers for years, simply for reporting facts proven to be true), silencing free speech, and consolidating power through corruption. All communist countries eventually fail because top down corruption is inevitable and the system will collapse.
It sure as hell is aggressive to play games with strategic ambiguity over Taiwan...and reckless and utterly contemptuous of human life. The US is trying to turn Taiwan into another Ukraine.
China is supersensitive to the issue of Taiwan because ordinary Chinese people feel very deeply about the unity of China. This makes sense given the appalling experience of war and invasion that China has endured. Washington wants to leverage this feeling to destabilise the Chinese government by making them look weak and thereby discrediting Xi in the eyes of nationalistic minded people.
Whatever else is wrong with China, aggression over Taiwan is not part of it. China and Taiwan trade heavily and Taiwan invests a ton of money in China. Huge numbers of Taiwanese businesses operate in China, Plenty of Taiwanese businessmen have two wives, one in Taiwan, one in China. The bulk of ordinary people in Taiwan accept eventual re-unification. Serious antagonism towards Beijing within Taiwan is restricted to a minority closely associated with the Kuomintang. Left to their own devices the Chinese and Taiwanese are inclined to co-exist and, to an extraordinary degree, even cooperate. The only decent thing is to leave them alone.
I believe the minority you talk about is financed by the NED. I ran across an article recently listing the Taiwan "dissenters" and there was some continuity with those who ran the "outside of" Tiananmen Square riots. Now, 1989 was a long time ago so -if- that continuity is real, they've been on the NED payroll for a really long time. But then, the NED keeps popping up all over the place.
Ever hear of the story of the abusive relationship where the abusive partner accused the victim of "instigating" or "causing the abuse". It was all the "victim's" fault?
Because that's what you and the author are really arguing here.
Don't visit because it will cause violence. Do people stop and listen to the pretzel-like "reasoning" that they are using?
No, it is not "aggressive" to have civil dialogue with another country. Supplying them with defensive weapons could actually be an argument I might entertain. But then, you will also have to answer the question:
Do countries have the right to self-defense from aggressive neighbor countries?
Or are we just to ignore that issue completely? Because that seems to be the point of this article.
Abusers playing the victim is one of the grossest things that we can see. "Oh, you shouldn't talk to that person, because it will make me violent". Seriously? That is a real argument that people are trying to make?
I agree with Phillip, your analogy doesn't fit the China/Taiwan situation.
In Lira's Roundtable #6, they discuss it briefly and talk about the century of humiliation.
You might want to look at a map of US military bases that ring the South China Sea before you make accusations against China for their actions.
Anyway, we've reduced the argument down to deciding whether the USA is "good" or "bad".
I find myself in complete agreement with Aaron Good. The US was founded by criminals, was developed by criminals, and is owned by criminals. Good's brief mention of "John Forbes Kerry" cemented for me the extent the Oligarchy will go to to maintain their positions of privilege. I have always wondered why he was the one who was invited to testify before Congress about the Winter Soldier.
Now, the problem with my perspective is that when I try to talk about it, folks always take it to mean that US opponents are therefore "good", as if there has to be a "good guy" to act against the "bad guy". This simple morality (which you are demonstrating here with your analogy) very much gets in the way of progress.
I don't support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but I absolutely declare that it happened because of US provocation.
Likewise, if Pelosi's plane is shot out of the sky, I will not "rejoice", but absolutely will put the blame for it on Pelosi herself.
Russian and Chinese "red lines" are real. Not the meaningless propaganda that Obama used when he talked about the use of Chemical Weapons in Syria as a "red line", which -- surprise, surprise -- resulted in chemical attacks weeks later. The fact that those attacks were NOT actions of Assad has taken years to expose. In the mean time, the USA continues to fund al Qaeda off-shoots in Syria and steals Syrian oil and food.
IOW, when you look at the causes of the "true evil" in the world, the USA is always at the bottom of it.
Spot on. The US is at the bottom of it all for practical reasons: the US is the most powerful state capable of serving the interests of multinational firms and global capital markets. Regional and local actors whose interests are best served by strengthening those dynamics will support the US. A moral calculus does not come into it and the prioritisation of good/evil rhetoric confuses analysis. We need to be clear headed. Too much is at stake for us to allow ourselves to get played.
If you want to look at "true evil" then look at any communist country and what they have done to their own citizens.
I never once argued in favor of the US if you read my posts carefully. The US has their own problems and they are big problems. But killing millions of your citizens with famine is a unique Communist-style crime that many communist countries have perpetrated.
In fact, the US is now moving to the communist model with the WEF. That's why we are seeing the crimes against humanity that are occurring.
But ignoring the depravity of communist CCP is truly oblivious and ignorant. Remember Tibet? Remember the communist purges? I could list off of a list of things, but no authoritarian government by definition is "good".
They use censorship and crush dissent to stay in power. That is the only purpose of that system of government. It's a system of government rooted in tyranny.
Freedom of speech and freedom of press are fundamentals of democracy. These principles are under attack because that's the communist model.
Human rights are supposed to be something that is regarded as valuable in western culture. Communist dictatorships don't care about human rights, they care about maintaining their power. It's ruling by tyranny.
Killing people with famine is far from uniquely communist. The Brits did this in Ireland and in India. I am sure that they were not the only ones either.
As for the US being headed for communism...I'd say that you are getting confused. The US is a plutocracy run by and for oligarchs and the big corporations. The Left is a controlled opposition.
There is no single 'best' form of government. Different systems work best at different times for all kinds of reasons. Then things change. At the moment, I'd gladly settle on less inequality and much less criminality from government. A more relaxed attitude towards dissent and people thinking for themselves would be nice.
There's a lot to digest here. I actually believe that no government would be the best government -- however, I try to balance that with human nature and suddenly find myself wanting some kind of government.
Historically, China went through a huge mess. The little red book period was truly awful. But today, China has eliminated extreme poverty. In the USA it is growing. There are dozens of other comparative measures that could be applied, but it would actually end up being "just noise" because we haven't really established a baseline of "good" vs "bad".
And that is hardly the point here anyway.
I go back to your abuser analogy and let's examine it. Obviously Ukraine is the one being abused, but is it the USA that is selling Ukraine into prostitution or Russia the soured ex beating on poor defenseless Ukraine -- or is Ukraine really Amber Herd?
Yes Freedom of Speech is important. You do recall Julian Assange right?
I don't think it is fair to declare that only Communist Dictatorships that do not care about human rights. You might ask Laquan McDonald about his human rights.
As far as censorship is concerned, do you want to know how many subs I've been permanently banned from? how about youTube demonetizing content that doesn't support the "imperial narrative"?
I'm hardly defending Russia or China, but I am insisting that arguments such as the one you make here are biased in that they ignore the crimes of the USA.
When one really gets down "into the dirt", it becomes much easier to see why Russia and China make the choices they do.
There is no "right". There is no "wrong". Not unless you apply the same standard to everyone. Your arguments ignore the US crimes and so lack any "standing".
Aegis Trade, I acknowledge your insight but would make several points. Neither China, Taiwan nor the USA remotely fit the roles in your analogy. China has a long, complex, history and the CCP in power in Beijing has no choice but to assert the territorial integrity of China. Every sane person in East Asia will tell you that the One China policy has been the bedrock of peace and stability in East Asia for generations. Weakening that policy brings us all closer to war. Taiwan itself has a complex and controversial history and the issue of independence is tied up with the relationship between Mandarin speaking refugees from the mainland and their descendants and the locals. Things are complicated further by the fact that Taiwan was occupied for a long time by Japan, making reunification an exceptionally sensitive matter of national honour for many Chinese whose families suffered terribly from the Japanese onslaught in the 30s. In addition, there are the ideological issues left over by the Kuomintang. There are any number of would-be nationalists who accuse Beijing of selling out on territorial issues (re Russia and Mongolia) in general; this raises sensitivities, believe me.
Finally, there is the USA. Americans have been involved in China since the first half of the 19th c. Missionary work, opium and the arms trade. For decades the so-called China lobby in Washington (which later morphed into the Taiwan lobby) was vigorously supported by the churches and arms manufacturers, while the narcotics trade was tolerated so long as it funded arms purchased by war-lords that Washington liked. This history is pointedly ignored in the West, but it (and a whole lot else) is understood well enough across East Asia. Washington cannot play the doe-eyed innocent.
Left alone China and Taiwan co-operate, sometimes uneasily, but they do co-exist. The US is pushing things for its own purposes.
You don't need a "one china" if there *is* "one" China. Does this really need to be said? It's an intellectually dishonest concept and the abuse of language is a standard technique that communists use.
Following WW2, the communists conquered China and kicked out the old leadership. They moved to Taiwan. For many years, the US did not recognize China, they recognized Taiwan. Due to corruption and money interests, they decided to change that relationship. I am fully aware of the complexities of the issues surrounding Taiwan.
The CCP literally makes it "illegal" to print maps showing Taiwan as a country. If a company or organization uses a real map (see NBA, other US companies), the CCP will threaten retaliation by stopping financial relationships. That's manipulative and dishonest. Communists abuse language so they can get want they want and create misleading perceptions of reality. It's really textbook stuff and you shouldn't fall for it.
The very use of "one China policy" is to create the "perception" that there is one China, when in reality there isn't. It's typical political posturing speak, straight out of Orwell.
One only needs to see how China "treats" Taiwan to see that they are actually not "treated" as part of China. They attempt to exclude them from other relationships with other countries. Why is the CCP excluding Taiwan from the WHO if they are "one China"? They do this because it serves their political strategy of isolating them to make them easier to take over, not because they are "one China".
These political "word games" are an important part of political strategy and manipulation.
The US originally did recognize Taiwan as a country. Later they adapted the policy of "strategic ambiguity".
Meaning they did not want to recognize China's word games but at the same time, they did not want to jeopardize their financial relationships so they played along with their manipulative word game strategy in a way that worked for the US.
*It's all bullshit*.
There is no "one China". It's a made up concept. And it's as fake as the maps that China forces companies inside of China produce.
I can tell you that Canada and the US are a country and insist they are described as such and demand that maps are printed showing that they, and claim it is in fact true. But if it's not really true, that's called speaking bullshit. And that's what the CCP communists are doing when they talk of "one China".
Taiwan is a democracy. the CCP is a dictatorship. Those are not compatible political systems.
I agree with a lot of what you write, but I think that on balance the US should be cautious about falling into a war with China. Avoiding a catastrophe should be the number one priority. US foreign policy cannot address, let alone be expected to resolve, everything that is wrong with the world. IMO, the Chinese Communists are patient and have been willing to compromise...they are not the ones destabilising things.
Aegis and John, in case you have not heard it looks as if a war is indeed becoming more imminent. This is a very short piece by a retired CIA officer who thinks the next fortnight may well see a China/US conflict break out. It is worth noting.
Caitlin , you've missed the obvious point of this trip to start a war. That is to remove the world bicycles as well as cars , so we can't even cycle to wherever we might like to go. Honestly, these barstards think of everything. Taiwan must be loving the idea of total annihilation by letting that drunk geriatric anywhere near their border.
“Speaker Pelosi should go to Taiwan and President Biden should make it abundantly clear to Chairman Xi that there’s not a damn thing the Chinese Communist Party can do about it,” Republican Senator Ben Sasse said on Monday. Does this man know that there are a lot of 'pro China' citizens in Taiwan? The (two little 'P'eas) better have good bodyguards!
It's a strange kinda disconnect and priorities misidentification: any US politico with their thinking apparatus in relative order should be fixated on "chemical fertilizers", "rare metals", "wheat and grains," instead of "Taiwan", which will jeopardize their access to the former. But they are mesmerized, obsessed, into a hate and nuisance contest against Russia and China, silly kids poking sticks at tigers. The stuff doesn't usually end well.
No more blatant example of the uniparty than this. This should (but won't) open the eyes of anyone who is paying attention and who still believes there is even a scintilla of difference between the two drains of the unified swamp.
Can't we just GIVE Nancy Pelosi to the Chinese?
With friends like her, we don't need enemies.
They don't want her. Nobody does best I can tell. She has outlived herself.
The sensible thing for Taiwan to do is to deny these people a visit.
They aren’t worth the trouble they’ll cause.
Using the Taiwan people as sacrificial
Pawns for their crazy violent games isn’t morally acceptable.
That would have been the "sensible thing" for Zelensky to do too, but then he wouldn't have become a Billionaire.
So, who on Taiwan is getting paid off to start a war with China that will be fought to the last Taiwanese?
The "New Atlas" has a great review of the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piFrhb9JpMw&t=4270s
Same as the poor Ukrainians. I was hoping the Taiwanese would see what was happening there and wise up
Pelosi is SUCH a tacky old whore. It’s frustrating for me to issue such a negative statement, because I realize that I’ve been carefully programmed to feel this way about that murdering old succubus. But facts are facts.
Pompeo is filthy zit whose name is ironically reminiscent of an ancient city BURIED alive in B.C. 79 by unavoidable circumstances. The thing perhaps most freaky about him is that he has, so we’re led to believe, some measure of popular support affecting a ‘cult of personality’ (WTF!) . I just have trouble believing it.
Hong Kong and Formosa have already been curled back into Beijing’s claim, expressly because of American imperialism. So these D.C. wankers are just throwing bourgeois tantrums for thrills at the expense of humanity’s future. Why? Because they’re idiots, I guess.
Well, some are claiming it is because they are Christians looking for the return of Christ.
Perhaps we should take that threat a bit more seriously.
Mikey Weinstein from MRFF, put out an email on it this morning.
No one wants to "blame Christians", but Pompeo is certainly one Christian to blame.
Victoria Nuland and here husband are Zionist Jews and they support Pompeo.
I'm not really sure how to examine this any closer.
The influence of Christian eschatology on US foreign policy is nil and always has been. The psyops people in the intelligence services used to play that card with the buffoons in the media back in Reagan's day. They still play that card and people still fall for it; academics and 'activists' are desperate to develop narratives over religion because it allows them to explain everything with a cheap put-down or a lazy bit of name-calling. To understand US foreign policy we need to focus on finance, industry and control of strategic resources, above all energy.
Nuland and co support Pompeo because he is a serious contender for a spot on the Republican ticket in 2024. That is why he has lost weight. There is a very good chance he will end up as Vice President. People like Nuland (those with serious careers within the Beltway) adhere to those most likely to help their careers.
Greetings:
I think you’re at proper depth. It’s my understanding of the Christian gospel that, mass-murdering, warmongering “Christians” are not, strictly speaking, Christians actually. They are, rather, heretical. The reverend journalist Chris Hedges makes this particular point occasionally.
Secularly speaking anyway, people like eschatologist Paul Kagan and his hideous toiletmonster wife are still warmongering mass-murderers. They are, therefore, constitutionally, not incumbent. (Like much of the derelict D.C. swamp.) Suggested Journo 101 question: what states, organizations, or individuals, do people like Pelosi, Kagan, and Nuland represent? Horton’s book Enough Already does a fantastic job of explicitly naming and roundly indicting the footprint of “neocon” individuals involved with instigating D.C.’s unprecedentedly catastrophic “war on terror.” Good morning all, ~C.G.
Formosa is Taiwan. Look it up.
And Japan wants it back.
Queen Nancy, CIA Chief Pompeo, Mitch, Kevin, Lindsey, etc. they all worship the same god, the god of power and money. Their principles are deception, infidelity, revenge and self promotion. They speak in tongues, steal from the tithes, and crucify their detractors. It seems to me they have substituted one delusion from ancient history for another grander heaven that will prove themselves all saints of the new utopia. To top it off they have chosen Mr Magoo as a figure head to spout idiotic doublespeak about the progress the faithful have accomplished. Why hasn’t Ray Epps been arrested?
I think I recognize your writing style. Are you Thom Paine from JPR? If so, it is good to see you.
Not familiar with JPR sorry
Thanks for the reply. No worries.
the global colonialist imperialists are hopping mad because China's getting ahead of the US in key sectors and there's not a damn thing their thugs can do about it. China has just developed the most advanced generation nano chips and expanded their manned space station successfully and all on their own, despite sabotage of all kinds by the "west" plus japan.
Brilliant article - once again, Showcasing the theatre of DEMS vs. GOP. Reminds me of George Carlin's joke = "Whenever the government does something they deem "Bi-partisan" - that's when you know they have just done some real evil shit."
Washington sinks ever deeper into collective delusion. The US cannot hope to ever win a land-war war in Europe against Russia or in Asia against China. For twenty years in succession war games at the Rand have indicated that China would win a naval war against the US. The 7th Fleet (which is based in the Pacific) is a joke. It's senior officers are deeply corrupt, as the Fat Leonard scandal demonstrated (https://www.rt.com/usa/542682-fat-leonard-francis-scandal/). Belligerence towards China over Taiwan is beyond reckless.
Perhaps Washington wants to provoke a crisis by turning Taiwan into an East Asian version of Ukraine in order seize China's cash reserves and prevent China from selling any more US Treasury bonds? In any case, the unipolar moment came and went years ago. The reality of this is slowly sinking in. The US is a de-industrialised basket-case with a low trust, low cohesion society. It cannot reindustrialise on any great scale because it lacks the infrastructure and the skilled workers to do so. Its education system is dysfunctional. Its people live in debt peonage and its currency is useless as a store of value and of diminishing relevance as a medium of exchange. There are no longer any national institutions that inspire trust or respect. As America rots, the only strategy of its leaders is distraction and misdirection.
****The US is a de-industrialised basket-case with a low trust, low cohesion society.****
And yet they are lined up thousands deep to get in. They keep coming in droves from blissful paradises. I don't get it. How can they not see America is a "de-industrialised basket-case with a low trust, low cohesion society?"
Because the US still compares favourably to Haiti, Honduras, sub-Saharan Africa or Afghanistan.
Nah
How do you know that thousands want to get in? I'm betting that is just another myth concocted to let "real Americans" feel superior because their country is so great.
Laughable really.
The myths that are spun from immigration are endless. The truths are more complex. The US attracts enormous numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, but the bulk are desperately poor people whose poverty is alleviated to a limited agree by joining the ranks of the poor in the US. The US also attracts rich people and a steady stream of skilled immigrants. Just about no ordinary middle-class European or Japanese in their right mind, however, migrate to the US because their standard of living would fall if they did so. In addition, there are refugees.
In 2020 America admitted legally just over 700,000 immigrants. That's the latest year for statistics. The numbers were down in 2020 because of COVFEFE-45. It averages over a million per year.
That old parasite has been living off the largesse of the US taxpayer for most of her life and getting unbelievably rich through insider trading with her husband. I don't think anyone would shed a tear if she went out in a puff of smoke from a Chinese missile.
The largesse of the US taxpayer is nothing compared to what she and her husband would have made off of their other deals. Insider trading is the number one business of Congress.
Expectations of America to keep world order is becoming unrealistic and unreliable. But rather seen as warmongering megalomaniac. Who is after imperialistic approached dividing world. The U.S and NATO Vs rest of the world.
We start a proxy war with Russia--and their economy is going gangbusters and gasoline in the US spiked. We start up a proxy war with China and I wonder what will happen to their economy and what will happen to our gas prices? Hmm...
Well Walmart would be a sea of empty shelves, that's for sure.
If what I have read elsewhere at the Moon of Alabama and other places, China would be within their rights to at a minimum take Ms. Pelosi as a criminal offender if she sets foot in Taiwan and I believe they have expressed this sentiment in no uncertain terms.
I read Moon all the time. I didn't see anything to suggest Pelosi would be arrested. There is a lot of speculation among the barflies about what kind of action China might take -- ranging from nothing to a full-on invasion. In Lira's Round-table 4, the consensus seems to be "nothing", but that's because they believe China is taking the "long" view, like Russia did before it responded to the SMO.
Hey! Iran is going to join the SCO in the next few months. LOL
I quoted Moon in my episode on The West vs the Rest, but I haven't read him since. If you're both reading him, I better start. He did have info I wasn't finding anywhere else. And what is Lira's Round-table 4, John? And your source for Iran and the SCO?
Roundtable 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKXb0QqGXcw&t=3929s
Escobar and all the others were laughing about Iran joining the SCO so they all knew.
Escobar has several articles on the SCO and I guess I knew that Iran was joining the SCO for at least 2 maybe 3 months. I think Michael Hudson has also talked about it.
Multipolarista with Ben Norton has all kinds of information about the end of American Hegemony. I already have mentioned his youTube series with Aaron Good. Norton and Blumenthal have a great interview with Michael Hudson talking about de-dollarization, which is the rubric under which Iran joins the SCO.
I guess, for me, Iran joining the SCO has been 'common knowledge" for months. I don't listen to WaPo or NYT and Google News, what in the world are they trying to tell me?
I probably pumped out more than you wanted to hear.
Check out Patrick Lawrence at CN today:
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/07/25/patrick-lawrence-21st-century-order/
I think we need a new acronym to describe what Putin/ Glazyev is setting up with China, India, Iran and the other 80% of the non-NATO world. We need to distinguish it from the neo-con or Davos New World Order. I'd like to suggest the Multi-Polar Ordered World or M-POW! We could think of it as 'empowered' but I like it pictured in a superhero cartoon bubble with spiky borders.
GREAT article and very funny: "You simply cannot beat the Times for reductionist rubbish when a major development does not match America’s fictions. The task is to keep its readers’ heads buried so far into the sand they have no hope of pulling them out."
Thanks for posting this!
Definitely not more than I wanted to hear, John! I think that I've already reported on a lot of the sources you read. I have several episodes on Michael Hudson, who's my go-to geo-economist. He's one of the people that most informed my book, especially the sections World on FIRE and The Petroapocalypse. And I love Escobar, and quote him in The West vs. the Rest. And I'll check out Multipolarista, but it sound like Ben concurs with my episode on Ukraine: the Hegemon's Last Stand. Thanks for the other sources for Lira and Aaron Good, and the Norton and Blumenthal interview. I talk a LOT about de-dollarization in ones like Putin's Peace, Petrodollar Pain, and I talk about how we can save our communities by doing the same.
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-west-vs-the-rest
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/russia-a-wrench-in-the-reset-gears
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/ukraine-the-hegemons-last-stand
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/putin-peace-petrodollar-pain
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/ukranian-peace-and-us-petropocalypse
John - I admit, I may have read more into it, but I think there is some legal documentation that really ought have standing and being we are discussing China, a right proud large country with some citizens not entirely thrilled presently, this whole situation seems like a setup, and I refute it, just like Nancy Pelosi is evidently an old hag.
What is there to lose - here is some good music....some of the tracks are better than others, but ain't it always that way?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2rafmUkY_s
If you want to take a trip back in time infused with future thoughts and music, then I invite you to do that. I will have some Ivan Tea at the ready for you to enjoy if you want to listen to the music in the metaphorical pub I've opened. Ivan Tea: https://www.russianfoodusa.com/Granulated-Ivan-Tea-with-Cranberries-Ivan-Chaikin-90g-3.17oz/
Tis better than cokie-coka-cola and Pelosi needs to just be sent to an old folks home - her and the fella biding his time in the not so white house in the district a great embarrassment to those of us who love good discourse.
Peace is easy,
Ken
Well, I'm not opposed to Pelosi being arrested and put into a Chinese prison. Can't say I"d welcome it though for "obvious" reasons. ;-)
Lira's Round-table 4? Too funny. Good grief.
1. Is it "aggressive" to visit a country?
2. Is it "aggressive" to threaten countries for visiting a country?
This article exclusively focused on question #1 and completely ignored question 2.
A very strange way of framing the issues.
It's "aggressive" to tell countries not to work with another country, because you are claiming ownership of that country. But wait a second, if you "owned" the country, why would you be making threats to other countries?
And why is China militarizing the S. China sea? Is "that" aggressive?
Why is China funding US and other world media to repeat their talking points? That's another question I have.
In Journalism, it is easy to miss "bias" through the misleading framing of issues. Sometimes this bias is "unconscious" and is not deliberate. I hope that is the case here.
Authoritarian regimes can only "survive" by being aggressive. That means jailing their population for dissent (99% conviction rate--China literally jailed COVID whistleblowers for years, simply for reporting facts proven to be true), silencing free speech, and consolidating power through corruption. All communist countries eventually fail because top down corruption is inevitable and the system will collapse.
It sure as hell is aggressive to play games with strategic ambiguity over Taiwan...and reckless and utterly contemptuous of human life. The US is trying to turn Taiwan into another Ukraine.
China is supersensitive to the issue of Taiwan because ordinary Chinese people feel very deeply about the unity of China. This makes sense given the appalling experience of war and invasion that China has endured. Washington wants to leverage this feeling to destabilise the Chinese government by making them look weak and thereby discrediting Xi in the eyes of nationalistic minded people.
Whatever else is wrong with China, aggression over Taiwan is not part of it. China and Taiwan trade heavily and Taiwan invests a ton of money in China. Huge numbers of Taiwanese businesses operate in China, Plenty of Taiwanese businessmen have two wives, one in Taiwan, one in China. The bulk of ordinary people in Taiwan accept eventual re-unification. Serious antagonism towards Beijing within Taiwan is restricted to a minority closely associated with the Kuomintang. Left to their own devices the Chinese and Taiwanese are inclined to co-exist and, to an extraordinary degree, even cooperate. The only decent thing is to leave them alone.
I believe the minority you talk about is financed by the NED. I ran across an article recently listing the Taiwan "dissenters" and there was some continuity with those who ran the "outside of" Tiananmen Square riots. Now, 1989 was a long time ago so -if- that continuity is real, they've been on the NED payroll for a really long time. But then, the NED keeps popping up all over the place.
They presumably recruit legacies (people with family connections to previous waves of mischief). You see this all over the place.
Ever hear of the story of the abusive relationship where the abusive partner accused the victim of "instigating" or "causing the abuse". It was all the "victim's" fault?
Because that's what you and the author are really arguing here.
Don't visit because it will cause violence. Do people stop and listen to the pretzel-like "reasoning" that they are using?
No, it is not "aggressive" to have civil dialogue with another country. Supplying them with defensive weapons could actually be an argument I might entertain. But then, you will also have to answer the question:
Do countries have the right to self-defense from aggressive neighbor countries?
Or are we just to ignore that issue completely? Because that seems to be the point of this article.
Abusers playing the victim is one of the grossest things that we can see. "Oh, you shouldn't talk to that person, because it will make me violent". Seriously? That is a real argument that people are trying to make?
I agree with Phillip, your analogy doesn't fit the China/Taiwan situation.
In Lira's Roundtable #6, they discuss it briefly and talk about the century of humiliation.
You might want to look at a map of US military bases that ring the South China Sea before you make accusations against China for their actions.
Anyway, we've reduced the argument down to deciding whether the USA is "good" or "bad".
I find myself in complete agreement with Aaron Good. The US was founded by criminals, was developed by criminals, and is owned by criminals. Good's brief mention of "John Forbes Kerry" cemented for me the extent the Oligarchy will go to to maintain their positions of privilege. I have always wondered why he was the one who was invited to testify before Congress about the Winter Soldier.
Now, the problem with my perspective is that when I try to talk about it, folks always take it to mean that US opponents are therefore "good", as if there has to be a "good guy" to act against the "bad guy". This simple morality (which you are demonstrating here with your analogy) very much gets in the way of progress.
I don't support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but I absolutely declare that it happened because of US provocation.
Likewise, if Pelosi's plane is shot out of the sky, I will not "rejoice", but absolutely will put the blame for it on Pelosi herself.
Russian and Chinese "red lines" are real. Not the meaningless propaganda that Obama used when he talked about the use of Chemical Weapons in Syria as a "red line", which -- surprise, surprise -- resulted in chemical attacks weeks later. The fact that those attacks were NOT actions of Assad has taken years to expose. In the mean time, the USA continues to fund al Qaeda off-shoots in Syria and steals Syrian oil and food.
IOW, when you look at the causes of the "true evil" in the world, the USA is always at the bottom of it.
Spot on. The US is at the bottom of it all for practical reasons: the US is the most powerful state capable of serving the interests of multinational firms and global capital markets. Regional and local actors whose interests are best served by strengthening those dynamics will support the US. A moral calculus does not come into it and the prioritisation of good/evil rhetoric confuses analysis. We need to be clear headed. Too much is at stake for us to allow ourselves to get played.
If you want to look at "true evil" then look at any communist country and what they have done to their own citizens.
I never once argued in favor of the US if you read my posts carefully. The US has their own problems and they are big problems. But killing millions of your citizens with famine is a unique Communist-style crime that many communist countries have perpetrated.
In fact, the US is now moving to the communist model with the WEF. That's why we are seeing the crimes against humanity that are occurring.
But ignoring the depravity of communist CCP is truly oblivious and ignorant. Remember Tibet? Remember the communist purges? I could list off of a list of things, but no authoritarian government by definition is "good".
They use censorship and crush dissent to stay in power. That is the only purpose of that system of government. It's a system of government rooted in tyranny.
Freedom of speech and freedom of press are fundamentals of democracy. These principles are under attack because that's the communist model.
Human rights are supposed to be something that is regarded as valuable in western culture. Communist dictatorships don't care about human rights, they care about maintaining their power. It's ruling by tyranny.
Killing people with famine is far from uniquely communist. The Brits did this in Ireland and in India. I am sure that they were not the only ones either.
As for the US being headed for communism...I'd say that you are getting confused. The US is a plutocracy run by and for oligarchs and the big corporations. The Left is a controlled opposition.
There is no single 'best' form of government. Different systems work best at different times for all kinds of reasons. Then things change. At the moment, I'd gladly settle on less inequality and much less criminality from government. A more relaxed attitude towards dissent and people thinking for themselves would be nice.
There's a lot to digest here. I actually believe that no government would be the best government -- however, I try to balance that with human nature and suddenly find myself wanting some kind of government.
Historically, China went through a huge mess. The little red book period was truly awful. But today, China has eliminated extreme poverty. In the USA it is growing. There are dozens of other comparative measures that could be applied, but it would actually end up being "just noise" because we haven't really established a baseline of "good" vs "bad".
And that is hardly the point here anyway.
I go back to your abuser analogy and let's examine it. Obviously Ukraine is the one being abused, but is it the USA that is selling Ukraine into prostitution or Russia the soured ex beating on poor defenseless Ukraine -- or is Ukraine really Amber Herd?
Yes Freedom of Speech is important. You do recall Julian Assange right?
I don't think it is fair to declare that only Communist Dictatorships that do not care about human rights. You might ask Laquan McDonald about his human rights.
As far as censorship is concerned, do you want to know how many subs I've been permanently banned from? how about youTube demonetizing content that doesn't support the "imperial narrative"?
I'm hardly defending Russia or China, but I am insisting that arguments such as the one you make here are biased in that they ignore the crimes of the USA.
When one really gets down "into the dirt", it becomes much easier to see why Russia and China make the choices they do.
There is no "right". There is no "wrong". Not unless you apply the same standard to everyone. Your arguments ignore the US crimes and so lack any "standing".
Aegis Trade, I acknowledge your insight but would make several points. Neither China, Taiwan nor the USA remotely fit the roles in your analogy. China has a long, complex, history and the CCP in power in Beijing has no choice but to assert the territorial integrity of China. Every sane person in East Asia will tell you that the One China policy has been the bedrock of peace and stability in East Asia for generations. Weakening that policy brings us all closer to war. Taiwan itself has a complex and controversial history and the issue of independence is tied up with the relationship between Mandarin speaking refugees from the mainland and their descendants and the locals. Things are complicated further by the fact that Taiwan was occupied for a long time by Japan, making reunification an exceptionally sensitive matter of national honour for many Chinese whose families suffered terribly from the Japanese onslaught in the 30s. In addition, there are the ideological issues left over by the Kuomintang. There are any number of would-be nationalists who accuse Beijing of selling out on territorial issues (re Russia and Mongolia) in general; this raises sensitivities, believe me.
Finally, there is the USA. Americans have been involved in China since the first half of the 19th c. Missionary work, opium and the arms trade. For decades the so-called China lobby in Washington (which later morphed into the Taiwan lobby) was vigorously supported by the churches and arms manufacturers, while the narcotics trade was tolerated so long as it funded arms purchased by war-lords that Washington liked. This history is pointedly ignored in the West, but it (and a whole lot else) is understood well enough across East Asia. Washington cannot play the doe-eyed innocent.
Left alone China and Taiwan co-operate, sometimes uneasily, but they do co-exist. The US is pushing things for its own purposes.
The "one China policy" is Orwellian doublethink.
You don't need a "one china" if there *is* "one" China. Does this really need to be said? It's an intellectually dishonest concept and the abuse of language is a standard technique that communists use.
Following WW2, the communists conquered China and kicked out the old leadership. They moved to Taiwan. For many years, the US did not recognize China, they recognized Taiwan. Due to corruption and money interests, they decided to change that relationship. I am fully aware of the complexities of the issues surrounding Taiwan.
The CCP literally makes it "illegal" to print maps showing Taiwan as a country. If a company or organization uses a real map (see NBA, other US companies), the CCP will threaten retaliation by stopping financial relationships. That's manipulative and dishonest. Communists abuse language so they can get want they want and create misleading perceptions of reality. It's really textbook stuff and you shouldn't fall for it.
The very use of "one China policy" is to create the "perception" that there is one China, when in reality there isn't. It's typical political posturing speak, straight out of Orwell.
One only needs to see how China "treats" Taiwan to see that they are actually not "treated" as part of China. They attempt to exclude them from other relationships with other countries. Why is the CCP excluding Taiwan from the WHO if they are "one China"? They do this because it serves their political strategy of isolating them to make them easier to take over, not because they are "one China".
These political "word games" are an important part of political strategy and manipulation.
The US originally did recognize Taiwan as a country. Later they adapted the policy of "strategic ambiguity".
Meaning they did not want to recognize China's word games but at the same time, they did not want to jeopardize their financial relationships so they played along with their manipulative word game strategy in a way that worked for the US.
*It's all bullshit*.
There is no "one China". It's a made up concept. And it's as fake as the maps that China forces companies inside of China produce.
I can tell you that Canada and the US are a country and insist they are described as such and demand that maps are printed showing that they, and claim it is in fact true. But if it's not really true, that's called speaking bullshit. And that's what the CCP communists are doing when they talk of "one China".
Taiwan is a democracy. the CCP is a dictatorship. Those are not compatible political systems.
I agree with a lot of what you write, but I think that on balance the US should be cautious about falling into a war with China. Avoiding a catastrophe should be the number one priority. US foreign policy cannot address, let alone be expected to resolve, everything that is wrong with the world. IMO, the Chinese Communists are patient and have been willing to compromise...they are not the ones destabilising things.
Aegis and John, in case you have not heard it looks as if a war is indeed becoming more imminent. This is a very short piece by a retired CIA officer who thinks the next fortnight may well see a China/US conflict break out. It is worth noting.
https://sonar21.com/will-tweaking-the-dragons-tail-ignite-a-terrible-fire/
Caitlin , you've missed the obvious point of this trip to start a war. That is to remove the world bicycles as well as cars , so we can't even cycle to wherever we might like to go. Honestly, these barstards think of everything. Taiwan must be loving the idea of total annihilation by letting that drunk geriatric anywhere near their border.
She does sound drunk most of the time.
“Speaker Pelosi should go to Taiwan and President Biden should make it abundantly clear to Chairman Xi that there’s not a damn thing the Chinese Communist Party can do about it,” Republican Senator Ben Sasse said on Monday. Does this man know that there are a lot of 'pro China' citizens in Taiwan? The (two little 'P'eas) better have good bodyguards!
It's a strange kinda disconnect and priorities misidentification: any US politico with their thinking apparatus in relative order should be fixated on "chemical fertilizers", "rare metals", "wheat and grains," instead of "Taiwan", which will jeopardize their access to the former. But they are mesmerized, obsessed, into a hate and nuisance contest against Russia and China, silly kids poking sticks at tigers. The stuff doesn't usually end well.
Tigers and Bears...
No more blatant example of the uniparty than this. This should (but won't) open the eyes of anyone who is paying attention and who still believes there is even a scintilla of difference between the two drains of the unified swamp.