American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism

News Neoliberalism as a New form of Corporatism New American Militarism Super Imperialism Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA America and the Imperial Project American Exceptionalism
The Grand Chessboard Wolfowitz Doctrine "Fuck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place Neoconservatism US Department of Imperial Expansion Wolfowitz Doctrine Looting pays dividends to empire
Technological imperialism War and Venture Capitalism Predator state Civil war in Ukraine Media domination strategy Transnational Corporations never let a good crisis go to waste US Department of Imperial Expansion
Republics warlike and unscrupulous Empires Then and Now - PaulCraig Disaster capitalism     Humor Etc

Note: Partially based on Wikipedia article American imperialism (which avoids discussion neoliberalism as the "imperial method used for the building modern US empire).


Introduction

American imperialism is the economic/financial (as well as  military and cultural) dominance of the United States over other countries. It is based on neoliberalism, so it more properly can be called "neo-imperialism"

Neoliberalism and associated with it a new type of empire (the USA neoliberal empire)  was not an accident, it was a development that while started in the USA took roots in many countries, including such diverse as  Chile (Pinochet), GB (Thatcher), China (Deng Xiaoping was a neoliberal reformer),  Russia (Yeltsin gang), and many other countries. Since the late 1970s, a shift of economic activity from the production of goods and non-financial services to finance has been adopted as mean to escape diminishing return on capital.  The oil crisis of the 1970s was probably another factor in the decision of the elite (and it was decision, a conscious choice, not an accident) to switch to neoliberal policies. 

"American empire" consists of vassal states and colonies. Vassal state that have some degree of independence is essentially a codename for NATO. All other states are colonies. An international financial elite (Davos crowd) which BTW consider the USA and NATO as a enforcer, a tool for getting what they want, much like Bolsheviks considered Soviet Russia to be such a tool. The last thing they are concerned is the well-being of American people.

During its history which starts around 70th (with the first major success the Pinochet's coup de etat in Chile, which was supported by the USA), neoliberalism undergone several stages of development:

The implosion of the entire global banking/mortgage industry in 2008 has essentially delegitimized neoliberalism central mantra about self-regulating market (which was a fake to begin with) and thus made it far less attractive as an economic and social model which the U.S. has been pleased to espouse as the royal road to prosperity for decades.

The implosion of the entire global banking/mortgage industry in 2008 has essentially delegitimized neoliberalism central mantra about self-regulating market (which was a fake to begin with)  and thus made it far less attractive as an economic and social model which the U.S. has been pleased to espouse as the royal road to prosperity for decades.

Also the neoliberal Pax Americana and the neoliberal version of global capitalism are increasingly contested by China, with the help of India, Russia, and Brazil (Carl Schmitt’s War on Liberalism The National Interest )

In different ways, Xi Jinping’s China, Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Narendra Modi’s India represent an alternative economic model, in which free markets and state capitalism are blended under strong executive rule.

In other words 2008 signified the "end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end" of Washington Consensus, if we use Churchill's words. But in now way it means that period of neoliberal revolutions came ot the end. Inertia and the level of technological and cultural dominance of the USA and its allies (G7) is such that even after bankruptcy as an ideology, neoliberalism continues to its world expansion and claims new victims among "resource nationalists" or simply "not neoliberal enough" regimes. After 2008 Libya, Syria and Ukraine were successfully "regime changed". I think Ukraine, which was a neoliberal state even before EuroMaidan is a special case and much of EuroMaidan events were connected with the desire to "put Russia in place" by Washington (and its European poodles) as well as century old Germany desire to expand its market and dominance into Ukraine.   

If we assume that Marxism as a political philosophy was dead around 1960-1970 when it became evident that working class does not represent the new dominant class able to take power and govern in a new social system as well as the fact that Communist Party political dominance is unable to secure higher standard of living for people then advanced capitalist societies,  and never will, and that The Iron Law of Oligarchy  is applicable to the USSR even more, not less that to any Western country. Still it took 20 years for the USSR to collapse after the USA elite bought part of The USSR nomenclature and organized a quite coup installing puppet neoliberal Yeltsin regime (sold as a "victory of democracy" to lemmings by Western propaganda machine). Using neoliberal advisors from Harvard (aka "Harvard mafia") it instituted "shock therapy" which instantly pushed 90% of population of the  xUSSR region into object poverty very and also enriched beyond imagination few multinationals who were will full support of Yeltsin regime to steal assets and natural resources for pennies on dollar (using Russian fifth column as an intermediary). Essentially looting of the USSR area was one of key factors which ensured recovery and quick growth of the USA economy in late 90th which was interrupted only by the dot-com crysy of 2000.

I would assume that neoliberalism is probably twice more resilient the communism, so 50-60 years since it became clear that the economic doctrine of neoliberalism is a pseudoscientific joke and its political doctrine is an eclectic mix masking financial slavery masked with the smokescreen of propaganda about "entrepreneur class" and "shareholder value"  the first sign of decay might be a reasonable estimate ot its eventual lifetime.  Much depends on the dynamics of the price of oil, as globalization and thus forces of neoliberalism are inherently dependent on cheap hydrocarbons. High prices or relative scarcity that affects transcontinental trade might damage neoliberalism and undermine the fifth column that support it in.

Also high cost of hydrocarbons means "end of growth", and neoliberalism financial scheme based on cheap credit. It might implode in the environment of slow, or close to zero growth.

That means that consistent price of oil, say, over 120 is a direct threat to neoliberal project in the USA. Even with prices over $100 the major neoliberal economics  entered the stage of "secular stagnation". It also makes the US military which is the largest consumer of oil in the USA much more expensive to run and increase the costs of  neoliberal "wars for regime change", essentially curtailing neoliberal expansion. Or at least making it more difficult. The same is true about financiering of color revolutions, which as a new type of neoliberal conquests of other countries, also require some cash, although not at the scale of "boots on the ground".

It is possible to lower the oil price, as happened at the end of 2014, but the question is how long this period will last. 

At this point ideology of neoliberalism as an ideology is completely discredited and its fake nature is evident to large part of global elite (which probably never have any illusions from the very beginning) as well, which is more dangerous, large part of middle class. It still is supported by pure military and financial power of the USA and its allies as well as technological superiority of the West in general. So only postulates of neoliberalism, especially as for free market absolutization, started to be questioned.  And partically revised (increased financial regulation is one example). This form of neoliberalism with the core ideology intact but modified one of several postulates can be called post-neoliberalism.

The USA still remains the most powerful country in the world with formidable military, and still behave as a word hegemon and the only source of justice ignoring US and other International organization, unless it if convenient to them. But as Napoleon noted "You can do anything with bayonets, but you can't sit on them". Running aggressive foreign policy on a discredited ideology and relying on blunt propaganda is a difficult undertaking as resistance mounts and bubble out in un-anticipated areas (Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk in Ukraine are recent example, when neoliberal color revolution, which was performed by few thousands trained by the West far right militants, including openly neo-fascist squads, led to civil war in the country).

Still, unfortunately, Libya, Syria  and Ukraine, were not probably a swan song of muscular enforcement of neoliberal model on other countries. While sponsored by the USA and allies anti-Putin putsch in Russia (aka white revolution") failed, events in Libya and Ukraine prove the neoliberalism sill can launch and win offensives (aka color revolutions). At the cost of plunging the country into economic and political chaos including civil war.  

Rule of financial oligarchy also gradually comes under some (although very limited) scrutiny in the USA. Some measures to restrict appetites of financial oligarchy were recently undertaken in Europe (bank bonuses limitations).

HFT and derivatives still remain off-reach for regulators despite JP Morgan fiasco in May 2012 in London branch. Trade loss was around two billions, decline of bank value was around $13bn (The Guardian) At this stage most people around the world realized that as Warren Buffett's right-hand man Charlie Munger quipped in his CNBC interview Trusting banks to self-regulate is like trusting to self-regulate heroin addicts. At the meeting of the Group of 20 (G20) heads of states in the spring of 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the death of “the Washington Consensus” — the famous list of market-liberalizing policy prescriptions that guided the previous 20 or 30 years of neoliberal expansion into third world countries  (Painter 2009).

Prominent economists in the United States and elsewhere pointed out that after decades of reform, market-liberalizing policies had not produced the promised benefits for either economic growth or social welfare of countries were those policies were applied (Stiglitz 2002, 2006; Rodrik 2006). These criticisms further undermined the legitimacy of neoliberal governance, exactly the same way as similar criticism undermined socialist model of the USSR and Eastern Europe. The problem is that while socialist experiment could be compared with the Western countries capitalism achievement, here there is no alternative model with which to compare.

Still a backlash directed at the USA is mounting even from the former loyal vassals. Even the UK elite starts to display the behavior that contradict its role of the obedient US poodle. The atmosphere is which the USA is considered "guilty" of pushing though the throats of other countries a utopia that harmed them is a different atmosphere for the US oligarchy that the role of it accustomed to.  Now the US oligarchy has found itself in USSR nomenklatura shoes and eventually might be called to answer for their global actions which similar to Opium Wars of the British can be called Dollar Wars.

Everybody is now aware of the substantial costs that the modern financial system has imposed on the real economy, especially in developing countries,  and no amount of propaganda and brainwashing can hide this simple fact.

Standard of living was rising slowly and after 2008 mostly stopped to rise and started to detiorate reflecting higher energy prices and the level on indebtness of many countries (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc).   So the key promise of neoliberalism that "trickle down" from super rich will be enough to sustain better standard of living for all proved to be a confidence game.

It is questionable that the "financial innovations" of the last three-four decades can compensate for those huge costs and that they warrants those costs. Shocks generated within the financial system and transformation of economies imposed by international financial oligarchy as the core of neoliberal elite, implies that the rule of financial oligarchy creates negative externalities for societies and that some types of financial activities and some financial structures should be treated like an organized crime (in other words as purely parasitic, extortionist type of players).

Still this stage preserves several attributes of previous stage and first of all push for globalization and aggressive foreign policy. While economic crisis of 2008 destroyed legitimacy of ideology of neoliberalism, neoliberalism as an ideology continue to exists as a cult, much like communism as an ideology continues to exist, despite the failure of the USSR. And being phony ideology from the very beginning, a smokescreen for  the revanchism of financial oligarchy, it still can be promoted by unrelenting propaganda machine of the same forces which put it into mainstream albeit with les efficiency.  

So far no viable alternatives emerged, and inertia is still strong, as strong as G7 block with the USA as the head of the block. Like in 20th failure of neoliberalism led to rise of nationalism, especially in Europe (France, Hungary, Ukraine). In some countries, such as Ukraine, the net result of neoliberal revolution was establishing a far right regime which has uncanny similarities to the régimes which came to power in 30th such as Franko regime in Spain.  The phase of neoliberal dominance still continues, it is just the central idea of neoliberalism, the fake idea of self-regulating markets that was completely discredited by the crisis of 2008. Actually it was discredited before during Great Depression, but the generation that remembered this lesson is now extinct (it looks like it takes approximately 50 years for humanity to completely forget the lessons of history ;-).

Latin America, once paragon of a neoliberal revolution (Chile, Argentina, Mexico, etc), is now dominated by left-wing governments elected on explicitly anti-neoliberal platforms. Around the world, economists and policymakers now come to consensus that excessive reliance on unregulated financial markets and the unrestrained rule of financial oligarchy was the root cause of the current worldwide financial crisis. That created a more difficult atmosphere for the USA financial institutions to operate abroad. Several countries are now trying to limit role of dollar as the world currency (one of the sins Saddam Hussein paid the price).

Also internal contradictions became much deeper and the neoliberal regime became increasingly unstable even in the citadel of neoliberalism -- the USA. Like any overstretched empire it became hollow within with stretches on potholes ridden roads and decaying infrastructure visible to everyone. Politically, the Republican Party became a roadblock for any meaningful reform (and its radical wing -- the tea party even sending its representatives to Congress), the Party that is determined to rather take the USA the road of the USSR, then change its ideology. All this points to the fact that neoliberalism as an socio-economic doctrine is following the path of Bolshevism.

But its media dominance of neoliberalism paradoxically continues unabated. And this is despite the fact that after the crisis of 2008, the notion that finance mobilizes and allocates resources efficiently, drastically reduces systemic risks and brings significant productivity gains for the economy as a whole became untenable. We can expect that like was the case with Catholicism in middle ages and Bolshevism in the USSR, zombie phase of neoliberalism can last many decades (in the USSR, "zombie" state lasted two decades, say from 1970 to 1991, and neoliberalism with its emphasis on low human traits such as greed and supported by military and economic power of the USA, is considerably more resilient then Bolshevism). As of 2013 it is still supported by elites of several major western states (such as the USA, GB, Germany, France), transnational capital (and financial capital in particular) and respective elites out of the sense of self-preservation. That means that is it reasonable to expect that its rule in G7 will continue (like Bolshevism rule in the USSR in 70th-80th) despite probably interrupted by bursts of social violence (Muslim immigrants in Europe are once such force).

In the US, for example, income and wealth inequality continue to increase, with stagnating middle-class earnings, reduced social mobility, and an allegedly meritocratic higher education system, generously supported by tax exemptions, has been turned into the system whose main beneficiaries are the children of the rich and successful. Superimposed on this class divide is an increasingly serious intergenerational divide, and increases level of unemployment of young people, which make social atmosphere somewhat similar to the one in Egypt, although the pressure from Muslim fundamentalists is absent.

More and more neoliberalism came to be perceived as a ruse intended to safeguard the interests of a malignantly narcissistic empire (the USA) and of rapacious multinationals. It is now more and more linked with low-brow cultural homogeneity, social Darwinism, encroachment on privacy, mass production of junk, and suppression of national sentiments and aspiration in favor of transnational monopolies. It even came to be associated with a bewildering variety of social ills: rising crime rates, unemployment, poverty, drug addiction, prostitution, organ trafficking, and other antisocial forms of conduct.

While ideology of neoliberalism is by-and-large discredited, the global economic institutions associated with its rise are not all equally moribund. For example, the global economic crisis of 2008 has unexpectedly improved the fortunes of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization long famous for the neoliberal policy conditions attached to its loans that served to incorporate countries into a global neoliberal economic system. In 2008, a cascade of financial crises in Eastern Europe and Iceland fattened the IMF’s dwindling loan portfolio.

World Trade Organization (WTO), the key US-used and abused universal opener of markets to US corporations and investments is in worse shape then IMF, but still is viable too. The Doha round of negotiations is stalled, mostly due to irresolvable disputes between developed and developing countries. Consequently, the current crisis of neoliberalism raises many important questions about the future path of the current international institutions promoting the neoliberal order. But still Russia joined WTO in 2012 which means that this organization got a new lease of life.

Nonetheless, that "neoliberalism in name only" is still a powerful global "brand" which the U.S. seeks to maintain at all costs for macro geopolitical reasons (The Great Crash, 2008: A Geopolitical Setback for the West , Foreign Affairs)

The financial and economic crash of 2008, the worst in over 75 years, is a major geopolitical setback for the United States and Europe. Over the medium term, Washington and European governments will have neither the resources nor the economic credibility to play the role in global affairs that they otherwise would have played. These weaknesses will eventually be repaired, but in the interim, they will accelerate trends that are shifting the world's center of gravity away from the United States.

A brutal recession is unfolding in the United States, Europe, and probably Japan -- a recession likely to be more harmful than the slump of 1981-82. The current financial crisis has deeply frightened consumers and businesses, and in response they have sharply retrenched. In addition, the usual recovery tools used by governments -- monetary and fiscal stimuli -- will be relatively ineffective under the circumstances.

This damage has put the American model of free-market capitalism under a cloud. The financial system is seen as having collapsed; and the regulatory framework, as having spectacularly failed to curb widespread abuses and corruption. Now, searching for stability, the U.S. government and some European governments have nationalized their financial sectors to a degree that contradicts the tenets of modern capitalism.

Much of the world is turning a historic corner and heading into a period in which the role of the state will be larger and that of the private sector will be smaller. As it does, the United States' global power, as well as the appeal of U.S.-style democracy, is eroding.

Hegemony of the USA and its allies

The USA was and probably will remain the center of neoliberalism and firmly established as most important and the most powerful promoter of the doctrine (in some case, like with Serbia, Iraq and Libya, on the tips of bayonets).

After the dissolution of the USSR the US elite felt that "everything is permitted" and essentially started to pursue global Roman style imperial policy. The USA military forces are active over most of the globe: about 226 countries have US military troops, 63 of which host American bases, while only 46 countries in the world have no US military presence. This is a projection of military power that makes the Roman, British, and Soviet empires pale in comparison. In his 1919 essay, "The Sociology of Imperialisms," Joseph Schumpeter wrote of Rome during its years of greatest expansion.

There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest-why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted.

The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing-space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs.*

As G. John Ikenberry, professor of geopolitics at Georgetown University noted in Foreign Affairs:

The new grand strategy [initiated by the Bush administration]…. begins with a fundamental commitment to maintaining a unipolar world in which the United States has no peer competitor. No coalition of great powers without the United States will be allowed to achieve hegemony. Bush made this point the centerpiece of American security policy in his West Point commencement address in June: "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenges-thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace."

…The United States grew faster than the other major states during the decade [of the 1990s], it reduced military spending more slowly, and it dominated investment in the technological advancement of its forces. Today, however, the new goal is to make these advantages permanent-a fait accompli that will prompt other states to not even try to catch up. Some thinkers have described the strategy as "breakout," in which the United States moves so quickly to develop technological advantages (in robotics, lasers, satellites, precision munitions, etc.) that no state or coalition could ever challenge it as global leader, protector and enforcer ("America's Imperial Ambition," Foreign Affairs, October 2002).

Perhaps one of extreme expressions of this neo-Roman imperial policy became that book by The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski. This is how Brzezinski views the (supposedly sovereign) nations of Central Asia (sited from Amazon review by "A Customer" Jan 3, 2002 as pawns in a greater game for geopolitical domination:

The quote "... the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (The Grand Chessboard p.40) is probably the most revealing. Just ponder the meaning of these statements in a post-9-11 world:

To most Americans the people of the world and other nations are just that -- people, just like us, with a right to self-determination. To Brzezinski, they are merely pawns on a chessboard. At the same time, despite the fact that the analogy are not perfect, Rome fell, Napoleon fell, Hitler fell, USSR fell. Countries with too aggressive foreign policy ultimately self-destruct, because they over-extend their own countries resources to the point when people wellbeing drops to the levels of some colonies. The USA have over million people with the security clearance. So in a way it is becoming a copy-cat of the USSR. And while the US military is busy fighting for oil interests all around the world, those wars were launched by borrowing money and it's unclear who will pay the bills.

Neoliberalism beginning as ideology start was pretty modest. It was never considered a "right" ideology, ideology for which people are ready to fight and die. It was just an "ideology of convenience", an eclectic mix of mutually incompatible and incoherent mosaic of various ideologies (including some ideas of Trotskyism and national socialism) that served as useful tool to counter communist ideology. This is the tress of Friedman pretty weak opus "Capitalism and Freedom" -- which can be considered to be close analog of Communist Manifesto for neoliberalism. It also was useful for fighting some Keynesian excesses. Only later it become favorite ideology of financial oligarchy.

So in fight against "Godless communism" which does not respect private property and used "all-powerful" state, it idealized private property ownership, the role of "free" (as in free shooting) market and stressed the necessity to control the size of the government. As a tools to fight communist ideology those were reasonably effective tools. But at some point this deeply flawed, but useful for the specific purpose framework went out of control and became the cult of the deified markets and explicitly stated the necessary of diminishing the role of the state to minimum to ensure the high level of inequality the new neoliberal elite strived for (note not optimizing for a given historical conditions and technology available, but unconditionally diminishing to the point of elimination). Reagan famous phase "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." is a perfect example of how to "Throw out the baby with the bath water". But the meaning is more sinister: it meant "throw out of the water middle class".

That happened when financial oligarchy understood that a tool created for fighting communism is perfectly suitable for fighting elements of "New Deal". And it proved to be pretty effective in dismantling of set of regulations of financial sector that were the cornerstone of "New Deal". That was a very smooth ride "deregulatory" ride until 2008. But after 2008 the USA (citadel of neoliberalism) faces the set of problems that at least on the surface look similar to the problem that USSR faced before its disintegration, although the USA still have much more favorable conditions overall and disintegration is not among the current threats. Among them:

Still there are important difference with Marxism: despite extremely flawed to the point of being anti-scientific neoliberal ideology is still supported by higher standard of living of population in selected Western countries (G7). If also can rely on five important factors:

  1. Military dominance of the USA and NATO. There are very few countries in the globe without explicit or implicit USA military presence.
  2. Financial dominance of USA and its allies. The role of dollar as world currency and the role of USA controlled global financial institutions such as World Bank and IMF
  3. Technological dominance of USA and G7. Continuing brain drain from "Third world" and xUSSR countries to G7 countries.
  4. Cultural dominance of the USA (although this is gradually diminishing as after 2008 countries started of assert their cultural independence more vigorously).
  5. Ideological dominance, neoliberalism as yet another major civic religion

Military dominance of USA and NATO

The American society and the U.S. armaments industry today are different then it was when Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell speech (Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation) famously warned Americans to beware the "military-industrial complex." See also The Farewell Address 50 Years Later. The major opponent, the USSR left the world scene, being defeated in the cold war. That means that currently the USA enjoy world military dominance that reminds the dominance of Roman Empire.

The USA now is the world's greatest producer and exporter of arms on the planet. It spends more on armed forces than all other nations combined -- while going deeply into debt to do so.

The USA also stations over 500,000 troops, spies, contractors, dependents, etc. on more than 737 bases around the world in 130 countries (even this is not a complete count) at a cost of near 100 billions a year. The 2008 Pentagon inventory includes 190,000 troops in 46 nations and territories, and 865 facilities in more than 40 countries and overseas U.S. territories. In just Japan, the USA have 99,295 people who are either members of US forces or are closely connected to US. The only purpose is to provide control over as many nations as possible.

Funny but among other thing the Pentagon also maintain 234 golf courses around the world, 70 Lear Jet airplanes for generals and admirals, and a ski resort in the Bavarian Alps.

Military dominance of the USA and NATO were demonstrated during Yugoslavia bombing and then invasion of Iraq. It's clear the Yugoslavia bombing would be out of question if the USSR existed.

Neoliberalism and militarism

Under neoliberalism, markets are now fused with the logic of expansion and militarization is the most logical was of securing expansion, improving global positions, and the ordering of social relations in a way favorable to the transnational elite.

Under neoliberal regime the United States is not only obsessed with militarism, which is shaping foreign policy , but wars have become real extension of the politics, the force that penetrates almost every aspect of daily life. Support of wars became a perverted version of patriotism.

As Henry A. Giroux noted in his interview to Truth-out (Violence is Deeply Rooted in American Culture), paradoxically in the country of "advanced democracy" schools and social services are increasingly modeled after prisons. Four decades of neoliberal policies have given way to an economic Darwinism that promotes a politics of cruelty.

Police forces are militarized. Popular culture endlessly celebrating the spectacle of violence. The Darwinian logic of war and violence have become addictive, a socially constructed need. State violence has become an organizing principle of society that has become the key mediating force that now holds everyday life together. State violence is now amplified in the rise of the punishing state which works to support corporate interests and suppress all forms of dissent aimed at making corporate power accountable. Violence as a mode of discipline is now enacted in spheres that have traditionally been created to counter it. Airports, schools, public services, and a host of other public spheres are now defined through a militarized language of "fight with terrorism", the language of discipline, regulation, control, and order. Human relations and behaviors are dehumanized making it easier to legitimate a culture of cruelty and politics of disposability that are central organizing principles of casino capitalism.

The national news became a video game, a source of entertainment where a story gains prominence by virtue of the notion that if it bleeds it leads. Education has been turned into a quest for private satisfactions and is no longer viewed as a public good, thus cutting itself off from teaching students about public values, the public good and engaged citizenship. What has emerged in the United States is a civil and political order structured around the criminalization of social problems and everyday life. This governing-through-crime model produces a highly authoritarian and mechanistic approach to addressing social problems that often focuses on the poor and minorities, promotes highly repressive policies, and places emphasis on personal security, rather than considering the larger complex of social and structural forces that fuels violence in the first place.

The key reference on the topic is the book The New American Militarism (2005) by Andrew Bacevich. Here is one Amazon review:

In his book The New American Militarism (2005), Andrew Bacevich desacralizes our idolatrous infatuation with military might, but in a way that avoids the partisan cant of both the left and the right that belies so much discourse today. Bacevich's personal experiences and professional expertise lend his book an air of authenticity that I found compelling. A veteran of Vietnam and subsequently a career officer, a graduate of West Point and later Princeton where he earned a PhD in history, director of Boston University's Center for International Relations, he describes himself as a cultural conservative who views mainstream liberalism with skepticism, but who also is a person whose "disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the present Bush administration and its groupies, is just about absolute." Finally, he identifies himself as a "conservative Catholic." Idolizing militarism, Bacevich insists, is far more complex, broader and deeper than scape-goating either political party, accusing people of malicious intent or dishonorable motives, demonizing ideological fanatics as conspirators, or replacing a given administration. Not merely the state or the government, but society at large, is enthralled with all things military.

Our military idolatry, Bacevich believes, is now so comprehensive and beguiling that it "pervades our national consciousness and perverts our national policies.

" We have normalized war, romanticized military life that formally was deemed degrading and inhuman, measured our national greatness in terms of military superiority, and harbor naive, unlimited expectations about how waging war, long considered a tragic last resort that signaled failure, can further our national self-interests. Utilizing a "military metaphysic" to justify our misguided ambitions to recreate the world in our own image, with ideals that we imagine are universal, has taken about thirty years to emerge in its present form.

It is this marriage between utopians ends and military means that Bacevich wants to annul.

How have we come to idolize military might with such uncritical devotion? He likens it to pollution: "the perhaps unintended, but foreseeable by-product of prior choices and decisions made without taking fully into account the full range of costs likely to be incurred" (p. 206). In successive chapters he analyzes six elements of this toxic condition that combined in an incremental and cumulative fashion.

  1. After the humiliation of Vietnam, an "unmitigated disaster" in his view, the military set about to rehabilitate and reinvent itself, both in image and substance. With the All Volunteer Force, we moved from a military comprised of citizen-soldiers that were broadly representative of all society to a professional warrior caste that by design isolated itself from broader society and that by default employed a disproportionate percentage of enlistees from the lowest socio-economic class. War-making was thus done for us, by a few of us, not by all of us.
  2. Second, the rise of the neo-conservative movement embraced American Exceptionalism as our national end and superior coercive force as the means to franchise it around the world.
  3. Myth-making about warfare sentimentalized, sanitized and fictionalized war. The film Top Gun is only one example of "a glittering new image of warfare."
  4. Fourth, without the wholehearted complicity of conservative evangelicalism, militarism would have been "inconceivable," a tragic irony when you consider that the most "Christian" nation on earth did far less to question this trend than many ostensibly "secular" nations.
  5. Fifth, during the years of nuclear proliferation and the fears of mutually assured destruction, a "priesthood" of elite defense analysts pushed for what became known as the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). RMA pushed the idea of "limited" and more humane war using game theory models and technological advances with euphemisms like "clean" and "smart" bombs. But here too our "exuberance created expectations that became increasingly uncoupled from reality," as the current Iraq debacle demonstrates.
  6. Finally, despite knowing full well that dependence upon Arab oil made us vulnerable to the geo-political maelstroms of that region, we have continued to treat the Persian Gulf as a cheap gas station. How to insure our Arab oil supply, protect Saudi Arabia, and serve as Israel's most important protector has always constituted a squaring of the circle. Sordid and expedient self interest, our "pursuit of happiness ever more expansively defined," was only later joined by more lofty rhetoric about exporting universal ideals like democracy and free markets, or, rather, the latter have only been a (misguided) means to secure the former.

Bacevich opens and closes with quotes from our Founding Fathers. In 1795, James Madison warned that "of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other." Similarly, late in his life George Washington warned the country of "those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."

Financial dominance

With dollar role as the primary world reserve currency the USA still rides on its "Exorbitant privilege". But there are countervailing forces that diminish dollar importance, such a euro. Financial dominance under neoliberalism became the primary tool of ensuring the control over the nations. See Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism

US and Western banks dominate the globe with New York and London as two world financial centers.

Things little changed after 2008 despite the fact that the US economy in entered a deep debt crisis, which is amplified by the level of destruction of real economy by offshoring and outsourcing achieved under the umbrella of neoliberalism during previous four decades. While the USA remains the sole super power its imperial problems now reached such a level that they may start to affect the foreign policy. Troubles of organizing an invasion in Syria are probably symptomatic. It proved to be more difficult undertaking that similar invasion of Iraq a decade earlier.

Economic troubles have important side effect: the ideological dominance, achieved by the USA during 1989 till 2008 is now under attack. There are a lot of skeptic and in a way neoliberalism goes the way of Marxism with the major difference that there were probably some sincere followers of Marxism at least during the first 30 years of its development.

Centrality of transnational financial flows (including emerging countries debt) and financial oligarchy in neoliberal regime

Since the late 1970s, there was a radical shift of economic activity from the production of goods and non-financial services to finance with the rapid growth since then of the share of financial profits in total corporate profits. Also reflective of this process of "financialisation of the Economy" was the explosive growth of private debt as a proportion of gross domestic product, and the piling of layers upon layers of claims with the existence of instruments like options, futures, swaps, and the like, and financial entities like hedge funds and structured investment vehicles.

With financialisation, the financial masturbation -- speculation directed on making money within the financial system, bypassing the route of commodity production, increasingly became the name of the game. Using Marxist terminology the general formula for capital accumulation, M-C-M', in which commodities are central to the generation of profits, was replaced by M-M', in which money simply begets more money with no relation to production.

This is related to the reason which brought on the financialization of the economy in the forefront: beginning with the sharp recession of 1974-75, the US economy entered a period of slow economic growth, high unemployment/underemployment and excess capacity. That happened after around 25 years of spectacular ascent following the second world war. So financialisation was thought a s a remedy to this "permanent stagnation" regime. And for a while it performed this function well, although it was done by "eating the host".

Finance under any neoliberalism-bound regime can be best understood as a form of warfare, and financial complex (typically large Western banks as locals are not permitted, unless specially protected by remnants of the nation state) as an extension of military-industrial complex. Like in military conquest, its aim is to gain control for occupying country of land, public infrastructure, and to impose tribute putting the country in debt and using dominance of dollar as world reserve currency. This involves dictating laws to vassal countries (imposing Washington consensus, see below) and interfering in social as well as economic planning using foreign debt and the necessity to service the foreign loans as a form of Gosplan.

The main advantage of neoliberalism in comparison with the similar practice of the past is the conquest is being done by financial means, without the cost to the aggressor of fielding an army. But the economies under attacked may be devastated as deeply by financial stringency as by military attack when it comes to demographic shrinkage, shortened life spans, emigration and capital flight. Actually following s successful attack of neoliberalism and conquest of the country by neoliberal elite Russian economy was devastated more then during WWII, when Hitler armies reached banks of Volga river and occupies half of the country.

This attack is being mounted not by nation states alone, but by a cosmopolitan financial class and international financial institutions such as World bank and IMF with full support of major western banks serving as agencies of western governments. Finance always has been cosmopolitan more than nationalistic – and always has sought to impose its priorities and lawmaking power over those of parliamentary democracies.

Like any monopoly or vested interest, the financial "Trojan horse" strategy seeks to block government power to regulate or tax it. From the financial vantage point, the ideal function of government is to enhance profits via privatization and protect finance capital from the population to allow "the miracle of compound interest" to siphon most of the revenue out of the country. Some tiny share of this revenue is paid to compradors within the national elite. In good years such tactic keeps fortunes multiplying exponentially, faster than the economy can grow. This "paradise for rentiers" last until they eat into the core and cause deindustrialization and severe debt crisis. Eventually they do to the economy what predatory creditors and rentiers did to the Roman Empire.

Technological dominance

The globalist bloc of Western countries led by the USA achieved hegemony in the end of the twentieth century because it managed to become the center of technological progress and due to this acquired a commanding influence over industrial production and social life around the world, including the ability to provide rewards and impose sanctions. One or the reason of technical backwardness of the USSR just before the dissolution were technical sanctions imposed by the West via COCOM. As most of global corporations belong to G7 this lead to "natural" technological hegemony of this block. As Thatcher used to say "There is no alternatives", although she meant there is no alternatives to neoliberalism, not to Western technology from G7 nations. Only recently Asian countries started to challenge this status quo in some areas.

Global corporation managed to create a situation in which the same goods are used in most countries of the globe. Western brand names dominate. American and European airliners, Japanese, American and German cars, Korean and American smartphones, Chinese and American PCs, etc.

China became world factory and produces lion share of goods sold under Western brands.

Dominance in Internet and global communications

The debate about the USA dominance in internet and global communications reemerged in June 2008 due to revelations make about existence of the Prism program and similar program by British security services. For example, Jacob Augstein used the term "Obama's Soft Totalitarianism" in his article Europe Must Stand Up to American Cyber-Snooping published by SPIEGEL. The NSA's infrastructure wasn't built to fight Al Qaeda. It has a far greater purpose, one of which is to keep the USA as the last superpower.

The USA has capabilities of intercepting of lion share of global internet traffic and with allies tries to intercept all the diplomatic communication during major conferences and trade talk in direct violation of Vienna protocols. Latin American countries were one of the recent victims of this activity during trade talks with the USA. There were reports about snooping on UN personnel communications in NYC.

Here is an interesting comment of user MelFarrellSr in The Guardian discussion of the article NSA analysts 'willfully violated' surveillance systems, agency admits (August 24, 2013):

Here's the thing about the NSA, the GCHQ, Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, et al...

We all have to stop commenting as if the NSA and the GCHQ are in this thing on their own; the reality is that no one was supposed to know one iota about any of these programs; the NSA and the GCHQ began and put in place the structure that would allow all internet service providers, and indeed all corporations using the net, the ability to track and profile each and every user on the planet, whether they be using the net, texting, cell, and landline.

We all now know that Google, Yahoo, and the rest, likely including major retailers, and perhaps not so major retailers, are all getting paid by the United States government, hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, our money, to profile 24/7 each and every one of us..., they know how we think, our desires, our sexual preferences, our religious persuasion, what we spend, etc.; make no mistake about it, they know it all, and what they don't currently have, they will very soon…

These agencies and indeed all those who are paid by them, will be engaged over the next few weeks in a unified program of "perception management" meaning that they will together come up with an all-encompassing plan that will include the release of all manner of statements attesting to the enforcement of several different disciplinary actions against whomever for "illegal" breaches of policy...

They may even bring criminal actions against a few poor unfortunate souls who had no idea they would be sacrificed as one part of the "perception management" game.

Has anyone wondered why, to date, no one in power has really come out and suggested that the program must be curtailed to limit its application to terrorism and terrorist types?

Here's why; I was fortunate recently to have given an education on how networks such as Prism, really work, aside from the rudimentary details given in many publications. They cannot, and will not, stop monitoring even one individuals activity, because to do so will eventually cause loss of the ability to effectively monitor as many as 2.5 Million individuals.

Remember the "Two to Three Hop" scenario, which the idiot in one of the hearings inadvertently spoke of; therein lies the answer. If the average person called 40 unique people, three-hop analysis would allow the government to mine the records of 2.5 million Americans Do the math; Internet usage in the United States as of June 30, 2012 reached a total of over 245,000,000 million…

The following link shows how connected the world is… http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats2.htm

We should never forget how the Internet began, and who developed it, the United States Armed Forces; initially it was known as Arpanet, see excerpt and link below…

"The Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation." - Supreme Court Judge statement on considering first amendment rights for Internet users.

"On a cold war kind of day, in swinging 1969, work began on the ARPAnet, grandfather to the Internet. Designed as a computer version of the nuclear bomb shelter, ARPAnet protected the flow of information between military installations by creating a network of geographically separated computers that could exchange information via a newly developed protocol (rule for how computers interact) called NCP (Network Control Protocol)."

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa091598.htm

There is no government anywhere on the planet that will give up any part of the program…, not without one hell of a fight...

Incidentally, they do hope and believe that everyone will come to the same conclusion; they will keep all of us at bay for however long it takes; they have the money, they have the time, and they economically control all of us...

Pretty good bet they win...

That includes industrial espionage:

EntropyNow:

Or industrial espionage?

Absolutely. See EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT report dated 11 July 2001 (Note it was before the 9/11 attack in the US).

7. Compatibility of an 'ECHELON' type communications interception system with Union law

7.1. Preliminary considerations
7.2. Compatibility of an intelligence system with Union law

7.2.1. Compatibility with EC law
7.2.2. Compatibility with other EU law

7.3. The question of compatibility in the event of misuse of the system for industrial espionage
7.4. Conclusion

EntropyNow -> StrawBear

The fact that they snoop on us all constantly, that's the problem. I agree that the indiscriminate surveillance is a problem. However, with such vast powers in the hands of private contractors, without robust legal oversight, it is wide open to abuse and interpretation. I believe we need to pull the plug and start again, with robust, independent, legal oversight, which respects fundamental international human rights laws In the US, the NDAA is a law which gives the government the right to indefinitely detain US citizens, without due process, without a trial, if they are suspected to be associated with 'terrorists'. Now define 'terrorism'?

Section 1021b is particularly worrying, concerning "substantial support." It is wide open to interpretation and abuse, which could criminalize dissent and even investigative journalism. See Guardian's excellent article by Naomi Wolf, 17 May 2012::

As Judge Forrest pointed out:

"An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so. In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more."

In an excellent episode of Breaking the Set Feb 7 2013 Tangerine Bolen (Founder and Director, Revolutiontruth) stated that 'Occupy London' was designated a 'terrorist group" officially. There are independent journalists and civil liberty activists being targeted by private cyber security firms, which are contractors for the DOD, they are being harassed and intimidated, threatening free speech and liberty for everyone, everywhere. As Naomi Wolf concludes:

"This darkness is so dangerous not least because a new Department of Homeland Security document trove, released in response to a FOIA request filed by Michael Moore and the National Lawyers' Guild, proves in exhaustive detail that the DHS and its "fusion centers" coordinated with local police (as I argued here, to initial disbelief), the violent crackdown against Occupy last fall.

You have to put these pieces of evidence together: the government cannot be trusted with powers to detain indefinitely any US citizen – even though Obama promised he would not misuse these powers – because the United States government is already coordinating a surveillance and policing war against its citizens, designed to suppress their peaceful assembly and criticism of its corporate allies."

MadShelley

It seems to me that potential terrorist threats come in two sorts: the highly organised and funded groups that could commit catastrophic destruction, and the local schmucks that are really just old-fashioned losers-with-a-grudge adopting an empowering ideology.

The first group would be immensely cautious with their communications, and fall outside this sort of surveillance. The second group, if Boston and Woolwich are any evidence, are not effectively detected by these measures.

It appears very clear to me that this is runaway state power, predictably and transparently deflected with cries of "terrorism". And, perhaps most worrying, that definition of terrorism is now as wide as the state requires. Anything that embarrasses or exposes the evils of our states, including rendition, torture, and all manner of appalling injustice, is classified as a matter of 'national security', which must not be exposed lest it aid the enemy.

I know Orwell's name gets tossed around too much... but Jesus! I really hope we're not bovine enough to walk serenely into this future.

General_Hercules

...The NSA's infrastructure wasn't built to fight Al Qaeda. It has a far greater purpose, one of which is to keep the USA as the last superpower and moral authority for the rest of the time humanity has in this world.

All this muck is hurting bad. Obama is having a tough time from all sides. All the moralists think he is a villain doing everything he promised to change. All the secret society members think he is a clown who has spilled out every secret that was painstakingly put together over decades....

Cultural dominance

The temples of neoliberalism are malls and airports ;-). And they are build all over the glone is a very similar fashion. A drunk person accidentally transfered from New Jersey to, say Kiev and put in one of mjor malls can never tell the difference :-).

English became the major international language. Both language of technology and commerce. Much like Latin was before.

In developing countries goods are sold at considerable premium (up to 100%) but generally everything that can be bought in the USA now can be bought say in Kiev. Of course affordability is drastically different, but for elite itis not a problem. That create another opportunity for the top 1% to enjoy very similar, "internationalized" lifestyle all over the globe.

Hollywood films dominate world cinemas. American computer games dominate gaming space. In a way the USA culturally is present in any country. It was amazing how quickly remnants of communist ideology were wipes out in the xUSSR countries (Globalization, ethnic conflict and nationalism Daniele Conversi - Academia.edu):

Contrary to the globalists or ideologues of globalization (Steger 2005), both Marxists and liberals have highlighted the ' pyramidal ' structure underlying globalization. This metaphor applies well to cultural dissemination.

An elite of corporate, media, and governmental agencies sits at the pyramid' s top level, small regional intermediary elites sit immediately below, while the overwhelming majority of humans are pushed well down towards the pyramid' s bottom. In the realm of ' global culture ' , this looks like a master-servant relationship with much of the world at the boot-licking end. Whether such a relationship really exists, or is even practical, this metaphorical dramatization can nevertheless help to understand collective self-perceptions. The consequences in the area of ethnic conflict are significant. Such a hierarchical structure makes it impossible for global exchanges to turn into egalitarian relationships based on evenly balanced inter-cultural communication and dialogue.

On the contrary, cultural globalization is not reflected in a genuine increase of inter-personal, inter-ethnic and inter-cultural contacts. As I shall argue, in most public areas ' cultural globalization ' really means the unreciprocated, one-way flow of consumerist items from the US media and leisure machine to the rest of the world.

This top-down distribution ensures that a few individuals and groups, nearly all in the USA, firmly establish the patterns of behaviour and taste to be followed by the rest of mankind. Is this congruent with the view that there is a form of ' global centralization ' in cultural-legal matters leaning towards Washington, DC? As for a supposed ' global culture ', the symbolic capital would ideally be located in Hollywood, rather than Washington.

In fact, the term ' Hollywoodization ' insinuates a media-enforced hierarchical structure with immediate symbolic resonance. It also offers a more cultural, perhaps less sociological, focus than the Weberian concept of bureaucratic ' McDonaldization ' (Ritzer 1996).

Competing terminologies include ' Disneyfication ' / ' Disneyization ' , with its stress on extreme predictability and the infantilization of leisure (Bryman 2004), 'Walmarting ' as the streamlining of the retail sector (Fishman 2005, Morrow 2004), or earlier Cold War terms like ' Coca-Colonization ' (Wagnleitner 1994). We previously saw how the term ' McGuggenization ' has been used to indicate art-related cultural franchising and other forms of Americanization in the Basque Country (McNeill 2000).

All these equally refer to socio-economic trends originated in the USA and are hence forms of Americanization. However, ' Hollywoodization ' has broader implications for ethnic relations and nationalist conflicts.

In practice, Hollywood-inspired simplifications have become the daily staple for millions of peoples around the world in their leisure time. In the area of ethnicity, ' Hollywoodization ' has been elevated to the only known reality and the unique source of information about the outside world for increasing numbers of people, not only in the USA. Thus, the world is more likely to get its stereotypes of the Brits from US movies like The Patriot or Saving Private Ryan than via British productions.Similarly, most of the world is likely to see Scotland through the lenses of US-made Braveheart , as the larger public can barely afford any access to Scottish cultural productions.

This monopoly of global stereotyping and ethnic imagery has serious implicationsf or the spread and continuation of ethnic conflict.

The tools of primary socialization were once under firm control of the family, either nuclear or extended. They were subsequently assumed by the state in the industrialization ' phase ' , notably with post-1789 mass militarization and compulsory schooling (Conversi2007, 2008).

Under neo-liberal globalization, primary socialization has been seized by unaccountable cash-driven corporations and media tycoons. This has further reduced the space of inter-generational transmission and family interaction. If a community can no longer socialize its children according to its culture and traditions, then the very bases of local, regional, and national continuity are all visibly at stake. This threat to a group's survival is often seized upon by patriots and ethno-nationalists, whose political programs are founded on providing a new sense of social cohesion and security – even if the targets are often hapless and unprotected minorities.

That is partly how nationalism and xenophobia have expanded in tandem with globalization. Ethno-nationalism not only persisted through change, but is perceived by many as a response to the growth of globalization, providing a prêt-à-porter hope for national resistance and resilience. By depending on Hollywood as unique conveyor of ' globalization ', inter-ethnic interaction is inevitably undermined. In some instances, international communication has practically evaporated.

... ... ...

I have described, and subsequently dismissed, the profit-oriented ideology that globalization, intended as Mcdonaldization and Hollywoodization, can contribute to better international understanding. On the contrary, it has ushered in a process of planetary cultural and environmental destruction, while hampering inter-ethnic communication and fostering human conflict. The notion of cultural security, so central to international relations and peaceful coexistence, has undergone unprecedented challenges.

...Insofar as cultural globalization is understood as uni-dimensional import of standardized cultural icons, symbols, practices, values, and legal systems from the United States, it can simply be re-described as Americanization (rather than Westernization in the broad sense), or ' globalization by Americanization ' (Hilger 2008). This is of central importance for the study of ethnic conflict.

In fact, the outcome is scarce hybridization, amalgamation, and metissage . Rather than providing an inter-cultural bridge, this unilateral drive has often eroded the basis for mutual understanding, impeding inter-ethnic, inter-cultural, and international interaction. Given the current vertical, pyramidal structure of the ' cultural world order ' , the opportunity of distinctive groups to communicate directly and appreciate each other's traditions has decreased, except in the virtual area of long-distance communication. For an increasing number of individuals, an American mass consumer culture remains the only window on the world. Hence, to know and appreciate one ' s neighbours has become an ever-arduous task. To recapitulate my point, wherever cultural globalization appears as synonymous with Americanization, it engenders conflicts on a variety of levels.

Because the process is one-way and unidirectional, the result is unlikely to be a fusion between cultures or, evenless, the blending of ethnic groups. Contrary to the globalist utopia, the imposition of more and more American icons means less and less possibility for direct inter-ethnic encounter and communication among nations. Together with the collapse of state legitimacy, this substantially contributes to the spread of ethnic conflict and nationalism.

Incorporation of "globalist" parts of national élites as second class citizens of the transnational ruling class

Another aspect of cultural power of neoliberalism is that it accepts national elites (on some, less favorable then "primary" elites conditions) as a part of a new transnational elite, which serves as the dominant class. By class, following classic Marxism we mean a group of people who share a common relationship to the process of social production and reproduction, positioned in the society relationally on the basis of social power.

The struggle between descendant national fractions of dominant groups and ascendant transnational fractions has often been the backdrop to surface political dynamics and ideological processes in the late 20th century. These two fractions have been vying for control of local state apparatuses since the 1970s.

Trans national fractions of local elites swept to power in countries around the world in the 1980s and 1990s. They have captured the "commanding heights" of state policymaking: key ministries and bureaucracies in the policymaking apparatus - especially Central Banks, finance and foreign ministries - as key government branches that link countries to the global economy.

They have used national state apparatuses to advance globalization and to pursue sweeping economic restructuring and the dismantling of the old nation-state–based Keynesian welfare and developmentalist projects.

They have sought worldwide market liberalization (following the neoliberal model), and projects of economic integration such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and the European Union. They have promoted a supra-national infrastructure of the global economy, such as the World Trade Organization, as we discuss below.

In this new, transnational social system transnational corporations are intermixed with nation-states which they have special privileges. And the state itself now serves not the people of the country (which historically were upper classes) but primarily service the interests of the transnational corporations (and, by extension, narrow strata of "comprador" elite, much like aristocracy of the past). It is now extension and projection of corporate power ("What is good for GE is good for America"). Both the transactional elite (and first of all financial oligarchy) and transnational corporation enjoy tremendous privileges under such a regime (corporate socialism, or socialism for the rich). Like Bolshevik state was formally dictatorship of proletariat but in reality was dictatorship of the elite of an ideological sect called Communist Party (so called nomenklatura), transformed nation-states like the USA, GB, France, Russia, etc now to various degrees look like dictatorships of transnational elite (transnational bourgeoisie like Marxist would say ;-) while formally remaining sovereign democratic republics. Like with Communist Parties in various countries that does not excuse antagonism or even open hostilities.

That does not eliminates completely the elites competition and for example the EU elite put a knife in the back of the US elite by adopting the euro as completing with the dollar currency (so much about transatlantic solidarity), but still internalization of elites is a new and important process that is more viable that neoliberal ideology as such. Also for any state national elite is not completely homogeneous. While that is a significant part of it that favor globalization (comprador elite or lumpen elite) there is also another part which prefer national development and is at least semi-hostile to globalism. Still the comprador part of the elite represents a very important phenomenon, a real fifth column of globalization, the part that makes globalization successful. It plays the role of Trojan horse within nation states and the name "fifth column" in this sense is a very apt name. This subversive role of comprador elite was clearly visible and well documented in Russian unsuccessful "white revolution" of 2011-2012: the US supported and financed project of "regime change" in Russia. It is also clearly visible although less well documented in other "color revolutions" such as Georgian, Serbian, and Ukrainian color revolutions. comrade Trotsky would probably turn in his coffin if he saw what neoliberal ideologies made with his theory of permanent revolution ;-).

Propaganda victory of neoliberalism over Marxism and New Deal capitalism

As professor David Harvey noted in his A Brief History of Neoliberalism neoliberal propaganda has succeeded in fixating the public on a peculiar definition of "freedom" that has served as a smoke screen to conceal a project of speeding upper class wealth accumulation. In practice, the neoliberal state assumes a protective role for large and especially international corporations ("socialism for multinationals") while it sheds as much responsibility for the citizenry as possible.

The key component of neoliberal propaganda (like was the case with Marxism) was an economic theory. Like Marxism it has three components

For more information see

Ideological dominance, neoliberalism as yet another major civic religion

There is no question that neoliberalism emerged as another major world civic religion. It has its saints, sacred books, moral (or more correctly in this case amoral) postulates and the idea of heaven and hell.

Neoliberalism shares several fundamental properties with high demand religious cults. Like all fundamentalist cults, neoliberalism reduces a complex world to a set of simplistic dogmas (See Washington Consensus). All of society is viewed through the prism of an economic lens. Economic growth, measured by GDP, is the ultimate good. The market is the only and simultaneously the perfect mechanism to achieve this goal. Neoliberalism obsession with materialism have become normalized to the degree that it is hard to imagine what American society would look like in the absence of these structural and ideological features of the new and militant economic Darwinism that now holds sway over the American public. The mantra is well known: government is now the problem, society is a fiction, sovereignty is market-driven, deregulation and commodification are the way to a bright future, and the profit is the only viable measure of the good life and advanced society. Public values are a liability, if not a pathology. Democratic commitments, social relations, and public spheres are disposables, much like the expanding population of the unemployed and dispossessed. Any revolt is the threat to the neoliberal regime of truth and should be dealt with unrestrained cruelty. The market functions best with minimal or no interference from government or civil society and those who don't agree will be taken by police to the proper reeducation camps. All governments with possible exception of the US government should be minimized to allow unrestricted dominance of global corporations. The genius of neoliberalism as a cult, was its ability to cloak the US pretences of world hegemony in an aura of scientific and historical inevitability. Which again makes it very similar and in a way superior to Marxism as a cult. The collapse of the Soviet Union was the supreme, heaven sent validation of Margaret Thatcher's claim that there was no alternative. There is only one blessed road to prosperity and peace and outside it there is no salvation, nor remission from sins.

The great economic historian Karl Polanyi observed, "The idea of a self-adjusting market implied a stark utopia." And neoliberalism was a stunning utopia of economic determinism, one even more ambitious than that of Marx.

With all the big questions thus settled, history appeared to be at an end. There was one and only one route to prosperity and peace. All that was required was to make sure the model was correctly applied and all would be well. We all settled into our assigned roles. Capitalists retreated to the role of technocrats, eschewing risk themselves while shifting and spreading it throughout society. The rest of us were relegated to the roles not of citizens, but of consumers. Using our homes as ATMs, we filled our lives with Chinese-made goods, oblivious to the looming environmental and social costs of a runaway, unregulated consumer-driven society. Only a marginalized few questioned the basic economic structure. It was the era of homo economicus, humans in service to the economy.

Now that perfect machinery lies in pieces all around us and the global economic free fall shows no signs of ending any time soon. The fundamental reasons underlying the collapse aren't all that difficult to discern. Central to the whole neoliberal project was the drive to rationalize all aspects of human society. Relentless efforts to cut costs and increase efficiency drove down the living standards of the vast majority, while the diminution of government and other non-commercial institutions led to increasing concentration of wealth at the very top of society. As high paying jobs in the industrial and technical sectors moved from developed countries to low wage export-based economies in the developing world, capacity soon outstripped demand and profits in the real economy began to sag. Not content with declining earnings, wealthy elites began to search for investments offering higher returns. If these couldn't be found in the real economy, they could certainly be created in the exploding financial sector.

Once consigned to the unglamorous world of matching those with capital to invest with those with enterprises seeking to grow, finance became the powerful new engine of economic growth. No longer stodgy, bankers and brokers became sexy and glamorous. Exotic new financial instruments, called derivatives, traded on everything from commodities to weather.

This speculative frenzy was supported by a central bank only too happy to keep credit extremely cheap. Debt exploded among consumers, businesses and government alike. Creating new debt became the source of even more exotic investment vehicles, often bearing only the most tenuous of connections to underlying assets of real value, with unwieldy names such as "collateralized debt obligations" and "credit default swaps."

All the debt and the shuffling of fictional wealth hid the underlying rot of the real economy. It was a house of cards just waiting for the slight breeze that would send it all crashing down. And a collapse in housing prices in 2008 laid bare the economic contradictions.

The fundamental contradiction underlying much that confronts us in the age of crises is an economic and social system requiring infinite growth within the confines of a finite planet. Any vision seeking to replace neoliberalism must take this contradiction into account and resolve it. The overriding market failure of our time has nothing to do with housing. It's the failure to place any value on that which is truly most essential to our survival: clean air and water, adequate natural resources for the present and future generations, and a climate suitable for human civilization.

No such new vision is currently in sight. That this leaves everyone, neoliberals and their foes alike, in a state of uncertainty and doubt is hardly surprising. The seeming triumph of neoliberalism was so complete that it managed to inculcate itself in the psyches even of those who opposed it.

We find ourselves unsure of terrain we thought we knew well, sensing that one era has ended but unsure as to what comes next. We might do well to embrace that doubt and understand its power to free us. Our doubt allows us to ask meaningful questions again and questioning implies the possibility of real choice. Removing the intellectual straitjacket of neoliberal orthodoxy opens up the space necessary to reconsider the purpose of an economy and its proper role in a decent human society and to revisit the old debate over equity versus efficiency. It calls into question the assumption most central to homo economicus; that all humans act only to maximize their own interests.

It seems clear that the world emerging over the coming decades will look quite different from the one we now inhabit. Of necessity it will evolve in ways we can't fully understand just yet. Old battle lines, such as the ones between capitalism and socialism, will likely fade away. Both of those models arose in a world of abundant and cheap fossil fuels and within the confines a planet with a seemingly endless capacity to absorb the wastes of our conspicuous consumption. New battle lines are already beginning to take shape.

The Revolution is Upon Us The Age of Crisis and the End of Homo Economicus Logos

I think that like is the case with Marxism, the staying power of neoliberalism is that propose the religion picture of world with its "creation history", saints, and way of salvation. In a way it plays the role similar to the role of Catholicism in middle ages (aka Dark Ages). The greed of catholic clergy in Middle ages (trade in indulgencies) is a match of the greed of neoliberals( with financial derivates replacing indulgencies ;-). It is equally hostile to any attempts to analyze it, with the minor difference that heretics that question the sanctity of free market are not burned at the stake, but ostracized. It support "new Crusades" with the same mechanism of "indulgences" for small countries that participate.

The level of hypocrisy is another shared trait. The great irony is that the USA, the world's leading proponent of neoliberalism (with the US President as a Pope of this new religion), systematically is breaking the rules when it find it necessary or convenient. With high deficit spending and massive subsidizing of defense spending and financial sector, the United States has generally use a "do as I say, not as I do" approach. And with the amount of political appointee/lobbyists shuttling back and forth between business and government, Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" looks more and more like a crushing fist of corporatist thugs. It involves dogmatic belief that the society is better off when ruled by a group of wealthy financiers and oligarchs, than by a group of professional government bureaucrats and politicians with some participation of trade unions.

The USA also dominates the cultural scene:

The United States' position as the leading maker of global culture has been basically unchallenged for the last century or so, especially in the Western world. Yet the economic power of the Western world is waning even as new nations, with new models of economic and social life, are rising. Might one -- or several -- of these nations like China, India or Brazil become new centers of global culture?

I believe that the answer to this question for the foreseeable future is "no." While the U.S.'s cultural prominence is partially related to its political, military and economic power, such power is not the only cause of America's global cultural hegemony. Rather, the U.S. offers a unique convergence of several factors, including economic opportunity, political freedom and an immigrant culture that served as a test bed for new cultural products.

Let me offer a brief account of the rise of the American film industry to suggest the way political, economic and immigrant forces shaped American cultural hegemony. In the U.S., the film industry started as commercial enterprise largely independent of state control. Movies had to adapt to market conditions to earn profit for their producers. In order to achieve this goal, American movies needed to appeal to a diverse population made up of both native-born and immigrant citizens.

As a consequence, filmmakers had to make movies that could appeal to international audiences simply to meet domestic demand. This fact helped the American film industry become globally preeminent well before the U.S. became a superpower. In other words, while U.S. military and economic power strengthened the position of the U.S. movie industry as globally dominant, that position was not dependent on U.S. military and economic power. Instead, American producers had a competitive advantage in global markets that was later cemented in place by the U.S. post-war economic and military hegemony in the West.

After the dissolution of the USSR, the USA became natural center of the "neoliberal religion" a dominant force in the new world order (the world's only superpower). And they used their newly acquired status against states which were not "friendly enough" very similar to Catholicism with its Crusades, launching a series of invasions and color revolutions against "nonbelievers" in a globalist neoliberal model. The level of plunder of Russia after the dissolution of the USSR looks like a direct replay of Crusades with the siege of Constantinople as primary example (despite stated goals, Crusades were by-and-large a monetary enterprise of the time with fig leaf of spread of Catholicism attached). This period of neoliberal crusades still continued in 2013, sometimes using various proxy to achieve "the regime change" by military means.

As we already refereed to neoliberalism as a cult an interesting question is whether neoliberalism can be viewed new "civic religion". The answer is unconditional yes, and I think that like Marxism before it should be considered to be yet another civic religion. It has it's set of holy books, Supreme being to worship, path to salvation and set of Apostils. Like communism before it propose humanity grand purpose and destiny.

Approliving:

Theistic and civic religions are also similar in that they both offer visions of humanity's grand purpose and destiny.

There are also significant differences between theistic religions and civil religions. Theistic religions explicitly rely on claims of divine authority for their validity, while civil religions rely on reason and the interpretation of commonly-accepted historical knowledge. Followers of theistic religions stress the importance of faith in times of adversity, while followers of civil religions tend to have a more pragmatic attitude when reality casts doubt on their beliefs.

Civil religions are more like big social experiments than actual religions because their central claims are much more falsifiable, and their followers show evidence of holding this perception (e.g. references to "the American experiment"; the voluntary abandonment of Communism throughout Eurasia when it became clear that it wasn't working).

Communism bears so much resemblance to Christianity because, as you mentioned last week, the Western imagination was thoroughly in the grip of Christianity when Communism emerged. Communism is similar to Christianity out of practical necessity: had it not been based on the Christian template, Communism probably would have been too intellectually alien to its Western audience to have ever taken off. Luckily for the founders of Communism, they were also subjected to this Christian cultural conditioning.

With all this in mind, and given that religion is evolving phenomenon, I think that civil religion is actually a distinct species of intellectual organism which has (at least in part) evolved out of religion.

Like Marxism, neoliberalism is first and foremost a quasi religious political doctrine. But while Marxism is aimed at liberation of workers , a political doctrine neoliberalism is aimed at restoring the power of capital. Neoliberalism originated in the rich countries of Anglo-Saxon world (GB and USA) so along with open despise of poor, it always has a distinct flavor of despise for peripheral countries. In global politics, neoliberalism preoccupies itself with the promotion of four basic issues:

As such, neoliberalism, in its crudest form, is crystallized in the Ten Commandments of the 1989 Washington Consensus (policy of debt slavery set for the world by the US via international financial institutions). While pushing the democracy as a smoke screen, they implicitly postulate hegemony of the financial elite (which is a part of "economic elite" that neoliberalism defines as a hegemonic class). Financialization of the economy also serves as a powerful method of redistribution of wealth, so neoliberalism generally lead to deterioration of standard of living for lower quintile of the population and in some countries (like Russia in 1991-2000) for the majority of the population. This is done largely via credit system and in this sense neoliberalism represents "reinters paradise". Neoliberal globalization was built on the foundation of US hegemony, conceived as the projection of the hegemony of the US capital and dollar as the dominant reserve currency. As such it is critically dependent of the power and stability of the US and the financial, economic, political and military supremacy of the US in every region. For this purpose the USA maintains over 500 military bases (737 by some counts) and over 2.5 million of military personnel.

But there are also important differences. Unlike most religions, neoliberalism is highly criminogenic (i.e., having the quality of causing or fostering crime). It is more criminogenic in countries with lower standard of living and in such countries it often lead to conversion of a "normal", but poor state into a kleptocratic state (Yeltsin's Russia is a good example) with the requisite mass poverty (Global Anomie, Dysnomie and Economic Crime Hidden Consequences of Neoliberalism and Globalization in Russia and Around the World). Unfortunately architects of this transformation (Harvard Mafia in case of Russia) usually avoid punishment for their crimes. Corruption of the US regulators which happened under neoliberal regime starting from Reagan is also pretty well covered theme.

While economic crisis of 2008 led to a crisis of neoliberalism, this is not necessary a terminal crisis. The phase of neoliberal dominance still continues, but internal contradictions became much deeper and the regime became increasingly unstable even in the citadel of neoliberalism -- the USA. Neoliberalism as an intellectual product is practically dead. After the crisis of 2008, the notion that finance mobilizes and allocates resources efficiently, drastically reduces systemic risks and brings significant productivity gains for the economy as a whole became untenable. But its zombie phase supported by several states (the USA, GB, Germany), transnational capital (and financial capital in particular) and respective elites out of the sense of self-preservation might continue (like Bolshevism rule in the USSR in 70th-80th) despite increasing chance of facing discontent of population and bursts of social violence.

Cornerstone of neoliberal regime, the economic power of the USA is now under threat from the rise of Asia. This is one reason of mutation of neoliberalism into aggressive neoconservative imperialism that we witness in the USA.

While intellectually neoliberalism was bankrupt from the beginning, after 2008 believing it in is possible only by ignoring the results of deregulation in the USA and other countries. In other words the mythology of self-regulating "free market" became a "damaged goods". In this sense, any sensible person should now hold neoliberal sect in contempt. But reality is different and it still enjoy the support of the part of population which can't see through the smoke screen. With the strong support of financial oligarchy neoliberalism will continue to exists in zombie state for quite a while, although I hope this will not last as long as dominance of Catholicism during European Dark Ages ;-). Still the US is yet to see its Luther. As was noted about a different, older sect: "Men are blind to prefer an absurd and sanguinary creed, supported by executioners and surrounded by fiery faggots, a creed which can only be approved by those to whom it gives power and riches".

Like communism in the USSR it is a state supported religion: Neoliberalism enjoys support of western governments and first of all the US government. Even when the US society entered deep crisis in 2008 and fabric of the society was torn by neoliberal policies it did not lose government support.

US was an imperial nation driven by annexation of territories from the very beginning

The USA has a history of "plain vanilla" (British style) imperialism, based on annexation and occupation of territories since the presidency of James K. Polk who led the United States into the Mexican–American War of 1846, and the eventual annexation of California and other western territories via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden purchase. The term is most commonly used to describe the U.S.'s status since the 20th century (Empire - Wikipedia):

The term "American Empire" refers to the United States' cultural ideologies and foreign policy strategies. The term is most commonly used to describe the U.S.'s status since the 20th century, but it can also be applied to the United States' world standing before the rise of nationalism in the 20th century. The United States is not traditionally recognized as an empire, in part because the U.S. adopted a different political system from those that previous empires had used. Despite these systematic differences, the political objectives and strategies of the United States government have been quite similar to those of previous empires. Krishna Kumar explores this idea that the distinct principles of nationalism and imperialism may, in fact, result in one common practice.

In "Nation-states as empires, empires as nation-states: two principles, one practice?" she argues that the pursuit of nationalism can often coincide with the pursuit of imperialism in terms of strategy and decision making. Throughout the 19th century, the United States government attempted to expand their territory by any means necessary. Regardless of the supposed motivation for this constant expansion, all of these land acquisitions were carried out by imperialistic means. This was done by financial means in some cases, and by military force in others. Most notably, the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Texas Annexation (1845), and the Mexican Cession (1848) highlight the imperialistic goals of the United States during this "modern period" of imperialism.

The U.S. government has stopped pursuing additional territories since the mid 20th century. However, some scholars still consider U.S. foreign policy strategies to be imperialistic. This idea is explored in the "contemporary usage" section.

... ... ...

Stuart Creighton Miller posits that the public's sense of innocence about Realpolitik (cf. American Exceptionalism) impairs popular recognition of US imperial conduct since it governed other countries via surrogates. These surrogates were domestically-weak, right-wing governments that would collapse without US support.[30] Former President G.W. Bush's Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, said: "We don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic; we never have been."[31] This statement directly contradicts Thomas Jefferson who, in the 1780s while awaiting the fall of the Spanish empire, said: "...till our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece".[32][33][34] In turn, historian Sidney Lens argues that from its inception, the US has used every means available to dominate other nations.[35] Other historian Max Ostrovsky argues that the term hegemony is better than empire to describe the US' role in the world but finds that hegemony is likely to be an intermediate stage between states system and empire.[36]

... ... ...

In his book review of Empire (2000) by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Mehmet Akif Okur posits that since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US, the international relations determining the world's balance of power (political, economic, military) have been altered. These alterations include the intellectual (political science) trends that perceive the contemporary world's order via the re-territorrialisation of political space, the re-emergence of classical imperialist practices (the "inside" vs. "outside" duality, cf. the Other), the deliberate weakening of international organisations, the restructured international economy, economic nationalism, the expanded arming of most countries, the proliferation of nuclear weapon capabilities and the politics of identity emphasizing a state's subjective perception of its place in the world, as a nation and as a civilisation. These changes constitute the "Age of Nation Empires"; as imperial usage, nation-empire denotes the return of geopolitical power from global power blocs to regional power blocs (i.e., centered upon a "regional power" state [China, Russia, U.S., et al.]) and regional multi-state power alliances (i.e., Europe, Latin America, South East Asia). Nation-empire regionalism claims sovereignty over their respective (regional) political (social, economic, ideologic), cultural, and military spheres.[43]

Annexation was the crucial instrument in the expansion of the USA after it won independence. The United States Congress' ability to annex a foreign territory is explained in a report from the Congressional Committee on Foreign Relations,

"If, in the judgment of Congress, such a measure is supported by a safe and wise policy, or is based upon a natural duty that we owe to the people of Hawaii, or is necessary for our national development and security, that is enough to justify annexation, with the consent of the recognized government of the country to be annexed."

Even prior to annexing a territory, the American government usually held tremendous political power in those territories through the various legislations passed in the late 1800s. The Platt Amendment was utilized to prevent Cuba from entering into any agreements with foreign nations, and also granted the Americans the right to build naval stations on their soil.[39] Executive officials in the American government began to determine themselves the supreme authority in matters regarding the recognition or restriction of [39]

When asked on April 28, 2003, on al-Jazeera whether the United States was "empire building," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld replied "We don't seek empires, we're not imperialistic. We never have been."[40] And this denial is typical for "Empire of Lies" as some researchers call the USA. Historian Donald W. Meinig says the imperial behavior by the United States dates at least to the Louisiana Purchase, which he describes as an "imperial acquisition-imperial in the sense of the aggressive encroachment of one people upon the territory of another, resulting in the subjugation of that people to alien rule." The U.S. policies towards the Native Americans he said were "designed to remold them into a people more appropriately conformed to imperial desires."[41]

Writers and academics of the early 20th century, like Charles A. Beard, discussed American policy as being driven by self-interested expansionism going back as far as the writing of the Constitution. Some politicians today do not agree. Pat Buchanan claims that the modern United States' drive to empire is "far removed from what the Founding Fathers had intended the young Republic to become."[42]

Andrew Bacevich who is a an influencial writer about the US empite with his book American empite (2002) argues that the U.S. did not fundamentally change its foreign policy after the Cold War, and remains focused on an effort to expand its control across the world.[43] As the surviving superpower at the end of the Cold War, the U.S. could focus its assets in new directions, the future being "up for grabs" according to former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz in 1991.[44]

In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the political activist Noam Chomsky argues that exceptionalism and the denials of imperialism are the result of a systematic strategy of propaganda, to "manufacture opinion" as the process has long been described in other countries.[45]

Thorton wrote that "[…]imperialism is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against."[46] Political theorist Michael Walzer argues that the term hegemony is better than empire to describe the US's role in the world;[47] political scientist Robert Keohane agrees saying, a "balanced and nuanced analysis is not aided...by the use of the phrase 'empire' to describe United States hegemony, since 'empire' obscures rather than illuminates the differences in form of rule between the United States and other Great Powers, such as Great Britain in the 19th century or the Soviet Union in the twentieth.".[48] Emmanuel Todd assumes that USA cannot hold for long the status of mondial hegemonic power due to limited resources. Instead, USA is going to become just one of the major regional powers along with European Union, China, Russia, etc.[49]

International relations scholar Joseph Nye argues that U.S. power is more and more based on "soft power", which comes from cultural hegemony rather than raw military or economic force.[69] This includes such factors as the widespread desire to emigrate to the United States, the prestige and corresponding high proportion of foreign students at U.S. universities, and the spread of U.S. styles of popular music and cinema. Mass immigration into America may justify this theory, but it is hard to know for sure whether the United States would still maintain its prestige without its military and economic superiority.

Military and cultural imperialism are interdependent. American Edward Said, one of the founders of post-colonial theory, said that,

[…], so influential has been the discourse insisting on American specialness, altruism and opportunity, that imperialism in the United States as a word or ideology has turned up only rarely and recently in accounts of the United States culture, politics and history. But the connection between imperial politics and culture in North America, and in particular in the United States, is astonishingly direct.[51]

International relations scholar David Rothkopf disagrees and argues that cultural imperialism is the innocent result of globalization, which allows access to numerous U.S. and Western ideas and products that many non-U.S. and non-Western consumers across the world voluntarily choose to consume.[52] Matthew Fraser has a similar analysis, but argues further that the global cultural influence of the U.S. is a good thing.[53]

Nationalism is the main process through which the government is able to shape public opinion. Propaganda in the media is strategically placed in order to promote a common attitude among the people. Louis A. Perez Jr. provides an example of propaganda used during the war of 1898,

"We are coming, Cuba, coming; we are bound to set you free! We are coming from the mountains, from the plains and inland sea! We are coming with the wrath of God to make the Spaniards flee! We are coming, Cuba, coming; coming now!"[39]

Chip Pitts argues similarly that enduring U.S. bases in Iraq suggest a vision of "Iraq as a colony".[ While territories such as Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and Puerto Rico remain under U.S. control, the U.S. allowed many of its overseas territories or occupations to gain independence after World War II. Examples include the Philippines (1946), the Panama canal zone (1979), Palau (1981), the Federated States of Micronesia (1986) and the Marshall Islands (1986). Most of them still have U.S. bases within their territories. In the case of Okinawa, which came under U.S. administration after the Battle of Okinawa during the Second World War, this happened despite local popular opinion.[56] As of 2003, the United States had bases in over 36 countries worldwide.[57]

How America built its empire

How America built its empire The real history of American foreign policy that the media won't tell you - Salon.com

When you talk about the effectiveness of American imperialism, you highlight the fact that part of the reason it's so effective is because it has been able to be largely invisible, and it has been invisible, you point out, through, I think, two mechanisms, one, that it trains the elites in other countries in order to manage affairs on behalf of American imperialism, and also because it disseminates, through popular media, images of America that in essence -- I'm not sure you use this word exactly -- indoctrinate or brainwash a population into allowing them to believe that America is instilled with values that in fact it doesn't have, the ability of imperialistic forces to supposedly give these values to the countries they dominate.

I mean, that is a kind of a raison d'être for economic and even military intervention, as we saw in Iraq, in planning democracy in Baghdad and letting it spread out across the Middle East, or going into Afghanistan to liberate the women of Afghanistan. That, as somebody who spent 20 years on the outer edges of empire, is a lie.

The other day I wrote Perry Anderson, the subject of the following interview, to ask what he thought of the foreign policy debates, such as they are, among our presidential aspirants. Logical question: Anderson, a prominent scholar and intellectual for decades, has just published "American Foreign Policy and Its Thinkers," a superbly lucid account of U.S policy's historical roots and the people who shape policy in our time.

"Current candidates' f/p talk leaves me speechless," came Anderson's terse reply.

Perfectly defensible. Most of what these people have to say-and I do not exclude the Democratic candidates-is nothing more than a decadent, late-exceptionalist rendering of a policy tradition that, as Anderson's book reminds readers, once had a coherent rationale even as it has so often led to incoherent, irrational conduct abroad.

Born in London in 1938-during the Munich crisis, as he points out-Anderson has been a presence on the trans-Atlantic intellectual scene since he took the editor's chair at the then-struggling New Left Review in 1962, when he was all of 24. Eight years later NLR launched Verso, a book imprint as singular (and as singularly influential) as the journal.

Anderson has headed both at various intervals for years. His own books range widely. My favorites are "Zone of Engagement" (1992) and "Spectrum" (2005), which collect essays on an amazing range of 20th century thinkers. To them I now add the new foreign policy book, which I count indispensable to anyone serious about the topic.

I met Anderson, who has taught comparative political and intellectual history at UCLA since 1989, at his home in Santa Monica this past summer. Over a fulsome afternoon's conversation in his admirably spartan study, he impressed me again and as readers will see for themselves, but the counterarguments are generously given and always rewarding.

The transcript that follows is the first of two parts and includes a few questions posed via email after we met. It is otherwise only lightly edited. Part 2 will appear next week.

"American Foreign Policy and its Thinkers" is well timed, given the unusual prominence foreign policy now assumes in the American political conversation. How would you describe your approach? What distinguishes the book from so many others? How should one read it? What's the project?

The book tries to do two things. One is to cover the history of American foreign policy, from around 1900 to the present, tracing the gradual construction of a global empire. This first really came into view as a prospect during the Second World War and is today a reality across all five continents, as a glance at the skein of its military bases makes clear. The Cold War was a central episode within this trajectory, but the book doesn't treat just the U.S. record vis-á-vis the USSR or China. It tries to deal equally with American relations with the Europe and Japan, and also with the Third World, treated not as a homogenous entity but as four or five zones that required different policy combinations.

The second part of the book is a survey of American grand strategy-that is, the different ways leading counselors of state interpret the current position of the United States on the world stage and their recommendations for what Washington should do about it.

The "big think" set, in other words-Kissinger, of course, Brzezinski, Walter Russell Mead, Robert Kagan. And then people such as Francis Fukuyama, whom I consider a ridiculous figure but whose thinking you judged worth some scrutiny. How did you choose these?

From the range of in-and-outers-thinkers moving between government and the academy or think-tanks-who have sought to guide U.S. foreign policy since 2000, with some intellectual originality. Kissinger isn't among these. His ideas belong to a previous epoch, his later offerings are boilerplate. Fukuyama, who sensed what the effects of office on thought could be, and got out of state service quite early, is a mind of a different order. The figures selected cover the span of options within what has always been a bipartisan establishment.

You make a distinction between American exceptionalism, which is much in the air, and American universalism, which few of us understand as a separate matter. The first holds America to be singular (exceptional), and the second that the world is destined to follow us, that the trails we've blazed are the future of humanity. You call this a "potentially unstable compound." Could you elaborate on this distinction, and explain why you think it's unstable?

It's unstable because the first can exist without the second. There is, of course, a famous ideological linkage between the two in the religious idea, specific to the United States, of Providence-that is, divine Providence. In your own book "Time No Longer" you cite an astounding expression of this notion: "However one comes to the debate, there can be little question that the hand of Providence has been on a nation which finds a Washington, a Lincoln, or a Roosevelt when it needs him." That pronouncement was delivered in the mid-1990s-not by some television preacher, but by Seymour Martin Lipset: chairs at Harvard and Stanford, president of both the American Sociological and the American Political Science Associations, a one-time social democrat.

What is the force of this idea? A belief that God has singled out America as a chosen nation for exceptional blessings, a notion which then easily becomes a conviction of its mission to bring the benefits of the Lord to the world. President after president, from Truman through to Kennedy, the younger Bush to Obama, reiterate the same tropes: "God has given us this, God has given us that," and with the unique freedom and prosperity he has conferred on us comes a universal calling to spread these benefits to the rest of the world. What is the title of the most ambitious contemporary account of the underlying structures of American foreign policy? "Special Providence," by Walter Russell Mead. Year of publication: 2001.

But while a messianic universalism follows easily from providential exceptionalism, it is not an ineluctable consequence of it. You mount a powerful attack on the idea of exceptionalism in "Time No Longer," but-we may differ on this-if we ask what is the more dangerous element in the unstable compound of the nation's image of itself, I would say exceptionalism is the less dangerous. That may seem paradoxical. But historically the idea of exceptionalism allowed for an alternative, more modest deduction: that the country was different from all others, and so should not be meddling with them-the argument of Washington's Farewell Address [in 1796].

A century later, this position became known as isolationism, and as the American empire took shape, it was all but invariably castigated as narrow-minded, short-sighted and selfish. But it could often be connected with a sense that the republic was in danger at home, with domestic ills that needed to be addressed, which vast ambitions abroad would only compound. Mead terms this strand in American sensibility Jeffersonian, which isn't an accurate description of Jefferson's own empire-building outlook, but he otherwise captures it quite well.

We don't ordinarily apply the term "exceptionalist" in the same breath to America and to Japan, though if there is any nation that claims to be completely unique, it is Japan. But the claim produced a drastic isolationism as a national impulse, both in the Tokugawa period [1603-1868, a period of severely enforced seclusion] and after the war. Does that support the point you're making?

Exactly. Historically, exceptionalism could generate a self-limiting, self-enclosing logic as well as the gigantic expansionist vanities of the Co-Prosperity Sphere and the "Free World" [narrative]. In the American case, the two strands of exceptionalism and universalism remained distinct, respectively as isolationist and interventionist impulses, sometimes converging but often diverging, down to the Second World War. Then they fused. The thinker who wrote best about this was Franz Schurmann, whose " Logic of World Power" came out during the Vietnam War. He argued that each had a distinct political-regional base: the social constituency for isolationism was small business and farming communities in the Midwest, for interventionism it was the banking and manufacturing elites of the East Coast, with often sharp conflicts between the two up through the end of thirties. But in the course of the Second World War they came together in a synthesis he attributed-somewhat prematurely-to FDR, and they have remained essentially interwoven ever since. The emblematic figure of this change was [Arthur H.] Vandenberg, the Republican Senator from Michigan [1928-51], who remained an isolationist critic of interventionism even for a time after Pearl Harbor, but by the end of the war had become a pillar of the new imperial consensus.

Mainstream debate today seems to have constructed two very stark alternatives: There is either engagement or isolation. In this construction, engagement means military engagement; if we are not going to be militarily engaged we are isolationists. I find that absolutely wrong. There are multiple ways of being engaged with the world that have nothing to do with military assertion.

True, but engagement in that usage doesn't mean just military engagement, but power projection more generally. One of the thinkers I discuss toward the end of my book is Robert Art, a lucid theorist of military power and its political importance to America, who argues for what he calls selective-expressly, not universal-engagement. What is unusual about him is that in seeking to discriminate among engagements the U.S. should and should not select, he starts considering in a serious, non-dismissive way what would typically be construed as isolationist alternatives, even if ending with a fairly conventional position.

How far do you view the contemporary American crisis-if you accept that we are living through one-as, at least in part, one of consciousness? As an American, I tend to think that no significant departure from where find ourselves today can be achieved until we alter our deepest notions of ourselves and our place among others. I pose this question with some trepidation, since a change in consciousness is a generational project, if not more. Our leadership is not remotely close even to thinking about this. I'm suggesting a psychological dimension to our predicament, and you may think I put too much weight on that.

You ask at the outset whether I accept that Americans are living through a crisis. My reply would be: not anything like the order of crisis that would bring about the sort of change in consciousness for which you might hope. You describe that as a generational project, and there, yes, one can say that among the youngest cohorts of the U.S. population, the ideologies of the status quo are less deeply embedded, and in certain layers even greatly weakened. That is an important change, but it's generational, rather than society-wide, and it's not irreversible.

At the level of the great majority, including, naturally, the upper middle class, the image you use to describe the purpose of your last book applies: you write that it aims "to sound the tense strings wound between the pegs of myth and history during the hundred years and a few that I take to be the American century. It is this high, piercing tone that Americans now have a chance to render, hear, and recognize all at once. We have neither sounded nor heard it yet." That's all too true, unfortunately. The most one can say is that, among a newer generation, the strings are fraying a bit.

I tend to distinguish between strong nations and the merely powerful, the former being supple and responsive to events, the later being brittle and unstable. Is this a useful way to judge America in the early 21st century-monumentally powerful but of dubious strength? If so, doesn't it imply some change in the American cast of mind, as the difference between the two sinks in?

That depends on the degree of instability you sense in the country. In general, a major change in consciousness occurs when there is a major alteration in material conditions of life. For example, if a deep economic depression or dire ecological disaster strikes a society, all bets are off. Then, suddenly, thoughts and actions that were previously inconceivable become possible and natural. That isn't the situation so far in America.

Can you discuss the new accord with Iran in this context? I don't see any question it's other than a breakthrough, a new direction. What do you think were the forces propelling the Obama administration to pursue this pact? And let's set aside the desire for a "legacy" every president cultivates late in his time.

The agreement with Iran is an American victory but not a departure in U.S. foreign policy. Economic pressure on Iran dates back to Carter's time, when the U.S. froze the country's overseas assets after the ousting of the Shah, and the full range of ongoing U.S. sanctions was imposed by the Clinton administration in 1996. The Bush administration escalated the pressure by securing U.N. generalization of sanctions in 2006, and the Obama administration has harvested the effect.

Over the past decade, the objective has always been the same: to protect Israel's nuclear monopoly in the region without risking an Israeli blitz on Iran to preserve it-that might set off too great a wave of popular anger in the Middle East. It was always likely, as I point out in "American Policy and its Thinkers," that the clerical regime in Tehran would buckle under a sustained blockade, if that was the price of its survival. The agreement includes a time-out clause to save its face, but the reality is an Iranian surrender.

You can see how little it means any alteration in imperial operations in the region by looking at what the Obama administration is doing in Yemen, assisting Saudi Arabia's wholesale destruction of civilian life there in the interest of thwarting imaginary Iranian schemes.

This next question vexes many people, me included. On the one hand, the drives underlying the American imperium are material: the expansion of capital and the projection of power by its political representatives. The American mythologies are shrouds around these. On the other hand, the issue of security has a long history among Americans. It is authentically an obsession independent of capital-American paranoia dates back at least to the 18th century. I don't take these two accountings to be mutually exclusive, but I'd be interested to know how you reconcile these different threads in American foreign policy.

Yes, there has been a longstanding-you could say aboriginal-obsession with security in the United States. This can be traced as an independent strand running through the history of American dealings with the outside world. What happened, of course, from the Cold War through to the "war on terror" was a ruthless instrumentalization of this anxiety for purposes of expansion rather than defense. At the start of the Cold War you had the National Security Act and the creation of the National Security Council, and today we have the National Security Agency. Security became a euphemistic cloak for aggrandizement.

The United States occupies the better part of a continent separated by two immense oceans, which nobody in modern history has had any serious chance of invading, unlike any other major state in the world, all of which have contiguous land-borders with rival powers, or are separated from them only by narrow seas. The U.S. is protected by a unique geographical privilege. But if its expansion overseas cannot be attributed to imperatives of security, what has driven it?

A gifted and important group of historians, the Wisconsin school [which included the late William Appleman Williams, among others], has argued that the secret of American expansion has from the beginning lain in the quest by native capital for continuously larger markets, which first produced pressure on the internal frontier and the march across the continent to the Pacific, and when the West Coast was reached, a drive beyond into Asia and Latin America, and ultimately the rest of the world, under the ideology of the Open Door.

A couple of good scholars, Melvyn Leffler and Wilson Miscamble, one a liberal and the other a conservative, have identified my position with this tradition, taxing me with a belief that American foreign policy is essentially just an outgrowth of American business. This is a mistake. My argument is rather that because of the enormous size and self-sufficiency of the American economy, the material power at the disposal of the American state exceeded anything that American capital could directly make use of or require.

If you look at the First World War, you can see this very clearly. East Coast bankers and munitions manufacturers did well out of supplying the Entente powers, but there was no meaningful economic rationale for American entry into the war itself. The U.S. could tip the scales in favor of the British and French variants of imperialism against the German and Austrian variants without much cost to itself, but also much to gain.

The same gap between the reach of American business and the power of the American state explains the later hegemony of the United States within the advanced capitalist world after the Second World War. Standard histories wax lyrical in admiration of the disinterested U.S. generosity that revived Germany and Japan with the Marshall and Dodge Plans [reconstruction programs after 1945], and it is indeed the case that policies crafted at the State and Defense Departments did not coincide with the desiderata of the Commerce Department. The key requirement was to rebuild these former enemies as stable capitalist bulwarks against communism, even if this meant there could be no simple Open Door into them for U.S. capital.

For strategic political reasons, the Japanese were allowed to re-create a highly protected economy, and American capital was by and large barred entry. The priority was to defend the general integrity of capitalism as a global system against the threat of socialism, not particular returns to U.S. business. The importance of those were never, of course, ignored. But they had to bide their time. Today's Trans-Pacific Partnership will finally pry open Japanese financial, retail and other markets that have remained closed for so long.

I'd like to turn to the origins of the Cold War, since I believe we are never going to get anywhere until these are honestly confronted. You give a forceful account of Stalin's reasons for avoiding confrontation after 1945 and Washington's reasons for not doing so. But should we attribute the outbreak of the Cold War to the U.S. without too much in the way of qualification?

We can look at the onset of the Cold War on two levels. One is that of punctual events. There, you are certainly right to pick out the ideological starting gun as Truman's speech on Greece in 1947, designed the "scare hell" out of voters to win acceptance for military aid to the Greek monarchy. In policy terms, however, the critical act that set the stage for confrontation with Moscow was the flat American refusal to allow any serious reparations for the staggering level of destruction Russia suffered from the German attack on it. The most developed third of the country was laid waste, its industry and its cities wrecked, while Americans suffered not a fly on the wrist at home-basking, on the contrary, in a massive economic boom. There was no issue Stalin spoke more insistently about than reparations in negotiations among the Allies. But once the fighting was over, the U.S. reneged on wartime promises and vetoed reparations from the larger part of Germany-far the richest and most developed, and occupied by the West-because it did not want to strengthen the Soviet Union and did want to rebuild the Ruhr as an industrial base under Western control, with a view to creating what would subsequently become the Federal Republic.

Can you put Hiroshima and Nagasaki into this context?

Prior to this came Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan. He did so, of course, to shorten the war, and partly also because the Pentagon wanted to test its new weapons. But there was a further reason for the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was urgent to secure a Japanese surrender before the Red Army could get close to the country, for fear that Moscow might insist on a Soviet presence in the occupation of Japan. The U.S. was determined not to let the Russians in, as they could not stop them from doing in Germany. So if we look just at events, you can say the starting points were the use of atomic bombs in Japan and the refusal of reparations in Germany. In that sense, those who argue that the Cold War was an American initiative-the Swedish historian Anders Stephanson, who has written most deeply about this, calls it an American project-are justified in doing so.

So these are your "punctual events."

Exactly. On the hand, if we look at the structural origins of the Cold War, they don't lie in these punctual events, but in the radical incompatibility between American capitalism and Soviet communism as forms of economy, society and polity. Revisionist historians have pointed out quite properly that Stalin was defensive in outlook after the war, determined to erect a protective glacis in Eastern Europe against any repetition of the Nazi invasion of Russia, but otherwise acutely conscious of Soviet weakness and superior Western strength.

All of that is true, but at the same time Stalin remained a communist who firmly believed that the ultimate mission of the world's working class was to overthrow capitalism, everywhere. His immediate stance was defensive, but in the much longer run his expectation was offensive. In that sense, U.S. policies toward the USSR were not needlessly aggressive, as revisionists maintain, but perfectly rational. The two systems were mortal antagonists.

Let's move to the topic of social democracy. I did a lot of my learning in developing countries and have a sense that Washington's true Cold War enemy was social democracy as it spread through Western Europe and all the newly independent nations. What's your view of this?

Strong disagreement, so far as Europe is concerned. If you look at the whole period from 1945 through to the present, you could argue that, on the contrary, European social democracy was Washington's best friend in the region. NATO was the brainchild not of the Pentagon but of Ernest Bevin, the social-democratic foreign secretary in Britain. Attlee, his prime minister, then split his own government by cutting the health service to fund rearmament for the American war in Korea. In France, the most ruthless crackdown on labor unrest after the war came from Jules Moch, the Socialist interior minister.

Think, too, of the Norwegian social democrat who Washington put in charge of the U.N. as its first secretary general, Trygve Lie, an odious collaborator with McCarthyism inside the United Nations. This was the period in which Irving Brown of the A.F.L., working closely with local social democrats, was installed in Europe by the C.I.A. with funds to divide and corrupt trade unions everywhere. He was still active in plotting against Allende [the Chilean social democratic president] in the '70s. As to more recent years, who was Bush's most ardent European ally in the war on Iraq? Not any conservative politician, but British social democrat Blair.

There were exceptions to this dismal record, but few and far between. Not by accident, they generally came from neutral countries that stayed out of the Cold War. In Sweden, Olaf Palme was a courageous opponent of the American war in Vietnam, detested by the U.S. for that reason. In Austria, Bruno Kreisky took an independent line on the Middle East, refusing to fall in with Western support for Israel-itself governed in those years by another social democratic party-and so was scarcely less disliked by the U.S.

But the dominant pattern has always been craven submission to Washington.

Well, I was thinking more of figures like Mossadeq, Arbenz and Allende-maybe the Sandinistas, too.

Their fate is certainly relevant, but there you are talking of a different political phenomenon-nationalism in the Third World, typically though not invariably of the left. You could add Lumumba in the Congo, Goulart in Brazil, Bosch in the Dominican Republic and others to the list. Not all were figures of the left, but from the Cold War onward the U.S. regarded nearly all serious attempts at nationalization of local resources as a threat to capital and worked to subvert or overthrow those who undertook them. A good part of my book is devoted to this front of imperial operations.

I've often wondered what the fate of Cuba would have been if Castro had been properly received in Washington in 1960. Could he have become something like a social democrat?

Excluded, if only because of the side of the Cuban Revolution that distinguished it from both the Chinese Revolution and from the outcome of Russian Revolution after Lenin, which was genuine internationalism. It had to be internationalist because it was a small island close to the United States, not a huge country far away, so it needed revolutionary solidarity within Latin America, which it couldn't hope for as long the continent was populated by assorted clients of the United States, most of them dictators. So even if, counterfactually, Eisenhower or Kennedy had rolled out a tactical red carpet for Fidel, there would have still have been insurmountable conflict over all these Latin American regimes propped up by the United States. The Cubans would have never said, if you put up with us, you can do what you want anywhere. Think of the fact they sent troops [in 1975] even to Angola-where they had no regional connection at all-to save it from a U.S.-backed invasion by South Africa.

Do you see any inflections in the development of American foreign policy over this period?

There is an underlying continuity in the long arc of the U.S. imperium that extends from FDR to Obama. But one can distinguish successive phases in this arc. You have the period that runs from Truman to Kennedy, the high Cold War. Then comes Nixon, the only American president with an original mind in foreign policy. He was intelligent because he was so cynical. He wasn't taken in or mystified by the enormous amount of rhetoric surrounding the lofty U.S. mission in the world. He was therefore more ruthless, but also genuinely innovative in a whole series of ways, the most important of which was to capitalize on the Sino-Soviet split.

The next phase runs from Carter through Reagan to the elder Bush, which sees a reversion to the earlier forms of foreign policy during the Cold War. The fourth phase, of humanitarian intervention, from Clinton through the younger Bush to Obama.

I once thought Carter was an exception in this line, but have since been persuaded to think again.

If you're interested in Carter, there's a good chapter on him in the huge "Cambridge History of the Cold War" by a scholar sympathetic to Carter, which captures the ambiguities and contradictions of his presidency quite well. He did, of course, talk a lot about human rights at the beginning of his tenure, and appointed Patricia Derian, who genuinely believed in them but was quite powerless, to an assistant position in the State Department. But one has to remember that at the outset he appointed Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security adviser, on whom he relied throughout his presidency.

Brzezinski was in many ways brighter than Kissinger, in later years an overrated showman not particularly interesting as a thinker. Brzezinski's cold, brittle mind was a good deal sharper. He was also as much, if not more, of a hawk than Kissinger had been. His masterstroke was funding religious and tribal resistance to the Communist regime in Afghanistan well before any Soviet troops were there, with the clear-cut and entirely successful aim of making the country the Vietnam of the USSR. There followed the Carter Doctrine, which put the U.S. into the military emplacements in the Gulf, where it remains today, while the president was toasting the Shah as a close personal friend and pillar of human rights. To top it off, with Brzezinski at his elbow again, Carter patronized and protected Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, keeping them at the U.N. as the legitimate government of Cambodia, as part of the deal with China for its attack on Vietnam.

In the Middle East, the peace treaty between Sadat and Begin is generally credited to Carter. Its precondition, however, was the double rescue of Israel and of Egypt by Nixon and Kissinger in the 1973 war, which put both countries into the palm of the American hand. What was the regional upshot? Sadat ditched the Palestinians and became a well-funded U.S. client, Begin secured an ally on Israel's southern flank and the Egyptians got the tyranny of Sadat, Mubarak and now Sisi for the next 40 years. Yet to this day Carter gushes over Sadat, a torturer whose memory is loathed by his people, as a wonderful human being. What is nevertheless true is that with all his weaknesses-and worse-Carter was a contradictory figure, who, once he was ousted from office, behaved more decently than any other ex-president in recent memory. Today, he's almost a pariah because of what he says on Israel. One can respect him for that.

Turning to Europe for a moment, I often feel disappointed-I don't think I'm alone in this-at the hesitancy of the Europeans to act on what seems to be their underlying impatience with American primacy. Is this an unrealistic expectation?

Impatience isn't the right word. The reality is rather its opposite. Europe has become ever more patient-a better word would be submissive-with the United States. After 1945, Western Europe was far weaker in relation to America than the E.U. today, which is larger than the U.S. in both GDP and population. But think of three European politicians-in France, Germany and England-in the first 15 years after the war. You had a great statesman in De Gaulle; a very strong, if much more limited leader in Adenauer, and a weak ruler in Eden. But the striking thing is all three were quite prepared to defy the United States in a way that no subsequent politician in Europe has ever done.

Eden launched the Suez expedition against Nasser [in late 1956] without informing Washington - the Americans were livid, Eisenhower beside himself, fearing that it would stoke popular anti-imperialism across Africa and Asia. So the U.S. brought the expedition to an abrupt halt by triggering a run on sterling, and Eden fell. But there was an aftermath. The French premier at the time was Guy Mollet, the Socialist who was an accomplice of Eden in the attack on Egypt, with, himself, a terrible record in Algeria. When the idea of a Common Market came up shortly after the Suez debacle, though he was personally favorable to it, he faced a lot of opposition in France - as there was, too, in Germany. Adenauer, who was quite willing to make commercial concessions to France to smooth the path for the undertaking, gave Mollet a political reason for the Common Market. Look what happened when you fought at Suez, he told him. None of our countries is strong enough to resist the U.S. on its own. Let's pool our resources and then we can do so.

Adenauer was loyal enough to the West, and a staunch anticommunist, but Germany, not America, was what counted for him. As for De Gaulle, he famously pulled France out of the military command of NATO, and defied America with éclat virtually throughout.

Since then, there has been nobody like this. If we ask why, I think the answer is that all these people were formed before the First and Second World Wars broke out, in a period in which major European states had as much weight as the United States on the international checkerboard, if not more. They were not brought up in a world where American hegemony was taken for granted. All of them were involved in the two World Wars, and in the Second De Gaulle had good reason to be distrustful of the U.S., since Roosevelt was long pro-Vichy and wanted to oust him as leader of the Free French.

We could add, incidentally, a couple of later politicians, who fought in the second conflict. One was the English Tory prime minister, Edward Heath, the only postwar ruler of Britain who never made the trip to simper on the White House lawn, receiving an audience and paying tribute, that would become a virtual ceremony of investiture for any new ruler around the world. The other was Helmut Schmidt, a veteran of Operation Barbarossa [the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941] who scarcely concealed his disdain for Carter. These were latecomers from the past. Their successors have grown up under U.S. paramountcy and take it for granted. This is America's world. It is second nature for them to defer to it.

You describe a generational difference in sensibility. But what about the EU?

If the generational declension is one big change, another is what has become of the European Union itself. On paper, it's much more powerful than any of the individual countries. But so far as any coherent foreign policy is concerned, it's institutionally paralyzed by the number of states that make it up-originally six, now 28-and the labyrinthine nature of their dealings with each other. None of them has any complete autonomy of initiative. A staggering amount of time is wasted in endless summits behind closed doors, agendas prepared by bureaucrats, tremulous fear of any public disagreement. No serious international statecraft can emerge from this.

During the countdown to the war in Iraq, there were large street demonstrations in not a few countries, which Dominique Strauss-Kahn-no less-described as a European Declaration of Independence. Schröder [Gerhard, the German chancellor from 1998-2005] announced that Germany could not accept the war, and Chirac [Jacques, the French president, 1995-2007] blocked a U.N. resolution endorsing it. Were these bold acts of independence? Far from it. The French envoy in Washington told Bush in advance: You already have one U.N. resolution saying Saddam must comply with inspections, which is suitably vague. Don't embarrass us by trying to get another resolution that is more specific, which we'll have to oppose. Just use that one and go in. No sooner, indeed, was the attack launched than Chirac opened French skies to U.S. operations against Iraq. Can you imagine De Gaulle meekly helping a war he had said he opposed? As for Schröder, it was soon revealed that German intelligence agents in Baghdad had signaled ground targets for "Shock and Awe." These were politicians who knew the war was very unpopular in domestic opinion, and so made a show of opposing it while actually collaborating. Their independence was a comedy.

That was a dozen years ago. What's the position today?

Edward Snowden's break with the illegalities of Obama's government revealed that it was not only spying on European as well as American citizens en masse, but tapping the phones and communications of Merkel, Hollande and other pillars of Atlantic solidarity. How have these leaders reacted? With an embarrassed smile, before the next warm embrace with the Leader of the Free World. Has one single European government dreamt of offering asylum to Snowden? Not one. Under Merkel, indeed, it now emerges that German intelligence itself was illegally spying on Germans at the behest of the U.S., and passing on the information it gathered to the CIA. There are no consequences to such revelations, except to those who reveal them. The level of abjection passes belief.

Let's put the Ukraine crisis in this context. It is, after all, what prompted me to raise the question of European passivity in the trans-Atlantic relationship. Here, it seems to me, the Europeans are furious with Washington for encouraging Kiev toward a patently dangerous confrontation with Russia. Animosity has been evident since Vicky Nuland's infamous "'F'the E.U." remark just before the coup last year. And now we see Merkel and Hollande more or less pushing the U.S. aside in favor of a negotiated settlement-or "seem to see," in any case. What's your view here?

Why should Washington object to European attempts to reach a stand-off in the Ukraine, so long as sanctions in Russia remain in place? Berlin and Paris are not going to defy it. Any real settlement is for the time being out of reach, but if one were materialize, they would be convenient sherpas for it. The E.U. as such hardly matters: Its reaction to Nuland's dismissal [of them] was to turn the other cheek.

Patrick Smith is Salon's foreign affairs columnist. A longtime correspondent abroad, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune and The New Yorker, he is also an essayist, critic and editor. His most recent books are "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale, 2013) and Somebody Else's Century: East and West in a Post-Western World (Pantheon, 2010). Follow him @thefloutist. His web site is patricklawrence.us.

More Patrick L. Smith.

The Making Of Global Capitalism The Political Economy Of American Empire

The Making Of Global Capitalism The Political Economy Of American Empire Sam Gindin, Leo Panitch

Amazon.com

Hans G. Despain on October 7, 2012

Powerful Political Economy

Panitch and Gindin argue that market economies have never existed independent of nation states. The state was necessary for the genesis of capitalism, and the state was, and still is, necessary for its historical development and continuous reproduction. Nonetheless, Panitch and Gindin argue there is significant autonomy, or historical "differentiation," between the economy and the nation state. There are economic structural tendencies manifest from the logic of capital and the functioning of the market-system. At the same time nation states can affect these structural tendencies in remarkable ways.

In this sense, there has never been "separation" between capitalist reproduction/development and the state, but there is "differentiation" which has radically significant effects. There is a symbiotic relationship between the state and capitalistic reproduction/development.

This is a book of economic history. But is also a book of economic theory. The economic history is rich and interesting, aimed at explaining the historical emergence of global financial capitalism. While the history Panitch and Gindin offer is rich and interesting, the theory is still richer and even more intriguing.

Their history is primarily aimed, (1) at explaining the emergence of the "informal American empire" (what makes this empire "informal" is the hegemony is accomplished primarily through economic strategy, policy, and diplomacy; and less through military might and political coercion) and (2) demonstrating the historical shifting relationship (from decade to decade since the World War I) between workers, business, finance, and the state.

Their theoretical concern is threefold;

  1. (1) offer a theoretical explanation of the crisis of 2007-8;
  2. (2) offer guidance toward the direction the future the "informal American empire" has for guiding the economies of world; and
  3. (3) to understand the "informal American empire" as a set of beliefs, doctrine, and ideology of how to organize modern societies (workers, business, finance and the state) and the global order (both political [e.g. UN, NATO, etc.] and economical [World Bank, IMF, WTO) for the (ideological) common good.

Although Panitch and Gindin accept that capitalistic development is uneven and unstable, it is crucial to their thesis that each crisis is unique depending upon the particular relationships and alliances forged between workers, business, finance, and the state. In this sense, the crisis of 2007-8 is necessarily unique and the solutions or economic fiscal policies necessary for recovery necessarily different from previous crises.

The highlights of their economic global history include that there have been four! major historical global crises, the long depression in the 1870, the Great depression of 1930, the Great recession of 1970s, and the Great financial crisis of 2007-09.

According to Pantich and Gindin, the 1970s is an economic watershed moment which separates "two Golden ages" of American capitalism.

It may be quite strange to many readers to call 1983 - 2007 a Golden Age. But in fact when looking at the economic data of the period it was quite literally a Golden Age, with millions of Americans and Global financiers and business leaders becoming impressively wealthy. Moreover, the levels of production (GDP) and productivity during the second Golden Age generally outperform the levels of production and productivity during the first Golden Age. Nonetheless the distribution of this wealth is radically narrow and concentrated within primarily finance, while political power concentrated toward "free-trade" orientated states, and away from workers and industrial production. Moreover, Pantich and Gindin maintain that workers are generally weaker during the second Golden Age, finance is strengthen and trumps over production processes, which is more or less conventional wisdom of this period of modern history. Less conventional is their thesis that the state, in particular the American domestic fiscal state and global "informal American empire," greatly strengthened post-1973-83 crisis.

It is not clear the direction the post-2007-09 crisis will take the global economy and American capitalism. What is clear is that the symbiotic relationship between workers, business, finance, and the state, and the global order (U.S. Treasury, IMF, World Bank, WTO, UN) is once again shifting. Pantich and Gindin's book offers to the reader a far

Jeb Sprague on November 8, 2014

Fascinating & important book, yet suffers from nation-state centrism & ignores novel social dynamics of Global Capitalism era

Panitch and Gindin's epic and fascinating book has the goal of tracing what the authors describe as the central role of the informal "American empire" and U.S. capital in the formation of the contemporary global capitalist system. I published a review in the journal Critical Sociology (Vol. 40, No. 5. P. 803-807) earlier this year that expands further on the importance of this work but I also have some criticisms, of which I paste some of below:

Whereas the authors emphasize the role of longstanding national and international dynamics, they overlook the numerous studies that have shown how novel transnational dynamics have come about even as historic residue remains (see for example Harris, 2013; Murray G, 2012; Robinson, 2003, 2004, 2014). Other than briefly denying the usefulness of the idea, the authors say little about the good deal of work on transnational class relations, for example in regards to the different fractions of the transnational capitalist class (as detailed in the works of Baker, 2011; Robinson, 2003, 2008; Harris, 2008; Sklair, 2001; Carrol, 2011; Murray J, 2013). Panitch and Gindin argue that theories of a TCC (transnational capitalist class) lead us to overlook uneven development between "nation-states" and the "economic competition between various centers of accumulation" (p. 11).... Yet while capital tends to concentrate in particular built up spaces, this corresponds, as a number of studies have shown, less and less to the strict restrictions of national space. Functionally integrated circuits of production and finance, and other networks, for example, have come to cut through various geographic scales (including national space) (Dicken, 20112; Robinson, 2010). Whereas local, national, regional, and international dynamics remain legion and substantial, many decisive economic, social, and political processes have become transnationally oriented....

The role of the state and its different policies is a clear focus of Panitch and Gindin's book. At times the authors do refer to the role of state elites, but often the authors can reify the state, describing the state as if it acts on its own and of its own accord. We need here to understand more clearly the class nature of the state, how specific social groups operate through state apparatuses as a site of struggle. Rather than individuals of the capitalist class serving directly in the state, it is governing political groups that normally do this. As relatively autonomous these political groups and state elites maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate, even as they overwhelmingly operate in the "collective" interests of capital. This relative autonomy is conditioned by a number of dynamics, such as prevailing socioeconomic conditions, the balance and struggle of social forces, and the position or character of the state. In those instances where Panitch and Gindin do write about state elites and political groups, these groups are presented as essentially the traditional nation-state governing elite who often operate in the interests of domestic capitalists. While these groups may fight among themselves or wrestle with domestic classes to carry out policies that are internationally geared, these political elites, as Panitch and Gindin describe them, do not veer far from the mold of their nation-state predecessors. The authors never recognize the fundamental changes that are taking place, through which state apparatuses, most importantly the U.S., are being utilized to reproduce conditions for circuits of global capital accumulation.

The authors pass over quickly some theories of the state that they disagree with, giving a straw person description of a "supranational global state" (p. 11) and citing an article by Philip McMichael (2001) that similarly misexplained ideas on the emergent transnationalization of state apparatuses and rise of transnationally oriented technocrats and elites who operate through state apparatuses (as discussed by Jayasuriya, 1999, 2005; Liodakis, 2010; Robinson, 2004, 2012; Sprague, 2012). I would argue for example that transnationally oriented state elites and technocrats believe that to develop they must insert their national states and institutions into global circuits of accumulation. They need access to capital, and capital is in the hands of the TCC. However, state elites must still appeal to their home audiences. They still interact with a variety of social groups and social classes, some more transnationally oriented and others with a more national orientation. Because of this, even as ties between state elites and TCC fractions deepen, national rhetoric and national state policies occur that are in apparent contradiction with TCC interests. In this way, political leaders attempt to maintain national political legitimacy while deepening practices of a global nature. However, as these state elites become entangled with and dependent upon processes of global capital accumulation they increasingly transition from taking part in national or international processes to transnational processes.

In regards to law, Panitch and Gindin argue that "Americanized internationalized law" has supplanted local international investment laws in much of the world. Here the authors obscure how transnational legal frameworks have come about through coalitions and the support of various interests and social forces. The mere adoption of laws for instance (even when heavily influenced by U.S. state elites) does not explain how they are implemented or modified. Nor does it explain the different interests behind these changes.

The authors emphasize the role of the "informal U.S. empire," with globalization "imbricated in the American empire," a system "under continuing US leadership," with the country maintaining its "imperial responsibilities for the reproduction of global capitalism" (p. 330). Yet they never clearly explain what is global capitalism, globalization, or the difference between the international and the transnational. This is because their conceptions of class, capital, and the state don't help us to understand the fundamental changes taking place. While they provide an extensive and critical historical overview in pointing out the leading role of the U.S. state and its policies in reproducing today's "system of class power and inequality" (p. 330), they don't recognize how this has occurred through fundamentally new dynamics of the global epoch.

While the authors help us to better understand the key role of the U.S. government and its policies during the late twentieth and early-twenty-first centuries, they do so through an outdated theoretical scope that never gets at the deep changes occurring. Rather than the U.S. nation-state empire and those operating through it creating conditions beneficial for closely aligned internationally active domestic capitalists, more and more we can see how transnationally oriented elites operating through the most powerful national state apparatus (headquartered in Washington) are promoting conditions for circuits of global capital accumulation and in the interests of TCC fractions.

While this book is well worth your time reading, for getting a deeper understanding of contemporary political economy I suggest Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity clearer picture of what is at stake and who are the main institutional actors in the historical drama and capitalistic tragedy we call modern human history.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Home 2018 2017 2016 2015 2003

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

[Dec 09, 2018] Pax Americana: Pompeo tells UN, WTO, ICC to bow and comply with US-led world order

Notable quotes:
"... The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer an alternative way. ..."
"... The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan. ..."
"... But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership. ..."
"... "new liberal order" ..."
Dec 09, 2018 | www.rt.com

The US will lead a new liberal world order, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared. Organizations and treaties not fitting this picture must be scrapped or reformed, so that non-compliers could not use them against America. The vision of the bold new and prosperous (for the US and its supporters) world was delivered by Pompeo in a keynote speech to the German Marshall Fund on Tuesday.

The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer an alternative way.

China, as well as Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and other nations on the US grudge list got their share of bashing in the speech, but its focus was more on international institutions, which Pompeo claimed to be incompatible with his grand vision.

The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan.

Also on rt.com 'Surrealism': Iran blasts US claim its missile test violated UN resolution on nuclear deal

The Paris Agreement on climate change was bad for America, so it left. NAFTA was bad for America, so it forced a renegotiation. The nuclear deal with Iran didn't make Tehran complacent, so it had to go.

But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership.

Watch Murad Gazdiev's report about Pompeo's "new liberal order" to find out more.

[Dec 08, 2018] In office, both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama rarely fought for progressive principles -- and routinely undermined them."

Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

ben , Dec 5, 2018 4:54:14 PM | link

"The last two Democratic presidencies largely involved talking progressive while serving Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. The obvious differences in personalities and behavior of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama diverted attention from their underlying political similarities. In office, both men rarely fought for progressive principles -- and routinely undermined them."

Article from Truthdig: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/what-it-means-that-hillary-clinton-might-run-for-president-in-2020/

[Dec 08, 2018] How False Testimony and a Massive U.S. Propaganda Machine Bolstered George H.W. Bush's War on Iraq - YouTube

Dec 05, 2018 | www.youtube.com

https://democracynow.org - As the media memorializes George H.W. Bush, we look at the lasting impact of his 1991 invasion of Iraq and the propaganda campaign that encouraged it. Although the Gulf War technically ended in February of 1991, the U.S. war on Iraq would continue for decades, first in the form of devastating sanctions and then in the 2003 invasion launched by George W. Bush. Thousands of U.S. troops and contractors remain in Iraq. A largely forgotten aspect of Bush Sr.'s war on Iraq is the vast domestic propaganda effort before the invasion began. We look at the way U.S. media facilitated the war on Iraq with journalist John "Rick" MacArthur, president and publisher of Harper's Magazine and the author of the book "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War."

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on nearly 1,400 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9AM ET: https://democracynow.org

Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today: https://democracynow.org/donate

[Dec 08, 2018] Our benighted nation has become a "Global" entity, which entails our young men and women being used as cannon fodder for Israel's designs

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

David Baker , says: December 4, 2018 at 9:40 pm GMT

Though I'm no friend of Michael Moore, he at least was candid about American "Judeo-Christian" adventures within foreign countries. America needs to pull in its horns, and stop fooling around with other governments.

Our benighted nation has become a "Global" entity, which entails our young men and women being used as cannon fodder for Israel's designs, in addition to furthering the campaign by Globalists to divvy up the world's resources and labor markets .

Our country is blessed with all the necessary raw materials, manufacturing capabilities, educated and motivated work forces and security to completely support our population, without the need to obtain staple supplies from foreign countries. Developing alternative energy sources should be a top priority, to free our people from the yoke of foreign oil cartels -- or the domestic variety, for that matter. Globalism has done little more than implement the enslavement of populations to mega-corporations, establishing a cabal of non-elected, inviolable potentates who wield tremendous power over our leaders to do their bidding.

[Dec 08, 2018] Putin wants to normalize relations with the west but, inexplicably, he provokes and alienates the West just prior to every scheduled meeting with Trump. These events only makes sense if the provocations are coming from agents in the West who wish to derail any rapprochement between the US and Russia

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Mike from Jersey , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:21 pm GMT

Good article. You wrote:

There also has to be some consideration the encounter with the Russians on the Kerch Strait was contrived by Poroshenko with the assistance of a gaggle of American neoconservative and Israeli advisers who have been actively engaged with the Ukrainian government for the past several years. The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.

I came to the exact same conclusion.

Putin wants to normalize relations with the west but, inexplicably, he provokes and alienates the West just prior to every scheduled meeting with Trump. Of course, that doesn't make any sense. These events only makes sense if the provocations are coming from agents in the West who wish to derail any rapprochement between the US and Russia. Then it makes sense.

If this is true (as it appears to be) one can reasonably predict that any time Trump and Putin are about to meet, that a Skripal/Ukraine or other Russia-is-evil event will be staged to derail the meeting.

Let's watch in 2019 and see if this prediction comes true.

If it does, we will know that someone, behind the scenes, is staging these events.

APilgrim , says: December 5, 2018 at 4:42 am GMT
The ongoing campaign to vilify Vladimir Putin & the Russian Federation, is a complete failure, with conservatives, evangelicals, and republicans.

The globalists continue to waste their time & our money, with this shit.

JLK , says: December 5, 2018 at 5:09 am GMT
@APilgrim

The ongoing campaign to vilify Vladimir Putin & the Russian Federation, is a complete failure, with conservatives, evangelicals, and republicans.

I'll keep an open mind until Mueller's report is released, but Cohen's connections are allegedly with the mainly Jewish Russian mob. It is unclear what their agenda may have been, but Trump has been a lot nicer to Israel than to Russia.

[Dec 08, 2018] Presidents, prime ministers, congresspersons and parliamentarians worldwide regularly negate the democratic will of their nation's voters by refusing to support legitimate election results. Strangely, their treasonous actions continue without serious reprisal or punishment by the voter.

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Durruti , says: December 6, 2018 at 4:00 pm GMT

"Presidents, prime ministers, congresspersons and parliamentarians worldwide regularly negate the democratic will of their nation's voters by refusing to support legitimate election results. Strangely, their treasonous actions continue without serious reprisal or punishment by the voter. This emboldens them. The reality of votes cast and "democracy" past does not does bode well for the people of the United Kingdom, their future as a nation or their hopeful return to sovereignty once called, "Brexit."

Dynamite opening paragraph by Brett Redmayne-Titley.

It defines the vital issue of -To be or not to be – for our Planet's citizens who struggle (or aught to), for functioning Democratic Republics founded upon the ideal of Liberty and Justice for All.

Titley's ending mention of the trials of the Greek nation, and others, is well placed and a tribute to his worldview, that is key to analyzing the situation in any particular corner.

"Britains should consider this arbitrary bullying of Italy and of the UK. Then they should consider the sad EU imposed current condition of Greece. Next, they might dwell on the failed outcomes of previous elections within the nearby EU nations, and how similar movements were defeated in their nation as well. Last, they must pay closest of attention to what is actually in the souls of their own politicians and what they truly support."

In America, we lost our Democratic Republic and our last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy , in a hail of bullets in the Coup D'état of November 22, 1963.

The Citizen Yellow Vests in France , supported by their 2 leading Resistance Fighters, Dieudonné , and Alain Soral , display the next step forward in the Resistance to Tyranny.

Step 1 – Committees of Correspondence (mainstream media free – websites, & communications).

2. Step away from the TVs – & breathe the free air outside as the Citizen Militia Yellow Vests(Minutemen), regain the streets and stretch their muscles.

3. Final Step: We are Joined by free police, military, even CIA & other police agency employees, in the act of regaining their Countries, with their Sovereignty, and their Honor. We Restore Our Republics!

a. Zionist imperialist/racists to jail and awaiting Trial.

b. Cleanup & rebuilding.

c. Unbought electoral process - no $ allowed in the process (equal media access for all candidates), Debates between the candidates. Let a hundred flowers bloom (what democrat said that?)?

Something like that.

Durruti – for the Anarchist Collective

[Dec 08, 2018] Anyone who knows anything about history is that the rich were always better off than the poor, in fact the very definition of rich and poor. In this respect it never mattered if a society was capitalistic, communistic, or a theocracy,

Notable quotes:
"... Capitalism never was benign, Chrustjow worked as a miner in a commercially exploited mine, where there was little regard for safety, he abhorred capitalism. ..."
Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , says: December 4, 2018 at 12:30 pm GMT

@Bill Jones Interesting to read how these idealists agree with Christian Gerondeau, 'Le CO2 est bon pour la planete, Climat, la grande manipulation', Paris 2017

Gerondeau explains how many deaths reducing CO2 emissions will cause in poor countries, simply as an example how electricity for cooking will remain too expensive for them, so cooking is done on smoky fires in confined spaces.

" to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history." " To intentionally impoverish the world. To what end, I wonder ?

Anyone who knows anything about history is that the rich were always better off than the poor, in fact the very definition of rich and poor.
In this respect it never mattered if a society was capitalistic, communistic, or a theocracy, as Tibet was.

These idealistic idiots do not understand how they created the problem they now intend to solve with creating an even bigger problem, their example is the EU, the EU is following this policy for more than twelve years now, since 2005, when the EU grabbed power through the rejected EU 'consitution'.

Capitalism is no more than deciding between consumption and investment, Robinson Crusoë invested in a fishing net by temporarily reducing consumption, he did not go fishing, but made a fishing net, expecting that his investment would make it possible to eat more fish.

Capitalism never was benign, Chrustjow worked as a miner in a commercially exploited mine, where there was little regard for safety, he abhorred capitalism.

Dutch 17th century capitalistic commerce to the far Indies, east and west, was not benign. Typically a ship left Amsterdam, near the Schreierstoren, trans 'the tower for the crying', wives, mothers and girl friends, with 300 men aboard, and returned with 100. Most of those who died were common sailors, captain and officers had a far lower mortality, mainly better food.

Our East Indies commerce also was not much fun for the people in the East, in the Banda Sea Islands massacre some 30.000 people were killed, for a monopoly on pepper, if I remember correctly.

But, as the earth developed economically, there came room for also poor people getting lives beginning to look as worth living. Engels in 1844, hope the year is right, described the conditions of working people in GB, this resulted in Das Kapital.

This room for a better life for also the poor was not given by the capitalistic system

In their struggle for a better world for anyone the idealists wanted globalisation, level playing field, anyone should be welcome anywhere, slogans like this.
Globaliation, however, is the end of the nation state, the very institution in which it was possible to provide a better life. Anyone following me until here now can see the dilemma, the end of the nation state was also the end of protection by that state against unbridled capitalism.

As the idealists cannot give up their globalisation religion they must, as those who cannot give up the biblical creation story, find an ideological way out of their dilemma. My conclusion now is 'in order to save our globalisation religion we try to destroy economic growth, by making energy very expensive, in the hope of destroying capitalism'.

Alas, better, luckily, capitalism cannot be destroyed, those who invented the first furnaces for more or less mass producing iron, they were capitalists. They saw clearly how cheap iron would bring economic growth, the plow.

In the country where the CO2 madness has struck most, my country, the Netherlands, the realisation of the poverty that drastically reducing CO2 emissions will cause, has begun. If there really is madness, I wonder.

I indeed see madness, green leftists unable to make a simple multipiclation calculations about costs, but maybe mainly political opportunism. Our dictator, Rutte, is now so hated that he needs a job outside the Netherlands, in order to qualify, either at Brussels or in New York, with the UN, has to howl with the wolves.

At the same time, we have a gas production problem,, earthquakes in the NE, houses damaged, never any decision made to solve the problem, either stop gas production, or strenghten the houses, both expensive solutions.

So, in my suspicious ideas, Rutte now tries to improve himself, at the same time solving a problem: within, say ten years, the Netherlands functions without gas, and remains prosperous; the idea he tries to sell to us. In a few years time it will emerge that we cannot have both, prosperous, and zero emission, but the time horizon for a politician is said to be five years.

[Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games

Highly recommended!
You can read online at epdf.tips
Dec 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Richard , Dec 7, 2018 2:50:07 PM | link

Came across this book which gives some excellent background to where we're at today:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Postmodern-Imperialism-Geopolitics-Great-Games/dp/098335393X

There may be a pdf available if you search.

"The game motif is useful as a metaphor for the broader rivalry between nations and economic systems with the rise of imperialism and the pursuit of world power. This game has gone through two major transformations since the days of Russian-British rivalry, with the rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism. The main themes of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games include:

This work brings these elements together in historical perspective with an understanding from the Arab/ Muslim world's point of view, as it is the main focus of all the "Great Games"."

Jay Dyer discusses the book here, its strengths and weaknesses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcmrBD4Ez2c

[Dec 08, 2018] Israel is one undeniably large factor behind spending surges since 2005.

Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [228] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:18 pm GMT

Israel is one undeniably large factor behind spending surges since 2005. Israel successfully demanded enormous increases in joint U.S.-Israeli cyber warfare expenditures and benefited from related U.S. contingency planning. Due to onerous secrecy, Americans remain unable to engage in informed public debate about whether what amounts to US subjugation to the Israeli prerogatives driving these massive expenditures should continue.

The US increased spending on the National Intelligence Program by 9 percent in fiscal year 2018 to $59.4 billion. The Military Intelligence Program surged 20 percent to $22.1 billion. NIP plus MIP beat the year 2005 expenditure record totaling $81.5 billion for fiscal year 2018.

The development of secret offensive cyber warfare programs targeting Iran are included in MIP and NIP budgets. According to the 2016 documentary Zero Days by director Alex Gibney, Israel's incessant public threats to attack Iran coupled with intense secret demands for cyber warfare targeting Iran were the catalyst for massive new US black budget spending.

Former NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009) Michael Hayden claimed in Zero Days that the goal of any Israeli air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be to drag the United States into war.

by Grant Smith Posted on November 07, 2018 He is director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, D.C.

Jon Baptist , says: December 4, 2018 at 10:38 pm GMT
There is very little spoken of the foreign threat of the Chabad network. It must be serious opposition if even the CFR "globalists" write about it. ( https://www.theglobalist.com/donald-trump-benjamin-netanyahu-democracy-corruption/ ) When I say threat, I mean global nuclear war, mass starvation, and disease. Chabad is the link binding Trump and Putin advisors. Do you think anyone belonging in this protected "religion" holds any sort of good will for the regular common folk inhabiting the world?
Art , says: December 5, 2018 at 12:59 am GMT
@Art

What chance does peace have with these people having Trump's ear: Javanka Kushner, Gina Haspel, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mad Dog Mattis, and John Bolton?

Doesn't look good does it!

West Point says NO to Peace!

The warmongering bastard and West Point grad (first in class) -- Pompeo -- says NO peace for Yemeni! Trump says wars are for Israel.

West Point is Jew occupied territory. All US Army generals are pro Israel.

US to keep aiding Saudis in Yemen despite furor: Pompeo

Buenos Aires (AFP) -- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed Saturday that the United States would continue suppor ting Saudi Arabia's military campaign in Yemen, despite rising outrage over the kingdom.

Speaking from a Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires, Pompeo acknowledged that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen -- where millions are at risk of starvation -- had reached "epic proportions" but said Washington and Riyadh were offering aid.

"The program that we're involved in today we intend to continue," Pompeo told CNN when asked about military assistance to the Saudi-led coalition.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-keep-aiding-saudis-yemen-despite-furor-pompeo-173323301.html

Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art

p.s. Pompeo defends MBS -- what human trash!

Art , says: December 5, 2018 at 5:15 am GMT
@JLK

All US Army generals are pro Israel

I suspect not, but they answer to politicians. Ditto the CIA.

I suspect not also -- but only privately and in secret, would they be anti-Israel. If they keep their mouth shut, they will have a six figure job waiting for them in the J-MIC. Hmm -- so much for the flag. Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art

ChuckOrloski , says: December 5, 2018 at 1:47 pm GMT
Fyi, The AIPAC Starship strikes back, and excluded Senator Rand Paul from meeting with Gina Haspel on the Kashoggi murder.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/4/rand-paul-rips-deep-state-for-freezing-him-out-of-/

anon [415] Disclaimer , says: December 5, 2018 at 3:01 pm GMT
"The AIPAC Starship strikes back, and excluded Senator Rand Paul from meeting with Gina Haspel on the Kashoggi murder."

Could it not be more clear that Mossad runs our government? Didn't the military swear oaths to protect the US from enemies foreign AND domestic? Oh, and I've given up on Trump. He's an Israel-worshiping ineffective

Anon [340] Disclaimer , says: December 5, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
What foreign threats indeed. Out biggest threats come from our own government:

"The new version clarifies that people cannot face jail time for participating in a boycott, but the ACLU has argued that it still leaves the door open for criminal financial penalties."

https://theintercept.com/2018/12/04/israel-anti-boycott-act-lame-duck/

But yet these clowns will do next to nothing to stop illegal seizures of white farms in South Africa. Our treasonous government busy working to strip away our freedoms. Don't think they won't use this precedent to outlaw other types of "hate speech." And brought to you by the republican party.

anon [309] Disclaimer , says: December 5, 2018 at 3:57 pm GMT
@anon As AIPAC and WINEP demanded in 2003, the office as initially led by Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who worked in unusually close coordination with the Israeli government. Levey's Harvard thesis (PDF) was about how Israel lobbying organizations could become more effective by staying beneath the radar of public scrutiny and distancing themselves from the notoriety generated by the illicit activities of such ideological fellow travelers as the Jewish Defense League. https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2018/08/29/treasury-sanctions-foreigners-for-israel
anon [309] Disclaimer , says: December 5, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
A few years ago, I had the temerity to write to David McCullough, the biographer of Harry Truman, to tell him I thought he was wrong about an aspect of Truman's character.

McCullough was nice enough to write back. He said he thought Truman had not been malicious but had simply lacked understanding, and in a revealing remark, he acknowledged that Truman "just didn't know enough about [the Palestinians] and their situation" -- which he said, quite accurately, is still true of most Americans. "The great shame," he wrote, "is that a reasonable discussion of the subject remains so difficult to achieve in any public way."

Which brings me to my point: Reasonable discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and particularly of the Palestinian perspective, has always been "so difficult to achieve in any public way," and since the days of Woodrow Wilson .

https://www.counterpunch.org/2002/07/15/the-history-of-anti-palestinian-bias-from-wilson-to-bush/ by BILL CHRISTISON -- KATHLEEN CHRISTIAN

Prevent any discussion , don't expose,don't talk,don't report and when alluded to the issue by someone call it HATE SPEECH or CONSPIRACY THEORY .

Art , says: December 5, 2018 at 9:22 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski

Fyi, The AIPAC Starship strikes back, and excluded Senator Rand Paul from meeting with Gina Haspel on the Kashoggi murder.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/4/rand-paul-rips-deep-state-for-freezing-him-out-of-/

From the article: Tuesday's briefing on Khashoggi's killing was limited to a small group of lawmakers, including those of the Senate's Armed Services Committee, Intelligence Committee, and Foreign Relations Committee.

Chuck,

These oversite committees are a joke!

Those committees are cheer leaders for those agencies. Those senators are hand picked to support the Jew Security State.

We can be sure that they work to hide what those agencies are doing from We the People.

Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Art

[Dec 08, 2018] The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now).

Dec 08, 2018 | thesaker.is

GeorgeG on November 28, 2018 , · at 11:27 am EST/EDT

Short overview as it looks from my current perch: Piggy Poro will go down in history , way down, that's for sure.

1. The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now). If the Trump-Putin meeting a G20 falls through, it would not necessarily be a definitive signal; if it does not fall through, that would be a definitive signal. Yes, MI-6 and the US cohorts are anxious about the "declassification" of FISA and other documents, both because of Russiagate as well as the definitive disenfranchisment it entails. That makes the timing of Piggy's Kerch fiasco important.

2. At the moment, the European or NATO response is not what the British or CIA expected or wanted.

a. Yesterday Ursula von der Leyen, German Defense Minster, spoke at a security confrence covered by Sputnik (German): "Russia has Europe in check" was the headline, "check" as in chess, which in a chess game sometimes means not just a single check, but chasing the opponent with "checks" over the board until finally declaring "checkmate."

b. https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/jack-laurenson-in-this-dark-hour-where-are-ukraines-allies.html?cn-reloaded=1 In this dark hour, where are Ukraine's allies?, "The Kremlin wants to know how much it can get away with. If the response so far, in the last day or so, is a measure of that, then Moscow will likely feel emboldened to push even further. There is still time for NATO and the West to respond, but the question on everyone's lips is how and whether the political will and strength to do so exists." The end: "At Ukrainian Week in London this October, Ukrainian and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it.

c. https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-russia-putin-is-in-control/ 'Putin is in control' Europe stands by as Russian president goes after Ukraine. "BERLIN -- Chalk another one up for Vlad." "To be perfectly honest, we don't have many options," a senior European official said. "We don't want to risk war, but Putin is already waging one. That makes us look weak." Given Europe's dearth of options, its leaders revert to hackneyed pronouncements about the importance of dialogue and, as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas put it, "de-escalation on both sides."

d. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/27/ukraines-new-front-is-europes-big-challenge/ Ukraine's New Front Is Europe's Big Challenge -- There's plenty Europe should do to push back against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine.
There's plenty Europe should do to push back against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine. By Carl Bildt, Nicu Popescu. -- Juicy nonsense galore, a plea sent into the winds.

e. http://time.com/5463988/russia-ukraine-trump-putin-g20/?utm_source=RC+Defense+Morning+Recon&utm_campaign=1f01df16ac-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_11_27_07_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_694f73a8dc-1f01df16ac-85033789 President Trump Could Help Stop a War Between Russia and Ukraine -- But Only If He Will Stand Up to Putin -- Admiral Stavridis (Ret.) was the 16th Supreme Allied Commander at NATO and is an Operating Executive at The Carlyle Group. "

f. https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/why-is-the-sea-of-azov-so-important -- Atlantidc Council -- Stephen Blank -- Why Is the Sea of Azov So Important? "Moreover, even a casual examination of Russian actions reveals the deep and continuing parallels with China's equally illegitimate actions in the South and East China Sea. In the Asian case, the United States has mounted and continues to stage numerous Freedom of Navigation Operations to demonstrate to China that it will uphold the time-honored principle of the freedom of the seas. This principle is no less at stake in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Ideally, NATO, at Kyiv's invitation, should send a fleet to Mariupol to shatter the pretense of Russian sovereignty and show Putin that the invasion of Ukraine has brought NATO into Ukraine. This is precisely the outcome Russia aimed to avert."

And that is what, at the moment, "NATO" of "the Europeans" apparently do not want. Send a fleet to Mariupol? -- Ask the Germans: they have a few speed boats that might not get stuck.

Poroshenko seems to be on the way to demonstrating that NATO is irrelevant.

[Dec 08, 2018] One fatal flaw of WASPs on both sides of the pond is that the upper crust ones don't seem to have much empathy for the less fortunate of their own kind

Notable quotes:
"... It's the intense indoctrination of Anglos since 1945 along the lines that Nationalism is bad and Racial Identity is bad. Hence the frantic virtue signaling of open frontiers and multiculturalism among the educated (indoctrinated). ..."
"... It will eventually be resolved by the people who don't care (the working class), who will toss out their elite and their "educated" middle class collaborators – in fact it's already happening with Brexit – check out the Daily Mail comments section. ..."
Dec 08, 2018 | www.unz.com
Miro23 , says: December 7, 2018 at 3:45 am GMT
@JLK

One fatal flaw of WASPs on both sides of the pond is that the upper crust ones don't seem to have much empathy for the less fortunate of their own kind.

It's the intense indoctrination of Anglos since 1945 along the lines that Nationalism is bad and Racial Identity is bad. Hence the frantic virtue signaling of open frontiers and multiculturalism among the educated (indoctrinated).

For example, it's still completely unacceptable in middle class British society to support Nationalism (you're a Nazi) or Anglo racial identity (other races are welcome to their identities – but if you're and Anglo you're a racist).

It will eventually be resolved by the people who don't care (the working class), who will toss out their elite and their "educated" middle class collaborators – in fact it's already happening with Brexit – check out the Daily Mail comments section.

[Dec 07, 2018] Globalism is about moving capital to the benefit of the haves. Migrants/immigrants are a form of capital.

Dec 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

niceland , says: December 6, 2018 at 10:07 am GMT

My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals (even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!

There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes (even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems. MIGA!

Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that struggle against such reality.

I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread communist. Hopeless ideas!

Curmudgeon , says: December 6, 2018 at 4:35 pm GMT
@niceland Your friends are not "right wing". The left/right paradigm is long dead. Your friends are globalists, whether they realize it or not. Globalism is about moving capital to the benefit of the haves. Migrants/immigrants are a form of capital. Investing in migration/immigration lowers the long term costs and increases long term profit. The profit (money capital) is then moved to a place where it best serves its owner.

[Dec 06, 2018] All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.

Dec 06, 2018 | www.unz.com

Moi , says: December 5, 2018 at 11:23 am GMT

@anon and this too?

"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."

d.h. lawrence

[Dec 06, 2018] Western airlines really not believe Poroshenko's words that the Ukrainian Armed Forces did not bring down the Malaysian "Boeing" over the Donbas in 2014 The first "fruits" of martial law in Ukraine

(Google translation)
Dec 06, 2018 | thesaker.is

Military Review – News

The owner of FC "Lion": It is difficult for us to find a plane that would fly to Ukraine
published 2018/11/28

In 10 Ukrainian regions, martial law imposed by Poroshenko did not come into force de jure, and
the first "swallows" of this entry have already arrived on Ukrainian soil. And flew in, from where
Kiev did not expect. European air carriers stated that in connection with the introduction of martial
law on the territory of Ukraine, they are forced to radically reconsider the air traffic regime with this
country.

The situation is told by the Ukrainian media, reporting and the accompanying nuances of this decision.
The nuances are connected with the fact that international-level football matches that are scheduled
to take place on Ukrainian territory are becoming suspended in the air.

The UNIAN Information Service cites a statement by Jean-Michel Olas, owner of the "Lyon" (France)
football club: " The decision was made to postpone the "Arsenal" match in London. We do not know
whether we will fly to "Shakhtar", taking into account the political situation. It's difficult for us find a
plane whose owners would send him there. Now the decision is made at the UEFA level. "

Earlier it became known that the match between "Arsenal" (London) and Poltava "Vorskla" in the
Europa League was decided to be moved from the Poltava stadium to Kiev. It is noteworthy that the
Poltava region by the Verkhovna Rada was not included in the zone of introduction of the EaP.

At the same time, the possibility of transferring the match outside Ukraine was also discussed due to
the fact that martial law is beginning to operate in a number of regions of the country.

Conducting two more international matches in Ukraine is open to question.

Recall that the martial law provides, among other things, the closure of airspace. European air
carriers, apparently, are wary of how Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile systems move along the streets
of Ukrainian cities. Do they really not believe Poroshenko's words that " the Ukrainian Armed Forces
did not bring down the Malaysian "Boeing" over the Donbas in 2014 "? ..
(Google translation)

https://topwar.ru/150410-vladelec-fk-lion-nam-trudno-najti-samolet-kotoryj-poletel-by-na-ukrainu.html

[Dec 05, 2018] What Foreign Threats by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... This shtick of blaming US state crimes on foreign influence is getting annoying. You know none of this would be happening if the DO didn't like it. If you want to stop CIA's common plan or conspiracy for war, you've got to end the impunity that permits it. Ratify the Rome Statute. With the judiciary completely gelded, that's the only way to get the CIA regime under control. It's that or DCI Poppy Hager swings at Nuremberg II. ..."
"... Nuland admitted to spending $5 billion to set Maidan up. That $5B is worth 10 times that much in Ukraine. You don't spend that kind of money unless you have a follow up plan, and NATOizing Ukraine to attack Russia was it. The trigger was NATO's bitch, the EU, creating such a horrible deal for Ukraine that only an imbecile would have accepted it. Viktor Yanukovych was no imbecile. The "Russian deal" wasn't all that great for Ukraine either, it was just infinitely better than the turd the EU told Yanukovych to sign. ..."
Dec 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

One of the local Washington television stations was doing a typical early morning honoring our soldiers schtick just before Thanksgiving. In it soldiers stationed far from home were treated to videolinks so they could talk to their families and everyone could nod happily and wish themselves a wonderful holiday. Not really listening, I became interested when I half heard that the soldier being interviewed was spending his Thanksgiving in Ukraine.

It occurred to me that the soldier just might have committed a security faux pas by revealing where he was, but I also recalled that there have been joint military maneuvers as well as some kind of training mission going on in the country, teaching the Ukrainian Army how to use the shiny new sophisticated weapons that the United States was providing it with to defend against "Russian aggression."

Ukraine is only one part of the world where the Trump Administration has expanded the mission of democracy promotion, only in Kiev the reality is more like faux democracy promotion since Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is clearly exploiting a situation that he himself provoked . He envisions setting himself up as a victim of Moscow to aid in his attempts to establish his own power through a security relationship with Washington. That in turn will help his bid for reelection in March 2019 elections, in which his poll numbers are currently running embarrassingly low largely due to the widescale corruption in his government. Poroshenko has already done much to silence the press in his county while the developing crisis with Russia has enabled him to declare martial law in the eastern parts of the country where he is most poorly regarded. If it all works out, he hopes to win the election and subsequently, it is widely believed, he will move to expand his own executive authority.

There also has to be some consideration the encounter with the Russians on the Kerch Strait was contrived by Poroshenko with the assistance of a gaggle of American neoconservative and Israeli advisers who have been actively engaged with the Ukrainian government for the past several years. The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.

The defection of Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, together with the assumption that a lot of anti-Trump dirt will be spilled soon, means that the American president had to be even more cautious than ever in any dealings with Moscow and all he needed was a nod of approval from National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to cancel the encounter. A heads-of-state meeting might not have solved anything but it certainly would be better than the current drift towards a new cold war. If the United States has only one vitally important relationship anywhere it is with Russia as the two countries are ready, able and apparently willing to destroy the world under the aegis of self-defense.

Given the anti-Russian hysteria prevailing in the U.S. and the ability of the neocons to switch on the media, it should come as no surprise that the Russian-Ukrainian incident immediately generated calls from the press and politicians for the White House to get tough with the Kremlin. It is important to note that the United States has no actual national interest in getting involved in a war between Russia and Ukraine if that should come about. The two Eastern European countries are neighbors and have a long history of both friendship and hostility but the only thing clear about the conflict is that it is up to them to sort things out and no amount of sanctions and jawing by concerned congressmen will change that fact.

Other Eastern European nations that similarly have problems with Russia should also be considered provocateurs as they seek to create tension to bind the United States more closely to them through the NATO alliance. The reality is that today's Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union and it neither aspires to nor can afford hegemony over its former allies. What it has made very clear that it does want is a modus vivendi where Russia itself is not being threatened by the West.

Recent military maneuvers in Poland and Lithuania and the stationing of new missiles in Eastern Europe do indeed pose a genuine threat to Moscow as it places NATO forces on top of Russia's border. When Russia reacts to incursions by NATO warships and planes right along its borders, it is accused of acting aggressively. One wonders how the U.S. government would respond if a Russian aircraft carrier were to take up position off the eastern seaboard and were to begin staging reconnaissance flights. Or if the Russian army were to begin military exercises with the Cubans? Does anyone today remember the Bay of Pigs?


renfro , says: December 4, 2018 at 5:53 am GMT

The only foreign threats we have come from the various psychos in the think tanks and special interest lobbies in the US.

As Jean-Jules Jusserand, the French ambassador to the United States
from once said of the US : .

"On the north, she has a weak neighbor; on the south, another weak neighbor; on the east, fish, and on the west, more fish.'

Justsaying , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:01 am GMT
Crying wolf provides a perfect pretext for the Empire's MIC to line the pockets of the merchants of death. In keeping with its time-honored tradition of propping up tyrants kowtowing to imperial hegemonic wishes, America hardly has friends without some military collaboration. Even the recently anointed sh*thole countries of Africa over 50 such countries have American military cooperation agreements under the guise of the infamous AFRICOM and the War on Terror. The number of military bases in sh*thole African countries remain unknown.

..the ability of the neocons to switch on the media

Hard to distinguish between the two really. The "free press" of WMD notoriety, Ghaddafi's "genocidal drive" against Libyan citizens, Iraq's involvement with 9/11? Iranian arms in Yemen that have not massacred children in school buses? Iranian fabricated nuclear weapons? Syrian chemical attacks?

The biggest threats to America come from its "friends"

America is being unwittingly exonerated as an innocent bystander unable to choose her own friends. It so happens America's "friends" share the common trait of pushing for war. In countries awash in petrodollars, purchasing billions of dollars in arms used in Yemen to murder children; Zionists are gifted with American state of the art arsenals to murder Palestinians, including women and children. The biggest threat to America comes from inside the deep state itself, especially with the Zionist Israel Firsters pulling strings at will.

anon [355] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:43 am GMT
America's all time #1 phony "friend". -- -Israel.

With a "friend" like Israel, America doesn't need any enemies.

Ludwig Watzal , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 8:30 am GMT
I agree with Phil Giraldi on its analysis of US foreign policy. When lying with dogs, you get fleas. This saying holds especially true for the so-called US friends such as the Saudis, Israelis, Ukrainians, Poles, and the Brits. The NeoZion gang plays President Trump is an open secret. He still employes one of its guiding spirits as national security adviser. As long this Gordian knot is not cut, American foreign policy will not change, and it's getting worse. These folks who surround Trump want war, first with Iran and then with Russia. Their lackey Poroshenko is doing the bitting of Trump and the Zionist regime and their European puppets. The Zionist regime is deeply involved in steering up tensions. Prime minister Wolodymyr Hrojsman is Jewish. Is anyone surprised?
Art , says: December 4, 2018 at 8:33 am GMT
What chance does peace have with these people having Trump's ear: Javanka Kushner, Gina Haspel, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Mad Dog Mattis, and John Bolton?

Doesn't look good does it!

Think Peace -- Art

jilles dykstra , says: December 4, 2018 at 8:41 am GMT
Around 1890 one Rothschild wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.

In my opinion at present the only enemy of the USA is the USA, that part of the USA that failed in getting Hillary elected.

On the European continent a similar situation, even an establishment Dutch politician, of a christian party, Segers, found out that a substantial part of the Dutch see the government as the enemy.

He has the illusion that pr can save him, and his cronies.

anon [121] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 10:24 am GMT
"I am not sure that he ever understood "

He never understood. That was evident the moment he started floating names like Romney for his cabinet. Personally, I sympathize with Trump after what the deep state has done to him and his family, and I even respect the guy for telling things like they are – the poor autistic bastard just can't help but blurt out the truth about things* but he's also not the guy we needed. We needed a fearless, ruthless, and cunning fighter ready to martyr himself for our interests, the people's interests.

*Global Warming IS a scam – the Paris Accords would not decrease CO2 levels even under perfect – near miraculous – circumstances and is merely being floated by the Chinese so they can give off the appearance of doing something while doing nothing, as they have done before.

RVBlake , says: December 4, 2018 at 10:50 am GMT
I am left wondering again, what's so bad about isolationism?
james charles , says: December 4, 2018 at 11:08 am GMT
@jilles dykstra 'One of many truths lost within this discourse is the reality that the creation of a no-fly zone would, in the words of the most senior general in the US Armed Forces, mean the US going to war "against Syria and Russia". '

https://mronline.org/2016/12/13/allday131216-html/

During the election campaign H.R.C., three times, {stupidly?} threatened to impose a 'no fly zone' in Syria – confronting a nuclear armed country.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 11:41 am GMT
For a peek into Establishment orthodoxy, check out "Why Does America Spend So Much on Israel?" on Beltway Conservatism's Cartoon Network, aka the PragerU Channel. I've recently started auditing classes there via the Videos page here at The Unz Review.

Beyond parody, a pensioned warrior narrates over 3rd grade graphics, telling most Americans all they care to know about what he calls "Izrul." Perhaps Mr. Giraldi could, despite the apparent taboo, leave a comment and get some discussion going with the Team Red NPCs -- it hasn't worked for me.

Moi , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:53 pm GMT
@Art I've wondered why we are the way we are. Then I came across this, and I understood:

D.H. Lawrence

"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."

Moi , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:56 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra We failed the moment the "pilgrims" seeking freedom started slaughtering the native peoples.
Minidrop , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
This shtick of blaming US state crimes on foreign influence is getting annoying. You know none of this would be happening if the DO didn't like it. If you want to stop CIA's common plan or conspiracy for war, you've got to end the impunity that permits it. Ratify the Rome Statute. With the judiciary completely gelded, that's the only way to get the CIA regime under control. It's that or DCI Poppy Hager swings at Nuremberg II.
wayfarer , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:49 pm GMT
@Moi

"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._H._Lawrence

"You the one who killed our friend?"

DESERT FOX , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:14 pm GMT
The leading sponsors of terror in the world are Israel and the Zionist controlled U.S. and Britain and NATO and their terrorist mercenaries ISIS aka AL CIADA and all of the various off shoots that have been seeded throughout the world by the satanic Zionists.

The Zionists have a long historical experience with bringing terror to the world , one example being the Zionist/ Bolshevik revolution in Russia where the Bolsheviks killed some 60 million Russians bringing terror to Russia on an industrial level turning the whole country into a slaughter house!

The Zionist attack on the WTC is but another example of Zionist terrorism, where in one fell swoop the Zionists killed some 3000 Americans and got away with it and every thinking American knows that the Zionists did it!

The greatest terrorist kabal in the world is Zionism and these terrorists have control of every facet of the U.S. government and at some point are going to provoke a war with Russia that will get the whole world blown to hell and in fact this is what the Zionists want as they believe they will survive in their DUMBS akd Deep Underground Military Bases which they have in the U.S. and Israel and Britain, but they care not for the rest of humanity, that is terrorism in spades!

The enemy is not at the gates , the enemy is in control of the U.S. government and is going to be the destruction of America!

Curmudgeon , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
You can't really pin Ukraine on Trump. Maidan was not spontaneous.

Nuland admitted to spending $5 billion to set Maidan up. That $5B is worth 10 times that much in Ukraine. You don't spend that kind of money unless you have a follow up plan, and NATOizing Ukraine to attack Russia was it. The trigger was NATO's bitch, the EU, creating such a horrible deal for Ukraine that only an imbecile would have accepted it. Viktor Yanukovych was no imbecile. The "Russian deal" wasn't all that great for Ukraine either, it was just infinitely better than the turd the EU told Yanukovych to sign.

The real story on Russia is this: the same people that own every "Western liberal democracy" owned the USSR. The Russians got rid of them, and the USSR collapsed. A new invasion was hatched under the guise of "Westernizing" Russia. When the Russians saw that Yeltsin was suckered, and it was the same game, run by the same people, they got a new sheriff. That sheriff started to sort things out, while the owners fled to the UK and Israel. The lives of Russians got better, as the owners are gradually being stripped of their power. The long and short of it, our owners want their ownership of Russia restored.

All wars are economic wars. Capitalism and communism are the two sides of the same coin. Both seek to concentrate ownership, just in different ways using different scams.

wayfarer , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:39 pm GMT

"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr

"Dangerous Tribalism of the Ruling Class"

Z-man , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:17 pm GMT
@Justsaying

The biggest threat to America comes from inside the deep state itself, especially with the Zionist Israel Firsters pulling strings at will.

Bears repeating.

Z-man , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Art I'd have to give 'Slurpy Dog' Mattis a pass on that list. I think (hope) he is aware of the pernicious power of the Cabal .
Anonymous [295] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMT
The reason why Trump supports the Ukraine is easy.

"According to the European Jewish Congress, as of 2014, there are 360,000–400,000 Jews in Ukraine."

And there you have it. Wherever or whatever the interest of Jewry there will be the United States standing tall behind it. Let's just say the Ukraine is guaranteed to stay poor. While the Jews get rich!

CanSpeccy , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 6:33 pm GMT

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is clearly exploiting a situation that he himself provoked. He envisions setting himself up as a victim of Moscow to aid in his attempts to establish his own power through a security relationship with Washington. That in turn will help his bid for reelection in March 2019 elections

Nah, Porky needs a war to avoid an election which he would undoubtedly lose.

JLK , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:41 pm GMT
There's no use having an empire if you can't exact an economic advantage. Ultimately, most of the events unfolding today are about keeping the loot flowing to lower Manhattan and central London.
EugeneGur , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:42 pm GMT

Teenagers who get in trouble often have to ditch their bad friends to turn their lives around. There is still a chance for the United States if we keep our distance from the bad friends

It's hard to do if you are in fact the worst of those bad friends.

friends who have been convincing us to make poor choices.

The poor choices had been made long before these friends even appeared on the scene. In fact, many of these friends owe their very existence and/or influence to the poor choices the US had made. It's so disingenuous to blame the US politics on someone's influence when the reality is exactly the opposite.

If the US were in normal country prepared to behave in a sensible way it would've picked much better partners. But the thing is the US isn't a normal country; it doesn't want partners – in wants vassals, so it is naturally limited in its choice of friends.

Agent76 , says: December 4, 2018 at 6:47 pm GMT
September 17, 2014 US Pursues 134 Wars Around the World

The US is now involved in 134 wars or none, depending on your definition of war The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word "war" was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State. US Secretary of State John Kerry was at first reluctant: "We're engaged in a major counterterrorism operation," he told CBS News on Sept. 11. "I think war is the wrong terminology and analogy but the fact is that we are engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity I don't think people need to get into war fever on this. I think they have to view it as a heightened level of counter terrorist activity." – Global Post

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35654/US-Pursues-134-Wars-Around-the-World/

Choose wisely America!

RobinG , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:39 pm GMT
Blowback: An Inside Look at How US-Funded Fascists in Ukraine Mentor US White Supremacists https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-backed-fascist-azov-battalion-in-ukraine-is-training-and-radicalizing-american-white-supremacists/251951/

"Not only are white supremacists from across the West flocking to Ukraine to learn from the combat experience of their fascist brothers-in-arms, they are doing so openly, under the nose of a shrugging law enforcement -- chronicling their experiences on social media before they bring their lessons back home."

AnonFromTN , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
The greatest threat to America comes from its elites. Nobody else did as much damage to the country as those greedy thieves.
AnonFromTN , says: December 4, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

Nah, Porky needs a war to avoid an election which he would undoubtedly lose.

You hit the nail on the head.

Realist , says: December 4, 2018 at 9:44 pm GMT

The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own domestic political reasons but it was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that surround Trump and proliferate inside the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.

Trump isn't vulnerable he hired the Deep State apparatchiks, Bolton, Pompeo and many others. Trump is a Deep Stater and is doing a great Kabuki theater to dupe his followers into believing his hands are tied.

Rurik , says: December 5, 2018 at 9:19 pm GMT
@tzatz

How do YOU expect me (and others) to swallow YOUR position?

with a great gulps of satisfaction, that's how.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine was manufactured by the ZUS State Dept. ((Victoria Nuland)) and John McBloodstain in particular, when Putin upset the Zionist's plans to do a 'Libya' – to Syria.

It was a bloody coup foisted with 5 billion federal reserve note$, of the famous phone call ('Yats is our guy'). Since then the imbeciles in Ukraine have been doing Nazi salutes while taking orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists like Ihor Kolomoyskyi and assorted ZUS Zionists.

The conflict with Iran started when the CIA deposed the duly elected president Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953, and installed the brutal quisling Shah in his place. To keep the Iranian people terrorized for decades into submitting to this perfidy, they utilized the CIA and Mossad run SAVAK.

Learn a little history as you swallow.

[Dec 05, 2018] INF Treaty End Is Near After Pompeo Gives Russia An Ultimatum

Pompeo is glib and insincere. That a very bad feature for a diplomat.
Dec 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

"We must confront Russian cheating on their nuclear obligations," Pompeo said at the conclusion of the NATO meeting, claiming the U.S. has warned Russia to re-enter compliance about 30 times over the past five years. He urged the West to increase pressure, arguing it can no longer "bury its head in the sand" over repeat violations.

But for the first time Pompeo signaled it's not too late to salvage the treaty, despite Trump already saying the US it taking steps to pull out: he said Washington "would welcome a Russian change of heart."

On Oct. 20 President Trump first announced the United States' planned withdrawal from the historic treaty brokered by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan in 1987. At the time Russia's Foreign Ministry slammed the move as "a very dangerous step" which is ultimately part of "continuing attempts to achieve Russia's concessions through blackmail". Russian officials have issued the counter-charge that it is the US that's out of compliance with the treaty.


Ace006 , 9 hours ago link

The US is waging unconstitutional war in Syria without authorization of the UNSC but Pompeo has the effrontery to lecture the Russians on their "lawlessness."

Is there ONE freaking day out of the year when some senior official of the USG is not acting like an utter horse's ***?

Victor999 , 9 hours ago link

""We don't want a new arms race, we don't want a new Cold War,""

Yet NATO and the US are doing everything they can to start one. Threatening others with ultimatums is no way to negotiate new terms.

thisandthat , 8 hours ago link

"doesn't account for China or North Korea as rising technologically advanced threats"

Yeah, nor for israel...

dogismycopilot , 11 hours ago link

Putin should just have the SVR make some fake "proof" Trump is a Russian agent and feed it to the democratic-isis-******-lover party and let them tear Trump a new *******.

Pompeo is an aging **** pig.

thisandthat , 8 hours ago link

Considering it was the democrats who first pushed this muh russian meddlings, can't even see how will the US be able to pull itself out of this (****)hole they dug for themselves...

rtb61 , 11 hours ago link

So the US with a big lead in ballistic missiles and anti-ballistic missiles, wants to blow that up to promote the development of long range stealth cruise missiles, well, I guess there must be a massive profit in it.

The normal rule in a arms race though, the big losers are the countries with the biggest lead in current war technologies, when new technologies enter the fray, negating existing investments and bankrupting that country as the right off their existing lead and having to race to play catch up and take the lead again.

It's like the crazy, the US leads in space, great lets that it into a battlefield and eliminate that lead, why, just ******* why would you be stupid enough, banning war in space protects you lead, promoting war in space ends it. Blocking long range cruise missiles protects the US lead in ballistic missiles and anti-ballistics missile systems, allowing it ends that lead.

Now in the most idiotic fashion, the US has declared it will arbitrarily leave that treaty without any evidence of anything, now setting the precedent, that any country can withdraw from any treaty with the US for any arbitrary reason because that is the behaviour the US government has set precedent for, why hold any treaty with the US, when they will pull out at any time for any reason. The probable message from the rest of the world to the US, yeah **** off America, we are not Native Americans who exist for you to abuse us https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/01/18/368559990/broken-promises-on-display-at-native-american-treaties-exhibit (we know it is in the American government nature but **** off anyhow).

haruspicio , 12 hours ago link

What a pompous *** Pompeo is. After his lies about MbS how can I trust him on this issue. Is the US clean? They are certainly not in compliance with the chemical weapons treaty having destroyed no stockpiles as they agreed to do....almost 2 decades after the treaty was signed.

Treaties are ******** unless the parties to them actually implement them and follow the rules. The US seems to believe they have an inherent right to ignore the treaties they sign up to. Why anyone deals with them I have no idea.

dogfish , 13 hours ago link

Donald Trump has lost complete control of his presidency and is being led by the nose by his cabinet,the US will start a new world war.

CatInTheHat , 13 hours ago link

Where did Trump get these Bush 2,Zionist pig holdovers?

After Bush 2 dumped ABM treaty NATO/US have been creeping up to Russias border.

Then in 2014, Obama & Nuland decided it would be a good idea to effect regime change in Ukraine and put neonazi thugs on Russia's border.

EU Israhelli clients all know this is ******** about Russia. But Russia pissed off the Zionist entity in interfering with Yinon/7countries in five years plan.

How LONG are we going to put up with this Zionist attack on our country?

Et Tu Brute , 13 hours ago link

"We don't want a new arms race, we don't want a new Cold War," Stoltenberg added.

A bit like a rapist doesn't want sex, he just wants to **** people.

NATO doesn't want a cold war, they want a real one!

africoman , 9 hours ago link

Correct!!

Predator mindset and US exceptionalism at play

They are asking why Russia not keeping treaty while we violate it?

Secretary of war Mike Pompeo

Washington Seeks 'Pretext' to Abandon INF Treaty - Russian Envoy to US

"...We are accused of violating the Treaty by allegedly possessing a certain 9M729 missile that violates the accord's provisions. However, we do not see any clear facts or arguments that could lead to conclusions of violations," Sputnik Here

Russia, China, Iran challenging global US leadership: Pompeo

"..US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has targeted Russia, China and Iran for opposing Washington's "leadership role". PressTv

Just accuse without any specific evidence.

another

China has simply made no effort to halt its ongoing pattern of aggressive , predatory trade .

Chain election meddling blah balh

NiggaPleeze , 14 hours ago link

US always blaming others while violating every law and treaty known to man.

" I regret that we now most likely will see the end of the INF Treaty," North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declared ...

Fixed: " I'm ecstatic that our fabricated accusations allows us to finally see the end of the INF Treaty, which really benefits Russia far more than NATO," North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declared ...

chippers , 14 hours ago link

They dont want another cold war? Thats why they are doing everything possible to start another cold if not hot war I suppose.

Anunnaki , 14 hours ago link

We have been in a Cold War since Ukraine 2014

me or you , 14 hours ago link

5000+ bunker shelters and unknown number of hypersonic weapons...US has zero chance.

NiggaPleeze , 14 hours ago link

The whole point of the US strategy is to use short-range cruise missiles to take out Russian retaliatory capability in a first strike, thereby destroying all of those hypersonic weapons, and using their ABM systems to "clean up" any missiles that survived the initial onslaught. The "advantage" of the short-range cruise missiles is that they greatly reduce Russia's available response times - it basically must decide to annihilate the US within 5 minutes of notice of an attack, or face being wiped out with no retaliatory capabilities. (It is worth noting that, in the past, false alarms have lasted for longer than 5 minutes.)

This is by far the most destabilizing, dangerous move, ever - any false blip on a Russian radar can lead to an all-out nuclear exchange. It is infinitely more threatening to humanity than "global warming". Brought to you by the Evil Drumfpster.

Anunnaki , 14 hours ago link

Dead Man Hand

NiggaPleeze , 12 hours ago link

The Dead Man Hand only allows you to respond with capabilities that have survived and that are not eliminated by the ABM. The 5 minutes notice is until the vast majority of your nuclear arsenal is decimated - dead hand (i.e., ability to retaliate if the leadership is entirely decapitated) or not.

me or you , 13 hours ago link

With the black-holes awaiting somewhere in the big oceans it's enough to take the whole US territory.

me or you , 14 hours ago link

If you have not hypersonic missiles you are powerless to dictate.

artistant , 14 hours ago link

The CONFLICT with Russia was orchestrated by Apartheid Israhell

because Russia is an IMPEDIMENT to Israhell's design for the MidEast .

In the process, the Zionist Neocons mortally WOUNDED America

and the CONSEQUENCES are just getting started .

Omega_Man , 14 hours ago link

west would lose arms race against Russia and China and Iran and NK easy... just as they lose all races in manufacturing... cheap labour

Minamoto , 14 hours ago link

Mike Pompeo ought to be reminded that confrontation with Russia in missile technology is unwise.

Russia has hypersonic missiles. The US doesn't have anything remotely comparable.

beijing expat , 14 hours ago link

Even if they did it wouldn't change the equation. These are doomsday weapons.

Minamoto , 14 hours ago link

Absolutely not. They can deliver conventional warheads. They can sink carriers anywhere on the planet.

Moribundus , 14 hours ago link

USA do not need hypersonic m. because Russia do not have big navy fleet. Russia is building defense, USA prepares for attack

Minamoto , 14 hours ago link

Yet... the US is busy trying to catch up with the Russians.

CatInTheHat , 13 hours ago link

The US CANT.

https://southfront.org/why-the-u-s-military-is-woefully-unprepared-for-a-major-conventional-conflict/

francis scott falseflag , 15 hours ago link

INF Treaty End Is Near After Pompeo Gives Russia An Ultimatum

Unless Trump caves or changes his mind as he has been known to do

Moribundus , 15 hours ago link

Is Mike Pompeo Starting to Look Like Kim Jong Un? He is talking like communist leader at Communist party congress.

Mike Pompeo argued that Trump's reassertion of national sovereignty through his "America First" policy would make those institutions function better. "In the finest traditions of our great democracy, we are rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order that prevents war and achieves greater prosperity for all," Pompeo said at a speech at the German Marshall Fund thinktank. "We're supporting institutions that we believe can be improved; institutions that work in American interests – and yours – in service of our shared values."

He listed a series of current international institutions, including the EU, UN, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, that he said were no longer serving their mission they were created.

The remarks were frequently punctuated with praise for Trump, who is referred to 13 times in the text. Pompeo portrayed his president as restoring an era of triumphal US leadership in the world, for the first time since the end of the cold war.

"This American leadership allowed us to enjoy the greatest human flourishing in modern history," the secretary of state said. "We won the cold war. We won the peace. With no small measure of George HW Bush's effort, we reunited Germany. This is the type of leadership that President Trump is boldly reasserting."

http://thebrutaltimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/popmeo-un-260x200.jpg

Federica Mogherini:

President [George H. W.] Bush used to talk about a new world order, based on shared rules and on cooperation among free nations. I was at high school at the time, and I remember perfectly well the sense of hope and of opening that one could breathe in Europe over these years.

He imagined - and I quote - "a world where the rule of law supplants the role of the jungle; a world in which nations recognise their shared responsibility for freedom and justice; a world where the strong respect the rights of the weak."

My generation believed in this vision, believed in the possibility for this vision to turn into reality, to become true, especially in Europe - a continent divided by the Cold War. We hoped that after the Cold War a more cooperative world order would indeed be possible and indeed be built.

Today, I am afraid we have to admit that such a new world order has never truly materialised and worse, there is a real risk today that the rule of the jungle replaces the rule of law. The same international treaties - so many in which we are together - that ended the Cold War are today put into question.

Instead of building a new order, we have to today invest a huge part of our energy in preventing the current rules from being dismantled piece by piece.

https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/culture/54773/speech-hrvp-federica-mogherini-harvard-kennedy-school-science-and-international-affairs_en

torabora , 11 hours ago link

well Russia rolling on Georgia and then Eastern Ukraine Crimea put all that unicorn **** to bed. You need to get woke.

pinkfloyd , 15 hours ago link

children

DEDA CVETKO , 15 hours ago link

Ultimatum? To Russia ???????

Um...WTF...? Where's this guy been for the past 300 years?

uhland62 , 14 hours ago link

In his bubble. Being confrontational gets your bubble pierced - someone tell him.

Let it Go , 15 hours ago link

Like many people, I do not find what is known as the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD to be reassuring. Spurring the creation of more ways to use nuclear weapons is what ending the INF Treaty will do. Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister, and Vice-Chancellor from 1998-2005 writes;

In this new environment, the "rationality of deterrence" maintained by the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War has eroded. Now, if nuclear proliferation increases, the threshold for using nuclear weapons will likely fall.

The nuclear deterrent we hold is a hundred times larger than needed to stop anyone sane or rational from attacking America, and for anyone else, an arsenal of any size will be insufficient. What we are talking about is the Intermediate-range Nuclear-Forces treaty also known as the INF Treaty which limits short-range missiles. The article below explores the insanity of a new arms race.

https://Who Profits From Ending The Mid-Range Nuclear Treaty.html

attah-boy-Luther , 15 hours ago link

Dear POMPUS *** Pompa-oh:

We will happily comply with your chicken chit terms right after you take ALL of your NATO toys back to the Berlin wall line.

You know the one where your peeps told Gorbachev not one inch east.

Other wise F-U!

Luv,

Vlad

Haboob , 15 hours ago link

Mike Pompeo offered 'military assistance' to Ukraine in Crimea stand-off with Russia, says Poroshenko

'We have full support, full assistance,' Ukrainian president says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crimea-latest-russia-petro-poroshenko-mike-pompeo-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-a8655106.html

Haboob , 15 hours ago link

China and Russia don't want a military arms race but they will get one. The funny part is they will confide in Trump about their woes and he will mimic their desires but not agree with them.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1070110615627333632

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1070110927788347393

"We are either going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all - at which point we will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States. Ultimately, I believe, we will be making a deal - either now or into the future....

.....China does not want Tariffs!"

Bet hes laughing his *** off and so am i.

uhland62 , 14 hours ago link

China will find customers elsewhere, it just takes more than a day. The US is not the only game on this planet.

[Dec 05, 2018] The Ignorant and the Arrogant How Pompeo and Bolton Bring Us Closer to War in the Middle East

Dec 05, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Armed conflict between the US and Iran is becoming more probable by the day as super-hawks replace hawks in the Trump administration. The new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, has called for the US to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 and advocated immediate regime change in Tehran. The new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has said the agreement, which Trump may withdraw from on 12 May, is "a disaster". Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he will not accept a deal with "cosmetic changes" as advocated by European states, according to Israeli reporters. If this is so, then the deal is effectively dead.

... ... ...

The new line-up in Washington is being described as "a war cabinet" and it may turn out to be just that. But looking at ignorant, arrogant men like Bolton and Pompeo, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that it will all end in disaster.

[Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.) ..."
"... Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either. ..."
"... American Jewish Committee ..."
"... Contemporary Jewish Record ..."
"... If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying . And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren ..."
"... Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech. ..."
"... believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds. ..."
"... nations derive their strength from their myths , which are necessary for government and governance. ..."
"... national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate . ..."
"... to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil ; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation. ..."
"... deception is the norm in political life ..."
"... Office of Special Plans ..."
"... The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy. ..."
"... the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you) ..."
"... the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another) ..."
"... General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran". ..."
"... Among them are brilliant strategists ..."
"... They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others. ..."
"... They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy ..."
"... They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government. ..."
Dec 11, 2015 | Peak Prosperity

Mememonkey pointed my to a 2013 essay by Laurent Guyenot, a French historian and writer on the deep state, that addresses the question of "Who Are The Neoconservatives." If you would like to know about that group that sends the US military into battle and tortures prisoners of war in out name, you need to know about these guys.

First, if you are Jewish, or are a GREEN Meme, please stop and take a deep breath. Please put on your thinking cap and don't react. We are NOT disrespecting a religion, spiritual practice or a culture. We are talking about a radical and very destructive group hidden within a culture and using that culture. Christianity has similar groups and movements--the Crusades, the KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.

My personal investment: This question has been a subject of intense interest for me since I became convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Iraq war was waged for reasons entirely different from those publically stated. I have been horrified to see such a shadowy, powerful group operating from a profoundly "pre-moral" developmental level-i.e., not based in even the most rudimentary principles of morality foundational to civilization.

Who the hell are these people?!

Goyenot's main points (with a touch of personal editorializing):

1. The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.)

Neoconservativism is essentially a modern right wing Jewish version of Machiavelli's political strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism as a religious tradition, but rather Judiasm as a political project, i.e. Zionism, by Machiavellian means.

This is not a religious movement though it may use religions words and vocabulary. It is a political and military movement. They are not concerned with being close to God. This is a movement to expand political and military power. Some are Christian and Mormon, culturally.

Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either.

He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military. In private writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually Israel's war goals. (Examples provided.)

2. Most American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and do NOT share the perspective of the radical Zionists.

The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee, which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: "If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren".

3. Intellectual Basis and Moral developmental level

Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.

Other major points:

4. The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy.

[The]Pax Judaica will come only when "all the nations shall flow" to the Jerusalem temple, from where "shall go forth the law" (Isaiah 2:1-3). This vision of a new world order with Jerusalem at its center resonates within the Likudnik and neoconservative circles. At the Jerusalem Summit, held from October 12th to 14th, 2003 in the symbolically significant King David Hotel, an alliance was forged between Zionist Jews and Evangelical Christians around a "theopolitical" project, one that would consider Israel "the key to the harmony of civilizations", replacing the United Nations that's become a "a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships": "Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of world's unity. [...] We believe that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets". Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit, including Benjamin Netanyahu, and Richard Perle.

Jerusalem's dream empire is expected to come through the nightmare of world war. The prophet Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums, predicted that the Lord will fight "all nations" allied against Israel. In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the exception of Jerusalem, who "shall remain aloft upon its site" (14:10).

With more than 50 millions members, Christians United for Israel is a major political force in the U.S.. Its Chairman, pastor John Haggee, declared: "The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West, [...] a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ".

And Guyenot concludes:

Is it possible that this biblical dream, mixed with the neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and the militarism of Likud, is what is quietly animating an exceptionally determined and organized ultra-Zionist clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran".

Is it just a coincidence that the "seven nations" doomed to be destroyed by Israel form part of the biblical myths? [W]hen Yahweh will deliver Israel "seven nations greater and mightier than yourself [ ] you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."

My summary:

[Dec 04, 2018] Comparing China and America by Fred Reed

Chinese version of neoliberalism and the USA version do differ.
Notable quotes:
"... I especially encourage the Russians on here to return to their home country. There is little point writing material critical of America in English on fringe media sites while in America contributing to the US economy and paying US taxes. My observation has been that the Russian personality not to mention background doesn't fare terribly well in corporate America. Why waste your energy in a country and system beyond reform that despises you for who you are that only accepts you for your labor. You'll find a better fit in your home country where you'll actually have genuine social belonging, which, unlike China, actually really needs more people. ..."
"... Xi might have stepped up too early, but maybe this wouldn't matter. When the Americans decide to confront China depends on the Americans. In case you believe that US presidents drive US policy, Trump was saying things about China 25 years ago. ..."
"... Chinese progress has been most impressive but the country is sitting on an enormous pile of private and SOE debt.. There has not been a country in recorded history that has accumulated debt at the rate China did post the 2008 crash. ..."
"... @Achmed E. Newman Dictatorships are personality dependent, as opposed to democracies that are ? dependent. Communism came up with a catchy slogan – dictatorship of the proletariat. Why couldn't US – which are, after all, a birthplace of propaganda – come up with a similarly catchy slogan, such as: Democracy – dictatorship of the elitariat? Or maybe, Democracy – dictatorship of the deep state. ..."
"... I worked for Chinese-Filipinos and this is really 100% true. The ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia are the most heartless capitalists on earth. ..."
"... [You have been repeatedly warned that you leave far too many rambling, vacuous comments, especially since so many of them demonstrate your total ignorance. Fewer and fewer of your comments will be published until you improve your commenting-behavior or better yet permanently depart for another website] ..."
Dec 04, 2018 | www.unz.com

Jason Liu , says: November 30, 2018 at 7:42 am GMT

Great, but kinda pedestrian. Lemme use this platform to point out China's flaws from a Chinese perspective.

Chinese society and Chinese people are too arrogant, materialistic, and hypersensitive to criticism.

This is a huge problem. One, it alienates pretty much anyone who becomes familiar with China. Two, it leads to mistake after mistake when no criticism is offered to correct them in time. Three, it causes society to view things overly in terms of money, falling behind in all other aspects. Nobody cares how much rich or strong you are if you're a crass, materialistic asshole. They'll hate you.

All societies have these issues, few are as bad as China. There are Chinese reading this right now and getting angry and ready to call me a traitor, demonstrating my point exactly.

A wise dictator is great for the country, but Xi is not wise. He is a stubborn old man stuck in the past who is clearly not listening to advisers. He has overplayed his hand, confronted the US 10~20 years too early, damaged China's image out of some paranoid fear of Uyghurs, and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead driving them further into the arms of the Americans.

China does not need more repression right now, it needs to slowly liberalize to keep the economy growing and competitive. I'm not talking about western style "open society" bullshit, traitors like multiculturalists and feminists should always be persecuted. But the heavy-handed censorship, monitoring of everyday citizens is completely unnecessary. If China does not develop a culture of trust, and genuine, non-money based curiosity, it will not have the social structure to overcome the west.

Outside of trade and money-related issues, the Chinese citizenry is woefully ignorant of the outside world. There is no widespread understanding of foreign cultures and ideologies, how they might threaten us, how to defend against them, or how to work around them. An overwrought sense of nationalism emphasizes Chinese victimhood to the point of absurdity, squandering any sympathy onlookers might have, and actually causes some to turn 180 and hate China instead.

Angry, condescending attitudes towards our neighbors, especially Japan, severely cripple China's ability to be a world player. Without a network of like-minded friends (actual friends, not trade partners), China will never be able to match the western alliance. It is not just America we have to overcome, but an entire bloc of nations. I don't care how much people hate our neighbors, China must extend the olive branch, present a sincere face of benevolence, and not act like the big guy with a fragile ego. Racially and culturally similar East Asians are the best candidates for long-term friendship, it is wrong to forsake them under the assumption that all we need is Russia or Pakistan.

Despite the trade war, I'm not worried about China's economy, infrastructure, political system, or innate ability. These are our strengths. I have no love for liberal democracy or western values. But China must change its attitude and the way it interacts with the outside world soon, or face geopolitical disaster.

Don't overreact to every insult or criticism. Compete in areas that isn't just money or materials. Really understand soft power, and what it takes to be liked around the world. Develop our own appealing ideas and worldview. Listen to well-meaning, nationalistic critics, and change before the world discovers China's ugly side.

Cyrano , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:06 am GMT
I would say that yes, dictatorships tend to be more efficient than "democracy". The only major downside to dictatorships are that usually dictators – thanks perhaps to personal ambitions, lack of accountability, volatile personalities – tend to cause major wars.

That's a reason why someone becomes a dictator – to make it into the history books. And the easiest way to make it into the history books is to cause a major war(s) and capture all the glory that comes with causing the deaths of as many people as possible.

But then again, looking at the US, they don't seem to have been disadvantaged by a lack of dictators at all, as far as starting wars goes. One has to wonder, are dictatorships even competitive with US in the category of causing wars?

gmachine1729 , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 8:16 am GMT
https://gmachine1729.com/2018/11/30/a-call-to-boycott-jewish-media/

By Tiensen do you mean Tencent, famous now for its WeChat which I use for messaging and payments. I now also use their cloud storage Weiyun (3 TB on only 10 RMB / month) as well as their email.

By the way, Nvidia, YouTube, and Yahoo were all founded by ethnic Chinese from Taiwan. I actually think Nvidia is more impressive than both Microsoft or Google. Its GPU technology is much higher barrier to entry and as far as I can tell still exclusive to America.

I may well never come back to America ever again, and thus, most of what goes on in America will no longer be directly relevant to me. I could give pretty much zero of a fuck about the nonsense on China in the English language press, which I will only look at very occasionally, and those who create it. It would be rather futile to try to change the views of the majority of white Americans. Of course, there are a minority of white Americans who are more informed, reasonable, and open-minded, the ones I tended to interact with back in America, many of whom are unhappy with the state of American society. They are welcome to contact me (my email is on my website), and if they use not an American email, I'll be more willing to share certain information with them and possibly connect them to China-related business/opportunities.

I especially encourage the Russians on here to return to their home country. There is little point writing material critical of America in English on fringe media sites while in America contributing to the US economy and paying US taxes. My observation has been that the Russian personality not to mention background doesn't fare terribly well in corporate America. Why waste your energy in a country and system beyond reform that despises you for who you are that only accepts you for your labor. You'll find a better fit in your home country where you'll actually have genuine social belonging, which, unlike China, actually really needs more people.

Anon [319] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:00 am GMT
Main difference is China is about Chinese ruling over Chinese with Chinese pride, whereas America is about JAG(Jews-Afros-Gays) ruling over whites with 'white guilt', jungle fever, and homomania.

Problem with China is too much corruption and petty greed.

Anon [319] Disclaimer , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 9:20 am GMT
If you look at centuries of Chinese painting, you will see that each generation largely made copies of earlier masters.

Prior to Romanticism and esp modernism, Western Art changed very slowly over centuries.

Franz , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:25 am GMT
Many tried to warn the weenies what would happen while our industries were "donated" to China and got hosed for their trouble. Pat Buchanan's troubles actually started when he wrote The Great Betrayal , even if they took a little extra time to pull his syndicated column down.

Did you know about a World War II-era Kaiser steel mill once in California, that was cut up in blocks like a model kit and shipped in its entirety to China?

It happened right out in the open, under Daddy Bush, and everyone who complained became an unperson, Orwell-style. Nobody dared object to the glories of free trade. And the Chinese in California said it was doing so because they had a multi-million ton Plan to fill, and it was almost the 21st century.

China is now taking the wealth their nation is creating with stuff developed in Europe, Britain, and the United States. The hole in the donut is they could have done all that under license and we could have kept on with, and even improved our industrial base.

But in fact our leaders had Gender Reassignment in mind for the 21st century, not actual productive work that truly builds nations. The Impoverishment of Nations is well known: Send the real work out, keep the barbarians inside well-fed, sharp-clawed, and morally depraved.

Godfree Roberts , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:44 am GMT
" its stunning advance in forty years from impoverished Third World to a huge economy"

Bullshit. The stunning advance occurred between 1950-1975. Starting with an industrial base smaller than that of Belgium's in the 50s, the China that for so long was ridiculed as "the sick man of Asia" emerged at the end of the Mao period as one of the six largest industrial producers in the world.

National income grew five-fold over the 25-year period 1952-78, increasing from 60 billion to over 300 billion yuan, with industry accounting for most of the growth. On a per capita basis, the index of national income (at constant prices) increased from 100 in 1949 (and 160 in 1952) to 217 in 1957 and 440 in 1978.

Over the last two decades of the Maoist era, from 1957 to 1975, China's national income increased by 63 percent on a per capita basis during this period of rapid population growth, more than doubling overall and the basic foundations for modern industrialism were laid and outpacing every other development takeoff in history.

Bear in mind that, save for limited Soviet aid in the 1950s, repaid in full and with interest by 1966, Mao's industrialization proceeded without benefit of foreign loans or investments–under punitive embargoes the entire 25 years–yet Mao was unique among developing country leaders in being able to claim an economy burdened by neither foreign debt nor internal inflation.

Anonymous [126] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:24 pm GMT

Socially China has a great advantage over America in that, except for the Muslims of Xinjiang, it is pretty much a Han monoculture. Lacking America's racial diversity, its cities do not burn, no pressure exists to infantilize the schools for the benefit of incompetent minorities, racial mobs do not loot stores, and there is very little street crime.

Wait, weren't you a supporter of American racial diversity? Weren't the millions of dusty beaners entering the US a God's gift to the country's rich, colorful, cultural tapestry?

A dictatorship can simply do things. It can plan twenty, or fifty, years down the road.

So can the Western, globalist (((deep state))). The Chinese dictatorship is simply doing it for themselves and their nation. Their people's lives are getting better for decades while we have every reason to envy our grandfathers.

dearieme , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:43 pm GMT
"China has an adult government that gets things done. America has a kaleidoscopically shifting cast of pathologically aggressive curiosities in the White House."

Well put: I have long argued that the last adult president was Bush the Elder – what followed was a sorry sequence of adolescents.

There was only one chance to elect a non-preposterous grown-up – Romney. It was spurned.

But be of good cheer: the White House might currently be occupied by an absurd oaf, but it might have been Hellary, a grown-up with vices not to my taste. Better the absurd than the appalling?

As for China – I've never been there. At second-hand I am impressed. But it too could take a tumble – life's like that.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
@Cyrano Having a dictator is not just a bad idea because of wars, Cyrano. The English spent many centuries slowly chipping away at the ultimate power of Kings and Queens. I'm pretty sure that if they hadn't done that, you and I would not be here writing to each other today.

There can be a powerful Monarchy or Dictator, say, like under Queen Victoria or Josef Stalin. There will be much different outcomes. It would be a shame if the good King or dictator happens to die and leave the whole nation to a bad one, and your children's lives are much the worse for it, don't you think?

China is a perfect example, as anyone growing up under Mao had it very rough, even if he didn't get swept up in the 1,000 lawnmowers campaign or the Cultural Revolution. If you had been born in 1950, say, that was tough luck for much of your life. If you were born in 1985, though, well, as one can read in the column above, it's a different story.

Since I brought up Queen Victoria, and now have this song in my head (not a bad thing), I will move it into Reed's Reeders' heads now. Great stuff!:

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 2:00 pm GMT
@dearieme I agree with your sentiment, Dearieme, and I completely agree with you about George H.W. Bush* being the last President to act like one should.. However, that shouldn't matter anyway. Our system of government is NOT supposed to be about who is president making a big difference in how things run. It used to work like that too, before the people betrayed the US Constitution and let the Feral Gov't get out of hand.

The fact is, that Mitt Romney or not, per Mr. Franz above, the country has been in the process of being given away for > 2 decades now. Yes, no manufacturing might, no country left. That brings up what is wrong with Mr. Reed's article, which I'll get to in a minute.

* Politically, I hate the guy, but that's not what your point is.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 2:25 pm GMT
I am not knocking the observations of how things run economically in America vs. in China. I think the article does a good job on that. However, the whole analysis part seems kind of STATIC. I know Fred knows better, as he grew up in what was a different country and BY FAR the most powerful economically, precisely because it was when the US Feral Gov't still left private (at least small) business alone for the most part.

You do realize, Mr. Reed, that the US was NOT created to be a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic? China WAS a totalitarian society, but things only got (WAY) better after Chairman Deng decided that the central government would start leaving people alone to do business. The Chinese are very good at business and are very hard workers.

Yes, the Chinese government runs much better, at this point, than the US Feral Gov't after years and years (say 5 decades) of infiltration by the ctrl-left. All of our institutions have been infiltrated, governments , big-business , media , universities , lower education all of it. China had it's physical Long March, and 3 decades of hard-core Communism, but they got over it. America has had it's Long March on the down low, and is reaping the whirlwind at the present. Will we get over it? Maybe, but it'll take guns. We got 'em.

The winds of change have blown through. They can change direction again. For a place like America, it's not going to take one powerful man (look how ineffective President Trump has been), but the people and a movement. Just as some have been unobservant of China over the last 2 decades, many will miss the changes here too.

Thorfinnsson , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:37 pm GMT
@Godfree Roberts Glad to see our resident white Maozuo is back.

Your comparisons are not good.

Germany in 1880 was much nearer the technological frontier than China was in 1950. The Japan comparison is better, but Japan at the end of the Tokugawa era was about as developed as Britain in 1700 (and had already for instance substantially displaced China in the exported silk market).

The Soviet Union suffered certain events in the period from 1941-1945 you may wish to look up.

More relevant comparisons might be South Korea and Taiwan. Or even postwar Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece.

I think most informed people now are aware that Soviet-style central planning is effective for the initial industrialization phase. What we dispute is that it is uniquely effective, as Mazuo and Sovoks insisted. Other systems have matched its performance at lower human and geopolitical cost.

Thorfinnsson , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:45 pm GMT
@dearieme GHW certainly acted Presidential, but did that help America?

He was the architect of NAFTA (even if signed by Bill Clinton) and signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which significantly increased the yearly number of immigrant visas that could be issued and created the disastrous Temporary Protected Status visa.

Anonymous [261] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:54 pm GMT
@Jason Liu

A wise dictator is great for the country, but Xi is not wise. He is a stubborn old man stuck in the past who is clearly not listening to advisers. He has overplayed his hand, confronted the US 10~20 years too early, damaged China's image out of some paranoid fear of Uyghurs, and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead driving them further into the arms of the Americans.

Xi might have stepped up too early, but maybe this wouldn't matter. When the Americans decide to confront China depends on the Americans. In case you believe that US presidents drive US policy, Trump was saying things about China 25 years ago.

The Uyghur thing nobody cares about. The western media would find something else to lie about.

I agree with the things you say afterwards. although I find it difficult to see China becoming likable to it's neighbors. I believe the big thing will be to see what the CCP does in the next economic crisis; will they change or will they turtle into bad policy and stagnate. The challenge after that would be the demographics.

The Anti-Gnostic , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 3:02 pm GMT
@dearieme Mormons are idealists, not realists, which puts them outside the grown-up pale in my book. Mormonism might as well be called American Suburbanism at this point. That lifestyle takes a lot of things for granted that will not be around much longer. They top out intellectually at the level of mid-tier management.

To be fair, this applies to most Americans, convinced that inside everybody is a conformist, suburban American just waiting to get out.

There's a case that can be made that Mormonism is actually the official American religion.

Ali Choudhury , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:25 pm GMT
Chinese progress has been most impressive but the country is sitting on an enormous pile of private and SOE debt.. There has not been a country in recorded history that has accumulated debt at the rate China did post the 2008 crash.

When the chickens come home to roost it will not be pretty.

Anonymous [126] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:28 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman

It would be a shame if the good King or dictator happens to die and leave the whole nation to a bad one, and your children's lives are much the worse for it, don't you think?

Sure, but the bad one would run the risk of being overthrown and his bloodline slaughtered. Everyone would know that the buck ends with him and his family.

Modern "democracies" dilute this responsibility and leave room for a set of hidden kings and dictators to run the show from the shadows. The plebs are supposed to vent their frustration by voting out the bad guys but that's useless (a pressure relief valve, really) if the shadow dictators control the information and the choices.

Luckily, the goyim are waking up to this scam.

Ali Choudhury , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
@dearieme The Cold War and threat of nuclear annihilation is gone, so why not elect entertaining charlatans, dunces, fools and outright crooks?
dearieme , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:06 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson "GHW certainly acted Presidential, but did that help America?:

I've no idea but it's not the point anyway. The point is that he presumably arrived at his decisions by thinking like an adult, instead of being blown around on gusts of adolescent emotions, like Slick Willie, W, O, and Trump.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:19 pm GMT
@Anonymous He may run that risk, but with absolute authority, who will stand up to him? You've got to know the history of Western Civilization (Europe, I mean) is filled with years and centuries of terrible, evil Kings and Queens in countries far and wide, right?

As far as democracies go, no, it doesn't work in the long, or even medium, run, unless you withhold the vote for landowners and only those with responsibility. I don't thing that's been the case here except for the first 50 years or so. You give the vote to the young, the stupid, the irresponsible, the women, etc., and it goes downhill. In America's case, it took a long time to go downhill because we had a lot of human and real capital built up.

Now, this is all why this country, as I wrote already above, was not set up to BE a democracy, Mr #126. It was to be a Constitutional Republic, with powers of the Feral Gov't limited by the document. However, once the population treats it as nothing but a piece of paper, that's all it becomes.

AnonFromTN , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:56 pm GMT
Chinese progress is impressive in absolute terms, but it is much more impressive in relative terms. While the US and all its sidekicks are ruining their countries by losing manufacturing, running up mountains of debt, and dumbing down the populace by horrible educational system and uncontrolled immigration of wild hordes with medieval mentality, some countries, including China, keep moving up. But the achievements of China or Russia wouldn't look so great without the simultaneous suicide of the West.

Let me give you the example I know best. As a scientist and an Editor of several scientific journals I see the decline of scientific production in the US: just 20 years ago it clearly dominated, but now it went way down. There emerged lots of papers from big China. Quality-wise, most of them are still sub-par, but they are getting into fairly decent journals because of the void left by the decline of science in the US.

Yes, if current tendencies continue for 20 more years, Chinese science would improve and China would become an uncontested leader in that field. However, if the US reins in its thieving elites and shifts to a more sensible course, it still has the potential to remain the world leader in science. It just needs to cut military spending to 20-30% of its current crazy unsustainable levels and invest some of the saved resources into science, industry (real one, not banking that only produces bubbles galore), and infrastructure. Is this realistic? Maybe not, but hope springs eternal.

DB Cooper , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT
@Jason Liu As a long time China watcher myself I didn't see anything you described with regards to China's foreign policy, including its dealing with its East Asian neighbors. From what I saw China's statecraft with respect to its neighbors is mature, friendly, measured, restraint and long term thinking. May be I am missing something or see something and interpret it in an opposite way than you did. For example you said

"and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead driving them further into the arms of the Americans"

"Angry, condescending attitudes towards our neighbors, especially Japan, severely cripple China's ability to be a world player. "

I didn't see any of that. Any specific example to illustrate your point?

AnonFromTN , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:23 pm GMT
@DB Cooper Again, Chinese and Russian foreign policy looks best when you compare it to the US. Both countries made their fair share of blunders, but next to the rabid dog US they look decidedly sensible and restrained.
Digital Samizdat , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:38 pm GMT
@Jason Liu You may very well be accurately describing the attitudes of individual Chinamen; but I see no evidence that the Chinese government is all that guilty of alienating other countries. On the contrary, they seem to be doing quite well. Even the hated Japs can't seem to invest enough money into China.
Digital Samizdat , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:43 pm GMT

There may be something to this. If you look at centuries of Chinese painting, you will see that each generation largely made copies of earlier masters. As nearly as I, a nonexpert, can tell, there is more variety and imagination in the Corcoran Gallery's annual exhibition of high-school artists than in all of Chinese paining.

There was a point in time when I would have agreed with Fred on this; but seeing what's become of Western art over the last century, I can't anymore. A few centuries ago, Western art was surely making progress by leaps and bounds. These days though, it's in swift decline. All it's got left to offer is pointless pretentiousness. At least traditional Chinese painting still requires some real craftsmanship and skill.

Digital Samizdat , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:56 pm GMT
@Ali Choudhury

Chinese progress has been most impressive but the country is sitting on an enormous pile of private and SOE debt.. There has not been a country in recorded history that has accumulated debt at the rate China did post the 2008 crash.

This is what happens to your brain on Forbes and the Wall Street Journal . In reality, China is the world's largest creditor. In fact, it's the US which is the largest debtor in the world.

All that Chinese debt that the Western presstitutes go on an on about is really just an accounting gimmick: some state-owned bank in China makes a loan to some state-owned conglomerate there, and this gets written down as a debt. But the Chinese government (which owns both of them) is never going to allow either of the two parties to actually go bankrupt, so the debt isn't actually real. It's no different than ordering your right-pocket to lend your left-pocket ten dollars: your right-pocket may now record that loan as an 'asset' on a balance sheet somewhere, while your left-pocket will now record it as a 'liability', but you as a person aren't any richer or poorer than you were before. You still have ten dollars–no more, no less. And so it is with China. They merely 'owe' that money to themselves.

Cyrano , says: November 30, 2018 at 7:11 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman Dictatorships are personality dependent, as opposed to democracies that are ? dependent. Communism came up with a catchy slogan – dictatorship of the proletariat. Why couldn't US – which are, after all, a birthplace of propaganda – come up with a similarly catchy slogan, such as: Democracy – dictatorship of the elitariat? Or maybe, Democracy – dictatorship of the deep state.

I personally prefer elections where there is only one candidate and one voter – the dictator, it kind of simplifies things. I think it takes a lot of bravery to be a dictator, you don't delegate glory, but you don't delegate blame either, you take full responsibility and full credit for whatever is happening in the country.

raywood , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:07 pm GMT
I didn't have time to read all the comments. But the ones I read, and especially the article itself, I found very interesting. Keep up the good work!
Ali Choudhury , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:40 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat The sheer amount of shadow debt outstanding is huge. 250 to 300% of GDP by some estimates. You reckon the Chinese government have this covered and can rescue failing institutions. They probably don't even know how many bad loans need to be written off and how badly it will cause a squeeze on normal lending.
Random Smartaleck , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:56 pm GMT
@DB Cooper

From what I saw China's statecraft with respect to its neighbors is mature, friendly, measured, restraint and long term thinking.

Do you think that correctly describes China's handling of claims in the South China Sea, or its attitude toward the independent country of Taiwan, or its promotion of anti-Japanese propaganda on Chinese television?

Random Smartaleck , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:09 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat

but I see no evidence that the Chinese government is all that guilty of alienating other countries.

Its complete disregard of other nations' entirely legitimate claims in the South China Sea is evidence to the contrary. It's not as if other nations must completely sever all relations with China for any alienation to be occurring.

Random Smartaleck , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:22 pm GMT
@Jason Liu Excellent comment, Jason. Certainly if China wishes to again become Elder Brother to East Asia, it needs to start relating to its neighbors as Little Brothers instead of obstacles to be rudely shoved aside.
Brian Reilly , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:24 pm GMT
@gmachine1729 gmachine, Glad to hear you are in a place that you like and suits you. That is what nations are all about. I am also in favor of native peoples contributing their effort (through commercial, intellectual and spiritual endeavors) to the benefit of their fellow nation-citizens, as long as those contributions are not wrung out by force of the state.

And Russia will have a lot more people by and by. They will be Chinese or Uyghar (sp?) perhaps, but that empty space will surely be put to use by someone or someones. Whether the Russians like that much could be another matter.

DB Cooper , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:35 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck China's handling of the claims in South China Sea has been characterized by restraint and a lot of patience. Basically a combination of dangling a big carrot with a small stick. This is the reason the ASEAN has signed up to the SCS code of conduct and the relation between the Philippines and China is at a all time high since Aquino's engineered the PCA farce several years ago.

Taiwan considered itself the legitimate government of all of China encompassing the mainland. It's official name is the Republic of China. Mainland China considered itself the legitimate the government of all of China encompassing the island of Taiwan. Its official name is the People's Republic of China. The so called 92 consensus agreed by both sides is that each side agreed there is only one China and each side is free to interpret its own version of China. For the mainland that means PRC (Peoples Republic of China). For Taiwan that means ROC (Republic of China). There is no such thing as the independent country of Taiwan.

China's tv has world war II drama doesn't constitute propaganda in as much as history channel in the US has world war II topics all the time.

Brian Reilly , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:38 pm GMT
If the reporting I have read (widely sourced) about infrastructure quality, durability, and actual utility is even 1/2 correct, quite a lot of government (especially provincial government) directed development cannot and will not prove to be wise investment. Combined with the opaque economic reporting, also subject to differing reporting as is infrastructure rating, there is some good reason t believe that the nation has some huge huge challenges diretly ahead.

The male overhang in China (and in India, others as well, but much smaller) is another potential problem that is difficult to assess. Maybe it is a nothingburger, and 50 million men without any chance to have a single wife will just find something else worthwhile and rewarding to do with their time. Maybe not. Combine wasted urban investment, financial chicanery on a gross scale, a narrow authoritarian structure and tens of millions of unsatisfied, un-familied men, the downside looks pretty ugly.

Maybe that reporting is all bullshit. I don't think so. I think that Chinese leadership is likely very concerned, hence so many of them securing property and anchor babies in the West. I do hope for the sake of the Chinese people, and the rest of the globe, that whatever comes along will not be too bad.

DB Cooper , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:43 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck "Its complete disregard of other nations' entirely legitimate claims in the South China Sea is evidence to the contrary."

The fact is that the claim of the Phillipines and Vietnam is highly illegitimate according to international law and convention.

Anon [348] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT
This is why I'm not afraid of China: Chinese are greedy soulless capitalists, or pagans as another poster calls them. Spot on. A country of 1.3 billion pagans will always stay a low trust society. Every Chinese dreams of getting rich, so they can get the hell out of China.

As for all the worship of education, no fear there either, the end goal of every single one of their top students is to go an American university, then once they get here, do everything they can to stay and never go back.

This is why I fear China: they are invading us, and bringing their dog-eat-dog, pagan ways with them, slowly but surely turning us into another low-trust, pagan society like the one they left behind. Also once they get here they instantly start chanting "China #1!", and look out for interest of China rather than that of the US. If we were wise we would stop this invasion now, but Javanka can't get enough of their EB5 dollars.

Anon [348] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:10 pm GMT

when a society favors profits over freedom and conscience, it becomes crass, shallow, and materialistic.

i.e. it becomes the United States.

another fred , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:50 pm GMT
@Digital Samizdat The problem is neither debt nor bankruptcies, although they are part of what is going on. It is the artificially elevated level of economic activity and the expectations of the people depending on that level continuing to sustain their lifestyles. The activity can only be sustained by expanding credit. If you believe that credit can continue to expand infinitely, well, we will see.

I notice that the Chinese are reducing their personal consumption in response to the cracks appearing in the economies of the world. They are wise to do so.

We have the same problem in the US, probably worse, and it exists throughout most of the "first" world. China has a decided advantage because of the degree of social control of its people, but China will not be immune when the bubble breaks.

witters , says: December 1, 2018 at 12:02 am GMT
@Anon Fred probably shouldn't say anything about art, but when has ignorance got in the way of USian cultural putdowns? Anyway, the very idea that the Chinese merely make copies is nonsense, pure and simple.

https://aeon.co/essays/why-in-china-and-japan-a-copy-is-just-as-good-as-an-original

Mark T , says: December 1, 2018 at 11:54 am GMT
@Digital Samizdat Well put. The propaganda on US websites is always about the debt as there is a need to believe that China is going to collapse as it simply can't have achieved what it has without freedom, democracy and the American way, or more accurately by not employing the disastrous policy mix known as the Washington Consensus. It is the countries who followed that (likely deliberately) flawed model of open exchange rates, low value added manufacturing (to enrich US multinationals and consumers) with western FDI that have given the support for the otherwise flawed Reinhardt and Roghoff study that everyone (who hasn't actually read it) uses to justify why debt to GDP is 'a bad thing' over a certain level. As those benighted emerging economies prospered from their trade relationship they were then offered lots of nice $ loans for consumption, buying cars and houses and lots of western consumer goods. So current account deficit, more $ funding, inflation, higher interest rates to control inflation triggering a flow of hot money that drivers the exchange rate temporarily higher undermining the export model. Then crash – exchange rate has killed export model, interest rates cripple domestic demand, financial markets plummet, hot money rushes out, exchange rate collapses so stagflation. Wall Street comes in and privatises the best assets and the US taxpayer bails out the banks. Rinse and repeat.
China was supposed to 'act like a normal country' and play this game, but it didn't. It followed the mercantilist model and built a balanced economy without importing western consumer goods and financial services. However, unlike Germany, Japan or S.Korea, China does not have a standing US Army on its soil to ensure that everything gets done for good old Uncle Sam. Hence the bellicosity and the propaganda. China's debts are owned by China, as are a lot of America's debts. Raising debt to build infrastructure and assets like toll roads, airports, electricity grids, high speed railways means that there is an income bearing asset to offset the liability. Raising debt to maintain hundreds of imperial bases around the world less so.
Digital Samizdat , says: December 1, 2018 at 5:50 pm GMT
@Mark T You are very perceptive. The reason why China's debts are 'bad' while Uncle Scam's debts are 'good' is because (((the usual suspects))) are profiting off the latter, but not the former. They were betting that, if they gave the Chinese our industry, China would repay the favor by giving them their finance sector in return. But that's not what happened! And now, (((the usual suspects))) are waking up to the rather embarrassing realization they got played by some slick operators from the East from wayyyy back East.
Random Smartaleck , says: December 1, 2018 at 9:15 pm GMT
@DB Cooper

The so called 92 consensus agreed by both sides is that each side agreed there is only one China and each side is free to interpret its own version of China. For the mainland that means PRC (Peoples Republic of China). For Taiwan that means ROC (Republic of China). There is no such thing as the independent country of Taiwan.

The "One China Policy" is a diplomatic sham designed to avoid bruising the fragile egos of the two Chinas, and is insisted on by the PRC to aid in their Finlandization & eventual absorption of Taiwan. Taiwan has been an independent country in all but diplomatic nomenclature for 70 years. The PRC's claim that Taiwan is a "renegade province" is laughable. The island is simply territory that the CCP never conquered. It is only the CCP's mad insistence on the "China is the CCP, the CCP is China" formulation that convinces it otherwise.

Likewise, Taiwan's claim of jurisdiction over the mainland -- while justifiable given history -- is simply delusional. The ROC can do absolutely nothing to enforce this claim, and, barring something truly extraordinary, will never be the government of the mainland again. Regardless, this claim does not negate Taiwan's de facto independence because it has absolutely nothing to do with placing Taiwan under others' control.

So, thus, "the independent country of Taiwan."

Random Smartaleck , says: December 1, 2018 at 9:37 pm GMT
@DB Cooper

China's tv has world war II drama doesn't constitute propaganda in as much as history channel in the US has world war II topics all the time.

You know better than that. We aren't talking about sober, fair-minded documentaries here. The Chinese productions are lurid, over-the-top demonizations of the Japanese. These combined with the National Humiliation curriculum and various museums show that the CCP quite likes stoking hatred against Japan among the Chinese masses perhaps they hope to exploit it in some near-future manufactured conflict.

DB Cooper , says: December 1, 2018 at 10:42 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck "The "One China Policy" is a diplomatic sham designed to avoid bruising the fragile egos of the two Chinas, and is insisted on by the PRC to aid in their Finlandization & eventual absorption of Taiwan. "

It is insisted on by both sides. The quarrel between the ROC and the PRC is which one is the legitimate government of China. The 92′ consensus only formalized this understanding in a documented form.

This "One China Policy" has its root deep into the historic narrative of China when successive dynasties replaced one after another and which dynasty should be recognized as the legitimate successor dynasty to the former dynasty. If you read any Chinese history book at the end of the book there is usually a cronological order of successive Chinese dynasties one followed another in a linear fashion. But of course in reality very often it is not that clean cut. Sometimes between transition several petty dynasties coexist each vying for the legitimacy to get the mandate of heaven to rule the whole of China. This "One China Policy" is just a modern manifestation of this kind of cultural understanding of the Chinese people and has nothing to do with Communism, Nationalism or whateverism.

DB Cooper , says: December 1, 2018 at 10:48 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck "These combined with the National Humiliation curriculum and various museums show that the CCP quite likes stoking hatred against Japan among the Chinese masses perhaps they hope to exploit it in some near-future manufactured conflict."

These kind of museums are fairly newly built, three decades old at most, many are even newer and is a direct response to Japan historic revisism. If the CCP want to milk this kind of anti-Japanese sentiment for its political purpose shouldn't they built this kind of museum earlier? From what I understand the elaborate annual reenactment of the atomic bombing in Nagasaki and Hiroshima begin the moment the US retreated from the administration of Japan in 1972. Now this is what I called the milking a victimhood sentiment for its political purpose.

The largest tourist group to Japan from a foreign country is from mainland. If the CCP is really stoking hatred to the Japanese then they really suck at it. What Japan did to China in the last century don't need any stoking. History speaks for itself.

Simply Simon , says: December 1, 2018 at 11:02 pm GMT
I would not debate Fred on any of the points he makes but I have a point of my own.After they read Fred's article select any number of Chinese men and women at random and tell them they are welcome to migrate to the US with no strings attached and at the same time select any number of American men and women at random and tell them they will likewise be welcomed by the Chinese. The proof should be in the pudding.
Anon [131] Disclaimer , says: December 1, 2018 at 11:28 pm GMT
@Mark T

It followed the mercantilist model and built a balanced economy without importing western consumer goods and financial services.

Agree somewhat. China did and does import a lot of western consumer goods. China is Germany's biggest trading partner, and Germany has trade surplus with China. And China isn't even the world's largest trade surplus country . Germany is, followed by Japan. ..

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-poised-to-set-worlds-largest-trade-surplus/a-45150968

Germany poised to set world's largest trade surplus. Germany is on track to record the world's largest trade surplus for a third consecutive year. The country's $299 billion surplus is poised to attract criticism, however, both at home and internationally. Germany is expected to set a €264 billion ($299 billion) trade surplus this year, far more than its closest export rivals Japan and the Netherlands, according to research published Monday by Munich-based economic research institute Ifo.

GM does well in China, selling more cars in China than it does in the US. (Personally I think GM makes crappy cars. ) It is successful in China, because GM has been doing a fantastic job of marketing its brand and American brands still enjoy prestige in China. And Apple certainly wouldn't have become the first trillion dollar company without China's market.

On a personal note, one of my relatives sells American medical devices to China and makes decent money. It isn't easy though as competition is fierce. America is not the only country that makes good medical devices. You have to compete with products from other countries.

With regard to the financial section, China has been extremely cautious of opening it up. Can you blame China? Given how the Wall Street operates. China just didn't have expertise, experience or regulations to handle a lot of these stuff. China has been preparing it, though, and it is ready to reform the market.

Beijing pushes ahead with opening up its financial sector despite trade tensions.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/beijing-pushes-ahead-with-financial-opening-up-despite-trade-tensions.html

Also, China is one of the backers for the WTO reform.

Anon [131] Disclaimer , says: December 2, 2018 at 12:25 am GMT
@DB Cooper Well said.

In "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" , the first sentence of the book is " 話說天下大勢,分久必合,合久必分. It can be roughly translated as "Under the heaven the general trend is : what is long divided, must unite; what is long united, must divide".

I believe in my lifetime China and Taiwan will unite again, and North Korea and South Korea will become One Korea.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms – Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms

Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a 14th-century historical novel attributed to Luo Guanzhong. It is set in the turbulent years towards the end of the Han dynasty and the Three Kingdoms period in Chinese history

SZ , says: December 2, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT
What is wrong with less 'inventiveness'? Do we really need a software update every 1 or 2 years? Just think, for example, how annoying the 'microsoft office ribbon' is for most of its adult and serious users who would prefer good-old drop-down menus! Or do we really need to change our clothes and phones every year and renew our furniture every decade because the preferred style is changing? The vast majority of the world, especially those areas where communitarian family models were the norm at some point in time, would embrace a little stability over coping with each unnecessary 'invention'. For the Anglo-Saxon world, marked by the 'absolute nuclear family', on the other hand, stability and predictability is a nightmare and an assault on their precious individuality. Hence, the tension between the US-led bloc of English-speaking nations and China-Russia-led Eurasia is no surprise, but rather the natural outcome of the cultural fabric of each bloc. A world succumbing to the Chinese vision would definitely be more dull, but more stable and foreseeable as well.
Rich , says: December 2, 2018 at 6:44 pm GMT
This has been an excellent article along with some excellent commentary. It's difficult to get a clear picture of what's actually happening in China and every little bit helps. Two of my kids went to Ivy League schools and when we were doing the drive to check them all out, they were filled with Asians. The Chinese I deal with are very materialistic and appear to base their importance on wealth and position. One poor Chinese kid I know who works as a mechanic tells me Chinese girls won't even date him because of his status. Of course I live in NY where most people are materialistic so it's hard to tell if that's a Chinese trait or not. They do appear to be a very smart, hard driven people and there's a whole lot of them, so there's a chance we start seeing them replace our present elite in the near future.
Achmed E. Newman , says: Website December 2, 2018 at 7:48 pm GMT
@Rich

One poor Chinese kid I know who works as a mechanic tells me Chinese girls won't even date him because of his status.
so it's hard to tell if that's a Chinese trait or not.

Yes that is a trait, Rich, and though somewhat prevalent in America too, the Chinese seem to have no respect for guys that work with their hands. To me, that's shameful. They respect the rich conniving businessman over the honest laborer.

I'd like to see one of the China-#1 commenters on here, or even Fred Reed*, argue with me on that one. The British-descended especially, but all of white American culture has a respect for honesty. That is absolutely NOT the case with the Chinese, whether living in China or right here. See Peak Stupidity on DIY's in China vs. America – Here is Part 1 .

* You're not gonna gain this kind of knowledge in a couple of weeks and without hanging with Chinese people, though.

Realist , says: December 2, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT

Socially China has a great advantage over America in that, except for the Muslims of Xinjiang, it is pretty much a Han monoculture. Lacking America's racial diversity, its cities do not burn, no pressure exists to infantilize the schools for the benefit of incompetent minorities, racial mobs do not loot stores, and there is very little street crime.

America's huge urban pockets of illiteracy do not exist. There is not the virulent political division that has gangs of uncontrolled Antifa hoodlums stalking public officials. China takes education seriously, as America does not. Students study, behave as maturely as their age would suggest, and do not engage in middle-school politics.

Agreed. China is not burdened by the abomination of cultural and racial strife. The United States has lost trillions of dollars due to racial and cultural differences.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website December 2, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT
@DB Cooper I'm not picking on, or arguing at all with, you in particular, Mr. Cooper, but let me chime in about this whole Mainland China vs. Taiwan thing. The first thing to remember is, excepting the original Taiwanese people who've been invaded left and right, these people are ALL CHINESE. They will eventually get back together, as the Germans have, and (I'm in agreement with another guy on this thread) the Koreans will.

Even the Chinese widow of Claire Chenault, the leader of the great American AVG Flying Tigers who supported the Nationalist Chiang Kai-Shek, had worked for years enabling business between Taiwan and the mainland. There is so much business between the 2 that any kind of war would seriously impede, and right now, the business of China is business (where have I heard that before?)

Another thing I can say about it is that it's sure none of America's business, at this point. The Cold War ended almost 3 decades ago. We are beyond broke, and it does us nothing but harm in thinking we must "defend" an island of Chinamen against a continent of Chinamen. Let the Republic Of China and the People's Republic Of China save faces in whatever asinine ways they see fit to. It's not a damn bit of America's business.

Realist , says: December 2, 2018 at 8:06 pm GMT
@Simply Simon

After they read Fred's article select any number of Chinese men and women at random and tell them they are welcome to migrate to the US with no strings attached and at the same time select any number of American men and women at random and tell them they will likewise be welcomed by the Chinese. The proof should be in the pudding.

American propaganda plays a big part here. Plus more Chinese speak English than Americans speak Mandarin.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website December 2, 2018 at 8:40 pm GMT
@Citizen of a Silly Country YOU may be behind about about a decade on this one, CoaSC, so touche*!

What I mean is, you may not have looked at it in a while, but the last bunch of times I've seen the "History Channel", it was all about one set of guys trying to sell their old crap to another bunch of guys, and the drama that apparently goes with that the Pawn Stars . Where history comes in, I have no earthly idea. I'd much rather be watching the Nazi Channel over this latest iteration of that network. Better yet, though, I don't watch TV.

* I think from the Chongching vs. Chongqing thing (you were right, of course). I hope I am remembering correctly.

MIT Handle , says: December 2, 2018 at 9:09 pm GMT
@Simply Simon I recently did a graduate degree at MIT, where there are a ton of Chinese students. They seem to be proud of China's progress, but as far as I can tell, almost all of them want to remain in the U.S.
Ben Sampson , says: December 2, 2018 at 10:18 pm GMT
@Jason Liu fine commentary Jason Lu. from the little I know Lu is very useful here..for the Chinese!
Ben Sampson , says: December 2, 2018 at 10:35 pm GMT
@Realist abomination of racial and cultural strife! Incredible! why is such diversity an abomination and not an advantage?

Because America ripped off all the people who are in strife' currently..and never addressed what such exploitation did to them socially ..making what could be an advantage a so-called 'abomination'

if some of the trillions had been spent on the needs of the American people by building essential physical and social infrastructure to meet popular need, then there would be no strife, people would have opportunity and structures to do their business..there would be no social loss and diversity would not be the problem that it is

the American system uses up people and discards them to the wayside when immediate exploitation needs are met. but we all know this making that comment inaccurate, nonsense really.

and again the 'strife has been going on so long that the elites should know it inside out and be able to address it positively. that they have not means that they do not care about the people period. they are prepared to let the strife go on and exploit that for profit and social control too

Simply Simon , says: December 3, 2018 at 12:14 am GMT
@MIT Handle It's the proof of the pudding. No matter how progressive China is the students value America's freedom of speech, movement, and religious liberty to name a few of the things we cherish.
Biff , says: December 3, 2018 at 6:12 am GMT
@AnonFromTN

It just needs to cut military spending to 20-30% of its current crazy unsustainable levels and invest some of the saved resources into science,

An idealist, and way off the mark. Empire's number one goal isn't a scientific one, but rather a financial one. The entire purpose of the U.S. military is to secure, and shore up Wall Street(White/Jewish) capitol on a global scale. Smedley Butler wrote about this very fact in the 1930's, and it still remains just as true. The Cold War/Vietnam war wasn't fought to battle a weak, retarded economic system such as communism, but rather to shore up financial dominance – for the same reason the U.S. military is fixated on oil fields, pipelines and other resources – Money!
Financial weapons(sanctions) can kill way more people than bombs, and(loan sharking-IMF World Bank) can conquer more territory than armies(Central, South America, Africa, Greece, etc )
And the goal is not to just remain the the financial dominant system, but more importantly, to destroy any potential competition – this is what is putting Russia, China, and the Eurasian economic system in Washington's cross hairs.

The U.S. military strategists have mentioned on many occasions that they are not afraid of a larger military, but rather they are deathly afraid of a larger economy. If scientists are needed for stated goals then so be it, but they are not the crucial factor.

Priorities man.

Jeff Stryker , says: December 3, 2018 at 6:56 am GMT
@MBlanc46 Why would China need US investment? They get massive investment from Singapore other wealthy Asian countries.

There is massive remissions from Chinese in Canada, UK and Australia. China has the money to invest extensively in Africa. Recently the Philippines went to China for investment instead of the United States. The rest of the world has pretty much written the US as declining irrelevant former Superpower in economic terms. It still has military power as Fred noted but you cannot take over foreign economies with a military.

Jeff Stryker , says: December 3, 2018 at 7:08 am GMT
@Jason Liu JASON

You say all that but Fuji Chinese took over the economies of Philippines (A US ally no less), Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam (Less so because the Vietnamese hate the Chinese).

If the Koreans or Japanese did not hate the Chinese so much, they would probably take over their economies as well.

The real Chinese power is not IN China. It is with Fuji Chinese merchants in Southeast Asia.

Petty greed? And this is not rampant in Israel, US, Russia, Latin America .

Tyrion 2 , says: December 3, 2018 at 8:03 am GMT
@Jason Liu The most anti-China people I've ever spent time with were the incredibly successful Chinese diaspora in SE Asia. I found their contempt shocking. Chinese people were made the butt of their jokes even on seemingly random topics. Your post offers an explanation.

I'm much more positive about your (?) country. I really liked it. But it does give me pause for thought whenever familiarity breeds contempt.

My own little annoyance came recently. I had reason to download WeChat. It was the easiest way to coordinate some business. When I later tried to delete my account, I found I could not. After searching for an answer, I read that I had to email the company and was certainly not guaranteed a response nor any action. That put the first line of their marketing about "300 million" users into perspective.

Another anecdotal thing I've noticed. There used to be lots of Chinese restaurants in London and very few Japanese, Korean, Thai and Vietnamese. There are now more of all of the latter near me, and the Chinese restaurants are generally very low quality holdouts, probably surviving by holding long cheap leases. People really like the other cultures, especially Korea and Japan, not so much the Chinese – a strange fact given the history of East Asia.

Hanoodtroll , says: December 3, 2018 at 9:19 am GMT
@Thorfinnsson

More relevant comparisons might be South Korea and Taiwan

Neither comparisons are exactly relevant. These two countries are tiny compared to China. But more importantly, America took both of them entirely under its wings, due to specific geopolitical conditions. Without the Korean and Vietnam wars, China-US thaw might have happened earlier, who knows. Godfree isn't wrong when he points out that China was under complete embargo. It's not like they had much of a choice other than central planning.

Nonny , says: December 3, 2018 at 10:14 am GMT
@Jason Liu Brilliant, Jason! Now, what does he have to fear from giving the Uigurs and Tibetans the right of self-determination instead of following the Israeli model and sending swarms of Han in?

And why the threat of war over every square inch along the Indian border, where the people are definitely not Han?

Why this greedy insanity, when if the idiot could learn the meaning of reconciliation China would zoom ahead at record speed! Is he a Jew in disguise?

Jeff Stryker , says: December 3, 2018 at 12:18 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 I worked for Chinese-Filipinos and this is really 100% true. The ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia are the most heartless capitalists on earth.
Mike P , says: December 3, 2018 at 1:15 pm GMT

China has a government that can do things: In 2008 an 8.0 quake devastated the region near the Tibetan border, killing, according to the Chinese government, some 100,000 people. Buildings put up long before simply collapsed

Well what the Chinese government could not do is prevent the corruption that allowed many of these collapsed buildings to be constructed from poor materials and without regard for earthquake-related building codes.

That an overall mediocre country like China can be held up as a paragon of efficiency and achievement to an American audience only speaks to the desperate rot afflicting America itself. China has not managed to produce any internationally competitive products of any complexity such as cars or airplanes; and to the extent it is beginning to succeed, this is due to foreign investment and theft of IP. Meanwhile, South Korea has shown the world how it's done properly.

Prusmc , says: December 3, 2018 at 2:25 pm GMT
@Mike P Poor construction materials, second rate engineering, pay offs and cronyism sounds like diversity bridge that collapsed in Miami.
therevolutionwas , says: December 3, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Jason Liu Alasdair Macleod puts out some interesting articles on China, economically speaking. I liked your comment. https://www.goldmoney.com/research/goldmoney-insights/china-s-monetary-policy-must-change
Z-man , says: December 3, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT

In terms of economic systems, the Chinese are clearly superior. China runs a large economic surplus

Up to now on the backs of poorly paid/overworked peasants. Shot a big hole in your article right away. Damn and I don't get paid for this?!? (Grin)

PS. Intelectual theft of mostly Western knowledge. Snap! Second hole shot. I need to get an agent, I'm soooo good I should be in charge of Face the Nation. (Smile) But I would keep the lovley Margaret Brennan as the host. (Grin)

TG , says: December 3, 2018 at 3:00 pm GMT
OK, good points, but a couple of comments.

1. China's one-child policy did not come about as a sort of attempt at eugenics. It came about because the previous six-child policy ("strength through numbers") was a colossal failure, and the resulting poverty nearly tore the communist state apart at the seems. So often governments insist on rapidly growing the population, and then when they get their wish, they realize that a massive number of hungry and angry people leads not to strength but to weakness. Just look at what happened when the Syrian government tried that

2. China peaceful? Not hardly. China is peaceful now because most people are doing OK. Back when population was pushing at the limits – during Mao's early phase, and before – when people were chronically malnourished and living in mud – no, the Chinese people were not peaceful.

3. Again, numbers do not always translate into strength. India looks to surpass China in total population, and they will be lucky just to avoid collapse.

4. Another thought: China is essentially ethnically pure Han Chinese. This might make revolts possible, as the people find it easy to band together. Not so in India, which is a massive pastiche of 100′s of different racial and ethnic groups – which are too busy competing with each other to band together. There is an old saying that the worst poverty that a people will accept before revolting, is exactly what they will end up with. Could part of China's strength be the fear of the elites that, if the people are crushed too much, that things could fall apart?

Carroll Price , says: December 3, 2018 at 3:41 pm GMT
Regarding economic and scientific advancements with which no one at the time could effectively compete, China sounds a bit like Germany prior to England, Russia and the United States combining economic and military resources to destroy it.
Jeff Stryker , says: December 3, 2018 at 3:42 pm GMT
@Realist That isn't true. There are thousands of us now in Asia. White males are everywhere in Asia doing every kind of business. I've been here for years.
anonymous [739] Disclaimer , says: December 3, 2018 at 3:46 pm GMT
Can some ethnic Han Chinese in the know give us the scoop on this: Are Han Chinese merchants, bankers getting back on top in places like Vietnam, Indonesia? There were huge anti Chinese riots in Indonesia in the 1960s and Han Chinese Merchants were singled out for ethnic cleansing by victorious Vietnamese Communists in ~ 1975 – the first Vietnamese boat people were Han Chinese merchants.

My take is that the Han Chinese in China and elsewhere in Asia are a lot like Japanese nationalist in the 1930s and Jewish merchants/bankers forever.

In all of this Chinese sphere of influence ares of Asia I think 2018 USA has pretty much nothing to offer except maybe playing balance of power to contain China and yes, have military alliances with all the countries in Asia that are not mainland China – I'm sure the Vietnamese want us back to militarize the Vietnam/China border – and we're good at that sort of thing, but we absolutely can not and will not control, protect our own Southern border.

Life sucks.

Agent76 , says: December 3, 2018 at 3:48 pm GMT
Nov 28, 2018 Belt & Road Billionaire in Massive Bribery Scandal

The bribery trial of Dr. Patrick Ho, a pitchman for a Chinese energy company, lifts the lid on how the Chinese regime relies on graft to cut Belt and Road deals in its global push for economic and geopolitical dominance.

Sent from my iPhone

Carroll Price , says: December 3, 2018 at 4:06 pm GMT
@nickels When was the last time Western Christianity demonstrated any moral conduct toward other nations? Was it England and the US fire-bombing German cities filled with civilians, followed by dropping two nuclear bombs on a defeated nation?
Rurik , says: December 3, 2018 at 5:22 pm GMT

as the US tries to garrison the world. Always favoring coercion, Washington now tries to batter the planet into submission via tarifffs, sanctions, embargos, and so on.

"and so on" ? Why not just be honest Fredo? Without tariffs, the lot of the American working class would eventually fall to the level of the rest of the Third World's teeming billions of near-starving wretches. As the one percent continued to move all its manufacturing to the slave labor wage rates of China and Mexico, et al.

By imposing tariffs on the products that the internationalist scumfucks build in China and elsewhere, it tends to encourage the production of these things domestically, thereby protecting the ever falling wages of the reviled American working class. Also China engages in policies that are specifically intended to bolster China, like protectionist economics. Whereas the ZUS does the opposite, its elite favoring policies that specifically fuck over the despised American citizen in favor of anyone else.

So Trump's tariffs are one of the few things he's actually doing right. At least if you're not one of those internationalist scumfucks who despise all things working class American.

As for

"US tries to garrison the world. Always favoring coercion, Washington now tries to batter the planet into submission sanctions, embargos,"

That is all being done on behalf of the Zionist fiend who owns our central bank. Duh.

What would be good, is for the ZUS to tell the Zionists to fuck off –

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/30/rand-paul-israel-military-aid-congress-senate-1036943

- returned to being the USA (by ending the Fed), and imposed massive tariffs on any industry that off-shored its manufacturing. Hell, any industry that threatens the well-being of our domestic industries. That pay domestic taxes and employ Americans.

This is the kind of thing China does, and if though some miracle our treasonous government scoundrels were all to get hanged by lampposts on the glorious Day of the Rope, perhaps then we'd do the same.

denk , says: December 3, 2018 at 6:11 pm GMT
@Jason Liu A wog's self critique

A wise dictator is great for the country, but Xi is not wise. He is a stubborn old man stuck in the past who is clearly not listening to advisers. He has overplayed his hand, confronted the US 10~20 years too early, *

When was the last time China sent gunboats or spy planes to murikka's doorstep ? [hint] fukus have been doing that since the day of Opium war.]

Who started the trade war anyway ?

*damaged China's image out of some paranoid fear of Uyghurs,*

Tell that to the victims of CIA sponsored Uighurs head choppers

[1]

*and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead driving them further into the arms of the Americans.*

[sic]

I've posted many times here and MOA, a tally of all panda huggers PM/prez in EA, SA, SEA .,who were ousted/liquidated by fukus shenanigans. [2]

True to form, fukus turned around to accuse China .of ' driving all its friends into the arm of the murikkans'

fukus have many sins.
but their vilest depravity must surely be .
Robbery crying out robbery.

There's this sanctimonious journo from BBC , who 'boldly' confront a Chinese diplomat,
' Do you realise your assertive/aggressive policies are driving all your friends away/ / .'

what a prick !

[1]
Ron frowns on image posting,
but very often a picture is worth a thousand words.!

[2]
Exhibit jp

http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/10/a-japanese-ex-diplomat-accues-the-sino-japanese-rift-part-of-us-agenda-the-truth-behind-post-war-history/

P.S.
YOUR critique might be very PC and earns you hundreds of up votes, but its all a load of bull.
Trouble is, the mushroom club members have been kept in the dark and fed bullshit so long, bull is exactly what they enjoy most.
hehehheh

Realist , says: December 3, 2018 at 6:14 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker

That isn't true. There are thousands of us now in Asia.

Thousands out of 1.6 billion .that is insignificant. Are you a citizen of China???

MarkinPNW , says: December 3, 2018 at 7:38 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman So Mao's Cultural Revolution to elevate the status of workers and peasants didn't have any lasting effect?

I seem to remember from Historian David Hackett Fisher how in the British American colonies craftsmen who work with their hands such as tinsmith/silversmith Paul Revere were highly regarded and enjoyed status due to recognition of the value of their work to society, with honest skilled workers enjoying status as a calling equal to religious and government leaders.

I also remember from somewhere the idea that countries with thriving middle classes were countries that acknowledged and valued the work of blue collar and even unskilled labor, while those that don't value the work of the "lower classes" are the ones stuck with a rich elite, and poverty for the masses.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website December 3, 2018 at 7:47 pm GMT
@Durruti Nah, humor doesn't come across too well, or you missed my "dictator" signature – your language, if you will recall. That's where the "or else" came from. You do need to calm down, as we are pretty much on the same side here.

Don't mind the Commies on here – it was much worse under the previous 2 Fred Reed posts on China.

OK, pre-emptive apologies here for any more wrong interpretations

SafeNow , says: December 3, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
Great comments. I can only add (1) Here in Calif the Chinese-Americans I know all seem to love vegetables, and are lean. I wish I could be more like that. New Year's Resolution. (2) Harvard downgrades Asian-American applicants because of the "personality" factor of being decent. I think our culture is in trouble if we are penalizing students for being polite, genial, decent.
Carroll Price , says: December 3, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT
@Nonny

Why was there a Cold War?

Answer: To replace WW 2, which was the best thing that ever happened to the US economy, allowing it to recover from an economic depression that would have otherwise been permanent. The US started the Cold War like they started all other wars in which they've been engaged, including the current war on terror.

Sven Lystbæk , says: December 3, 2018 at 8:18 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck As I understand it the ROC and the PRC share the view that the South China Sea islands are Chinese even though they don't entirely agree how to define China.
Achmed E. Newman , says: Website December 3, 2018 at 8:46 pm GMT
@MarkinPNW

So Mao's Cultural Revolution to elevate the status of workers and peasants didn't have any lasting effect?

Noooooo it didn't. [/George Castanza mode]

Actually, wait, it didn't have ANY effect to elevate ANYONE, besides those elevated onto the stage to get pig blood poured on them sort of a poor man's Carrie scene.

Anyway, Mark, whatever you remember from your David Hackett Fischer (sorry that I'm not familiar) along with your last paragraph sound like pretty good explanations. Though China has a pretty large middle class now, it's NOT your father's middle class. I don't know if it could ever be a very trusting society, no matter how much money the median Chinafamily has.

Whether things were different in this respect way back a century ago, before the > 1/2 century of turmoil (starting with the end of the last empire .. 1912, I believe), I don't know. I do know that 3-4 decades of hard-core Communism will beat the trust and morality out of a whole lot of people .

Carroll Price , says: December 3, 2018 at 8:54 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker

If you are not Chinese you cannot be a citizen.

If you read Mein Kampf, you'll find that Adolph Hitler held similar views regarding German citizenship, with the first requirement being that you must be of German blood, followed by meeting various physical, civic and educational requirements prior to anyone becoming a citizen of Germany, including those born in Germany. The idea that there could be any such thing as a Black German struck him as preposterous.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website December 3, 2018 at 8:58 pm GMT
@SafeNow

(2) Harvard downgrades Asian-American applicants because of the "personality" factor of being decent. I think our culture is in trouble if we are penalizing students for being polite, genial, decent.

If you don't already, SafeNow, you should read the archives (or current writings) of Mr. Steve Sailer, right here on this very site. He has been all over this stuff for years – I think that the college admissions/high-school quality/graduation rates/etc by race, IQ etc. is close to an obsession for him, but the posts are usually pretty interesting.

As to this specific point of yours, my answer is that this is the way Harvard keeps the black/hispanic/other special people's numbers up where they want them along with Oriental numbers down where they want them. That personality thing is just a way of putting "vibrant" young people ahead. I don't like vibrancy a whole lot myself, unless there are kegs of beer involved and only on the weekends. That is a problem for some of the Oriental young people, as they can't drink as much as they would like – I'm not sure if it's allergies or not.

BTW, I'd be remiss in not letting you know that the blog owner himself, Mr. Unz, is involved in a lawsuit about Harvard admissions and has also written a whole lot about this.

Oh, on your (1), agreed about the tons of vegetables, but they do not consider anything without rice a meal. Rice can be OK, but when you eat lots of the white rice, with its very high Glycemic Loading, you can balloon up fast. Not as many of the Oriental girls I see in America and China are as slim as the way it used to be.

Vidi , says: December 3, 2018 at 9:19 pm GMT
@Ali Choudhury

The sheer amount of shadow debt outstanding is huge. 250 to 300% of GDP by some estimates.

The amount of shadow debt is probably exaggerated: all that extra cash would either increase China's inflation rate or else greatly boost the import of goods. The Chinese inflation rate is reasonable, as is the quantity of imports (nowhere near GDP).

As Digital Samizdat said, China's debt is mostly internal; the country's development was largely due to her own efforts.

phil , says: December 3, 2018 at 9:33 pm GMT
@Godfree Roberts You continue to use bad statistics. World Bank specialists know more than you do. Ordinary Chinese know that their living standards lagged terribly under Chairman Mao. The most important changes came after he died.

Deng Xiaoping traveled to Southeast Asia in November 1978. Rather than telling the Southeast Asians about China's "incredible advances," he sought to learn from Singapore's progress and listened intently to Lee Kuan Yew, who told Deng that China must re-open international trade, move toward privatization, and respect market forces. Farmers were given greater choice in planting crops and, after meeting production quotas, were allowed to sell surplus produce on the free market. Starvation deaths declined. Widespread privatization began in the 1990s. China eventually acceded to the World Trade Organization. Economic growth took off as economic freedom increased from less than 4 to more than 6 on a 10-point scale. (Hong Kong and Singapore are close to 9 on this scale, and the US is about 8.) Human capital, which China has in abundance (more so than the US) is more than important than economic freedom, once a minimum of economic freedom (at least 6 on a 10-point scale) is attained, but economic freedom below 4 (as in pre-1979 China or today's Venezuela or North Korea) does not lead to much improvement in living standards.

Vidi , says: December 3, 2018 at 10:02 pm GMT
@Simply Simon China is still a developing country: the average per capita income is lower than Mexico's level. (China is growing faster than Mexico, of course.) However, because China has so many people, the country as a whole can do great things.
Rurik , says: December 3, 2018 at 10:08 pm GMT
@denk

tar all whiteys as white trash supremacists, even tho there's an army out there.

what is that? another gratuitous smear? Here's a clue: Not wanting to see your nation- whether it be Chinese or Palestinian or German – flooded and overcome by foreigners- does not make you a Chinese or Palestinian or German "supremacist". K? It simply means that you are sane and of sound mind and psychological health. Only the insane would agitate to fund an army of foreign invaders to overcome your nation and people. That, or having an ((elite)) that resents, envies and despises your people, and desires to see them replaced and bred out and overcome.

Being an American, we're acutely aware of the loss suffered by the Amerindian tribes when whitey overcame them.

But somehow I can't imagine anyone telling an Apache that his desire to preserve the lands they had conquered – as distinctly Apache lands, suggested that he was a vile and reprobate "Apache supremacist". I can only imagine the look on Geronimo's face if some SJW type of the day, were to scold him as an 'Apache supremacist!' for not laying down and accepting his tribe's marginalization and replacement.

But in the insane world we live in, Germans and N. Americans and others, are all expected to want to be overcome, or it can only mean that they must be terrible "white trash supremacists".

It's so laughably deranged that it's literally, clinically insane, but you still hear such raving nevertheless.

Simply Simon , says: December 3, 2018 at 10:14 pm GMT
@neutral It's all relative. Our freedom of speech , movement and religious liberty has been degraded but obviously not to the degree the MIT students would prefer to return to China.
FB , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:02 pm GMT
@Jason Liu You sound like a retard

So you have a better plan than President Xi ? That's pretty fucking funny especially as your plan sounds like the talking points coming out of some neocon stinktank

The world is moving on your dinosaur thinking where the irrelevant west is still the reference point doesn't exist anymore except in the fervid imaginations of American exceptionalists

Basically everything you said is bullshit China's diplomacy is light years ahead of the west the country is in fact presenting all kinds of benevolence to neighbors, with mutually beneficial development pulled along by the Chinese locomotive

Even Japan, a country in denial about its massive crimes of the past, is coming around to the inevitable conclusion that it must live in CHINA'S neighborhood India joined the SCO last year look up the SCO btw and think about which will be more relevant 10 or 20 years from now this org or dying bullshit like Nato and the G7

As for supposedly 'challenging' the US that's pretty funny what's to challenge US doesn't have a pot to piss in

US doesn't even have an industrial base anymore with which to produce weapons in case of a real war with an actual enemy that doesn't wear sandals look up the Pentagon's 'Annual Industrial Capabilities' report even the MIC's stuff comes from China, somewhere down the supply chain that's fucking hilarious

US is is well on its way to finding out the hard way a financialized Ponzi economy that has figured out how to de-industrialize a previously industrial country for untold riches for a handful of parasites and actually being a strong and healthy country with actual capabilities to PRODUCE REAL STUFF are two mutually exclusive goals

Look at the so-called 'trade war' most Americans don't even realize that tariffs on Chinese goods only means that they will be paying an extra tax Chinese are laughing at this 'trade war' what happens to Walmart and Amazon if China just stops exporting stuff to the US they can do that you know it will hit some Chinese billionaires but so what 70 percent of the economy is in government hands and there is enough of a consumer base in China that even eliminating all US exports is not going to do much damage

In the meantime GM is shutting down factories and cutting 15,000 high paying jobs but setting up shop in China along with Harley and others LOL

You're obviously some brainwashed Chang Kai-shek acolyte keep on living in your make believe disneyworld while a socialist and dynamic China grows tall all around you LOL

anon [153] Disclaimer , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:20 pm GMT
No amount of tariff will force China to go along with Trump's "fair trade" plan until Trump does what his brilliant senior advisor Stephen Miller wants him to do -- stop issuing student visas, plus EB5, H1b, OPT and green cards to Chinese nationals, step up raids of Chinese birth hotels in CA, NY, WA, and rescind all passports issued to Chinese birth tourist babies. That will send tens of thousands of Chinese citizens out on the streets protesting as they are all eager to get the hell out with their ill gotten gains while they still can, and Xi will bend over backwards in no time.
anon [153] Disclaimer , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:26 pm GMT
@FB I think your diatribe just proved Jason Liu's point about mainland Chinese being thin skin, arrogant and, I will also add, extremely dishonest and ill-mannered. It's why most people in Southeast Asia, Oz and NZ, including the Chinese diaspora, despise the mainland Chinese.
ThreeCranes , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:38 pm GMT
@Anon Machine tools make up a fair percentage of what China imports from Germany. Tools to make tools and patterns for manufacturing should be considered an investment.
someone , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:58 pm GMT
@FB FB gets it. All the bluster of the disingenuous American billionaire sellouts and their xenophobic, gullible domestic fanbase will amount to nothing.

Apart from nuking China or bribing their leaders (a la Yeltsin) to follow the Washington Consensus, China will continue its economic development. And unlike dissolution era Soviet Union, China isn't broken and desperate to seek the "knowledge" of neoclassical economists. Unlike Plaza Accord Tokyo, China isn't under American occupation, and unlike Pinochet era Chile and countless other minnows, the US establishment cannot hope to overthrow the Chinese government.

Then we get the Anon dude who replied to FB. Way to ignore history and empirical evidence and bolster yet another dimbulb argument with racism.

someone , says: December 3, 2018 at 11:59 pm GMT
@anon LOL.

Jason Liu is a retard. You resorting to typical racism is acceptable to a number of this site's resident know-nothings, but resorting to racism to bolster your non-argument is pretty much the definition of stupidity.

the grand wazoo , says: December 4, 2018 at 12:05 am GMT
Democracy fails simply because it is basically mob rule, and 51% of the mob isn't anymore intelligent than the minor 49%. When the Supreme Court passed Citizens United (a misnomer) which misinterpreted money as speech, the coup, that began with the assassination of JFK, was complete. The effect has been devastating for the average Joe; completing the transfer of power from the people to the corporations and the billionaire class, i.e. the bGanksters. There's much to be said of a dictatorship, but where do we fit in with the selection, and would the elite ever allow a new JFK? No, they wouldn't even tolerate a new Muammar Gaddafi. So were stuck with the revolving door wannabes.
utu , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:03 am GMT
No western country allowed itself to be destroyed by its leadership as China did. This includes Nazi Germany (and I do not consider USSR a western country). Watch this video and reflect on the fatal flaw in Chinese culture and character.
Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:15 am GMT
@anonymous The ethnic Chinese of Southeast Asia who control the economies of those places are Fuji Chinese, not Han.

Fuji Chinese actually immigrated to Philippines and Malaysia and Indonesia to escape Han persecution and the Han themselves were escaping the Manchu Chinese by migrating South into the Fuji Province.

Virtually all the ethnic Chinese of Southeast Asia are from the Fujian Province. This is especially true of the Philippines. Virtually all Chinese-Filipinos are from Amoy very near to Taiwan on the coast of the Fujian Province.

Anon [436] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:20 am GMT
@someone But he didn't resort to racism. And if anyone deserves the insulting "retard" it is you and FB for not seeming to see the lack of relevance to what he said in your purported responses to Jason Liu.
Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:23 am GMT
@Carroll Price Hitler wrote that in jail before he was taking orders from psychics and astrologers. The syphilis had not really set in yet at that point.

Black US GI's wreaked a fair amount of havoc in Germany on and off the bases. There were always rapes, stolen cars, assaults around US army bases.

Of course so did some white American GI's. Dahmer is suspected-though he did not admit it-of having killed people around the base where he was stationed. Ironically the country most adhering to this policy these days is Israel.

someone , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:24 am GMT
What is it with people whose grasp of Chinese history is limited to the Cultural Revolution? Why do they comment here, and why are they somehow ignorant of the previous.. say 130 years of Chinese history? Maybe, just maybe, Chinese society would not have collapsed if it weren't for Opium traders destroying both China and India under the guise of free trade, de facto colonization, then outright genocidal invasion and occupation from the Japanese military regime?

And way to bag on any sort of collective action against the ossified rentier class. Cause Marx/Engels/Lenin/Mao is a scourge of present-day societies for some reason?

The Cultural Revolution sure has an analogue in the US and its vassal states. The whole neoliberal/militarist Reagan revolution and similar class war developments have wracked the US and its minion states for FORTY YEARS. Yet few people seem to be aware of it. And others correctly note the decline in living standards, then proceed to ignore the oligarchy beneficiaries of neoliberalism/militarism, and instead are led to demagogues to blame irrelevant scapegoats.

Anon [436] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:26 am GMT
@FB If you believe this arrogant rant counts as a responsive reply to Jason Liu then, assuredly you are the candidate retard. And that is true notwithstanding the presence of intemperately stated truths in your rant.
Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:28 am GMT
@denk And you are a typical non-American who is obsessed with a country you have never been to because you have been watching US films your entire life and your perception of reality is formed by screenwriters in Los Angeles.

You secretly would like to go to the United States but have a distorted perception based upon second-rate Hollywood films.

Typical of the Chinese Singaporean you are not Chinese and possibly have never been to China. Your family has been in Singapore for three or four generations.

As a result you see white Americans and are secretly enthralled by them. Their towering height and self-confidence and loud voices in Orchard Road STARBUCKS.

someone , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:30 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker Jeff, your history sucks, your political economy sucks.

Filipino Chinese are Fujian, not Fuji–Not written nor pronounced like the Japanese mountain or film.

Fujianese are Han. Their dialect is distinct, but they are as Han as the other southern subgroups like the Hakka (who also compose a part of Sino-Filipinos) and Cantonese. Places like Thailand and Malaysia have large numbers of Teochow and Cantonese, not Fujis or Fujians or any other of your malapropisms.

What is it with your dipsh!t obsession with (incorrect) demographics and your piss poor knowledge of EVERYTHING ELSE?

Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:35 am GMT
@denk How would a Singaporean (Who vaunts his Chinese heritage but is probably third or fourth-generation Singaporean) KNOW anything about this?

You've never even BEEN to the West. Perhaps you have been to the United Kingdom, but I am dubious that you are even that well-traveled.

What would you know about white Supremacy from seeing a few Westerners at the STARBUCKS on Orchard Road a time or two?

I can speak with firsthand knowledge about Asia because I have lived all over it and done business there for years.

Wizard of Oz , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:38 am GMT
@Carroll Price Yes, the comparison of late 19th century Germany and China today has been made quite often with at least some plausibility for non specialist readers. Happily Miranda Carter's marvellous New Yorker article doesn't seem to have relevance to China's leadership today. See

"What happens when a bad tempered distractible doofus runs an empire".

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/what-happens-when-a-bad-tempered-distractible-doofus-runs-an-empire/amp#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:46 am GMT
@Realist I've already said that no person not born in China can be a citizen.

The only Caucasians who are Chinese citizens are the descendants of Portuguese settlers in Macau of which there is still a small community.

Philippines in particular would take a huge economic hit if every Western man living there left. Other Asian countries would feel a similar affect to their economies.

Locals PREFER to work for Western men rather than the Chinese ethnics because Chinese ethnics treat Malay employees like farm animals and pay a pittance.

Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:52 am GMT
@someone The correct term is "Chinese-Filipino" or "Chinoy" not "Filipino Chinese".

Fukkian Province, Fujian Province, Hakkan, Hokkien

You say Tom-AH-Toe, I say To-MAY-toe.

I did not mention Thailand because the Chinese-Thai (I'm married to one and we have two children) are no longer a distinct group and don't have the economy in a stranglehold like they do in Philippines or Malaysia.

Cantonese have never been the businessmen that Fujian Chinese are in Southeast Asia and live in piss-poor Chinatowns in Manila or Jakarta.

When we talk about ethnic Chinese economic dominance in Southeast Asia we are talking about Fujian Chinese shopkeepers.

Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 1:59 am GMT
[You have been repeatedly warned that you leave far too many rambling, vacuous comments, especially since so many of them demonstrate your total ignorance. Fewer and fewer of your comments will be published until you improve your commenting-behavior or better yet permanently depart for another website]

ATTENTION ALL CHINESE POSTERS (OR ETHNIC CHINESE WHO FANCY THEMSELVES AS SUCH)

You may be offended by my views but I have earned them. I've worked with ethnic Chinese in Asia a long time.

I'm married to one. I have two children with one. They go to Chinese schools.

So I have a right to my cynical opinions.

Most of you see a bunch of loud American tourists in some local Starbucks and you think you know everything about the West.

You know very little.

I at least have lived in squalor with ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia in the trenches doing business with them.

last straw , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:17 am GMT
@Mike P @Mike P

Well what the Chinese government could not do is prevent the corruption that allowed many of these collapsed buildings to be constructed from poor materials and without regard for earthquake-related building codes.

That an overall mediocre country like China can be held up as a paragon of efficiency and achievement to an American audience only speaks to the desperate rot afflicting America itself. China has not managed to produce any internationally competitive products of any complexity such as cars or airplanes; and to the extent it is beginning to succeed, this is due to foreign investment and theft of IP. Meanwhile, South Korea has shown the world how it's done properly.

Those buildings were built in a different era, when China was much poorer. When China gets richer, the regulations will be strengthened and more effectively enforced. It's the same for every country.

East Asian countries develop in stages. Today's China is like South Korea 20 years ago. 20 years ago, South Korea was like Japan 40 years ago. The difference is that while Japan and South Korea can obtain Western technologies without problem, China has been under Western military embargo since 1989.

You probably did not realize it, but China has burst onto the scene of some cutting edge technologies such as super computer, the application of quantum physics, and space technologies including China's own GPS system; not to mention dominating in ship-building, the manufacturing of solar panel, LCD panel and LED light, cell phone including 5G technology, electric vehicles and highspeed rail etc etc.

Also, do not forget all the Chinese infrastructures. Go to there and take a look youself: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?s=90e04ddfc408930e982a709bcb9991ff&f=803

FB , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:19 am GMT
@someone Dude you're never going to convince the koolaid gulping Unz whackadoodles with actual historical knowledge and facts

They're Pavlovian reactions is to defend the rentier class that is driving them into the ground talk about irrational and self-destructive they must love and worship the 0.01 percent since they are voting for their good which in fact entails the death of the middle class and ordinary folks by definition

What clowns they only spout what they have been spoonfed to spout marching blindly like the proverbial lemmings off the cliff believe me, better men have tried to talk sense into these morons, without effect see PCR

PS notice the flurry of anon retards here and they actually think I'm Chinese LOL

last straw , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:25 am GMT
@Simply Simon Most MIT graduates want to stay in the U.S. because it's a much richer country than China and much easier to get ahead materialistically. After working 10-15 years in the U.S., you can easily get a 4-bed room house with 2 nice cars in its garages in a decent neighborhood. What can you get in China? You probably can only afford an apartment with a semi-decent car with nowhere to park. It has little to do with free speech or politics.
someone , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:26 am GMT
@Anon You worship at the altar of that incompetent demagogue Steven Miller. Not only are you a dimbulb racist, you can't see through the thinnest veneer of an oligarch who harnesses the latent xenophobia of the masses to ram through yet more regressive policies. His dipsh!t eugenicist immigration policies are just a reflection of the same color/ethnicity bar which led to the deaths of his relatives several generations ago.

You think banning individuals of a certain ethnicity are enough to make America Great Again? That's gullible, even for this site.

Should have followed eugenics and banned your idiot fetus from ever hatching.

Agent76 , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:31 am GMT
20 SEPTEMBER 2010 Mao's Great Famine: the History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe (1958-62)

https://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/09/mao-china-famine-western

China under Mao – Great Leap Forward

Anonymous [392] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:32 am GMT
@Jason Liu Wow. Well said.
FB , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:45 am GMT
@someone Actually I have to wonder if even the standard narrative about the 'terrible' cultural revolution has anything to do with reality

I would love to see a Godfree Roberts essay on this subject, since I am far from anything approaching a China scholar his essays on Mao were absolutely tremendous there can be no doubt that there could have been no modern Chinese economic miracle had it not been for Mao's Great Leap Forward

Anonymous [392] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 2:55 am GMT
@DB Cooper The point being is that China currently has poor relations with its East Asian neighbors when it could be a strong relationship.
utu , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:06 am GMT
@someone You are wrong. Stopping immigration form India and China would be a good thing.
DB Cooper , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:20 am GMT
@Anonymous Which one you are talking about? Name the countries and we can talk about them.
The scalpel , says: Website December 4, 2018 at 3:42 am GMT
@Annonymous Yes, and no matter where you go – there you are.
Anonymous [681] Disclaimer , says: December 4, 2018 at 3:55 am GMT
@Jeff Stryker

I did not mention Thailand because the Chinese-Thai are no longer a distinct group and don't have the economy in a stranglehold like they do in Philippines or Malaysia.

According to Amy Chua in her book World on Fire , the Chinese make up 12% of Thailand's population and they do still by and large control Thailand's economy, it's just that it's very hard to tell them apart from native Thais because they've changed their names to local Thai names, but those in the know can still tell because Chinese Thai last names tend to be very long.

DB Cooper , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:05 am GMT
@FB I like Godfree. He is a contrarian and certainly not afraid of voicing his opinions. He offers some unique perspective on looking at China and this is very refreshing because I can say most of the things the MSM on China is just nonsense and Godfree got some but not all of them right, in my opinion.

As to Mao's Great Leap Forward, or Cultural Revolution for that matter, let's look at it this way. If you pay attention to China's pundits talking about China in Chinese TV today you get the impression that the Chinese government is very proud of what it has accomplished in the last forty years. And it should be. Lifting hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty and transforming China to today's situation like what Fred described in such a short span is no easy feat. These Chinese pundits always talk about 'Reform and Opening Up' all the time. This is the phrase they used most often. But 'Reform and Opening Up' refers to the policy Deng implemented when he took over. I have yet to see anybody praising the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution in Chinese TV. To the extent that it was brought up on very rare occasion, it was brought up in passing but never elaborated. It is as if the history of Communist China started in 1979 instead of 1949. May be it has some dirty laundry it doesn't want to air? The CCP has officially declared Mao's legacy as 70% good and 30% bad. What's that 30% bad about?

I am convinced that the standard narrative about the 'terrible' cultural revolution is close to reality. utu posted a video on China's Great Leap Forward on this thread. Do you think the video is CGI graphics?

Biff , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:19 am GMT
@someone

Places like Thailand and Malaysia have large numbers of Teochow and Cantonese, not Fujis or Fujiafns or any other of your malapropisms.

My family in Thailand refer to themselves as Teochow. Never heard of Fuji's, so you may be on to something.

Jeff Stryker , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:27 am GMT
@Anonymous Amy Chau got a good many things about her own Chinese-Filipino people wrong, I place little stock in what she says about Thailand. Or even about the Philippines.

She is only relevant for touting herself as Chinese when her family has been in the Philippines for generations-that reflects how at odds Chinese-Filipinos are with the predominant population and also why the Indonesians and Malaysians have carried out savage pogroms from time to time.

Worse in the Philippines is Chinese-Filipino involvement in meth. They make it and distribute it and import it from China. The drug war in Philippines is entirely the result of Chinese. And Tiger Mom is unlikely to bring that up in her wildly self-congratulatory books which also focus on German Jews because she is married to one.

Chinese do not control the Thai economy to anywhere near the extent that they control the economy of the Philippines or other countries. Thailand has actively forced the Chinese to assimilate to a degree and at any rate they are probably the most clever of the Southeast Asians.

Chinese immigrants also fair best in countries broken up by colonialism like Philippines by Spain or Malaysia by Brits where they can slide in during post-colonial confusion.

denk , says: December 4, 2018 at 4:29 am GMT
@Nonny

*And why the threat of war over every square inch along the Indian border, where the people are definitely not Han?*

Pleeeeze, Show me ONE instance of China threatening war on India.

*In the NEFA, China seemed tacitly to have accepted the Indian claim and the fact of indian occupation, even though this meant the loss of a very large and valuable territory populated by Mongoloid people and which in the past had clearly belonged to Tibet. It had come into Indian hands only as a result of British expansionism during China's period of historical weakness, a fact firmly suggested by the very name of the frontier Beijing had tacitly accepted as the line of control -- the McMahon Line. *

https://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/24chin.htm

How did the seven sisters ended up as India's sex slaves old chap ?

[Dec 04, 2018] The Ignored Legacy Of George H.W. Bush War Crimes, Racism, Obstruction Of Justice

Dec 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/04/2018 - 00:05 178 SHARES Authored by Mehdi Hasan via The Intercept,

The tributes to former President George H.W. Bush, who died on Friday aged 94, have been pouring in from all sides of the political spectrum. He was a man "of the highest character," said his eldest son and fellow former president, George W. Bush. "He loved America and served with character, class, and integrity," tweeted former U.S. Attorney and #Resistance icon Preet Bharara. According to another former president, Barack Obama , Bush's life was "a testament to the notion that public service is a noble, joyous calling. And he did tremendous good along the journey." Apple boss Tim Cook said : "We have lost a great American."

In the age of Donald Trump, it isn't difficult for hagiographers of the late Bush Sr. to paint a picture of him as a great patriot and pragmatist; a president who governed with "class" and "integrity." It is true that the former president refused to vote for Trump in 2016, calling him a " blowhard ," and that he eschewed the white nationalist, "alt-right," conspiratorial politics that has come to define the modern Republican Party. He helped end the Cold War without, as Obama said , "firing a shot." He spent his life serving his country -- from the military to Congress to the United Nations to the CIA to the White House. And, by all accounts, he was also a beloved grandfather and great-grandfather to his 17 grandkids and eight great-grandkids .

Nevertheless, he was a public, not a private, figure -- one of only 44 men to have ever served as president of the United States. We cannot, therefore, allow his actual record in office to be beautified in such a brazen way. "When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms," as my colleague Glenn Greenwald has argued , because it leads to "false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts."

The inconvenient truth is that the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush had far more in common with the recognizably belligerent, corrupt, and right-wing Republican figures who came after him - his son George W. and the current orange-faced incumbent - than much of the political and media classes might have you believe.

Consider:

... ... ...

He made a dishonest case for war . Thirteen years before George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify his invasion and occupation of Iraq, his father made his own set of false claims to justify the aerial bombardment of that same country. The first Gulf War, as an investigation by journalist Joshua Holland concluded , "was sold on a mountain of war propaganda."

For a start, Bush told the American public that Iraq had invaded Kuwait " without provocation or warning ." What he omitted to mention was that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had given an effective green light to Saddam Hussein, telling him in July 1990, a week before his invasion, "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Then there is the fabrication of intelligence. Bush deployed U.S. troops to the Gulf in August 1990 and claimed that he was doing so in order "to assist the Saudi Arabian Government in the defense of its homeland." As Scott Peterson wrote in the Christian Science Monitor in 2002, "Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key U.S. oil supplier."

Yet when reporter Jean Heller of the St. Petersburg Times acquired her own commercial satellite images of the Saudi border, she found no signs of Iraqi forces; only an empty desert. "It was a pretty serious fib," Heller told Peterson, adding: "That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist."

President George H. W. Bush talks with Secretary of State James Baker III and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney during a meeting of the cabinet in the White House on Jan. 17, 1991 to discuss the Persian Gulf War. Photo: Ron Edmonds/AP

He committed war crimes. Under Bush Sr., the U.S. dropped a whopping 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait, many of which resulted in horrific civilian casualties. In February 1991, for example, a U.S. airstrike on an air-raid shelter in the Amiriyah neighborhood of Baghdad killed at least 408 Iraqi civilians . According to Human Rights Watch , the Pentagon knew the Amiriyah facility had been used as a civil defense shelter during the Iran-Iraq war and yet had attacked without warning. It was, concluded HRW, "a serious violation of the laws of war."

U.S. bombs also destroyed essential Iraqi civilian infrastructure -- from electricity-generating and water-treatment facilities to food-processing plants and flour mills. This was no accident. As Barton Gellman of the Washington Post reported in June 1991: "Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself. Planners now say their intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair without foreign assistance. Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as 'collateral' and unintended, was sometimes neither."

Got that? The Bush administration deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure for "leverage" over Saddam Hussein. How is this not terrorism? As a Harvard public health team concluded in June 1991, less than four months after the end of the war, the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure had resulted in acute malnutrition and "epidemic" levels of cholera and typhoid.

By January 1992, Beth Osborne Daponte, a demographer with the U.S. Census Bureau, was estimating that Bush's Gulf War had caused the deaths of 158,000 Iraqis, including 13,000 immediate civilian deaths and 70,000 deaths from the damage done to electricity and sewage treatment plants. Daponte's numbers contradicted the Bush administration's, and she was threatened by her superiors with dismissal for releasing " false information. " (Sound familiar?)

He refused to cooperate with a special counsel . The Iran-Contra affair , in which the United States traded missiles for Americans hostages in Iran, and used the proceeds of those arms sales to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua, did much to undermine the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Yet his vice president's involvement in that controversial affair has garnered far less attention. "The criminal investigation of Bush was regrettably incomplete," wrote Special Counsel Lawrence Walsh, a former deputy attorney general in the Eisenhower administration, in his final report on the Iran-Contra affair in August 1993.

Why? Because Bush, who was "fully aware of the Iran arms sale," according to the special counsel, failed to hand over a diary "containing contemporaneous notes relevant to Iran/contra" and refused to be interviewed in the later stages of the investigation. In the final days of his presidency, Bush even issued pardons to six defendants in the Iran-Contra affair, including former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger -- on the eve of Weinberger's trial for perjury and obstruction of justice. "The Weinberger pardon," Walsh pointedly noted, "marked the first time a president ever pardoned someone in whose trial he might have been called as a witness, because the president was knowledgeable of factual events underlying the case." An angry Walsh accused Bush of "misconduct" and helping to complete "the Iran-contra cover-up."

[Dec 04, 2018] The Trump as neocons marionette by Tom Luongo

From ZeroHedge comments it looks like Trump lost a large part of his votters
Dec 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden

Authored by Tom Luongo,

I knew there was something wrong with Donald Trump's presidency the day he bombed the airbase at Al-Shairat in Syria. It was a turning point. I knew it was a mistake the moment he did it and argued as such at the time.

No act by him was more contentious.

It cost me hundreds of followers gained throughout the campaign who wanted to believe Trump was playing 4-D chess. My Periscopes went from being events to afterthoughts.

Those that left needed to believe this because they had invested so much in him.

They had to believe he was playing some deep game with Putin to bring peace to the region.

He wasn't.

I was right and truth is painful. The need for him to be Orange Jesus was so strong they created Qanon and the 'science' of political horoscope as slowly but surely Trump was stripped of all of his power except that of complaining about how unfair it all is.

That day he did something in the moment, with bad intelligence and let fly with tomahawks which Russian and Syrian air defenses misdirected and/or shot down.

Empty President

His goal was to show everyone there was a new, strong sheriff in town.

All it did was weaken him.

The neocons praised him as presidential. They began to get their hooks in him then. But truly, Trump was destroyed before he took office, giving up Michael Flynn, expelling Russian diplomats and compromising his cabinet picks.

Because making war is the only true test of a President to the laptop bombardiers who control foreign policy. With that one act Trump's days as an independent agent in D.C. were numbered.

And since then the hope has been that given the enormity of the opposition to his Presidency he was still fighting for what he campaigned on -- no nation building, bring the empire home, protect the borders, and clean up the corruption.

He's made a few minor changes but not enough to change the course of this country and, by extension, the world.

The people want this change. Those with the power don't.

G-20 Ghost

So here we are with a pathetic Trump outclassed at the G-20, a meeting he should dominate but instead is ushered around like a child, given poor earpieces and looking a little lost. He's only allowed to have one meeting of note by his handlers, with China's Xi Jinping.

Because that meeting wasn't going to end with anything damaging to the long-term plan. Trump's tariff game is tired and all it will do is hasten the demise of U.S. competitiveness in the very industries he wants us to be competitive in.

Because tariffs are a band-aid on the real problems of bureaucracy, corruption, waste and sloth within an economy. They are not a product of China stealing our technology (though they have).

And that $1 trillion deficit Trump is running? Music to the ears of the globalists who want the U.S. brought low. More military spending. More boondoggles the banks can cut a nice big check to themselves for with funny money printed without risk. This can go on for a few more years until it doesn't matter anymore.

Trump's folding on meeting Putin is the final nail in his presidency's coffin. He's not even allowed to make statements on this issue anymore. That's for Sarah Sanders, Mike Pomposity and John Bolt-head to do.

You know, the grown-ups in the room.

No. Putin and Trump met once when they weren't supposed to and since then Trump has been getting smaller and smaller. Sure, he held some rallies for the mid-terms to shore up his base for a few weeks while the Democrats stole more than a dozen House seats, three governorships and a couple of Senate seats, but hey he's still working hard for no pay.

Please.

Trump needed to show some real moral courage and speak with Putin about the Kerch Strait incident like men, not sulk in the corner over a couple of ships. And yet his still throws his full support behind a butcher like Mohammed bin Salman because arms sales and Iran.

Putin, for his part, makes no bones about doing business with the Saudis. He knows that bin Salman is creating a quagmire for Trump while driving the U.S. and European Deep State mad.

Hence: https://www.youtube.com/embed/sggVhrwSAFs Putin refuses to apologize for thwarting our plans to overthrow him in Russia and steal Ukraine.

Time Enough to Win

For this Secretary of Defense James Mattis calls Putin, " A slow learner." This is a flat-out threat that Mattis has more coming Putin's way. But in fact, it is Mattis who is the slow learner since he still thinks Putin isn't three steps ahead of him.

Which he is. The game is all about time and money. And thanks to Mattis and, yes, Trump, Putin will win the war of attrition he is playing.

Because that is what has been going on here from the beginning. Iran, China and Russia know what the U.S. power brokers want and they knew Trump would always cave to them. So, they knew exactly how to get Trump to over-commit to a strategy that cannot and will not ever come to fruition.

I warned that Trump's blind-spot when it comes to Iran was his weakness. I warned that he would eventually justify breaking every foreign policy promise to fulfill his plan to unite the Sunni world behind him and Israel by giving them Iran.

The End of the Beginning

Welcome to today. And welcome to the end of Trump's presidency because now he is pot-committed to regime change while the vultures circle him domestically. He has become Bush the Lesser with arguably better hair.

He has alienated everyone the world over with sanctions and tariffs, hence his desire to " Get me out of here " as the G-20 wound down. No one believes he matters anymore. By tying himself to the Saudis and the Israelis the way he has he, the master negotiator, has left himself no room to negotiate.

And that is leading to everyone defying him versus cutting deals to carve up the world, end the empire and come home.

Trump is not leading here. He is being led. And change requires leaders. He has been led down the path so many presidents have, more militarism, more empire. Because when you're the Emperor everyone is your enemy. This is the paranoia of a late-stage imperial mindset.

It certainly is the mindset of Trump's closest advisors - Mattis, Bolton and Pompeo.

So Trump's "America First' instincts, no matter how genuine, have been twisted into something worse than evil, they are now ineffectual keepers of the status quo fueling ruinous neoconservative dreams of central Asian dominance.

And he has no one to blame but himself.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_qlE7PPH9C4

* * *

To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 230 Patrons on Patreon and see if I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad.


Brazen Heist II , 1 hour ago link

The Orange Orangutan had his chances to make a difference. He instead chose the Neocunts and his ego.

There will be no more "voting" oneself out of this shitshow. Trump was the last peaceful chance.

It could have been worse, I guess. At least there's that for consolation.

The silver lining to the Trump phenomenon is that the Deep State is at war with itself, and this is bringing down the evil empire from within.

And lastly, Trump was always the symptom, not the cause of all this malaise. A malaise that only Americans can fix.

WTFUD , 1 hour ago link

His nose is wedged right up Adelson's & Bibi's ring-hole.

Even as we speak now, 100 drones crossed over from Turkey into Syria with French experts modifying them to accept warheads of a chemical nature. Simultaneously the innovative British military are providing miscellaneous WMD's/support to Jabhat-Al -Nusra in Idlib.

Time for Putin/Russia to take these cockroaches/vermin out in quick time, for their own good.

Trump's grasshopper mind could be construed for severe Alzheimer's.

Bokkenrijder , 2 hours ago link

Trump boasted of how HE would "Make the US Military Great again" (as if it wasn't too big to begin with..) and spent $16 billion EXTRA on 'defence,' yet now he suddenly flip-flopped and calls defence spending "crazy."

https://www.rt.com/news/445463-trump-laments-defense-budget/

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1069584730880974849?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

How mentally UNstable and completely UNhinged is Dufus J. Chump?

Bokkenrijder , 2 hours ago link

Spot on, I completely agree with Luongo, and #metoo have been saying this for a long time.

Trump's unstable and unhinged waffling, lying and flip-flopping (i.e. "4D chess") is finally beginning to catch up with him and his presidency will not be marked with him being the one who drained the swamp, but a presidency marked with a trail of destruction.

He has talked himself into so many corners, that it will be impossible to back out of those corners....unless of course he turns the volume of his bullshitting, lying and waffling up to 11.

"You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all of the time."

It's easy to fool dumb American Trumptards, but it's not easy fooling the Russians, the Europeans and the Chinese. They see right through his fake bravado and ********.

Expat , 3 hours ago link

"I am certain that, at some time in the future, President Xi and I, together with President Putin of Russia, will start talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race," Trump wrote. "The U.S. spent 716 Billion Dollars this year. Crazy!"

Another classic Tweet from Captain Bonespurs. No wall, no change to healthcare, no immigration policy, no amazing trade agreements, no slavery, no mandatory mullets, no mandatory bible study at school, no burning of witches. And now he is talking about reducing the largest military budget in history.

You guys need a box of tissues?

MAGA

I am Groot , 6 hours ago link

Trump is finished. He had two years to replace Sessions and Rosenstein and have someone at the DOJ appoint a Special Councils for each item to look into:

The Clinton Foundation

Uranium One Deal

Hillary's Email Server

The murder of Seth Rich

The Benghazi Consulate Disaster

The Democrats computer scandal with the Iwan brothers.

Bill Clinton giving China classified missile and sub technology

The unelected Deep State actors controlling the country.

Q is a total ******* fraud. Trump has 3 weeks before he is assraped and left bleeding on the floor by the Democrats and the RHINO's in the senate. If he gets impeached, Pence will be impeached and Nitwit Nancy becomes POTUS. And within 2 months of that happening, we will have full balls out, open Civil War II.

[Dec 04, 2018] There is direct censorship and indirect censorship

Notable quotes:
"... This is why China's social credit system is chilling. It will create a nation of conformist cowards. China is spiraling back into the mindset that made it fall behind. A nation where everyone is too afraid to say his piece. New China may allow money-making, but when a society favors profits over freedom and conscience, it becomes crass, shallow, and materialistic. ..."
Dec 04, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [425] Disclaimer , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 10:36 pm GMT

We do not really have freedom of speech. Say "ni ** er" once and you can lose a job of thirty years. Or criticize Jews, Israel, blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, feminists, or transsexuals.

There is direct censorship and indirect censorship. Direct censorship is what China has. It prohibits certain kind of speech, period. Indirect censorship is what the US has in increasing measure. You can say whatever, but if you say the 'wrong' thing, the consequences are so dire(especially economically) that you are effectively tarred & feathered, shunned and destroyed. Rick Sanchez found out how this works after he said Jews dominate in the media. And CNN recently fired a black guy for defending Palestine at the UN.

Marc Lamont Hill dared to mention that 2018 is the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map and that the current Zionist regime uses Apartheid Policies in Occupied West Bank as continuation of Western Imperialism that wages war on indigenous nationalism of the Palestinian people. Jew-run CNN got rid of him, which goes to show that Jews are holier than blacks(and certainly the long-suffering Palestinians).

Personally, I think there are some cases where firing-based-on-speech is warranted. If an organization is inherently ideological, then it has every right to hire or fire people based on their views and convictions. So, if National Review feels that one of its writers is too leftist, he may be fired. Or a person that seems hostile to Zionism may be fired by Commentary Magazine that is committed to Israel First Policy.

But most professions are non-ideological, and it seems utterly wrong to fire someone on the basis of creed, conscience, or conviction. And progressives would have agreed with this position in the 50s when many communists and fellow-travelers were either fired/blacklisted or threatened with such, not least in Hollywood. Also, as long as a person performs his duties well at work, what does it matter what he believes in his personal life? If one's personal creed, ideology, or faith is the basis of whether he can have a job or use financial services, then we no longer have a free society. According to Jewish-controlled PC, in order for you to be able to work and live, it means you can't have certain personal beliefs. Personal conviction and creed have been professionalized, i.e. no work and wages for people with certain views.

Now, imagine if a business fires anyone suspected of being a Zionist on the basis that Zionism is imperialism and commits 'genocide' against Palestinians. Would Jews tolerate this? Of course not. And I would agree with Jews. No Jew should be fired for his Zionist beliefs EVEN IF the owner of the business believes Zionism is evil. Richard Dawkins is virulently anti-religious and believes religious faith is a mental disease of ignorance and hatred. But if he owned a trucking company, should he fire people on the basis of their faith because he believes religion is a 'hate system of the mind'?

[MORE]

Now, there are certain exceptions. Certain jobs are publicity-oriented and involve putting forth an image. So, if a company wants to project a certain kind of image or message and IF its representative or spokesman or spokeswoman is associated with certain kind of ideology, I can see why the company would want to let that person go. If a company is about Family Values and if it turns out that its representative is a wild swinger and promotes promiscuity, I can see why the company would let that person go EVEN IF the person acts wild in his personal life. But most jobs are not publicity-related, and it is simply wrong to deny someone work and wages based on what he believes in his personal life.

This is why China's social credit system is chilling. It will create a nation of conformist cowards. China is spiraling back into the mindset that made it fall behind. A nation where everyone is too afraid to say his piece. New China may allow money-making, but when a society favors profits over freedom and conscience, it becomes crass, shallow, and materialistic.

Now, the Chinese may be pushing such a rule because they see the Free West as decadent and degenerate as a result of excess freedom. But this is where the Chinese would be wrong. The West rotted from lopsided freedom that favored the power and expression of certain groups over others. West lost its sense of balance because voices of certain groups and interests were effectively silenced. It's like ecology. If you get rid of certain species, the natural balance goes out of whack and things fall apart. If you get rid of predators, it may seem good for the prey animals, but in time, the herbivores multiply and eat up all the vegetation and destroy their habitats. So, there has to be a balance of prey and predators in nature. The problem of EU is that following WWII, the Right was effectively silenced because it was associated with Nazism. Thus, leftist elements grew too strong and out-of-control. Now, leftism is invaluable to modern society, but it needs to be balanced by rightism that is also essential to social equilibrium. But suppression of the right led to overgrowth of leftism that led to crazy stuff like May 68 lunacy that paved the way for current degenerate France. When left and right were both well-represented, they had to compete to remain healthy and strong. But once the left was allowed to totally dominate culturally and ideologically, it grew decadent and degenerate from corruption and self-satisfaction.

So, if China thinks the West became crazy due to excess of free speech and freedom in general, it would be wrong. The West grew sick from suppression of rightist freedoms and expressions in favor of leftist ideology and obsessions. In the West, even the far-left was protected in academia and media BUT the far-right was banned. Only the wussy cuck-right and bland 'white bread' right were tolerated. If any rightist lurched slightly more rightward, he was denounced as 'far right'. As Jonathan Haidt has argued, Western academia is suffering from lack of real discourse and back-and-forth argumentation. Because the leftists are protected from challenge by rightists, the former has grown lazy, corrupt, decadent, and flabby. Their hysterics are really about cowardice and unwillingness to face real challenge from the Right. They demand protection from being 'triggered' by wrongthink or 'hate speech'. They rarely directly address the voices on the Right. They just go for lazy short-cut of denouncing others as 'racist' or 'nazi'.

But the problem isn't merely ideological but ethnic. When Wasps(or Anglo-Americans) ruled America, it was fair game to notice that (1) Anglos got the power (2) Anglos got the privilege (3) Anglos got the connections (4) Anglos hogged the prestige. So, despite the great power of Anglos, they came under scrutiny and criticism, not least by reformist Anglos who thought criticism and self-criticism were good things. Thus, there was a lively debate among Wasps, Irish Catholics, various ethnics, Jews, and others. Though blacks were suppressed for most of US history, they too became vocal and offered their perspective and made demands that had validity. In terms of social debate, the period from mid 50s to the mid 80s were probably the golden age of free speech and debate. With each year, there was more push for free speech, and many sides had their say. But the worrying development in that period was the growing sacralization of Jews and blacks. It was one thing to allow Jews and blacks to make their case and join in the national debate. Surely, Jews and blacks had their own grievances and legit demands. But, just as undeniable was the fact that Jews and blacks also caused a lot of problems that harmed other groups. Jewish role in US foreign policy led to fiasco in the Middle East, especially at cost to Palestinians. And even though the Civil Rights Movement was a great event in US history(and there's no denying the injustices done to blacks), it was also true that blacks posed a threat to other races because blacks are more muscular and more aggressive by nature. So, once blacks got equal legal protections, they used much of their freedom to attack, rape, rob, and murder other peoples, leading to white flight among not only white conservatives but white liberals and Jews. So, in a truly free society, not only would Jews and blacks get to have their say against goyim & whites but goyim & whites would get to air their grievances against Jews and blacks. That way, all sides would say their piece and all sides would be checked and balanced by healthy and constructive counter-criticism.
But the consecration of Jews and blacks as holy-schmoly groups made this nearly impossible. So, while Jews could scream about 'anti-Semites' and 'Nazis' endlessly -- Jews now cry 'nazi' like the kid cried 'wolf' -- , we are not allowed to notice Jewish power, Jewish abuses, and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. And no matter how much crime and violence blacks commit, we are supposed to see Negroes only through the rose-tinted glasses of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and MLK sermons. And no matter how many whites(and non-blacks) fall victim to black robbery, beatings, rapes, and murders, we are supposed to wake up Groundhogday-like and dream of supposedly angelic Emmett Till.

When a group is sacralized in a supposedly secular society, the effect is essentially theocratic. Jews and blacks are holy-schmoly in the US, and so, we can't have a honest debate about the problems they cause. We can't talk about Jewish role in communism, Zionist role in Middle East Wars, globalist Jewish economic looting of Russia in the 90s, and Neocon recruitment of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. And it doesn't matter how many times blacks burn down cities and assault/rob people. It is simply 'racist' to notice that blacks, being more muscular and more aggressive, tend to commit far more crime and violence than other groups. US has become essentially an ethno-theocracy where we must always speak of Jews and blacks in hushed tones.

Of course, homos joined Jews and blacks in the holy-schmoly pantheon. Why? Because Jews control media, academia, finance, and deep state. And Jews decided homos are their perfect ally as fellow high-achieving minority elites. Because homos were made holy-schmoly(and associated with holier-schmolier Jews), even cultural conservatives clammed up about the Homo Agenda. They were afraid of being labeled 'homophobic', an especially bogus term cooked up by Jews to imply that if you don't sufficiently honor and praise homos, you are suffering from mental malady of phobic proportions. And so, homos & trannies and fecal penetration & penis-and-ball-cutting were associated with 'rainbows' and 'pride'. Indeed, 'gay pride' simply became 'Pride', as if to suggest the essence of pride = homo buggery and tranny dick-cutting. And if you found homo-fecal-penetration and tranny penis-cutting to be gross and sick and said so, you were blacklisted and fired worse than any Jewish communist during the so-called 'McCarthy Era'. At least the HUAC blacklists ended in a few yrs. These Jewish led PC blacklists last forever because Jewish Power has a near-Stalinist grip on media, academia, and deep state.

The fact is Homomania-as-neo-religion(that festoons churches with 'gay colors') and 'Gay Marriage' would never have become New Western Values IF there had been real free speech that allowed all sides to have their say. If real free debate had been allowed on the Homo Agenda, the lies and falsehoods could easily have been exposed. But, the Jewish-controlled media used the 'rainbow' idolatry to elevate Homo-worship as a new religion in the West. If you were not with the sacred program, you were a blasphemer, a 'homophobe' who must be econo-excommunicated from work & wages. Or a bakery must be sued out of existence by the 'gay cabal' with the full backing of Jewish Supremacist law firms. Jewish Power treats decent moral bakeries like Zionists treat Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. Jewish Power says 'my way or the highway'.

In Europe, a continent with no legal protection of free speech, Jewish pressure led to criminalization of speech deemed offensive to Jews and homos(and even African migrant-invaders). In the US, where Constitution guarantees free speech, the culture of open discourse was destroyed by indirect censorship and ethno-homo-theocracy. Even though Jewish Power couldn't ban free speech, its control of media and finance meant they could destroy anyone or any group that dared to be politically incorrect toward Jews, blacks, and homos. Thus, anyone who wanted to keep his job or reputation had to clam up about certain things, no matter how true or based on facts. Also, the sacralization of Jews, blacks, and homos meant that they could spew any amount of hateful, rabid, and virulent venom at goyim, whites, Christians, straight people, and etc. BUT they themselves were PROTECTED from critical speech that dared to expose their corruption, abuses, and fraudulence. This is why the West grew sick. Not from freedom but lopsided monopoly of freedom for certain groups, esp. Jews, blacks, and Homos as the Holy-Schmoly Three.

Now, one could argue that China's censorship is preferable to American censorship because China is about Chinese nationalists ruling over Chinese people. So, the main theme of censorship is "Is it good for China as a whole?" In contrast, the US is a nation where the Jewish 2% rules over 98% that is goyim. So, the central theme of American Censorship is "Is it good for the 2% at the expense of the 98%?" Also, if China is about Chinese Majority Pride, the overwhelming theme for the White American Majority is White Guilt and White Shame. So, while Chinese government boosts Majority Chineseness, American government suppresses Majority Whiteness(and even pushes policies to turn the white majority into just another minority, as already happened in California, increasingly the land of oligarchs and helots, the vision of BLADE RUNNER).

Still, censorship will hurt China too in the long run because a nation that penalizes conscience and courage will result in increasing conformism and crassness.

JLK , says: December 1, 2018 at 10:53 pm GMT
@Random Smartaleck

We aren't talking about sober, fair-minded documentaries here.

Have you ever watched The "History" Channel?

neutral , says: December 3, 2018 at 7:38 am GMT
@Simply Simon

America's freedom of speech, movement, and religious liberty

Where do you get your news from, because America has absolutely neither of those. And please spare the usual bullsh!t argument "censorship is only if the government does it". America is HEAVILY censoring anyone who does not accept its hard left ideology, you speak out against this you get deplatformed, you get censored, you lose your job and you life is pretty much destroyed. The same applies to religion, you reject the near official religions of homosexuality and racial equality and you will be punished for it.

[Dec 02, 2018] Muller investigation has all the appearance of an investigation looking for a crime

Highly recommended!
Essentially Mueller witch hunt repeat the trick invented by Bolsheviks leadership during Stalin Great Terror: the accusation of a person of being a foreign agent is a 'slam dank" move that allows all kind to nasty things to be performed to convict the person no matter whether he is guilty of not.
Consolidation of power using Foreign Counter Intelligence as a tool is a classic and a very dirty trick.
Notable quotes:
"... It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway ..."
"... This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. ..."
"... It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does. ..."
"... IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant innuendo. ..."
"... In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money laundering that took place over a decade ago ..."
"... Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp rhetoric. ..."
"... Mueller may have created more crimes than existed before his inquiry. ..."
Dec 01, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Mad_Max22 , 12 hours ago

Very informative post.

It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway .

It certainly does give every appearance, at least from the outside perspective, of an investigation looking for a crime.

This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does.

Precisely the same approach could have been taken vis a vis the Uranium mattter or any of the Clinton Foundation speaker forays into foreign lands and almost certainly a boatload of 1001 violations would have come into port.

kievite -> Mad_Max22
So Muller reinvented the tactics used by Bolsheviks during the Great Purge period ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... )

Most Stalin's political enemies were liquidated using the "foreign agent" charge.

Might be a good time to reread a book on "Moscow show trials" like

The prosecutor and the prey: Vyshinsky and the 1930s' Moscow show trials Arkadii V̆aksberg.

https://www.amazon.com/pros...

The quote "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce" might be applicable here.

blue peacock , 21 hours ago

IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant innuendo.

In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money laundering that took place over a decade ago .

There have been no claims from Mueller that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp rhetoric. With the Democrats gonna run the House come January. I think Trump will come under increased pressure from all sides. I don't believe the Mueller investigation will ever wind down until Trump is defeated either via impeachment or loss of the next presidential election.

Pat Lang Mod -> blue peacock , 15 hours ago
I heard Dershowitz (my new hero) say the other day that Mueller may have created more crimes than existed before his inquiry.

[Dec 01, 2018] Google is very evil, with its advertising price controls, automated stealing of data, preferences for its own services in search results over more popular competitors, and in many other ways. But I don't think that the Google Suggestions are deliberately skewed in the way you're suggesting.

Dec 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anon [190] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:41 am GMT

I'm familiar with information retrieval tech and worked for a small non-U.S. search engine that was acquired by a major American search engine (not Google) in the late 20th century. I've kept up with things as much as one can do from the outside since then.

I do not buy the conspiracy angle here. I believe Google when they say that they are relying on automated algorithms.

You cannot really compare Google with any other search engine. DDG is a guy in his pajamas coding it all by himself (and I respect that). Bing on the other hand has a good team of talented information retrieval engineers, but they are nowhere near as well staffed as Google

In addition, a lot of Google's quirks derive from the fact that they are the big guys. Hackers and spammers and black hat SEOs target Google, looking for exploitable patterns. Nobody cares how they rank in Bing and DDG, so nobody targets them. Google thus has to plug the dike in all kinds of ways that the other search engines don't have to worry about.

Google is very evil, with its advertising price controls, automated stealing of data, preferences for its own services in search results over more popular competitors, and in many other ways. But I don't think that the Google Suggestions are deliberately skewed in the way you're suggesting.

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that some higher level component in their search software that is intended to combat black hat SEO is inadvertently skewing results in a way that seems to favor the left, in the same way that AI software tends to come to the conclusion that blacks commit a lot of crime and are not the best employees, although nobody programmed it to do that. And it is possible that when the skew is anti

Google Suggest was throwing out "Islamists are terrorists," "blacks are not oppressed," "hitler is my hero," "white supremacy is good," and so on.

Google is micro-gaslighting again, by Steve Sailer - The Unz Review

Tyrion 2 , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:49 am GMT

@anonymous It is an explanation that makes more sense to me than that Google is trying to hide it while Vox is trying to bring attention to it.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/29/18117906/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdose-deaths-2017-life-expectancy

meh , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:22 am GMT
@Tyrion 2

It is an explanation that makes more sense to me than that Google is trying to hide it while Vox is trying to bring attention to it.

You are being remarkably obtuse.

Google is for the masses; what they do or don't do actually matters in terms of public perception.

Vox is for the policy elite and will make no impact on the public consciousness; it isn't meant for the masses.

Note that elite or specialist media have been talking about the opioid crisis for years, and yet the topic has never made it out to the public consciousness or public discourse at large, nor has it had any reception in the political sphere beyond mere platitudes, which anyone who was not been paying attention to the topic would even understand.

Amusingly, though, if you do a Ctrl F on article you link to, the name "Sackler" nowhere appears.

The point is how the elites control the public discourse, by keeping certain topics obscure to the public at large, while the elites and their hired professionals and Mandarins talk amongst themselves; a discourse not meant for the larger public.

But anyway, no one ever said that no one at all in the mass media was talking about the opioid crisis; this is just your implied strawman.

The topic was Google; you are simply using a diversion, i.e., moving the goalposts to the media at large.

[Dec 01, 2018] The US elite started viewing Chin a a grave threat to "full spectrum dominance"

Notable quotes:
"... China is leveraging military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce neighboring countries to reorder the Indo-Pacific region to their advantage, ..."
"... As China continues its economic and military ascendance, asserting power through an all-of-nation long-term strategy, it will continue to pursue a military modernization program that seeks Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global preeminence in the future. The most far-reaching objective of this defense strategy is to set the military relationship between our two countries on a path of transparency and non-aggression. ..."
"... Shouldn't an important US foreign policy goal of the next couple of decades be regime change in China? ..."
Dec 01, 2018 | www.rt.com

"China is a sleeping lion," Napoleon Bonaparte said. "Let her sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world." A new Cold War is upon us, only this time the giant is no longer deep asleep; stirring as it begins to wake. " China is leveraging military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce neighboring countries to reorder the Indo-Pacific region to their advantage, " a recent summary of the 2018 US National Defense Strategy states .

" As China continues its economic and military ascendance, asserting power through an all-of-nation long-term strategy, it will continue to pursue a military modernization program that seeks Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global preeminence in the future. The most far-reaching objective of this defense strategy is to set the military relationship between our two countries on a path of transparency and non-aggression. "

... ... ...

Donald Trump's trade war with China also signals a greater shift towards a US-China Cold War 2.0 scenario, and the stakes are even higher than we imagined.

The aim of the US appears to be to change China for good (if not its attitude, then its regime ) and build a new international framework which still puts Washington's interests above that of its adversaries. Successfully doing so requires the US to retain and promote its more traditional allies, something which seems somewhat questionable in the age of Trump.

... ... ...

Shouldn't an important US foreign policy goal of the next couple of decades be regime change in China? " The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol asked his 411,000 followers on Twitter.

Shouldn't an important U.S. foreign policy goal of the next couple of decades be regime change in China? https://t.co/TpFODNTwQZ

-- Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) November 23, 2018

After failed regime change operations in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iran, just to name a few, I think the answer to this question is quite clearly a resounding " no ."

[Dec 01, 2018] Google is micro-gaslighting again by Steve Sailer

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
Dec 01, 2018 | www.unz.com

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:55 am GMT

[reposted from previous thread]

I changed my default search engine to DuckDuckGo years ago.

Commenters occasionally say here at TUR that Google is somehow superior, but even if that's so (which I doubt), isn't the corruption plenty of reason to boycott? Guess not, in light of news the other day that Amazon continues to expand.

Most people, even here in Exceptionalia, are lazy and dull. In a better society, the Establishment would be better reined in.

B.B. , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:11 am GMT
Robert Epstein is doing research on how big tech companies can manipulate their services towards political ends.
Roger , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 9:20 am GMT
Somehow Google has convinced everyone that their search is not biased because it uses a trade secret algorithm. Eventually the public will figure out that the argument does not even make any sense. The algorithm is tuned by the work of thousands of engineers, and of course it is biased.
anon [190] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:07 am GMT
Semi-OT: NYT has something about Facebook hiring an oppo research firm to look into George Soros. Apparently he trashed Facebook at Davos and Sheryl Sandberg thinks he might be shorting their stock.

Just goes to show that there probably isn't some giant super conspiracy among the Jews/SJWs/Democrats/whatever – Soros and Facebook both seem pretty keen on open borders globalist nonsense, and yet here they are fighting like cats in a sack.

Anonym , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:25 am GMT
This is why I use bing. An unexpected bonus is that the image search yields random porn for the lulz.
Buzz Mohawk , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:06 pm GMT
This makes me proud that I use Bing. It has a nice picture each day as its backdrop. Here is yesterday's, a particularly beautiful one of the Frankfurt Christmas Market, which proves Bing is Christmas-friendly -- and even German-friendly, Heaven forbid:
Anonymous [270] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:39 pm GMT
I've been using https://www.startpage.com/ as my main search engine for four years now. It serves my purposes >95% of the time. I only resort to Google no more than once every couple weeks. Startpage also allows you to visit sites anonymously and never ever tracks anything. Also no Gmail or Google Docs. Also run Ghostery to block Google Analytics on all sites (that, by the way, includes Unz.com).
dearieme , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:01 pm GMT
Since I am not interested in luvvies, Hollywood, and all that, I hardly ever comment on them. Kevin Spaceyga, however, is worth a remark. Because I was a great fan of the British original I thought I'd watch a couple of episodes of the American "House of Cards". It was noticeable that of the whole cast he was the only one who could act.
Sbrin , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
With the exception of Google Maps, which is the only decent mapping software out there, I have not used a Google product in over a decade.

If anyone can recommend a decent alternative for mapping I'm all in to ditch Google Maps.

Chriscom , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:11 pm GMT
"But I don't think that the Google Suggestions are deliberately skewed in the way you're suggesting."

Oh sweet summer child.

I think it was Steve who recommended this, but do an image search on Google for American Scientists and let us know if you think that's an accurate representation. Try the same with the phrase White Couples.

These days you get similar returns on Bing btw.

Yes I know these are not auto-suggestions, but fruit of the same tree.

The Creepy Line, add it to your watch lists. Amazon Prime I think.

anon [190] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 I'm not taking a side in your spat, I just want to point out that it'd be foolish in the extreme to take Vox at its word there. All Vox does is tell people what they want to hear, and from that you can infer what kind of reader they're after, and it ain't Regular Joe.

'Cos what the "policy elite" really want is the news patronisingly explained to them

I think it would be more precise to describe Vox as being aimed at the social class from which the policy elite is drawn, rather than at the policy elite itself. Even so, I'd be shocked if most of the policy elite weren't regular readers. I doubt even 1% of them find it patronising. Remember: these people are 27-yr olds who literally know nothing.

Trevor H. , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:30 pm GMT
@Roger More times than I can count, I have engaged on this topic with people who smugly declare that "Google searches are controlled by an algorithm" and hence cannot possibly be biased. After all, it's a big computer not a person!

And they appear to believe that this explanation is completely dispositive.

You are considerably more optimistic than I am about the general intelligence and critical faculties of the American public.

Trevor H. , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:36 pm GMT
@TelfoedJohn

The Sackler family are known to spread their ill-gotten wealth around in the arts world in order to buy respectability.

And the Saatchi family, and the Lauders, Lehmans, Kravises, Schwarzmans, Taubmans, Rothschilsb and so on and so on.

It's what they do.

Trevor H. , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
@Trevor H. Incidentally, anyone keen on researching the wealthy and powerful members of the Tribe is well advised to use "philanthropy" as a primary keyword. Heck, even Sheldon Adelson is considered a philanthropist by Google. Wikipedia is not far behind.

Bernie Madoff? Oh, he was just a misunderstood philanthropist.

Mike Zwick , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT
Because of this article, I bookmarked Duck Duck Go and will use it instead of Google from now on. BTW, did you ever Google "Google autocomplete policy?"
Bill Jones , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:16 pm GMT
@propagandist hacker Me too.

They have this excellent piece on their blog

https://spreadprivacy.com/how-to-remove-google/

Go thou, and do likewise.

Svigor , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:19 pm GMT
@snorlax Or it's a digital form of opioids. "Go to sleep white folks, nothing to see here."

It's how (((Big Media's))) been handling America's demographic change for decades.

peterike , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:24 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2

I actually suspect that the "deaths from opioids" result is phased out as part of some algorithm to stop racist predictions, in this case, against white people

No. If you spend time around leftist websites, you will find lots and lots of Leftists don't see the opioid crisis as bad at all, because it mostly kills the wrong kind of white people (at least that's the perception, I don't know the numbers). Some openly cheer it and mock the "dumb hillbillies" that are dying by the thousands.

Google doesn't want to let you know about it because they're happy it's happening.

Bill Jones , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:24 pm GMT
@B.B. Mrs Clinton, back in 1998 rued the Internet's lack of "gatekeepers"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1491134/posts

Interesting little beignet:

" So we're going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to "

Mr. Anon , says: November 30, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
@anon

Just goes to show that there probably isn't some giant super conspiracy among the Jews/SJWs/Democrats/whatever – Soros and Facebook both seem pretty keen on open borders globalist nonsense, and yet here they are fighting like cats in a sack.

Medieval nobles fought each other, often bitterly, often to the death. But they usually suspended their quarrels whenever the peasants got uppity. They could all agree to repress the commoners. Just because the elites aren't a monolithic block in everything, doesn't mean they don't conspire against all the rest of us.

alaska3636 , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMT
I suspect that there is a broader part of the population that isn't sure what words they are looking for to complete their search query; but, does anybody here not know the end to the question that they are going to ask the internet? It is occasionally amusing when I see suggested searches go off in a wildly different direction than I had intended, but I rarely follow the suggestions to their conclusion. I am sure Google has statistics that support their "micro-gaslighting"; however, marketing to the masses always feels counter-intuitive to my brain. Click-through ads and the like are mind-boggling, but it -appears to work on enough people to justify the ad-spend.
Spud Boy , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:34 pm GMT
Two comments:

1. I use Bing because I hate Google and everything they stand for.

2. If the auto-complete is incorrect, I just keep typing. It doesn't make me change my intended search.

Philip Owen , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
Yandex.

What is gaslighting anyway? The meaning seems to vary. Listing facts and data seems to be gaslighting.

Philip Owen , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT
Google's image recognition has been gutted. In 2014 it would recognize a face and find photos of that person across the internet. A right click would find the original of the fakes used by Russian trolls to suggest non existent attacks on civilians by the Ukrainian army. Now it can't even match the same image.
snorlax , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 Looks like it's drugs in this case.

deaths from her ➔ deaths from herbalife/herpes/hernia surgery/herbal supplements
deaths from mor ➔ (nothing)
deaths from ox ➔ (nothing)
deaths from perc ➔ deaths percy jackson
deaths from cod ➔ (nothing)
deaths from vic ➔ death from victoza/vick's vaporub
deaths from hydro ➔ deaths from hydropower/hydroxycut/hydrogen sulfide/hydrofluoric acid/hydroxyzine/hydrogen cyanide/hydrochloric acid
deaths from coc ➔ deaths from coconuts
deaths from metha ➔ deaths from methadone (lol)/methanol poisoning/methane
deaths from cry ➔ deaths from cyrotherapy/cryptococcosis
deaths from amp ➔ deaths from amputation
deaths from ec ➔ deaths from ectopic pregnancy/e coli/e cigs/eclampsia/eczema/ect
deaths from md ➔ (nothing)
deaths from mari ➔ deaths from maria/marinol
deaths from ls ➔ (nothing)
deaths from lyse ➔ deaths from lysenkoism

Steve in Greensboro , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:55 pm GMT
@meh Vox is for the policy elite, eh?

I doubt it, but having read some of their stuff, no one would ever say it is for the cognitive elite.

But the the Venn diagram between the cognitive elite and the policy elite would show very little overlap.

Alfa158 , says: November 30, 2018 at 3:58 pm GMT
@Buzz Mohawk I find that Bing is more objective and I also like the daily photo, so I switched to them as my browser home page a couple of years ago.

I have to say one of the things I like about Steve Sailer is his charming, old school White Guy naïveté:
"the news media doesn't seem all that enthusiastic about reporting on what goes on inside Google, perhaps out of fear of what Google could do to them."
Actually Steve, it's because the news media think Google is doing a wonderful thing and wish they would do it harder and faster.

Jack Highlands , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:07 pm GMT
Our problem is Google has Plausible Irrelevance: it's obvious they're manipulating auto-completes in directions they favor, and since Google is vast and powerful that seems highly relevant to us dissidents. But it's easy for Google to hide behind 'if searchers get all the way to "Kevin Spacey g", let them hunt and peck for a and y – what's the big deal?'
the , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:14 pm GMT
Here's a pretty slick case: for a while a search for the terms "Brian Littlefair" returned as the top hit:

UFOs: Proven 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' | Dissident Voice
dissidentvoice.org/2018/08/ufos-proven-beyond
Brian Littlefair / 08/23/2018

And the offending author becomes internet-famous as a flying saucer nut.

Brian Littlefair didn't write that. The search term "Brian Littlefair" does not appear on that UFO web page at all. What did appear there, for a while, in the Latest Article column, was 'The First Thing We Do,'

https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/08/the-first-thing-we-do/

That was presumably the offending article. Its content might be triggering to hasbara bots or JTRIG-type keyboard commandos or both. The trick of suppression could be effected by a bit of incremental traffic while both articles appeared on the same page.

This was most pronounced on (Yahoo(oath)(Verizon)). It didn't replicate exactly but the same general hits permuted. DuckDuckGo returned a hit on the UFO article too. By contrast Metager.de, searx.me, and yandex.ru gave you what you would expect.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT
@anonymous Same here on the duckduckgo, Mr #340, but I'll use google when I get to an impasse and really want to try hard to get some information.

DuckDuckgo search escalates to Bing (MUCH BETTER on 2 things: images and finding addresses/phone numbers for local businesses), then, if need be, Google.

BTW, I , uhhh, well, this friend of mine, yeah, sometimes types my blog name into Google to help it stay high in the rankings. Doing this on google, though I detest them, is akin to something everyone in the stock market does. With 90%, or what-have-you, of the searches, I crap, my friend wants to work within the system, so to speak. That's just like buying shares of some company because you know that others will buy on some news coming (the news alone may not actually be a good business reason to buy, but it's the psychology of the masses).

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:36 pm GMT
@Roger

The algorithm is tuned by the work of thousands of engineers,

No, those people are absolutely NOT engineers, no matter WTF Sergey Brin calls them. There may be a few dozen engineers working for that place, but they'd be the guys calculating heat transfer loads off of the servers, or designing electrical power systems.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:39 pm GMT
@Alfa158 AGREED! However, Steve's probably got your point in mind too. If there is a proto-Tucker Carlson in a media operation, then he may fear the loss of business and de-linking by Google, though he does know Google is not doing wonderful things.
Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Redneck farmer With good reason. Life expectancy in the US is now falling, largely as a result of them (and suicide), despite the fact that we spend more on health care than anyone. We are prolonging the lives of the non-productive elderly at tremendous cost but killing healthy young people in what should be their prime productive years. You usually only see falling life expectancy in countries with serious decline, such as Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.

But, yes, it's not exactly a secret, which makes it even more puzzling that Google is manipulating its results in this way. I don't think it is just some by-product of the strange counter-intuitive workings of AI but is probably the result of human intervention, although I don't know for what reason. PC thinking is even more counter-intuitive than that of AI bots. I'm still trying to figure out why "colored people" is bad but "people of color" is good.

Ursala , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT
I love iSteve. Top unorthodox reporting found here.
Intelligent Dasein , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:42 pm GMT
Here's a few things I've noticed about Google's auto-complete from my own anecdotal experience.

1. It relies heavily not only on your search history but also on your search "currency," i.e. it will preferentially auto-fill a word or phrase if that same word or phrase appears on another tab you have open on your computer at the time, even if you've never typed that word or phrase into the search box before.

2. It is massively tied into television viewing patterns. Google knows what is on television, when and where. If you do a search about an item that was just featured in a commercial during an NFL game, you may get an auto-fill "hit" even before you've typed in anything you might think would be a relevant term.

Google is not in business to do social engineering, it's in business to make money. My impression is that Google's auto-fill suggestions are the result of a bunch of nerds trying desperately to monetize search and bumping up against the hard, cold reality that it can't really be done to any great extent, that the diminishing returns come sharp and quick, and that AI is nothing like it's cracked up to be. To that end they will mine every scrap of available data they can get their hands on and apply their algorithms to it, but the end product is mostly cheesy and useless, like Facebook showing you ads for products you just bought (and consequently don't need to buy again).

Since this is the best that the brightest programmers with the most powerful computers can do, it tells you that the whole concept is flawed. Advertising doesn't really work. AI doesn't really work. But the world today shuts its eyes to these facts in order to keep alive its inward vision of a prosperous, progressing global marketplace. If the facts were fully accepted, the value of companies like Google would sink to niche levels and the internet for the masses would basically shut down. This will happen one day, but in the meantime they will blow that bubble up with as much hype as possible in order to justify their own existence.

res , says: November 30, 2018 at 4:51 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 I did the same comparison before I even started reading the comments. ; )

Here it is for anyone who wants to save some time. Notice the spike this week. iSteve influence?

This one is REALLY blatant given that "deaths from open heart surgery" returns: "Hmm, your search doesn't have enough data to show here." (sometimes a flatline just means one search happens much more than another, but still has data)

Does anyone know anything about how Google actually implements this algorithm tweaking?
Do they just remove results or actively provide innocuous replacements? Typing "deaths from ope" in Bing gives the Google response as the third option so seems inconclusive.
How do they get complete coverage? Is it some kind of regular expression like "deaths from op*", a similarity match to phrases, or ?

Another interesting data point is that typing "deaths from opi" gives zero autocompletions. Surely if they were doing explicit replacements they could add something like "deaths from opinion surveys."

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 4:53 pm GMT
@Anon I don't have the knowledge you seem to have about it, Mr. #190, though it sounds like you were in this around the time of Lycos and Alta Vista, etc. Lots has happened since then. I want to ask you if you think my first thought (upon reading Mr. Sailer's post) has any merit. That is, do you think some of the searches, say the Buchanan one*, were the result of bots made to beat all hell out of the search engine on one very particular topic to make auto-complete, and more importantly, IMO, the top results appear as one wants?

I could see some guy trying to make his name or business appear on top, maybe even Mr. Haney (haha, if he's still alive) on the "Bu"-for "Buchanan" thing, but who would want to make the "open-heart surgery.." appear first, a team of computer savvy cardiologist?! It would also require lots of different manipulations besides just the one displayed by Steve. Of course, that's what computers are damn good at.

I tend to agree with Mr. Sailer's opinion on this, but for me, all this discussion (if some good geeks come on here) is a good thing, as I'd like to learn more about SEO for my own benefit.

information retrieval engineers

See, now that's not engineering. These people don't work out problems using the math and empirical data that describe the laws of nature. I don't want to have to keep doing this, dammit.

.

* and I did read you back then, Steve, as I remember this well. I cannot believe that was 8 damn years ago. Time is figuratively flying!

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:04 pm GMT
@Anonymous Arguably (and I'm not saying this is right) because whites are the hardest hit group, which contradicts the narrative of "white privilege". An old joke headline (and I've seen actual examples of this many times in our MSM after natural disasters, wars, etc.) is " World Ends – Minorities and Women Hit Hardest".

This is the lens thru which the Left views everything, so something that shows that in fact working class whites, especially men, are the ones who are in the most trouble in our society (but get the least help from our government and institutions) is not something that the Left is eager to highlight. This might force them to reconsider whether they have put their thumb on the scale too heavily in favor of other groups. It also undermines their nonsensical claim that they are only "helping" minorities and immigrants, which is a purely good thing, when in fact they are manipulating a zero sum game, so for every bit of "help" that they render, there is an equal amount of "harm" put on someone else's head.

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMT
@res

Does anyone know anything about how Google actually implements this algorithm tweaking?

I think the answer is no. Sometimes you can gain little glimpses from patents, but as a whole Google algorithms are a heavily guarded trade secret for many reasons. First of all because they don't want to give search engine competitors (not that they have many left) an advantage – their search algorithm was their secret sauce in the 1st place. 2nd because people who are trying to game the search system for various nefarious economic and political reasons would LOVE to know how the algorithm works because then they could manipulate it – better for it to be a black box. And lastly because they don't want you to tour the sausage factory and see how much "hand tuning" is going on (I suspect a lot, because bots are very "racist" when left to their own devices) and how much of that hand tuning is based on SJW considerations and the financial and petty personal interests of the Google execs. This would open them up to all kinds of 2nd guessing and criticism. So from their POV they are much better off keeping it all a complete mystery and telling you that it's all "science" that you wouldn't understand anyway.

Anonymous [527] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:49 pm GMT
@anon Or it's a paid piece to make it look like they aren't in cahoots. I don't really trust any of the players to give me the truth.
Bill Jones , says: November 30, 2018 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Tiny Duck Meanwhile, back in the real world

"Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself.
Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared.
The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don't grasp what it really means: humiliation.
The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't conscious of it.
And, superiority excites envy.
Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities."
Joseph Sobran, April 1997

KunioKun , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:15 pm GMT
Here is a great article on how evil the Sackler family is. Getting doctors to chuck their public trust and credibility into the toilet to shill for Purdue Pharma was pioneered by these people for Valium.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a12775932/sackler-family-oxycontin

JLK , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:18 pm GMT

I don't really get why Google does this kind of thing. One reason they do this is because they can and almost nobody ever criticizes them for it.

In the opioid case, it would be a reasonable presumption that Google is being paid to skew the results.

Reg Cæsar , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:30 pm GMT

It would seem to be pretty reasonable to ask that Google publicly disclose how it is manipulating specific topics like this, but nobody ever seems to do this.

Steve admits he's nobody!

Reg Cæsar , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:34 pm GMT
@Spud Boy

1. I use Bing because I hate Google and everything they stand for.

Isn't there an umbrella search engine that will put your terms into all the other major ones?

Bookfinder.com does this for book searches. It gives you Amazon, B&N, etc., for new, and American Book Exchange and others for used.

Dogpile is still around. Does that do the job?

tambit , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:40 pm GMT
Big tech will typically try to obfuscate the issue by saying "it's the algorithm" or "it's complicated." It's not.

The easiest, least cumbersome way to regulate the major search engines is make them provide an audit log of all filtering rules or hard overrides in their search results. Limit this to for profit services that have above a certain threshold in daily users or market share, so it does not hurt innovation in startups. The vast majority of changes would be understandable or inconsequential. But it gives both parties of government direct insight, particularly around local elections, where meddling would be impossible to detect.

Further out, you can make them report any substantial bias they are introducing into the training data and give a basic explanation. In the same way lenders have to explain their lending models, search engines should have to explain how they are tweaking theirs. As search increasingly shifts to mobile, personalized, and voice-based, this becomes important as the only search result that matters is the first one that is returned.

In a world where national elections are coming down to a few hundred thousand votes, it blows my mind Republicans have not been pushing for this.

jim jones , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:41 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein And robots are crap:
Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 6:42 pm GMT
@Mr. Anon Haha good analogy, Mr. Anon. Zerohedge had a story on this little spat. However, these are no medieval nobles, but more like candidates for AntiChrist . It'll be entertaining, I suppose, like Christopher Walken is as the angel Gabrial in Prophecy , but I'm stayin' outta' this one.
Corvinus , says: November 30, 2018 at 6:45 pm GMT
"It would seem to be pretty reasonable to ask that Google publicly disclose how it is manipulating specific topics like this, but nobody ever seems to do this."

You mean it would seem to be pretty reasonable to ask Google, DuckDuckGo AND Bing publicly disclose how it is manipulating specific topics like this, but nobody ever seems to do this.

Probably because it is Coalition of the Fringe Group Cringeworthy.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 6:48 pm GMT
@alaska3636 Yes, I'd rather not even look at the auto-complete, or do it on a bogged-down computer like mine in which it can't catch up with me! The exception is when I want to look up a word spelling. I just let auto-complete do it for me.

On your 2nd point:

Click-through ads and the like are mind-boggling, but it -appears to work on enough people to justify the ad-spend.

Not necessarily, Alaska. Who really knows if the ads do a damn thing? Google or whoever might honestly give you numbers as to click-throughs, but loads of them, at least for me, are mistakes and times that the little X for close is SO DAMN SMALL that I can't be sure to close rather than click the ad. (That's especially bad on a touch screen.)

Then, the only way to know if your ad really was read at all, is if it leads to a sale or request of some sort being sent in. Google may tell you how many people are reading what you've got out there, but that's just more lies.

Almost Missouri , says: November 30, 2018 at 7:08 pm GMT
@Anon Do you think Google's burying of Pat Buchanan's name was a random quirk?

How about the sudden end to "gay" auto-completes?

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 7:10 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein Very good comment, I.D., especially the last paragraph re: advertising. Your first part reminded me of something that is fairly-well related, so I'll write it here.

Have you all noticed something with youtube, owned by Google? It now uses the IP number (or something else at the modem or router) to keep track of videos that you've been watching or searching for, rather than just cookies, or some other method based on just THE ONE DEVICE.

Here's the observation – My wife likes to watch a number of the same kinds of silly soap-opera-like and reality-show videos on her computer or phone when she is bored. Yes, I know she is no dummy, but it's whom they are. Anyway, it used to be I'd see music and political video suggestions based on what I've viewed and (I believe) what videos have been embedded in web pages (such as unz) that I've viewed.

All of a sudden, about 3 months back, I started seeing all these suggestions on youtube on my computer for the dumb-ass soap-opera/reality-show videos that my wife watches. The suggestions area was filled with her crap. That happened like the flip of a switch. That's probably literally the case (OK, a software setting), but also likely one of the "action items" decided on at a meeting by some Google Anything-But-Engineers just before that day. It's pretty annoying – I don't need the suggestions anyway, but now I can see what these people are up to.

Just a word to the wise: If you watch something, cough, porn, cough cough, that you may not quite want others in the household to know about, you'd better go to Starbucks. The bathroom code is 1-1-1-1. Glad to be of help.

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 7:28 pm GMT
@Anon We know that AI is "racist" and that Google is working hard to find a way to make it not racist (and yet still produce meaningful results), which is probably impossible. We also know that Google has plenty of human resources (although not an infinite #) to throw at such problems until an automated fix is found, just as Facebook now has thousands of people searching manually for Rooshian election interference in order to keep the dogs of Washington at bay. We can also guess that they are not eager to publicize to what extent they are tweaking or hand tuning algorithms or results – they would much rather you think that it is all done by "science". Putting this together, it's my guess that they are doing a fair amount of hand tuning, which is some spotty and uneven combination of combatting SEOs, de-racisting their AI bots, the leftist predilections of Google employees, the commands from on high of Google management, etc.
tambit , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:04 pm GMT
@tambit Final observations about Silicon Valley big tech. People need to appreciate a few things:

– Think of the short tenures that employees have at big tech companies. A conservative at Google or Facebook will only be there for two or three years. So they wonder, "Why rock the boat? In two years, I will be at Netflix or Amazon, or joining a startup, anyway." The transitory nature of it makes employees who break from the orthodoxy stay silent, especially after Damore.

– As with any company, everything is tacitly approved from the CEO and senior leadership. It's unlikely they have their hands in augmenting search results directly. On the other hand, they know the biases of their employees, and look the other way. For example, a CEO may talk about how getting SF contractors to vet news articles means there is unintentional liberal bias. But what prevents them from having some of the contractors in say, Kansas or Ohio, for a more balanced sample? Because the CEO condones the bias.

– If people are waiting for a smoking gun from Google, you will be out of luck. Because of their reach, they can quietly nudge people in a certain direction through repeated exposure. You may see an isolated incident and think "that's weird." But you're not seeing the few thousand other ways they are doing it concurrently. More so, as things continue to shift to mobile and native apps, there will be no meaningful way to measure this. For example, voice search could be construed so it "misunderstands" some phrases with slightly higher probability. This prompts users to type it in manually, which many will not do. Good luck catching that.

Lars Porsena , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:11 pm GMT
@Reg Cæsar Typing !bing, !google, !youtube, !amazon, !wikipedia and some others into duckduckgo before the search phrase, will redirect you to a search result from those sites, rather than duckduckgo results.
utu , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:11 pm GMT
@KunioKun I have an impression that in media coverage of the opioid crisis the role of heroine, its price and where does it come from is underplayed. Any connection to Afghanistan?
Random Smartaleck , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:26 pm GMT
@Sbrin Give Bing Maps a try. IMO it has a more straightforward interface if you are on a PC.
Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:51 pm GMT
@utu Most "heroin" nowadays is fentanyl or some other synthetic opiate and it comes from labs in China or from US prescription sources. It is so powerful that you don't need to smuggle in large quantities – 1 kilo is enough to lethally overdose everyone in a city of half a million. Actual heroin (a declining product) comes from Mexico. Afghanistan would be way down on the list in the US nowadays.
Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 8:57 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman For many reasons, it is wise to use a VPN. It is only going to get wiser as the surveillance state cranks up further every day.
snorlax , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:07 pm GMT
@KunioKun I'm not at all defending the Sacklers; if I made the laws I'd subject the ones involved in the business, and the other responsible Purdue personnel, to one of the more humane-ish old fashioned forms of execution, perhaps blowing from a gun , and seize the wealth of the rest, but this notion of KMac's fan club that their actions have escaped notice, and in particular escaped notice from liberals, is 180 degrees the opposite of the truth.

In fact, the Sacklers are all that liberals want to talk about WRT the opioid crisis -- it deflects blame from Mexican heroin, illegal alien drug pushers and Chinese fentanyl -- hence the widely read New Yorker article , and the bestseller Dopesick , which also toes the left-wing party line* that it was all Sacklers and not Mexico/illegals/China, and which received glowing reviews in the New York Times , Washington Post and Wall Street Journal .

*Unlike dueling bestseller Dreamland , which assigns the Sacklers their share of blame but also tells the rest of the story.

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:07 pm GMT
@tambit deaths from fe ➝ female circumcision fear factor ferguson riots . fever . fencing ferris wheel. Fentanyl not on the list.

This is clearly no coincidence although I don't know what the agenda is.

Jim Don Bob , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:33 pm GMT
@dearieme The British House of Cards was much better than the US one:
Kratoklastes , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:41 pm GMT
@alaska3636

I suspect that there is a broader part of the population that isn't sure what words they are looking for to complete their search query; but, does anybody here not know the end to the question that they are going to ask the internet?

+1000.

I was about to type something along the same lines but my version had "fuck[ing]" and "retard[s|ed]" in it several times.

Also – How To Turn Off Address Bar Search Predictions In Every Browser (from 2016).

Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) , says: November 30, 2018 at 9:55 pm GMT
@CCR Is "Apple" a search engine? Where is it found? And what was your nonsense word that yields the two suggestions Trump and Rape?
FKA Max , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 10:02 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 You are already aware of this, Tyrion 2 , since you followed the discussion/debate over in the other comments thread, but this information might be interesting to other UR readers and commenters:

Another question :

i) It appears the 2018 total drug overdose death will be 80,000! That is immense, and is twice as much as auto deaths. Until three days ago, I had no idea the number was skyrocketing this much.

But then why does it not show up in the CDC death table (2016 linked here, which was still a high enough number)? For younger age brackets, surely even the 2016 number was in the Top 10. Is it categorized as something else (like 'Unintentional Injury')?

http://www.unz.com/runz/racial-politics-in-america-and-in-california/#comment-2635195

Probably. Very good example of "collateral damage" War-/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
[...]
Overdoses are injuries too
[...]
It is easy to find evidence that drug overdoses are unpopular subjects for study or intervention by injury professionals. Index Medicus reveals that to date Injury Prevention has published only one article with the word "overdose" or the phrase "drug poisoning" in its title or abstract. A search of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention flagship publication, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report ( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr , accessed 16 Jan 2007), uncovered only 53 citations using the word "overdose" since 1982. In contrast, a search for "lead poisoning" in MMWR returned 1531 references. Scanning the 53 articles mentioning overdose reveals that overdoses are not the focus of most of them. Instead, many describe outbreaks of unusual cases, such as lead poisoning among methamphetamine users.5 Topics such as endemic use of methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and narcotic analgesics receive relatively little attention in the injury literature despite their large contribution to morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610611/

http://www.unz.com/runz/racial-politics-in-america-and-in-california/#comment-2635956

prosa123 , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:03 pm GMT
On the other hand, if you type "Google age" it autocompletes to 'Google age discrimination."
Anon [376] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:06 pm GMT
OT: Wikileaks is threatening to release more Hillary docs. I suspect if they'd had them earlier, they would have released them earlier. These look like a batch of new docs, then. They're probably ones on Weiner's laptop, and I don't think it's a coincidence that Wikileaks suddenly ended up with them after Sessions was given the boot. Some government leaker wanted to wait until Sessions was gone to make sure his butt was covered.
OFWHAP , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:15 pm GMT
@dearieme And it really shows with his absence in the most recent season. I think it's also that Frank Underwood comes off as a likable guy at times while everyone else on the show are just plain nasty people.
Doug , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:20 pm GMT
Google's *is* fairly transparent about their autocomplete policy. According to them, they censor "sex', "hate", "violence" and "harmful activities". Most of the above examples probably fall under the "hate" grouping, which includes ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation.

You also have to keep in mind that Google is a very algorithm driven company. More often than not someone's making a high-level decision, but most of the individual level choices are made by some machine learning algo that's essentially a black box. Some neural network linked a non-insignificant percentage of "jew" queries to downstream clickthroughs to the Daily Stormer. Whereas "mormon" queries don't lead to hate sites. So the censor algo tries to tag everything with "jew" in the autocomplete.

As for the opiod death thing, that's pretty consistent with Google's general censoring of any drug-related query. This would fall under the "harmful activities" category. You'll notice that sites Drugs-Forums, Bluelight and Erowid, which openly discuss and advocate recreational drug use, no longer appear in most searches. Again, "death from opiates" is being tagged, not for nefarious political reasons, but because to an algorithm it looks like something someone might search for before getting high.

https://www.blog.google/products/search/how-google-autocomplete-works-search/

https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/7368877?hl=en

Marat , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:23 pm GMT
@Redneck farmer The topic makes its way into about 10-15% of medical professional journals and continuing ed as well.

My suspicion is that any aspect of society this profoundly dysfunctional probably had the hand of the federal government in its creation.

Marat , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:28 pm GMT
Steve, You have readers at The Goolag. By the time I read this, "death from open heart surgery" was at the top of the heap returned for your search string, along with some other amusing obscure suggestions.
moshe , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:30 pm GMT
I'm old enough to remember the wild west web. It probably ended when Obama legally forced google to take down the movie 'innocence of muslims' from youtube until hillary could get to benghazi or something.

But I loved it when back in the day the first search result for "Jew" was "Jew Watch".

Of course Larry and Sergei were among the Jews being "watched" (I assume Stalin and Sailer are too, those are some verbose fellas!) but despite the 2 minutes of outrage Google stuck to it's guns.

Bear in mind, a lot of kids ACTUALLY WERE innocently searching "Jew" and getting an interesting earful.

But it wasn't until this had been the top result for nonths and headlines in every paper for 3 days that Google gave in by placing a: "Here's why you are seeing this result first. Also, no, we do not like Nazis".

I really liked the old internet but somewhere along the way, "the market" got in the way.

I also happen to think that encouragement is both sweet and probably at least as effective as the opposite so I enjoy crediting google for letting jew watch hold top position (it had the most references to "jew" apparently) and for publicly fighting obama on thr innocence of muslims thing – another thing that was rather principled considering as how many people believed the Copt that the movie was financed by "a hundred rich jews" and herr Larry and Sergei were fighting to keep broadcasting it to the world.

Oh, and if ur one of the local antisems suck a lemon

Anonymous [245] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:36 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 That's because you spelled white people wrong. It's wypipo.
AndrewR , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:41 pm GMT
@Anon Lmao at the idiot SJW who thinks that "Islamist" is a synonym for "Muslim" and gets triggered upon finding out that Islamists aren't universally revered.
Mbmb , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:54 pm GMT
Do bears
anon [332] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT
More fun

How many times have you heard the phrase "opioid epidemic" or "opioid crisis"?

Anon [190] Disclaimer , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:07 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman What you describe is called, in the search results context (although I'm not sure about the Google Suggest context), "Google bombing" or "Googlewashing."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb

I do think that Google has a way to manually preempt their normal algorithms for these situations, while they work to come up with automated ways to detect and prevent such mischief, since Google bombing produced bad PR and was embarassing for them. The problem was generally "fixed" too quickly to have been due to a fundamental algorithm modification.

information retrieval engineers

There are two degrees that most universities give, computer science and computer engineering. The latter is a more difficult major and involves classes in how computers work at the hardware level and more machine and assembly language study, but in practice the graduates just end up working as programmers, like the computer science guys. It's known that CE guys tend to be smarter, so at the very beginning of your career it helps to have a CE degree rather than a CS degree. You get a slight salary boost, that snowballs over time, until you get too old and expensive and are laid off in place of an Indian.

Achmed E. Newman , says: Website November 30, 2018 at 11:09 pm GMT
@Sbrin Here you go, Sergey (not very loyal to the company, are ya?) ;-}

I had used yahoo maps, until that folded up (bought up by the Google?), but the bing one in my link seems just as good.

Jack D , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:29 pm GMT
@Doug You win the best answer of the thread award.
Reg Cæsar , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:37 pm GMT
Yesterday's fun today! Vo-de-oh-do!
ben tillman , says: November 30, 2018 at 11:39 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 Why would that surprise you?

Carl Zimmer (who is discussed here frequently) tweeted that White Americans deserved to be afflicted with the ebola virus.