Elaine Meinel Supkis
Many people struggle to understand history. Often, brilliant minds become so intent upon proving themselves and whatever they are attached to, are good and all others are evil, history vanishes. The ability to coldly look History in her eyes and see the truth is nearly impossible for most humans. We seek affirmation, not harsh lessons! One common trick is to start history at some point and then draw lessons from that time frame. This can then leave out earlier causes and forces. Our empire is filled to the brim with these sort of 'historians' and they teach in the top schools and many are emplyed by the Pentagon in places like West Point. Tony Corn is a classic example of this sort of mindless historian.
The Revolution in Transatlantic Affairs
By Tony Corn
Space power. While lending support to Russia's ludicrous posturing on NATO missile defense, China is experimenting with antisatellite weapons -- a disturbing trend given the reliance of modern military (especially navies) on space power.
Sea power.
A hundred years after Theodore Roosevelt sent his Great While Fleet around the world to signal the emergence of a new great power, China is rediscovering the writings of Admiral Mahan on the importance of sea power in history and dreaming of a Great White Fleet of its own. Against the backdrop of an ever-shrinking U.S. Navy (more on that later), China is transforming itself as a maritime superpower at such high speed that Western analysts estimate it could become the world's leading naval power by 2020.
Last but not least, soft power. On the military side, China is focusing on developing security cooperation within the ASEAN Regional Forum framework with the intent of marginalizing America. On the civilian side, China is peddling "Asian values" from Africa to Eurasia and from Latin America to Southeast Asia. For the past six years, China has been promoting autocracy through soft power while America has been promoting democracy through hard power, and the verdict is in: China today has a more positive image worldwide than America.14
This little bit is filled with so many astonishing assumptions and assertions, it is hard to read without laughing outloud. For example, what is so 'ludicrous' of Russia, showing greatest alarm and anger over the stationing of many hostile missiles right on Russia's doorstep? If one looks only at the end of WWII, one can say, 'Russia is an aggressor nation.'
True, Russia is an old empire, growing since 1600 with Ivan the Terrible and then Peter the Great expanding the country and Cathrine the Great, pushing ever outwards. But alongside this is the story of European leaders making treaties and deals with Russia and then SUDDENLY ATTACKING. Indeed, much of the last 200 years can be charaterized as repeated attempts at destroying Russia! From Napoleon to Ronald Reagan, the hostility and the open talk of or the actual sneak-attack invasions, the only way Russia can be safe is to be hyper-vigilant! Any Russian leader who refuses this burden will regret it as Europe lunges again and again.
China: like Russia, a big empire. Like Russia, beset by a pack of European invaders, hounding China, biting off bits and pieces and then the European powers lunged for China's throat and tore it out! The united empire became a mess with war lords, bandits and foreign powers controlling it from all directions, all hostile and all bent on looting China. Both Russia and China cut themselves off from the wolf packs for half a century in order to heal. The unfortunate micro-countries created out of the flotsam and jetsam of the dead German Reich and Austro-Hungarian empires paid the price for Russia's need of isolation.
China interests me a lot because it is a dynamic power that is just beginning to flex its arms. My family is intertwinned with China in a million ways, personal and professional. We admire the Chinese spirit and the work ethic of this culture. Just as we love the Japanese culture. But we also see its dangers and flaws. For ALL cultures have flaws, all systems have weaknesses. All beliefs of all people are laced with delusions and falsehoods for this is human nature! We cannot escape this.
But recognizing what is moving upwards and what is dropping downwards is important. Especially if one is part of an empire. At the dawn of the birth of the great British Empire, Gibbons fretted about the decline of the Roman and even more important, the Byzantine empires. He clearly said, Britain must learn lessons from history and this was the best he could do.
And this is what I do: warn everyone. This lecturer, Mr. Corn, has a childish vision of the world. He claims that China is spreading 'autocratcy' and the US, 'democracy' yet China is viewed 'more favorably' by all those mysterious and curious people of the planet. This infantile view is most dangerous. The deranged violence of the US as it claims to be for democracy even as it shreds countries, breaks up unions, splits countries in two, as it assassinates democratically elected leaders, sponsors and then recognizes one brutal military coup after another, as it pays traitors and treasonous gangs to undermine authority in nations we plan to take over, paying rebels in money and weapons so they can overthrow or break off from a country.
Look at Iraq! Look at Yugoslavia! Under Communist dominion, it was one nation and there was general peace. When communism fell, the country was torn into tiny, bitter bits and hundreds of thousands were killed and millions displaced. Iraq, there are millions of refugees! This is 'democracy'? Europe itself continues to fall apart under the US umbrella. Right now, Belgium is discussing dissolving itself! The US solution looks remarkably like the Peace of Westphalia: outside empires decree a nation be chopped to bits as Germany was after the horrors of the Thirty Year's War!
It wasn't until more than 100 years had passed before Germany began to rebuild and reunite. England: from Caesar's invasion in 50 AD, throughout the Dark Ages, into the Medieval ages, all the way until the Peace of Westphalia, England's royals and rulers sought to attach Scotland, land of some of the most ornery and proud and poor people on earth. Then England tried to attach Wales and even harder, the people of Ireland!
All of whom resisted not for one year or ten years or 100 years or 1,000 years but who resist...TODAY!!!! In order to keep control of part of Ireland, England, as it went bankrupt after WWI, cut the island in two. Which is TYPICAL. Then they had 'elections' that favored themselves. To this day, the island is split in two and the fighting over this breaks out and then slows down but the Irish have not forgotten nor forgiven.
This wasn't 'spreading democracy'. This is called 'imperialism'. Mr. Corn dances around this issue by pretending this despotic and bloody activty is all for the good of...the VICTIMS. America has grown strong and great thanks to the British brutal imperial wars on the Isles. A flood of Irish, Scot and Wales refugees as well as English such as my family, fleeing for their very lives or openly deported as semi-slaves or starving literally to death, seeking shelter. England, to this day, won't admit the empire was a criminal organization out to loot, rape and steal.
All empires are brutal. All empires loot. All empires steal. There is no such thing as 'morals' when one is discussing miltiary adventurism of empires. Any writer or teacher who does this is a fool.
Mr. Corn continues:
Unlike China, Russia is energy self-sufficient; and unlike China's Confucianism, Russia's Eurasianism actually comes in two opposite versions: one pro-West and anti-Islam; the other pro-Islam and anti-West. American Putin-bashers would do well to realize that the Putin regime clearly favors the former version --- which may not be the case for his successor. Putin's Russia is a mystery wrapped in an enigma only for those caught in a 15-year time warp. In a nutshell: While Yelstin's choice of an alleged Polish model of transition in 1992 resulted, by 1999, in 38 percent of the population living below the poverty line, Putin's reorientation toward a Chinese model has since created an annual growth rate of 6 percent for Russia -- and a 70 percent approval rating for Putin. Having taken considerable domestic risks by siding with America after 9/11, Putin, for the past 5 years, has received nothing in return -- other than a seemingly endless enlargement of NATO in his own backyard.
Now that Russia is rich with oil money and has paid its debts to the West, what Russia wants from the West is respect. Russia's nuisance capacity should not be underestimated, even though threats to withdraw from the CFE Treaty, or to turn the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) into a "natural gas OPEC," are intended primarily for domestic consumption and to signal that NATO has enlarged far enough.
Unlike China, Russia is not a rising power. Russian hearts and mind are still up for grabs, though, and there are three reasons why it would be grossly irresponsible to alienate Russia gratuitously. In the short term, Russia's support is critical to solve (militarily or not) the Iranian question; in the middle-term, Russia has considerable leverage over Europe, with much bigger sticks and carrots than America's, and the risk of a creeping Finlandization of Europe is real were America to indulge in brinkmanship; in the long term, the West would have nothing to gain were Russia, against its best interest, to upgrade its relations to the SCO from the tactical to the strategic level.
Both Russia and China would be infinitely easier to handle if Europe and America showed both some basic respect. In this news service I run here, I talk all the time about the diplomatic blunders of the graceless, arrogant, obnoxious NATO nations. Instead of acting like adults, the NATO nations are better seen as cartoon characters. I pondered how to draw them until I decided that Europe as a pack of small dogs, barking at a bear who would look at them in disgust...with the Dragon looming behind, laughing.
Both Russia and China are huge. Both are armed with nukes. Both have many, many scientists and technologically trained people. Russia beat us more often than we beat them in the space race except for going to the moon. We went there, looked around and then decided we wanted to screw up on earth instead.
Now Russia, Japan and China are in a space race to go to the moon and use it. For military as well as resource uses. The US also wants to go there but we are now too busy trying to rip apart Iraq and Iran and turn tens of millions of Muslims into refugees. We will never go to the moon. We are going bankrupt.
I happen to know and this guy doesn't mention that Russia asked to be part of NATO. And NATO kicked Putin in the teeth while barking at him. The West would dearly love to have a coup there only the military loves Putin and alas for our plans to further destroy Russia, the people there prefer him. His 70% approval rating is tremendous compared to the 20% for Bush here and the miserable 11% Congress has! Indeed, the fiction that Congress represents us is on full display as pure propaganda. Congress and Bush want wars and America is sick of wars and yet, has zero input as to these wars ending. If we are spreading democracy, it is worn very threadbare here at home!
And the fiction of democracy is key! Did England bring democracy to Scotland? HAHAHA. Or England? HAHAHA. When did most English MEN get to vote? Hint: after the US gave it to all men except for slaves or former slaves. Women didn't get the vote until the 20th century and my grandmother was a suffregette. My great grandmother, too. They lived under the same basic rules women in Iran live today and many people think the Victorian era was ROMANTIC!
And it was! My grandmother proved a woman could swim long distances...while dressed up in so many layers of woolens, from her feet to her neck and her hair, in a bonnet! She swam! My mother fought for the right to wear swim suits and I fought for nude beaches (hehehe). The 'civilization' we tout as the best on earth is very recent in vintage and is utterly pagan which is OK with me, I am a pagan, after all.
But many of the lecturers who toil for our educational system can't talk like me. They have to pretend everything was like us for all eternity. Whatever cultural or political choices we make are perfection and all others are evil. The childish propaganda put out during WWII is classic: 'We are fighting facism for democracy!'
Well, Gandhi said, 'Give us the right to vote!' And Britain put him in prison. The Irish said, 'Give us back Dublin!' and the Brits snarled and told them to shut up so Ireland refused to help fight 'fascism'! China: what a nightmare. Who elected the Nationalists? And then there was America: blacks were not allowed to vote. Where was their democracy? Indeed, the whole world could see that democracy was the LAST thing the US or Britain wanted for ANYONE.
Indeed, after WWII, Russia and China kept poking at the US and Britain over this very issue. As Martin Luther King struggled to gain civil rights and the right to vote, he kept pointing out, our entire foreign policy was utterly destroyed by refusing to give blacks the right to vote! Yet this continued! And didn't even begin to be set to rights until Kennedy was assassinated in Texas! Mr. Corn, being a neo-con, can't understand this nor see this. Indeed, his refusal to see this means he is insane. For this is too obvious to ignore. One can't claim to not know this information. Therefore, he had to do insane in order to eliminate it.
He wavers between sanity and insanity. It is fascinating in a clinical sense: to be able to understand exactly half of history is quite a trick. The test is, when all his missing puzzle pieces are pointed out, will he accept this?
In the past, when I dispute people online, they banish me. Justin Raimondo, the powerhouse behind Antiwar.com has blanked out my access to his writings because I quote him and then dissect his work. Or rather, I don't worship his analysis as the end all and be all. I love it when people argue with me! Half of the time, they are right and I learn something new!
Mr. Corn again:
One of the unfortunate consequences of the globalization theology of the 1990s has been the withering away of geopolitical thinking in the West. This eclipse of geopolitics is not totally negative, to be sure, for as one pundit put it, "few modern ideologies are as whimsically all-encompassing, as romantically obscure, as intellectually sloppy, and as likely to start a third world war as the theory of 'geopolitics.'"
Yet, globalization theology itself has proven even more intellectual sloppy than the theories of geopolitics. And while the West thought it could do away with geopolitics altogether, the foreign policies of Turkey, Russia, China, and other players were becoming increasingly shaped by distinctive geopolitical visions based less on theories than on memories (with often a tenuous link to historical reality). Thus in Turkey, memories of the Silk Road were the main driving forces in Ankara's turn away from pro-Western Kemalism and toward neo-Ottomanism. In China, a country that had traditionally viewed itself as a quintessential continental power, it is the rediscovery of the short-lived maritime adventures of Admiral Zheng He (the Chinese Columbus) and the awareness of missed opportunities, coupled with the revival of Admiral Mahan's navalist theories, that were being invoked to mobilize public opinion around the idea of turning China into a maritime superpower. Intellectually sloppy or not, these representations have real effects in the foreign policies of non-Western nations. The West can ignore them only at its own peril.
HAHAHA. This clown dares to say that other nations have 'tenuous links' to history! If the goddess of History had access to lightning bolts, he would be fried. This article, by the way, talks about naval power. Its alarming thesis is that China will best us in this regard. And of course, they shall. But not because of strategy or ideology. It is pure money: nations that manage their affairs so they have a surplus always go to sea! Unless this is impossible. Then they consoldiate land power and then gain a port and then...go to sea. This process was made easy for Japan and England because they were close to a continent yet had no neighbors except England did have hundreds and thousands of years of troubles from the Scots and Irish...good for them! Even so, both islands shut themselves off for various times, too.
The Ottoman Empire, for example, had a very splendid navy and was a superior naval power for many years and indeed, the ships plying the seas between Ottoman ports had to be fought all the way up until the US became a country and beyond! 'From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of TRIPOLI...' is the Marine's official song, after all! Until 1750, the Ottoman empire was very dynamic. They even improved on the technology of artillery and used this to bring down Constantinople and besiege Vienna! As the Ottoman empire rotted, its navy fell apart due to finances.
This happened to other empires, look at how Russia's navy shrank after Russia fell!
Mr. Corn again:
In the West itself, the current fixation of America on Central Asia and of Europe on the Middle East -- the closest thing to a "Western" geopolitical vision -- is based on two flawed premises. To put it crudely: Americans believe that Caspian Sea oil is the key to success in the Great Game; Europeans are convinced that the resolution of the Palestinian question holds the key to victory in the Long War.
Now he launches himself into the Vortex. Because he hates Muslims and is very arrogant, he assumes Muslims are either stupid or evil and have no feelings, no sense of history or are unable to do math and astronomy. He thinks they are savages we must educate and lead. The White Man's burden. His 'Long War' is the war that started in 665 AD and to his mind, is civilization versus the Evil Muslims!
Of course, this is missing a lot of material such as the fact that nearly all our science, astronomy and math comes from the Musims, not from Europe itself. Europe was a savage place in 665 and getting so savage, reading and writing collapsed. But the Roman Empire didn't have the rich knowledge of the Muslim empires! For they carried from INDIA and CHINA many intellectual breakthroughs like modern numbers, the number zero, the concept of infinity and the ethos of dispassionate research. Europe, sunk into mysticism, confusion and superstition, was so suspicious of Muslim learning, anyone daring to try to purse this was murdered!
Astronomers were burned at the stake as witches! Mathematicians were drawn and quartered! Anyone imagining the West was 'enlightened' while Islam was in the dark, is biased as well as myoptic.
The goofball, Corn continues:
If American fixation on Central Asia is questionable, European fixation on the Palestinian question as the panacea of the Greater Middle East is downright irrational. As Edward Luttwak pointed out recently: "Yes, it would be nice if Israelis and Palestinians could settle their differences, but it would do little or nothing to calm the other conflicts in the Middle East from Algeria to Iraq, or to stop Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Moscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence."
Hint: people will always have ethnic and religious conflicts. BUT the Jewish colonization of the Holy Land is a different fish: the US and European empires launched this, feed this and sponsor this as well as protect ONLY the Jews in this religious war that is smack dab in the heart of the three-way struggle for power of these three religions that all sprang from the same, heartless desert. Unlike battles that move back and forth over territory, this is a pin point that is much more explosive since it draws in EVERYONE from several continents!
A fight between Pakistan and India over Kashmir may be a nasty war (note how this stopped the minute both got nukes at hand!) but it can't trigger a planetary war. The fight over Jerusalem certainly can. The morals surrounding the seizure of the Holy Lands and the turning of it into a religious dictatorship that punishes the natives and drives them out or marginalizes them is frought with tons of very evil history. For Europe's persecution of the Jews was very real and quite evil and totally amoral. For 2,000 years, the Jews suffered there! All because of a religous revolt against the Roman Empire!
The Romans killed all the Druids and outlawed them at the exact same time they tried to do this to the Zealots in Israel. The British gave up but the Jews fought on and the Romans crushed them with the dispora.
And the Jews who 'returned' came on the wings of EUROPEAN crimes. The innocent people in Palestine were sacrificed on the altar of European crimes and American complicty (we closed our borders to the poor people fleeing Hitler!). It is very much a thorn in the foot of all Islam and a very dangerous thorn. The gangrene from it is poisoning all the limbs of both the Christian West, the Jewish community and Islam. This can very much start WWIII.
Corn, who hates the Palestinians and wants them to go away, is so obvious about this:
For all the post-Cold War talk about the decline of the state, there is at least one domain where the state is in expansion, and it is the sea. And for all the talk about a Great Game in Central Asia, it is worth keeping in mind that more than 30 percent of the world's oil and 50 percent of the world's natural gas is produced offshore. The percentage is greater still when moving from proven reserves (i.e., 90 percent certainty) to probable reserves (50 percent certainty). Add to that the fact that 60 percent of the world's oil and gas is transported by sea, and in the end, it is hard to deny that command of the high seas will matter just as much as control of the Heartland.
A little-noticed global chasm is occurring today in terms of geopolitics: As the center of gravity of world history is shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the Western mind, traditionally maritime, is rapidly closing itself to anything other than continental matters, while the Asian mind, traditionally continental, is becoming increasingly maritime in outlook.
It is so simple: we, the West, outsourced all our shipping to Asia because it is cheaper and we get better deals this way. All empires end up cutting maritime costs this way. Starting way back, I bet if we go back to pharonic Egypt, it is the same story: the central government overspends so they cut back on the more expensive stuff they don't see themselves all the time which is the fleet. When Rome abandoned its fleets, the empire collapsed. The Venetians rediscovered the fleets at the end of the Dark Ages and during the Middle Ages, they sailed all over the place and made contact with China.
Over and over again, an empire rises, it sets to sea and travels all over. Islamic nations did this with gusto and then...it collapses. Usually, after only a few hundred years. The collapse can be nearly fatal. Some empires ceased travel for thousands of years! India once sailed all over the planet, all of Africa and Asia and maybe even the Pacific Oceana, but then it stops dead in its tracks! The Norse sailed to America as well as all of Europe and beyond...then stopped, totally. The Minoan empire in the Mediterranean, the Phoenician empire, these people sailed to England for tin to make bronze! Then, darkness falls and it vanishes and the knowledge of sailors becomes fantasy and legend.
He does recognize some basic facts:
Nine million containers enter U.S. ports each year, and 80 percent of U.S. port facilities these days are owned by foreign companies.
*snip*
Eighty percent of world trade travels by sea, and 60 percent of the world's oil is shipped by about 4,000 tankers
The US, like Rome or the geat sailors of Polynesia, has fallen into the childish belief of the Cargo Cult. Ships are sailed by others who come with goodies for us all and we give pieces of IOU slips to pay for these goodies. Instead of being the sailors and traders, we are the passive recipients of goodies that these foreign ships disgorge. The government and masses in Rome simply expected an armada of ships to come pouring out of Egypt and unload in Rome and Rome gave nothing back but, as one frantic history long ago said, 'with manure, night waste!' in the holds. We are identical in this.
Mr. Corn wants us to go to sea again. But we outsourced our entire merchant marine long ago. Ship building is raging in Asia and languishing here. And this is because we are going broke. And the more we use Asia as our armada, the weaker we get and the more childish we are. We can't build a navy and have China pay for it. Nor can we fly to the moon and expect China to pay for this, either. So long as we run our government in the red, we can't be swashbuckling sailors and astronauts.
Corn wants to make Europe and America a mega-empire that dominates the entire planet:
The Thousand Ship Navy -- the "Great White Fleet" of the twenty-first century -- represents a revolution in military affairs in that the concept raises the "network-centric" paradigm established by Admiral Cebrowsky from the domain of strategy (Network-Centric Warfare) to that of security (Global Maritime Partnership). In the process, it brings back a much-needed balance between techno-centric and culture-centric skills as components of success. Just as important, the TSN concept also represents a revolution in diplomatic affairs, in that a global maritime partnership would go beyond the traditional military-to-military contacts and, as Admiral Mullen points out, would unite "maritime forces, port operators, commercial shippers, and international, governmental and nongovernmental agencies to address mutual concerns."
The desire to counter Russia and China by forging a new empire of all of Europe and all of North America is the dream of these demented imperialists. This means our empire can then tax all of Europe and seize all of Canada's resources and Mexico's labor and thus, defy China. China's population is still bigger and is more uniform and consolidated but we need this because the alternative is to give up on our global empire altogether. Europe imagines they will dominate the US but this is silly. They are utterly fractured and have a huge pile of smelly historial baggage that won't vanish. Note how, to this day, Scotland, Ireland and Wales STILL fight the British Crown! So how will Germany and France deal with each other?
And the British/French fight: that is old! My ancestors sailed from France and took over England at the Battle of Hastings and viewed the place as private property for many centuries. Their refusal to learn the native language was so powerful, the entire language of the island changed, completely. Today, very few people can understand hardly a word of Saxon. The complicated history of Europe can't be undone with a wave of the wand.
And look at Canada: the French Canadians still won't accept the conquest! In the US, there is great tension over the flood of Hispanics pouring in and then there is a mob of dual-citizens who refuse to renounce devotion to an alien power, people intent on controlling the US while working for their 'true love'. All this is very divisive and not easily overturned, especially since the propaganda being pushed is all about 'democracy.' Europe today is a very loose federation and like any federation, easily broken. So far, there have been no great forces at work but the EU hasn't weathered any big economic storms, yet.
But the forces are at work. The wind is blowing. The fear and anger as Europe literally dies and as it is being run over, like the US, by outsiders who feel less and less need to be part of a 'nation'. The West isn't making greater entities, it is treading water. The Pax Romana set up by the US is faltering and will fail as the US misspends funds. Europe will collapse alongside.
Here, he turns racist:
In that respect, the UN's main achievement since 1949 has been the transformation of a once-peripheral issue into a global Passion Play. Though the number of refugees throughout the world were millions after 1945 (and 15 million more with the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947), the UN decided to focus quasi-exclusively on the 700,000 refugees of the 1948 Israeli-Arab war. For these Palestinian Arabs, the UN created not only a specific agency (UNRWA) but a unique, and Orwellian, definition of "refugees" carefully designed to maintain the issue forever alive.
The Muslim nations were very much against the handing over of a key sector of their lands to alien invaders from Europe. Right after the US and Britain denounced colonizations and invasions, they did exactly this in the Middle East. Right on the heels of hanging the Nazis for ethnic cleansing and religious persecution, the victors performed exactly that in the Holy Land. To apply a salve, the new UN tried to fix it with special help for the displaced natives of Palestine. Then they were trapped in ghettos...to this very day. My entire life, this has gone on.
The contradictions in all this are important: the Jews spearheading this action claim they can't forget the past. 2,000 years is yesterday. And the diaspora is important to them, they feel that if you live somewhere, you can reclaim this land ANY TIME. This philosophy is again, very explosive. The justifications used...a historic nightmare that can cause wars across the planet. The UN was set up to stop all this...and the very first action they did was...to legitimactize this and endorse this! So the UN became the sponsors of the Nazi view of humanity and history: the Übermensch can displace the Untermenschen and take what is their god-given rights.
This is why the UN has been used this last 15 years to disarm another Muslim nation and then, when the inspectors confirmed Iraq had no weapons, the US rushed in with the Europen hounds baying at our side, and grabbed the oil wells and began serious murder and mayhem. The UN still hasn't condemned this nor punished the US for doing this.
Corn goes totally insane:
At the same time that it was becoming a major player in the propaganda game, the UN inside was gradually turning into a "lawfare" machine against the West. As Joshua Muravchik explains: "In the General Assembly, the Arabs have a unique leverage with which they can make the UN say whatever they want (except in the Security Council where the US veto has prevented that). The 22-nation Arab League constitutes a decisive bloc within the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC], which is decisive in turn in the 115-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which constitute nearly two-thirds of the UN and is the organization's main bloc."
And so the US defies everyone and does as it pleases! And this is lawbreaking. As a rogue nation, we refuse to disarm at all while demanding small nations menaced by us, disarm. We yell about Iran while excusing ourselves. We hung the Nazis and then decided, no world court may punish any American no matter what we do. The recent shooting of civilians by mercenaries protecting US 'diplomats' in Baghdad is a classic example. There is nothing we can do that could trigger war crime trials as far as we are concerned. This is a moral collapse which we will pay dearly for. We are so out of tune with the rest of humanity, our popularity is collapsing as well as our diplomacy. How can we 'win hearts and minds' if we are heartless and stupid?
The US, unable to pay for our own empire, has used NATO as a tool for global domination and colonization. But alas, we can't colonize unless we have many children! Europe, Japan and the US have ceased excess population which is a problem in Israel, for example. The desire to colonize is clashing with reality.
Here, he wants to make me laugh to death:
In some American and European quarters, this globalization of NATO has led some observers to assert rather boldly that "NATO's next move must be to open its membership to any democratic state in the world that is willing and able to contribute to the fulfillment of NATO's new responsibilities." But to add four or five global partners is one thing, to add the 88 countries recognized as democracies by Freedom House is quite another. The necessary, if not sufficient, condition for turning NATO into a UN of democracies would be to change the flawed images of the UN and NATO that European publics currently have. That said, this long-term scenario of NATO as a UN of democracies cannot be ruled out given the ongoing deconstruction of the Tower of Babble by China and the OIC.
Deconstruction of the Tower of Babble? What a bizarre image. This man wants to have NATO be used to dominate 'the others'. Of course, one problem with all this is defining 'democracy.' Secondly, the US keeps sponsoring coups and uprisings so democracies are very fragile, ally or not. Greece and Chile, for example, lost their democracies when they voted for socialists. A common story. Right now, Europe is happy to work with the US for one reason: they all have trade surpluses with us. Since it benefits them and they get free protection while reaming us out in trade, they are happy as can be. But if we go bankrupt, they will dump us swiftly. They can't support us as we are, anyway.
All nations trading with us right now have surpluses. And this is key: our power is passive. We allow everyone to do destructive business with us and we think this is 'friendship.' This isn't. It is called 'competition.' It is called, 'Every man for himself.' If we offer to protect all of Europe and half of Asia for free, they will happily accept. But if we stop or if we make them pay, suddenly, frowns will appear. Europe has zero desire to build an armada! What benefits will they get? The only nation able to invade them is Russia and that involves nearly zero sea power! Geography and treaties protect Russia and China's flanks so they can now go to sea and into space. But the US is vulnerable to attack as we saw on 9/11. And our leaders are incompetent or complicit.
One last quote:
The return of China alone would be enough to make the West "live in interesting times." To make things even more interesting, Islam too is back, this time in the form of a totalitarianism which manages to combine an ideological comprehensiveness (Salafism) unseen since Communism and an existential nihilism (jihadism) worthy of Nazism. A generation ago, the post-Vatican II Catholic world finally espoused the 20th century, and the Church went on to play a critical role in the collapse of communism; meanwhile, under the increasing influence of Wahhabism, the Muslim world was going in the opposite direction, and this great leap backward brought them back to the 14th century.40 If the Saudi caliphate does not soon undertake its own Vatican II, chances are the Muslim world will never make it back to the 21st century.
This guy is beyond stupid! Vatican II is dead. The Pope is a reactionary. He wants to turn back the clock! He hates women's rights! He hates democracy, for that matter. He also is jerking the US around, recently, he refused to meet with Condi Rice, for example. And the Wahhabism business: think, 'Lawrence of Arabia.' He was sent into the desert to inspire the Wahhabists who had no power, to unite and start a RELIGIOUS war with the Ottoman Empire! Britain gave birth to this force just as the US was the midwife for Al Qaeda.
Indeed, Lawrence himself quit his work in religious revolution when he learned that the British Foreign Office had the Balfour Declarations which basically got lot of money for WWI from Jewish bankers in exchange for Palestine. Lawrence knew this was going to spark tremendous religious strife and he couldn't lie to the Saudis about this with a straight face.
Empires reap the whirlwinds they sow.
Culture of Life News Main Page
Recent Comments