Jul 29, 2022·edited Jul 29, 2022Liked by Cynthia Chung
It's very obvious to me now that we've been deliberately deceived by our education system. I was paying attention in high school history and went on to acquire a piece of decorative paper deemed to denote a degree in modern history and international relations. I covered American history, modern Germany, the two world wars, the Cold War, Eastern European communism, the Meji revolution, Chinese civil war, history of western political thought. No-where did anyone bring up the perspective of the two clashing models, nor to examine the approach to economic and national development policies of national leaders through this perspective. Yet the quotes from the personalities in the article, all of whom I encountered during my studies, make it clear that Bismarck, Sun Yat-sen, Ho Chi Mingh, Lincoln, McKingley, Willy Brandt, Laurier, senior American military officers were thinking in these terms. Churchill's history of the Second World War and Mahan were on my supplementary reading list. Quigley was not. (I read Guderian's Panzer Leader and Col Harry G. Summer's On Strategy instead.) All those dead presidents? American gun violence, nothing more to be seen here. We didn't look closer at the Gouzenko affair, the FLQ crisis, British and French support of the Confederacy and Alexander II's support on the side of the Union and his internal policies. Assassinated European statesmen in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Anarchists. No need to look for any commonalities amongst the victims nor into who was backing the anarchists. My American and Cold War history professors depicted FDR as a naïve, ill weakling in dealing with Stalin, while Churchill was depicted as the clever chess master who knew he was dealing with two ruthless, murderous dictators and how to deal with them. We skipped right over Bertrand Russel.
Truly indeed, the main target was missed when the German and Japanese war machines were destroyed.
Brilliant work Cynthia. I'm looking forward to the next installment.
It is very clear that the global empire has seized control of the narrative from "academia" and "education" to "science" and everything even the Pulitzer prizes and the Nobel Prizes, especially the one for economics (not a true Nobel prize but granted by central banks) - all of it is to push the globalists narratives. A trend I have noted since the Covid-terrorism is the swamp of books that were rushed out, clearly ghost written, to support the narratives of those that were instrumental in forcing Xi Jinpings lockdown and Covid policies on the world. Fake books for influencers. There is nearly 2 dozen out now.
Jul 28, 2022·edited Jul 28, 2022Liked by Cynthia Chung
I enjoyed this article. It gave me an interesting spin on recent political history and in so doing pulled a thread from a complex tapestry in a vast conspiracy. Especially significant to me was the Bertrand Russell quotes and how it remains the mainstay of neocon thinking. I am looking forward to part 2.
What a excellent article revealing that the theme of liberty for all is now taken up by the Russians/ China in recognizing the respect due to one’s sovereign state.
It’s an anti imperialist move and how ironic America is now fighting against the adored American System of the 19th century.
Bertram Russell completely fooled by his social background of his imperial class to appreciate the illogic of his stance for a American hegemony to rule the world .
To institute the same thing.
It’s a natural instinct deeper than logic influencing us to have the hegemony of one rule as the alpha male in a pack of wolves does over its group.
We are animals after all .
One sees this in science ad well with its social biases.
Conrad Lorenz began to observe and study us as an animal for the reasons behind our outrageous violence creating the two WW wars.
The Natural world is full of surprises !
What a beautiful excellent article to provoke a discussion on how we arrived at where we are today and is to be appreciated Immensely.
History is indeed is a living thing as is the genetics inherent in our memory.
The Last Time Britain said No to the American Empire, was when our Socialist Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, refused to Send British Troops to Fight in Vietnam. Earlier we offered our Gurkha Troops to help American Troops with Jungle Combat. America Refused; saying it`s Us Rangers could defeat the Viet Cong . That went Well.
Harold Wilson was a good British Prime Minister that went against Britain's imperial policy. There is also evidence presented in Richard Cottrell's book on Operation Gladio that NATO was involved in a soft coup against him.
Great Britain abolished slavery in Great Britain but not for its colonies. Also, you should be informed that the Royal African Company, a British company, was responsible for the slave trafficking of Africans in the United States when they were still colonies, against the majority will of those colonists. Refer to my paper https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/what-it-means-to-be-an-american-citizen. Despite having outlawed slavery in Great Britain, they continued to treat their labourers as sub-human, especially in its booming cotton industry, where children were forced to work for families to make ends meet. Cotton labourers would breath in the cotton fluff in the air which would gather up in their lungs, many slowly suffocated to death after years of working in the cotton industry. It is also on record that Great Britain along with France planned to intervene during America's civil war on behalf of the Confederate states, which I actually went over in this article, and to which Russia sent its ships to the US coastlines in case of such a military intervention. If it had not been for Russia, Great Britain and France would have intervened to defend the Confederate States so that their cotton slave trade could continue to exist and benefit the British Empire. Again, you can refer to my article https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/what-it-means-to-be-an-american-citizen which goes over this in greater detail.
Col. Fletcher Prouty writes in his book "The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy”:
“As soon as the island of Okinawa became available as the launching site for [the planned American invasion of Japan], supplies and equipment for an invasion force of at least half a million men began to be stacked up, fifteen to twenty feet high, all over the island. Then, with the early surrender of Japan, this massive invasion did not occur, and the use of this enormous stockpile of military equipment was not necessary. Almost immediately, U.S. Navy transport vessels began to show up in Naha Harbor, Okinawa. This vast load of war materiel was reloaded onto those ships. I was on Okinawa at that time, and during some business in the harbor area I asked the harbormaster if all that new materiel was being returned to the States.
His response was direct and surprising: ‘Hell, no! They ain t never goin’ to see it again. One-half of this stuff, enough to equip and support at least a hundred and fifty thousand men, is going to Korea, and the other half is going to Indochina. ‘ “
L. Fletcher Prouty, who served as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy and was a former Col. in the U.S. Air Force, remarks in his book “The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy,” that these massive arms shipments were not returned to the United States but rather, half were transported to Korea and the other half to Vietnam.
The implications of this are enormous.
It signifies that there were Cold War preparations already underway as early as August 1945 and likely much earlier, and that the two regions selected, Korea and Vietnam, were pre-planned five years in advance and the other ten years in advance respectively, before the actual wars were to take place.
What this means is that the official narrative for why the Korean War and the Vietnam War were fought are fabrications of the Cold War “reality.”
- excerpts from my series "The Fascist Roots of the CIA"
"..much of Asia and Africa found themselves in a similarly debased fashion, they were not allowed to be individuals, to be free to create their own fate from something new. They were not free to have their own ideas, their own schools of thought, instead they were treated as children, with no choice but to choose the ideology of one parent or the other. However, this was largely western hypocrisy, as was so clearly seen by the very domineering presence of western imperialism and increasingly clandestine warfare.”
While on the other hand:
“the world is still awaiting, will the United States finally wake from its century of madness and return to its founding principles”
If the “world” (whoever that may be) is waiting for the United States, then how can they “create their own fate from something new” or worse still expect not to be “treated as children, with no choice but to choose the ideology of one parent or the other”?
Cynthia while does considerably well in stitching historical snippets together, she fails in deducing out of that patchwork a coherent narrative. This is partly nature partly nurtured. Her nature is curious but she has been nurtured to believe curiosity produces clarity, and without clarity how can you produe harmony?
That said, I enjoyed her focus on the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, however I'd advise you to direct your curiosity towards the difference between the 3 Ozs that make up the "English Magic Circle” which are erroneously lumped together—to their benefit & your readers' detriment—as Britain or British as opposed to Temporals, Spirituals & Commoners.
I think you have misunderstood the concluding section of the paper, I am not saying the world need await the United States before they can progress and advance. These countries have the right to self-determination which I thought was made clear in the paper. What I was referring to in this "awaiting" for the United States, is for the United States to return to its anti-imperialist roots. Nobody need ask permission for the United States for how they choose to govern their country, but I think everyone would agree, that things would be a lot easier for everyone to progress if the United States ended its imperialism, correct? And whether you like it or not, the United States has a history situated in anti-imperialism. The Bandung Conference, as displayed by Sukarno, Zhou Enlai and so forth, and the quotes I included for those who shared that spirit such as Sun Yat-sen, Ho Chi Minh, and quotes I didn't include but could have by Mossadegh, Nasser and Kwame Nkrumah who all supported and encouraged the anti-imperialist roots of the United States. Why did they do this? Because they recognized the American system approach to economics as the only success in defeating imperialism. Sukarno even said so in his opening speech to the Bandung Conference. The American System approach in economics was discussed by all the names I have mentioned, including Kwame Nkrumah's approach to Pan-Africanism. It is not an "American" version of life by the way, this is a scientific, universal principle in economics, it is thus owned by no one, including the United States. It is in reality a universal approach to economics and every country will have their stylized approach to it, like China, but the principles will remain consistent. Nobody wants war, at least it is clear that the leadership from Russia and China do not seek out a world war, dialogue and diplomacy always come before use of violence in defense of the right to self-determination. War may be inevitable, but we should certainly not encourage rushing into it, I wrote this piece not to over-glorify the United States but to remind its citizens who have forgotten her better nature. If you do not remember the better parts of your history, wouldn't you agree that this is a source of disempowerment and confusion? Many Americans think this has come down to a choice of one hegemony over another, I am sharing aspects of history so that they understand that that is in fact not true, that multipolarity is possible for a harmony of interests, or as China phrases it, win-win cooperation.
"I am not saying the world need await the United States before they can progress and advance. These countries have the right to self-determination which I thought was made clear in the paper. What I was referring to in this "awaiting" for the United States, is for the United States to return to its anti-imperialist roots."
*--If you are not saying the "world [whoever that may be?] need await the United States before they can progress and advance" then of what relevance is it to their "right to self-determination" the United States' hoped "return to its anti-imperialist roots"?
This in a way is a tacit admission of the paternalistic influence of colonialism on the colonized, which resulted in "they were not allowed to be individuals, to be free to create their own fate from something new. They were not free to have their own ideas, their own schools of thought, instead they were treated as children, with no choice but to choose the ideology of one parent or the other." since inspiration of "progress" is drawn from without not within their own borders.--*
"The Bandung Conference, as displayed by Sukarno, Zhou Enlai and so forth, and the quotes I included for those who shared that spirit such as Sun Yat-sen, Ho Chi Minh, and quotes I didn't include but could have by Mossadegh, Nasser and Kwame Nkrumah who all supported and encouraged the anti-imperialist roots of the United States. Why did they do this? Because they recognized the American system approach to economics as the only success in defeating imperialism. Sukarno even said so in his opening speech to the Bandung Conference."
*--There is a paradox here, if as you state that, "the American system approach to economics as the only success in defeating imperialism." then how come it didn't successfully prevent America [United States] from abandoning it's non-imperialistic roots?
Moreover if Sukarno, Mossadegh, Nkrumah et al, were right, their fate would have been different, wouldn't it? If anything it shows, that they, like many others, as then so too now, have a misplaced hope in "temporary success", because they measured the "success" of the "American System" based on indices and yardsticks produced by the "American System", which no doubt is biased towards its own success and blind to its own failures, otherwise how else would it have sold itself as a viable alternative to the "other system(s)"?--*
"Nobody need ask permission for the United States for how they choose to govern their country, but I think everyone would agree, that things would be a lot easier for everyone to progress if the United States ended its imperialism, correct?"
*--I beg to differ, I don't think "everyone would agree", that a presumption based on the untenable correlation between the "ease of progress" for "everyone" and an end to "United States' imperialism" is necessarily true nor would "everyone agree" that imperialism, American or otherwise, inhibits rather than facilitates the "ease of progress". Let us not forget that "ease of progress" encompasses, the economic, scientific, technological e.t.c. spheres, which ironically receive greater funding during the United States' Imperialistic Age, shall we say, than, its non-Imperialistic Age, the Internet (re: ARPA) is a case in point.--*
"And whether you like it or not, the United States has a history situated in anti-imperialism."
*--Like or dislike is irrelevant to the fact that, the track record of the United States belies its supposed anti-imperialistic historicity or exceptionality in that regard, not that "imperialism" is in of itself good or bad, nor was, as far as I know, any nation or nation-state in the past, neither Rome nor Persepolis, founded on "imperialism" as a nation-building ethos, otherwise by that logic every nation or nation-state that transgressed the borders of its founding city could retrospectively be said to have a "history situated in anti-imperialism."--*
"The American System approach in economics was discussed by all the names I have mentioned, including Kwame Nkrumah's approach to Pan-Africanism. It is not an "American" version of life by the way, this is a scientific, universal principle in economics, it is thus owned by no one, including the United States. It is in reality a universal approach to economics and every country will have their stylized approach to it, like China, but the principles will remain consistent."
*--Am afraid the "universality" of any principal, much less "a scientific, universal principle in economics" cannot be established until it is proven that, that "principal is universally accepted and applied universally", so how can it be "universal" much less "consistent", when "every country will have their stylized approach to it"?
On the contrary, the fact that "every country will have their stylized approach" demonstrates that inherent inconsistencies of any principal, have to be adjusted in function not form, to fit local particularities, in order to justify the potential benefits of the continued application of that principal otherwise its "universality" would receive the same reaction, one such "scientific, universal principle in economics" at the time got from the Chileans; “Chao, Chicago”. It is not by accident, North Korea is officially called The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.--*
"Nobody wants war, at least it is clear that the leadership from Russia and China do not seek out a world war, dialogue and diplomacy always come before use of violence in defense of the right to self-determination. War may be inevitable, but we should certainly not encourage rushing into it."
*--Am afraid I'd have to disagree Cynthia, first on what is assumed by "war", which according to Sun Tzu, "all warfare is based on deception.", his view is the military-intelligence view, which is the dominant view of what constitutes "war". In fact I would go further to suggest that it is the view held by those with "power in power", for instance John F. Kennedy, aptly summarized that military-intelligence view of "war" in his 1961 address to the press:
"Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion."
Therefore, to not "encourage rushing into it" would entail exposing the other face of "war", because if you are "awaiting a declaration of war before [you] impose the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no WAR ever posed a greater threat to our security." this is why the non-military-intelligence view of "war" assumes that "Britain never won a war against the United States" even though they "conquered [United States] from within" which brings us back to the military-intelligence understanding of "war" and "successful war" as embodied by Sun Tzu's view that; "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."
This is what a faction in "Britain & its city", did to the United States, it "subdued it without fighting", although who or what constitutes the "enemy" changed, to reflect the changing "power-tugging" landscape, what remained constant was the shared compromise to "subdue" the machinery of state and people, and unleash it at any shared enemy like a charging bull at a red cape.--*
"I wrote this piece not to over-glorify the United States but to remind its citizens who have forgotten her better nature. If you do not remember the better parts of your history, wouldn't you agree that this is a source of disempowerment and confusion?."
*--I gathered as much Cynthia, and it is noble on your part to want the best for your host by reciprocation of good since it is the "better nature" that brings the good out, but as Orwell put it, "who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." or as another writer once put it, "fallen leaves return to their roots." which is essential in remembering that their "better nature" lives side by side with their "worse nature" as attested by the native tribes they encountered when founding their "non-imperialistic" Plymouth Colony, because to ignore the latter in favour of the former, is to "disempower and confuse" them into thinking that, they are without blemish, this reinforces the belief necessary to "subdue" their "better nature" and unleash their "worse nature" at will, or as someone put it, "on command".--*
"Many Americans think this has come down to a choice of one hegemony over another, I am sharing aspects of history so that they understand that that is in fact not true, that multipolarity is possible for a harmony of interests, or as China phrases it, win-win cooperation."
*--Actually I would subscribe to their point of view, that it is one hegemony over another, and whether it is characterized as "two opposing systems", "the English System vs. the American system", "Nationalism vs. Globalism", "Good vs. Evil", "God vs. Satan" and so forth, there is definitely a dichotomous struggle throughout history of one hegemony seeking dominance over another, regardless of the colouring of the language, the underlying "dominance-tugging" is a reality we mustn't be blind to, otherwise, we'd be victims of the consequences of doing so. Rather, one must definitely have in full view all the accompanying repercussions associated with it, because one man's "win-win cooperation" is another man's "win-win competition".--*
"Heads of MI5, FBI give joint warning of growing threat from China"
'FBI Director Christopher Wray said that the Chinese government "poses the biggest long-term threat" "The Chinese government is trying to shape the world by interfering in our politics (and those of our allies, I should add)," Wray warned that the Chinese government "poses an even more serious threat to Western businesses than even many sophisticated businesspeople realize,"
"The widespread Western assumption that growing prosperity within China and increasing connectivity with the West would automatically lead to greater political freedom has, I'm afraid, been shown to be plain wrong," MI5 Director General Ken McCallum said.
You say you have seen no proof that these economic principles are universal? China's Belt and Road Initiative is your proof as well as the impetus coming out of Russia via Sergey Glazyev. These are the same economic principles to which I am referring to in this paper. As for this matter of you focusing on my reference to the world waiting for the United States' final decision that will seal its own fate, once again, I do not think you are understanding what I am discussing. So let me attempt one more time to be as clear as I possibly can about what I am saying, the old world of geopolitics is over, Russia and China are leading the new paradigm which is situated in a multipolar approach. What the United States ultimately decides (whether it remains imperialistic or returns to its anti-imperial roots) will make no difference to what is now the new paradigm, however, it will make a difference in terms of the level of death and destruction that could potentially occur during this transition. The Anglo-American empire has essentially lost. The decision thus in front of the United States is one of an existential nature, if they remain imperialistic it will be their own destruction, if they return to an anti-imperial outlook they can prosper in this multipolar paradigm. The point is to minimize the level of suffering that can potentially occur throughout the world, (in case you have not noticed the energy crisis spurred by the US sanctions on Russia, are hitting the poorest countries first) as we enter this multipolar paradigm, something that the leadership of Russia and China also clearly desire. Despite the empire essentially having already lost, there are still many factors in terms of minimizing the level of destruction that can potentially occur during this transition. The American people, as unlikely as it might seem, still have the power to steer their government away from maximum destruction. Let me ask you, what is the point of writing about the injustices that Russia and China face if not to change people's mind about an issue? If you do not care about what the American people think, why are you reading an American based website whose readership largely consists of Americans?
As for my use of the word "universal" to describe this system of economics, I do not mean "ubiquitous" which seems to be the interpretation you took. Universal as in it is a scientific truth, universal as in it is the most efficient and beneficial approach to economics. Thus, when I say China is using this model and thus this is proof, what I am referring to is that China is now essentially the largest and most powerful economy in the world because of its understanding and application of these principles.
"As for my use of the word "universal" to describe this system of economics, I do not mean "ubiquitous" which seems to be the interpretation you took. Universal as in it is a scientific truth, universal as in it is the most efficient and beneficial approach to economics. Thus, when I say China is using this model and thus this is proof, what I am referring to is that China is now essentially the largest and most powerful economy in the world because of its understanding and application of these principles."
*--It would seem you're using "universal" polysemically, whereas had I used it in a "ubiquitous" sense, I would have said, "until it is proven that, that "principal is universally accepted" instead of saying, "Am afraid the "universality" of any principal, much less "a scientific, universal principle in economics" cannot be established until it is proven that, that "principal is universally accepted and applied universally".
As per "largest and most powerful economy in the world" on what basis GDP? PPP? GPI? TPI? BLI? IWI? GSI?
Using any of these I can easily say, I am currently holidaying in the "richest and most prosperous economy in the world" with probably the most appallingly tasting tea in human history. Cheerio!--*
"You say you have seen no proof that these economic principles are universal?"
*--Rather I said: "the "universality" of any principal, much less "a scientific, universal principle in economics" cannot be established until it is proven that, that "principal is universally accepted and applied universally", so how can it be "universal" much less "consistent", when "every country will have their stylized approach to it"?"--*
"China's Belt and Road Initiative is your proof as well as the impetus coming out of Russia via Sergey Glazyev. These are the same economic principles to which I am referring to in this paper."
*--"China's Belt and Road Initiative.." is not proof of the universality of an economic principle, nor is it novel, original or exclusive to "China". First, we have to make an important distinction between, 'the geographic, economic, and cultural territory that is commonly understood as 'China' and 'PRC', which is a regime, a system, a way of managing the affairs of a huge number people spread across a vast territory which is the self-conscious creation of the Communist Party of China, itself a highly self-conscious group of men (led by Han Chinese) who think constantly about their interests.
This distinction is frequently lost, thus why "China" has become synonymous with "Cheap" & "Fake" because of the Han-led PRC, which as a "fake" replica of the ancien régime of the Aisin Gioro (core imperial clan of the Qing dynasty), is by necessity of its own deficit living off of the Qing imperial domains & legacy, because it was the [Aisin Gioro] Manchus, not the Han Chinese, that bequeathed (circa. 1912) Modern China its territorial domain (ex./lost: Outer Mongolia & Taiwan) and consequently its national glory. In this sense, the Han-led PRC is a socio-political-simulacrum, without the accompanying historical legacy of the Aisin Gioro, because the Han led PRC's history is either peri-Mao (marred by Great Leap Forward/Famine, Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution etc.) or post-Mao (circa. 1976/Deng Xiaoping) there is no pre-Mao (Zaifeng's abdication & NRC rule - 1912 -1949). The void that the socio-political simulacrum creates has several far-reaching repercussions. For instance the socio-economic pathos of don't "stand out, blend in" is evident in name-change like adopting English sounding-names to accede without friction into social-market spaces, so Ma Yun became Jack Ma, Fang Shilong became Jackie Chan, & so forth, as a result of the socio-cultural deficit the Han-led PRC China created when it severed "ties but not prize of the past" whilst simultaneously importing both its political philosophy (Marxism-Leninism) & economic theory (Socialist Market Economy), ceasing in the process any incentivize for "authenticity or originality" hence the "Fake" rep. "Cheap" on the other hand which although offers a competitive advantage, as far as labour ought to be concerned for an export-dependent economy, it doesn't offer a comparative advantage, since the export-orientation of "Brand China" which is product-focus thus more labour-machine intensive, loses more over time in an increasingly service-oriented market, which is why the Han led PRC's Belt and Road Initiative, is a repeat of an ambitious 'self-strengthening' economic policy of the last decades of the Qing Dynasty looking to expand beyond its borders (the driving belief was that they were to be the leaders of a "universal" empire). The irony being that although the reforms of the late-Qing era certainly did the country a lot of good, they did not save the Aisin Goro dynasty. Though they were strengthening in their way, they were also subversive of the polity and of its ruling class.--*
"..the impetus coming out of Russia via Sergey Glazyev"
Glazyev like most of the "Rus-caste" suffer from what one writer aptly termed, "shadow mind", in order to capture how the "replacement of the real mind" of his people happened as a result of colonialism, explaining that the shadow mind, "functions like a real mind except in the manner of genuine creativeness". It is this deficit of "genuine creativeness" that the "Rus ruling class" like Glazyev lack, and through no fault of their own, since they drink from the same poisonous Greco-Roman well that their Judea-Christian Western adversaries drink from, and Franco-Germanic predecessors drank from too. Whether it be their religious (Orthodox Christianity), political (Republican Federalism), economic (State backed market-economy) etc. The Rus "shadow mind" is almost always beholden to outsiders for inspiration, even in their pre-Christian past you see this playout, for instance with Vladimir I's pagan temple dedicated to a Norse god [Perun], Slav gods [Stribog and Dazhd'bog], Finnish goddess [Mokosh], and Iranian gods [Khors and Simargl], this "temple" is analogous to the Rus-led confederacy today, were to appease the various ethno-groups [Slavs, Tatars, Turkic, Chechens, Uralic etc.] within its borders, institutions, etc., they must be dedicated to varying religious, political, economic policies, from without not from within their borders, institutions, etc., otherwise chaos would ensue. Therefore to keep the "unity and order", whatever is adopted from without, has to undergone a distillation (akin to baptism), in order to garner wide appeal for its implementation. That importation-distillation-adoption-implementation process almost always renders the Rus the de facto contrarian-underclass par excellence, vis-à-vis their major competitive interlocutors, be it militarily or intellectually. They lead in opposition not in innovation, which brings us to Glazyev, who in enumerating his "we-need solutions" to "counter" the impositions of sanctions, drank alongside his adversaries from the same poisonous well, albeit not as a partisan but as a contrarian:
"we need to protect ourselves.."
"We need serious investments in R&D.."
"We need to complete the de-dollarization of our foreign exchange reserves.."
"We need to introduce a digital ruble as soon as possible.."
"Try to create a broad international coalition to restore the norms of international law, including those of the WTO and the IMF, which Western sanctions officials are shamelessly violating with their sanctions and trade wars."
Concluding in the same Third-Rome "restore" theme his fellow Rus-intelligentsia have grown accustomed to:
"To minimize the dangers associated with it, it is necessary to accelerate the formation of a new — integrated - world economic order that restores international law, national sovereignty, equality of countries, diversity of national economic models, and the principles of mutually beneficial and voluntary international economic cooperation."--*
"As for this matter of you focusing on my reference to the world waiting for the United States' final decision that will seal its own fate, once again, I do not think you are understanding what I am discussing. So let me attempt one more time to be as clear as I possibly can about what I am saying, the old world of geopolitics is over, Russia and China are leading the new paradigm which is situated in a multipolar approach."
*--As mentioned above neither [Rus led] Russia nor [Han led] China "are leading" in anything "new" much less any "new paradigm", because the "old world of geopolitics" is neither old nor dead, nor is a "multipolar approach" an exception to the rule, on the contrary it is the rule. We have always been in a historical continuum of multipolarity, whether it was the Egypt-Hittite-Assyrian-Kassite epoch or the Roman-Parthian-Mauryan-Han epoch, the world has always been a multipolarity of nations, what can be argued is that, the multipolarity of today has an economic qualia of unipolarity because of exorbitant privileges afforded to one nation with two ruling clans (co-emperors).--*
"What the United States ultimately decides (whether it remains imperialistic or returns to its anti-imperial roots) will make no difference to what is now the new paradigm, however, it will make a difference in terms of the level of death and destruction that could potentially occur during this transition. The Anglo-American empire has essentially lost. The decision thus in front of the United States is one of an existential nature, if they remain imperialistic it will be their own destruction, if they return to an anti-imperial outlook they can prosper in this multipolar paradigm."
*--To conclude that the "Anglo-American empire has essentially lost", is a direct consequence of indiscriminately misidentifying the geographic, economic, and cultural territory that is commonly understood as "United States" with the "Ruling Judeo-Christian Clan" steering it, the same rule of thumb we used for "China" and the "Ruling PRC-Han Clan", or "Russia" and the "Ruling Slavic-Rus Clan", etc. Only correctly identifying "who is losing what" can one begin to reach a conclusion of "who is winning what". For instance, "exorbitant privilege" still gives the U.S. dollar supremacy, for instance in global reserves (COFER: 60%+), global foreign exchange turnover (BIS: 40%), foreign exchange transactions (BIS: 90%+ $6 trillion/daily pre-pandemic), almost all international debt/bond contracts are governed by New York or English law, not forgetting that most of the creditor grouping (Private, Multilateral etc.) are "Anglo-American".--*
"The point is to minimize the level of suffering that can potentially occur throughout the world, (in case you have not noticed the energy crisis spurred by the US sanctions on Russia, are hitting the poorest countries first) as we enter this multipolar paradigm, something that the leadership of Russia and China also clearly desire. Despite the empire essentially having already lost, there are still many factors in terms of minimizing the level of destruction that can potentially occur during this transition."
*--To give you one example of "maximized suffering", via The International Finance Corporation (IFC) (re: Global Trade Finance Program) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), the "Anglo-American" led World Bank through grants, loans and equity investments has since the start of the pandemic under one scheme or another been financing, 100 "developing" countries, home to 70% of the world’s population, do you think these 100 debt-ridden countries, beholden to "Anglo-American" credit & contractual laws, and whose local ruling clans, have vested interests in "Anglo-America" will be the ones to defeat their "Anglo-American" creditors?
The Han-led PRC "China" not only has the highest foreign currency reserve in U.S. dollars, but it owns $980.8 billion of U.S. Treasurys—3.2% of the total U.S. debt.—which is more than any other foreign country except Japan. Moreover Han-led PRC "China" main export-funded sovereign wealth funds (CIC, SAFE Investment Company, HKMA & co.) hold & invest in dollars not rubles or yuan, thus is bound by English or New York law (lesser extent Santiago Principles, see: IFSWF) not Chinese or Russian law, and you must surely have deduced where most of that money is invested, as well as where most of its exports (US$521 billion/17.2%) is directed, right? It certainly isn't Russia. If you haven't the new generation of Han-led PRC "Princelings" have understood that a huge share of China's economy, and their own personal wealth, rest on foreign trade, most of it seaborne and thus reducible to a trickle in the event of trouble in the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait on the one hand, and since the "Open Door Policy" connected it to the world market-economy it had to cede much of its economic power and sovereignty to the whim of the bond market, the foreign exchange market, & commodities market on the other hand, something Glazyev recognized when he stated: "Since 2014, when, with the connivance of the regulator, currency speculators through market manipulation brought down the ruble exchange rate. As a result of this manipulation of the Russian foreign exchange market, ruble incomes and savings were devalued, and speculators received more than $35 billion of profit...international speculators are making multibillion — dollar profits, while Russians are seeing their ruble savings and incomes depreciate along with surges in inflation." his clear-sighted description are not as bad as his "contrarian prescriptions"--*
"The American people, as unlikely as it might seem, still have the power to steer their government away from maximum destruction."
*--Am afraid what you call "American people" is not realis. There is no "homogenous group" called "American people". As a rhetorical device, it is fine, but as far who steers not the "government" but the "state", it is irrealis. "American people" is not a unison of one body and one soul, it is more like four souls in one body, with one soul pulling left, another pulling right, another pulling forward, and another pulling backward. Destruction/construction is an inherent part of the centrifugal vs. centripetal forces that move the ebbing and flowing tides of change be it on a societal or individual scale, embrace it Cynthia and let it destroy you but don't be destroyed by it, as one Frenchman successful did, and as is typical of exhilarated Frenchmen, he kindly left us a quote to muse about, "whoever did not live in the years neighboring 1789 does not know what the pleasure of living means."--*
"Let me ask you, what is the point of writing about the injustices that Russia and China face if not to change people's mind about an issue?"
*--Am assuming to make a living, why else would you write for free if you have bills to pay Cynthia? That is an injustice you inflict on yourself, shouldn't you be just to yourself to be a better dispenser of justice elsewhere? Don't be the candle that burns itself to give light.--*
"If you do not care about what the American people think, why are you reading an American based website whose readership largely consists of Americans?"
*--That is quite an observation about thoughts even I didn't know I harboured, tell me more while you boldly wander, uninvited I might add, through my mind field, would you?. Regarding, using websites, the answer ought to be obvious to anyone who reads the Terms & Conditions of the website he/she uses before using it, am assuming you haven't read it, have you curious Cynthia?--*
And now, they've sent Harry here to be the King of America? The Windsors, spoof of the Crown on Netflix, nailed this, just a bit too soon and with the wrong prince.
Harry couldn't be king of his own underpants. I bet the rest of the Nobs threw him out. Plus, he married someone who isn't "pure." Horrors! (yep, being sarcastic/snide-- I think I'm agreeing with you, but I don't do Netflix... )
First off Matt in response to the Kissinger comment, yes. in May 1981, Henry Kissinger who replaced Brzezinski as the head of the Trilateral Commission gave a speech at Chatham House describing his term as Secretary of State:
“[The British] became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations…In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American Department…It was symptomatic.”
In his speech, Kissinger outlined the conflicting ideologies between Churchill and Roosevelt, and concluded with his support for the British worldview as the more superior of the two.
As for the slavery issue I would suggest you take a look at my paper "What it Means to be an American Citizen this Fourth of July" https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/what-it-means-to-be-an-american-citizen which goes through this history of slavery within the United States and how the British were directly responsible for pushing slavery among the American colonies through the actions of Royal African Company despite there being a rejection of slave traffic among many the American colonies who are on record for voting so and even abolishing slavery in their colonies. Again you can refer to the article for further details.
I co-wrote a book series with my husband titled "The Clash of the Two Americas" which goes through how there were always two conflicting identities within the United States (hence the civil war) one being pro-system of empire and slavery and the other anti-system of empire and for the sovereignty of country and individual. For more on how we are approaching this subject you can view an interview Matt did for the podcast "Geopolitics and Empire" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lTjQdWkSdM
It's very obvious to me now that we've been deliberately deceived by our education system. I was paying attention in high school history and went on to acquire a piece of decorative paper deemed to denote a degree in modern history and international relations. I covered American history, modern Germany, the two world wars, the Cold War, Eastern European communism, the Meji revolution, Chinese civil war, history of western political thought. No-where did anyone bring up the perspective of the two clashing models, nor to examine the approach to economic and national development policies of national leaders through this perspective. Yet the quotes from the personalities in the article, all of whom I encountered during my studies, make it clear that Bismarck, Sun Yat-sen, Ho Chi Mingh, Lincoln, McKingley, Willy Brandt, Laurier, senior American military officers were thinking in these terms. Churchill's history of the Second World War and Mahan were on my supplementary reading list. Quigley was not. (I read Guderian's Panzer Leader and Col Harry G. Summer's On Strategy instead.) All those dead presidents? American gun violence, nothing more to be seen here. We didn't look closer at the Gouzenko affair, the FLQ crisis, British and French support of the Confederacy and Alexander II's support on the side of the Union and his internal policies. Assassinated European statesmen in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Anarchists. No need to look for any commonalities amongst the victims nor into who was backing the anarchists. My American and Cold War history professors depicted FDR as a naïve, ill weakling in dealing with Stalin, while Churchill was depicted as the clever chess master who knew he was dealing with two ruthless, murderous dictators and how to deal with them. We skipped right over Bertrand Russel.
Truly indeed, the main target was missed when the German and Japanese war machines were destroyed.
Brilliant work Cynthia. I'm looking forward to the next installment.
It is very clear that the global empire has seized control of the narrative from "academia" and "education" to "science" and everything even the Pulitzer prizes and the Nobel Prizes, especially the one for economics (not a true Nobel prize but granted by central banks) - all of it is to push the globalists narratives. A trend I have noted since the Covid-terrorism is the swamp of books that were rushed out, clearly ghost written, to support the narratives of those that were instrumental in forcing Xi Jinpings lockdown and Covid policies on the world. Fake books for influencers. There is nearly 2 dozen out now.
I enjoyed this article. It gave me an interesting spin on recent political history and in so doing pulled a thread from a complex tapestry in a vast conspiracy. Especially significant to me was the Bertrand Russell quotes and how it remains the mainstay of neocon thinking. I am looking forward to part 2.
What a excellent article revealing that the theme of liberty for all is now taken up by the Russians/ China in recognizing the respect due to one’s sovereign state.
It’s an anti imperialist move and how ironic America is now fighting against the adored American System of the 19th century.
Bertram Russell completely fooled by his social background of his imperial class to appreciate the illogic of his stance for a American hegemony to rule the world .
To institute the same thing.
It’s a natural instinct deeper than logic influencing us to have the hegemony of one rule as the alpha male in a pack of wolves does over its group.
We are animals after all .
One sees this in science ad well with its social biases.
Conrad Lorenz began to observe and study us as an animal for the reasons behind our outrageous violence creating the two WW wars.
The Natural world is full of surprises !
What a beautiful excellent article to provoke a discussion on how we arrived at where we are today and is to be appreciated Immensely.
History is indeed is a living thing as is the genetics inherent in our memory.
The Last Time Britain said No to the American Empire, was when our Socialist Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, refused to Send British Troops to Fight in Vietnam. Earlier we offered our Gurkha Troops to help American Troops with Jungle Combat. America Refused; saying it`s Us Rangers could defeat the Viet Cong . That went Well.
Harold Wilson was a good British Prime Minister that went against Britain's imperial policy. There is also evidence presented in Richard Cottrell's book on Operation Gladio that NATO was involved in a soft coup against him.
Great Britain Abolished Slavery in 1840 and the Royal Navy Stopped All Slave Ships on the High Seas;
even Slave Ships heading for the Confederate States.
Great Britain abolished slavery in Great Britain but not for its colonies. Also, you should be informed that the Royal African Company, a British company, was responsible for the slave trafficking of Africans in the United States when they were still colonies, against the majority will of those colonists. Refer to my paper https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/what-it-means-to-be-an-american-citizen. Despite having outlawed slavery in Great Britain, they continued to treat their labourers as sub-human, especially in its booming cotton industry, where children were forced to work for families to make ends meet. Cotton labourers would breath in the cotton fluff in the air which would gather up in their lungs, many slowly suffocated to death after years of working in the cotton industry. It is also on record that Great Britain along with France planned to intervene during America's civil war on behalf of the Confederate states, which I actually went over in this article, and to which Russia sent its ships to the US coastlines in case of such a military intervention. If it had not been for Russia, Great Britain and France would have intervened to defend the Confederate States so that their cotton slave trade could continue to exist and benefit the British Empire. Again, you can refer to my article https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/what-it-means-to-be-an-american-citizen which goes over this in greater detail.
"Despite the Americans launching the Korean War from 1950 to 1953..."
err...
Are you sure about that, Ms. Chung?
You are right Harry, I should have been more clear, when the Americans launched their war in Korea.
Col. Fletcher Prouty writes in his book "The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy”:
“As soon as the island of Okinawa became available as the launching site for [the planned American invasion of Japan], supplies and equipment for an invasion force of at least half a million men began to be stacked up, fifteen to twenty feet high, all over the island. Then, with the early surrender of Japan, this massive invasion did not occur, and the use of this enormous stockpile of military equipment was not necessary. Almost immediately, U.S. Navy transport vessels began to show up in Naha Harbor, Okinawa. This vast load of war materiel was reloaded onto those ships. I was on Okinawa at that time, and during some business in the harbor area I asked the harbormaster if all that new materiel was being returned to the States.
His response was direct and surprising: ‘Hell, no! They ain t never goin’ to see it again. One-half of this stuff, enough to equip and support at least a hundred and fifty thousand men, is going to Korea, and the other half is going to Indochina. ‘ “
L. Fletcher Prouty, who served as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy and was a former Col. in the U.S. Air Force, remarks in his book “The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy,” that these massive arms shipments were not returned to the United States but rather, half were transported to Korea and the other half to Vietnam.
The implications of this are enormous.
It signifies that there were Cold War preparations already underway as early as August 1945 and likely much earlier, and that the two regions selected, Korea and Vietnam, were pre-planned five years in advance and the other ten years in advance respectively, before the actual wars were to take place.
What this means is that the official narrative for why the Korean War and the Vietnam War were fought are fabrications of the Cold War “reality.”
- excerpts from my series "The Fascist Roots of the CIA"
Great info! Have you read A Bright Shining Lie?
No I have not, but it looks interesting!
It's an excellent look into the mentality of some of the career military men fighting in Korea and Vietnam.
It is paradoxical that on the one hand:
"..much of Asia and Africa found themselves in a similarly debased fashion, they were not allowed to be individuals, to be free to create their own fate from something new. They were not free to have their own ideas, their own schools of thought, instead they were treated as children, with no choice but to choose the ideology of one parent or the other. However, this was largely western hypocrisy, as was so clearly seen by the very domineering presence of western imperialism and increasingly clandestine warfare.”
While on the other hand:
“the world is still awaiting, will the United States finally wake from its century of madness and return to its founding principles”
If the “world” (whoever that may be) is waiting for the United States, then how can they “create their own fate from something new” or worse still expect not to be “treated as children, with no choice but to choose the ideology of one parent or the other”?
Cynthia while does considerably well in stitching historical snippets together, she fails in deducing out of that patchwork a coherent narrative. This is partly nature partly nurtured. Her nature is curious but she has been nurtured to believe curiosity produces clarity, and without clarity how can you produe harmony?
That said, I enjoyed her focus on the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, however I'd advise you to direct your curiosity towards the difference between the 3 Ozs that make up the "English Magic Circle” which are erroneously lumped together—to their benefit & your readers' detriment—as Britain or British as opposed to Temporals, Spirituals & Commoners.
I think you have misunderstood the concluding section of the paper, I am not saying the world need await the United States before they can progress and advance. These countries have the right to self-determination which I thought was made clear in the paper. What I was referring to in this "awaiting" for the United States, is for the United States to return to its anti-imperialist roots. Nobody need ask permission for the United States for how they choose to govern their country, but I think everyone would agree, that things would be a lot easier for everyone to progress if the United States ended its imperialism, correct? And whether you like it or not, the United States has a history situated in anti-imperialism. The Bandung Conference, as displayed by Sukarno, Zhou Enlai and so forth, and the quotes I included for those who shared that spirit such as Sun Yat-sen, Ho Chi Minh, and quotes I didn't include but could have by Mossadegh, Nasser and Kwame Nkrumah who all supported and encouraged the anti-imperialist roots of the United States. Why did they do this? Because they recognized the American system approach to economics as the only success in defeating imperialism. Sukarno even said so in his opening speech to the Bandung Conference. The American System approach in economics was discussed by all the names I have mentioned, including Kwame Nkrumah's approach to Pan-Africanism. It is not an "American" version of life by the way, this is a scientific, universal principle in economics, it is thus owned by no one, including the United States. It is in reality a universal approach to economics and every country will have their stylized approach to it, like China, but the principles will remain consistent. Nobody wants war, at least it is clear that the leadership from Russia and China do not seek out a world war, dialogue and diplomacy always come before use of violence in defense of the right to self-determination. War may be inevitable, but we should certainly not encourage rushing into it, I wrote this piece not to over-glorify the United States but to remind its citizens who have forgotten her better nature. If you do not remember the better parts of your history, wouldn't you agree that this is a source of disempowerment and confusion? Many Americans think this has come down to a choice of one hegemony over another, I am sharing aspects of history so that they understand that that is in fact not true, that multipolarity is possible for a harmony of interests, or as China phrases it, win-win cooperation.
"I am not saying the world need await the United States before they can progress and advance. These countries have the right to self-determination which I thought was made clear in the paper. What I was referring to in this "awaiting" for the United States, is for the United States to return to its anti-imperialist roots."
*--If you are not saying the "world [whoever that may be?] need await the United States before they can progress and advance" then of what relevance is it to their "right to self-determination" the United States' hoped "return to its anti-imperialist roots"?
This in a way is a tacit admission of the paternalistic influence of colonialism on the colonized, which resulted in "they were not allowed to be individuals, to be free to create their own fate from something new. They were not free to have their own ideas, their own schools of thought, instead they were treated as children, with no choice but to choose the ideology of one parent or the other." since inspiration of "progress" is drawn from without not within their own borders.--*
"The Bandung Conference, as displayed by Sukarno, Zhou Enlai and so forth, and the quotes I included for those who shared that spirit such as Sun Yat-sen, Ho Chi Minh, and quotes I didn't include but could have by Mossadegh, Nasser and Kwame Nkrumah who all supported and encouraged the anti-imperialist roots of the United States. Why did they do this? Because they recognized the American system approach to economics as the only success in defeating imperialism. Sukarno even said so in his opening speech to the Bandung Conference."
*--There is a paradox here, if as you state that, "the American system approach to economics as the only success in defeating imperialism." then how come it didn't successfully prevent America [United States] from abandoning it's non-imperialistic roots?
Moreover if Sukarno, Mossadegh, Nkrumah et al, were right, their fate would have been different, wouldn't it? If anything it shows, that they, like many others, as then so too now, have a misplaced hope in "temporary success", because they measured the "success" of the "American System" based on indices and yardsticks produced by the "American System", which no doubt is biased towards its own success and blind to its own failures, otherwise how else would it have sold itself as a viable alternative to the "other system(s)"?--*
"Nobody need ask permission for the United States for how they choose to govern their country, but I think everyone would agree, that things would be a lot easier for everyone to progress if the United States ended its imperialism, correct?"
*--I beg to differ, I don't think "everyone would agree", that a presumption based on the untenable correlation between the "ease of progress" for "everyone" and an end to "United States' imperialism" is necessarily true nor would "everyone agree" that imperialism, American or otherwise, inhibits rather than facilitates the "ease of progress". Let us not forget that "ease of progress" encompasses, the economic, scientific, technological e.t.c. spheres, which ironically receive greater funding during the United States' Imperialistic Age, shall we say, than, its non-Imperialistic Age, the Internet (re: ARPA) is a case in point.--*
"And whether you like it or not, the United States has a history situated in anti-imperialism."
*--Like or dislike is irrelevant to the fact that, the track record of the United States belies its supposed anti-imperialistic historicity or exceptionality in that regard, not that "imperialism" is in of itself good or bad, nor was, as far as I know, any nation or nation-state in the past, neither Rome nor Persepolis, founded on "imperialism" as a nation-building ethos, otherwise by that logic every nation or nation-state that transgressed the borders of its founding city could retrospectively be said to have a "history situated in anti-imperialism."--*
"The American System approach in economics was discussed by all the names I have mentioned, including Kwame Nkrumah's approach to Pan-Africanism. It is not an "American" version of life by the way, this is a scientific, universal principle in economics, it is thus owned by no one, including the United States. It is in reality a universal approach to economics and every country will have their stylized approach to it, like China, but the principles will remain consistent."
*--Am afraid the "universality" of any principal, much less "a scientific, universal principle in economics" cannot be established until it is proven that, that "principal is universally accepted and applied universally", so how can it be "universal" much less "consistent", when "every country will have their stylized approach to it"?
On the contrary, the fact that "every country will have their stylized approach" demonstrates that inherent inconsistencies of any principal, have to be adjusted in function not form, to fit local particularities, in order to justify the potential benefits of the continued application of that principal otherwise its "universality" would receive the same reaction, one such "scientific, universal principle in economics" at the time got from the Chileans; “Chao, Chicago”. It is not by accident, North Korea is officially called The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.--*
"Nobody wants war, at least it is clear that the leadership from Russia and China do not seek out a world war, dialogue and diplomacy always come before use of violence in defense of the right to self-determination. War may be inevitable, but we should certainly not encourage rushing into it."
*--Am afraid I'd have to disagree Cynthia, first on what is assumed by "war", which according to Sun Tzu, "all warfare is based on deception.", his view is the military-intelligence view, which is the dominant view of what constitutes "war". In fact I would go further to suggest that it is the view held by those with "power in power", for instance John F. Kennedy, aptly summarized that military-intelligence view of "war" in his 1961 address to the press:
"Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion."
Therefore, to not "encourage rushing into it" would entail exposing the other face of "war", because if you are "awaiting a declaration of war before [you] impose the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no WAR ever posed a greater threat to our security." this is why the non-military-intelligence view of "war" assumes that "Britain never won a war against the United States" even though they "conquered [United States] from within" which brings us back to the military-intelligence understanding of "war" and "successful war" as embodied by Sun Tzu's view that; "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."
This is what a faction in "Britain & its city", did to the United States, it "subdued it without fighting", although who or what constitutes the "enemy" changed, to reflect the changing "power-tugging" landscape, what remained constant was the shared compromise to "subdue" the machinery of state and people, and unleash it at any shared enemy like a charging bull at a red cape.--*
--continued
...II
"I wrote this piece not to over-glorify the United States but to remind its citizens who have forgotten her better nature. If you do not remember the better parts of your history, wouldn't you agree that this is a source of disempowerment and confusion?."
*--I gathered as much Cynthia, and it is noble on your part to want the best for your host by reciprocation of good since it is the "better nature" that brings the good out, but as Orwell put it, "who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." or as another writer once put it, "fallen leaves return to their roots." which is essential in remembering that their "better nature" lives side by side with their "worse nature" as attested by the native tribes they encountered when founding their "non-imperialistic" Plymouth Colony, because to ignore the latter in favour of the former, is to "disempower and confuse" them into thinking that, they are without blemish, this reinforces the belief necessary to "subdue" their "better nature" and unleash their "worse nature" at will, or as someone put it, "on command".--*
"Many Americans think this has come down to a choice of one hegemony over another, I am sharing aspects of history so that they understand that that is in fact not true, that multipolarity is possible for a harmony of interests, or as China phrases it, win-win cooperation."
*--Actually I would subscribe to their point of view, that it is one hegemony over another, and whether it is characterized as "two opposing systems", "the English System vs. the American system", "Nationalism vs. Globalism", "Good vs. Evil", "God vs. Satan" and so forth, there is definitely a dichotomous struggle throughout history of one hegemony seeking dominance over another, regardless of the colouring of the language, the underlying "dominance-tugging" is a reality we mustn't be blind to, otherwise, we'd be victims of the consequences of doing so. Rather, one must definitely have in full view all the accompanying repercussions associated with it, because one man's "win-win cooperation" is another man's "win-win competition".--*
"Heads of MI5, FBI give joint warning of growing threat from China"
'FBI Director Christopher Wray said that the Chinese government "poses the biggest long-term threat" "The Chinese government is trying to shape the world by interfering in our politics (and those of our allies, I should add)," Wray warned that the Chinese government "poses an even more serious threat to Western businesses than even many sophisticated businesspeople realize,"
"The widespread Western assumption that growing prosperity within China and increasing connectivity with the West would automatically lead to greater political freedom has, I'm afraid, been shown to be plain wrong," MI5 Director General Ken McCallum said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/heads-mi5-fbi-give-joint-warning-growing-threat-china-2022-07-07/
You say you have seen no proof that these economic principles are universal? China's Belt and Road Initiative is your proof as well as the impetus coming out of Russia via Sergey Glazyev. These are the same economic principles to which I am referring to in this paper. As for this matter of you focusing on my reference to the world waiting for the United States' final decision that will seal its own fate, once again, I do not think you are understanding what I am discussing. So let me attempt one more time to be as clear as I possibly can about what I am saying, the old world of geopolitics is over, Russia and China are leading the new paradigm which is situated in a multipolar approach. What the United States ultimately decides (whether it remains imperialistic or returns to its anti-imperial roots) will make no difference to what is now the new paradigm, however, it will make a difference in terms of the level of death and destruction that could potentially occur during this transition. The Anglo-American empire has essentially lost. The decision thus in front of the United States is one of an existential nature, if they remain imperialistic it will be their own destruction, if they return to an anti-imperial outlook they can prosper in this multipolar paradigm. The point is to minimize the level of suffering that can potentially occur throughout the world, (in case you have not noticed the energy crisis spurred by the US sanctions on Russia, are hitting the poorest countries first) as we enter this multipolar paradigm, something that the leadership of Russia and China also clearly desire. Despite the empire essentially having already lost, there are still many factors in terms of minimizing the level of destruction that can potentially occur during this transition. The American people, as unlikely as it might seem, still have the power to steer their government away from maximum destruction. Let me ask you, what is the point of writing about the injustices that Russia and China face if not to change people's mind about an issue? If you do not care about what the American people think, why are you reading an American based website whose readership largely consists of Americans?
As for my use of the word "universal" to describe this system of economics, I do not mean "ubiquitous" which seems to be the interpretation you took. Universal as in it is a scientific truth, universal as in it is the most efficient and beneficial approach to economics. Thus, when I say China is using this model and thus this is proof, what I am referring to is that China is now essentially the largest and most powerful economy in the world because of its understanding and application of these principles.
"As for my use of the word "universal" to describe this system of economics, I do not mean "ubiquitous" which seems to be the interpretation you took. Universal as in it is a scientific truth, universal as in it is the most efficient and beneficial approach to economics. Thus, when I say China is using this model and thus this is proof, what I am referring to is that China is now essentially the largest and most powerful economy in the world because of its understanding and application of these principles."
*--It would seem you're using "universal" polysemically, whereas had I used it in a "ubiquitous" sense, I would have said, "until it is proven that, that "principal is universally accepted" instead of saying, "Am afraid the "universality" of any principal, much less "a scientific, universal principle in economics" cannot be established until it is proven that, that "principal is universally accepted and applied universally".
As per "largest and most powerful economy in the world" on what basis GDP? PPP? GPI? TPI? BLI? IWI? GSI?
Using any of these I can easily say, I am currently holidaying in the "richest and most prosperous economy in the world" with probably the most appallingly tasting tea in human history. Cheerio!--*
"You say you have seen no proof that these economic principles are universal?"
*--Rather I said: "the "universality" of any principal, much less "a scientific, universal principle in economics" cannot be established until it is proven that, that "principal is universally accepted and applied universally", so how can it be "universal" much less "consistent", when "every country will have their stylized approach to it"?"--*
"China's Belt and Road Initiative is your proof as well as the impetus coming out of Russia via Sergey Glazyev. These are the same economic principles to which I am referring to in this paper."
*--"China's Belt and Road Initiative.." is not proof of the universality of an economic principle, nor is it novel, original or exclusive to "China". First, we have to make an important distinction between, 'the geographic, economic, and cultural territory that is commonly understood as 'China' and 'PRC', which is a regime, a system, a way of managing the affairs of a huge number people spread across a vast territory which is the self-conscious creation of the Communist Party of China, itself a highly self-conscious group of men (led by Han Chinese) who think constantly about their interests.
This distinction is frequently lost, thus why "China" has become synonymous with "Cheap" & "Fake" because of the Han-led PRC, which as a "fake" replica of the ancien régime of the Aisin Gioro (core imperial clan of the Qing dynasty), is by necessity of its own deficit living off of the Qing imperial domains & legacy, because it was the [Aisin Gioro] Manchus, not the Han Chinese, that bequeathed (circa. 1912) Modern China its territorial domain (ex./lost: Outer Mongolia & Taiwan) and consequently its national glory. In this sense, the Han-led PRC is a socio-political-simulacrum, without the accompanying historical legacy of the Aisin Gioro, because the Han led PRC's history is either peri-Mao (marred by Great Leap Forward/Famine, Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution etc.) or post-Mao (circa. 1976/Deng Xiaoping) there is no pre-Mao (Zaifeng's abdication & NRC rule - 1912 -1949). The void that the socio-political simulacrum creates has several far-reaching repercussions. For instance the socio-economic pathos of don't "stand out, blend in" is evident in name-change like adopting English sounding-names to accede without friction into social-market spaces, so Ma Yun became Jack Ma, Fang Shilong became Jackie Chan, & so forth, as a result of the socio-cultural deficit the Han-led PRC China created when it severed "ties but not prize of the past" whilst simultaneously importing both its political philosophy (Marxism-Leninism) & economic theory (Socialist Market Economy), ceasing in the process any incentivize for "authenticity or originality" hence the "Fake" rep. "Cheap" on the other hand which although offers a competitive advantage, as far as labour ought to be concerned for an export-dependent economy, it doesn't offer a comparative advantage, since the export-orientation of "Brand China" which is product-focus thus more labour-machine intensive, loses more over time in an increasingly service-oriented market, which is why the Han led PRC's Belt and Road Initiative, is a repeat of an ambitious 'self-strengthening' economic policy of the last decades of the Qing Dynasty looking to expand beyond its borders (the driving belief was that they were to be the leaders of a "universal" empire). The irony being that although the reforms of the late-Qing era certainly did the country a lot of good, they did not save the Aisin Goro dynasty. Though they were strengthening in their way, they were also subversive of the polity and of its ruling class.--*
"..the impetus coming out of Russia via Sergey Glazyev"
Glazyev like most of the "Rus-caste" suffer from what one writer aptly termed, "shadow mind", in order to capture how the "replacement of the real mind" of his people happened as a result of colonialism, explaining that the shadow mind, "functions like a real mind except in the manner of genuine creativeness". It is this deficit of "genuine creativeness" that the "Rus ruling class" like Glazyev lack, and through no fault of their own, since they drink from the same poisonous Greco-Roman well that their Judea-Christian Western adversaries drink from, and Franco-Germanic predecessors drank from too. Whether it be their religious (Orthodox Christianity), political (Republican Federalism), economic (State backed market-economy) etc. The Rus "shadow mind" is almost always beholden to outsiders for inspiration, even in their pre-Christian past you see this playout, for instance with Vladimir I's pagan temple dedicated to a Norse god [Perun], Slav gods [Stribog and Dazhd'bog], Finnish goddess [Mokosh], and Iranian gods [Khors and Simargl], this "temple" is analogous to the Rus-led confederacy today, were to appease the various ethno-groups [Slavs, Tatars, Turkic, Chechens, Uralic etc.] within its borders, institutions, etc., they must be dedicated to varying religious, political, economic policies, from without not from within their borders, institutions, etc., otherwise chaos would ensue. Therefore to keep the "unity and order", whatever is adopted from without, has to undergone a distillation (akin to baptism), in order to garner wide appeal for its implementation. That importation-distillation-adoption-implementation process almost always renders the Rus the de facto contrarian-underclass par excellence, vis-à-vis their major competitive interlocutors, be it militarily or intellectually. They lead in opposition not in innovation, which brings us to Glazyev, who in enumerating his "we-need solutions" to "counter" the impositions of sanctions, drank alongside his adversaries from the same poisonous well, albeit not as a partisan but as a contrarian:
"we need to protect ourselves.."
"We need serious investments in R&D.."
"We need to complete the de-dollarization of our foreign exchange reserves.."
"We need to introduce a digital ruble as soon as possible.."
"Try to create a broad international coalition to restore the norms of international law, including those of the WTO and the IMF, which Western sanctions officials are shamelessly violating with their sanctions and trade wars."
Concluding in the same Third-Rome "restore" theme his fellow Rus-intelligentsia have grown accustomed to:
"To minimize the dangers associated with it, it is necessary to accelerate the formation of a new — integrated - world economic order that restores international law, national sovereignty, equality of countries, diversity of national economic models, and the principles of mutually beneficial and voluntary international economic cooperation."--*
"As for this matter of you focusing on my reference to the world waiting for the United States' final decision that will seal its own fate, once again, I do not think you are understanding what I am discussing. So let me attempt one more time to be as clear as I possibly can about what I am saying, the old world of geopolitics is over, Russia and China are leading the new paradigm which is situated in a multipolar approach."
*--As mentioned above neither [Rus led] Russia nor [Han led] China "are leading" in anything "new" much less any "new paradigm", because the "old world of geopolitics" is neither old nor dead, nor is a "multipolar approach" an exception to the rule, on the contrary it is the rule. We have always been in a historical continuum of multipolarity, whether it was the Egypt-Hittite-Assyrian-Kassite epoch or the Roman-Parthian-Mauryan-Han epoch, the world has always been a multipolarity of nations, what can be argued is that, the multipolarity of today has an economic qualia of unipolarity because of exorbitant privileges afforded to one nation with two ruling clans (co-emperors).--*
...continued...[I]
..[II]..
"What the United States ultimately decides (whether it remains imperialistic or returns to its anti-imperial roots) will make no difference to what is now the new paradigm, however, it will make a difference in terms of the level of death and destruction that could potentially occur during this transition. The Anglo-American empire has essentially lost. The decision thus in front of the United States is one of an existential nature, if they remain imperialistic it will be their own destruction, if they return to an anti-imperial outlook they can prosper in this multipolar paradigm."
*--To conclude that the "Anglo-American empire has essentially lost", is a direct consequence of indiscriminately misidentifying the geographic, economic, and cultural territory that is commonly understood as "United States" with the "Ruling Judeo-Christian Clan" steering it, the same rule of thumb we used for "China" and the "Ruling PRC-Han Clan", or "Russia" and the "Ruling Slavic-Rus Clan", etc. Only correctly identifying "who is losing what" can one begin to reach a conclusion of "who is winning what". For instance, "exorbitant privilege" still gives the U.S. dollar supremacy, for instance in global reserves (COFER: 60%+), global foreign exchange turnover (BIS: 40%), foreign exchange transactions (BIS: 90%+ $6 trillion/daily pre-pandemic), almost all international debt/bond contracts are governed by New York or English law, not forgetting that most of the creditor grouping (Private, Multilateral etc.) are "Anglo-American".--*
"The point is to minimize the level of suffering that can potentially occur throughout the world, (in case you have not noticed the energy crisis spurred by the US sanctions on Russia, are hitting the poorest countries first) as we enter this multipolar paradigm, something that the leadership of Russia and China also clearly desire. Despite the empire essentially having already lost, there are still many factors in terms of minimizing the level of destruction that can potentially occur during this transition."
*--To give you one example of "maximized suffering", via The International Finance Corporation (IFC) (re: Global Trade Finance Program) and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), the "Anglo-American" led World Bank through grants, loans and equity investments has since the start of the pandemic under one scheme or another been financing, 100 "developing" countries, home to 70% of the world’s population, do you think these 100 debt-ridden countries, beholden to "Anglo-American" credit & contractual laws, and whose local ruling clans, have vested interests in "Anglo-America" will be the ones to defeat their "Anglo-American" creditors?
The Han-led PRC "China" not only has the highest foreign currency reserve in U.S. dollars, but it owns $980.8 billion of U.S. Treasurys—3.2% of the total U.S. debt.—which is more than any other foreign country except Japan. Moreover Han-led PRC "China" main export-funded sovereign wealth funds (CIC, SAFE Investment Company, HKMA & co.) hold & invest in dollars not rubles or yuan, thus is bound by English or New York law (lesser extent Santiago Principles, see: IFSWF) not Chinese or Russian law, and you must surely have deduced where most of that money is invested, as well as where most of its exports (US$521 billion/17.2%) is directed, right? It certainly isn't Russia. If you haven't the new generation of Han-led PRC "Princelings" have understood that a huge share of China's economy, and their own personal wealth, rest on foreign trade, most of it seaborne and thus reducible to a trickle in the event of trouble in the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait on the one hand, and since the "Open Door Policy" connected it to the world market-economy it had to cede much of its economic power and sovereignty to the whim of the bond market, the foreign exchange market, & commodities market on the other hand, something Glazyev recognized when he stated: "Since 2014, when, with the connivance of the regulator, currency speculators through market manipulation brought down the ruble exchange rate. As a result of this manipulation of the Russian foreign exchange market, ruble incomes and savings were devalued, and speculators received more than $35 billion of profit...international speculators are making multibillion — dollar profits, while Russians are seeing their ruble savings and incomes depreciate along with surges in inflation." his clear-sighted description are not as bad as his "contrarian prescriptions"--*
"The American people, as unlikely as it might seem, still have the power to steer their government away from maximum destruction."
*--Am afraid what you call "American people" is not realis. There is no "homogenous group" called "American people". As a rhetorical device, it is fine, but as far who steers not the "government" but the "state", it is irrealis. "American people" is not a unison of one body and one soul, it is more like four souls in one body, with one soul pulling left, another pulling right, another pulling forward, and another pulling backward. Destruction/construction is an inherent part of the centrifugal vs. centripetal forces that move the ebbing and flowing tides of change be it on a societal or individual scale, embrace it Cynthia and let it destroy you but don't be destroyed by it, as one Frenchman successful did, and as is typical of exhilarated Frenchmen, he kindly left us a quote to muse about, "whoever did not live in the years neighboring 1789 does not know what the pleasure of living means."--*
"Let me ask you, what is the point of writing about the injustices that Russia and China face if not to change people's mind about an issue?"
*--Am assuming to make a living, why else would you write for free if you have bills to pay Cynthia? That is an injustice you inflict on yourself, shouldn't you be just to yourself to be a better dispenser of justice elsewhere? Don't be the candle that burns itself to give light.--*
"If you do not care about what the American people think, why are you reading an American based website whose readership largely consists of Americans?"
*--That is quite an observation about thoughts even I didn't know I harboured, tell me more while you boldly wander, uninvited I might add, through my mind field, would you?. Regarding, using websites, the answer ought to be obvious to anyone who reads the Terms & Conditions of the website he/she uses before using it, am assuming you haven't read it, have you curious Cynthia?--*
...continued..[II]
And now, they've sent Harry here to be the King of America? The Windsors, spoof of the Crown on Netflix, nailed this, just a bit too soon and with the wrong prince.
Harry couldn't be king of his own underpants. I bet the rest of the Nobs threw him out. Plus, he married someone who isn't "pure." Horrors! (yep, being sarcastic/snide-- I think I'm agreeing with you, but I don't do Netflix... )
First off Matt in response to the Kissinger comment, yes. in May 1981, Henry Kissinger who replaced Brzezinski as the head of the Trilateral Commission gave a speech at Chatham House describing his term as Secretary of State:
“[The British] became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations…In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American Department…It was symptomatic.”
In his speech, Kissinger outlined the conflicting ideologies between Churchill and Roosevelt, and concluded with his support for the British worldview as the more superior of the two.
You can read more on this from my paper titled "The Enemy Within: A Story of the Purge of American Intelligence" https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/the-enemy-within-a-story-of-the-purge-cda
As for the slavery issue I would suggest you take a look at my paper "What it Means to be an American Citizen this Fourth of July" https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/what-it-means-to-be-an-american-citizen which goes through this history of slavery within the United States and how the British were directly responsible for pushing slavery among the American colonies through the actions of Royal African Company despite there being a rejection of slave traffic among many the American colonies who are on record for voting so and even abolishing slavery in their colonies. Again you can refer to the article for further details.
I co-wrote a book series with my husband titled "The Clash of the Two Americas" which goes through how there were always two conflicting identities within the United States (hence the civil war) one being pro-system of empire and slavery and the other anti-system of empire and for the sovereignty of country and individual. For more on how we are approaching this subject you can view an interview Matt did for the podcast "Geopolitics and Empire" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lTjQdWkSdM