thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-17--So you say it could never happen here? Watch this documentary from 1939.

^5000The mainstream imperialist media lie CONSTANTLY .
Literally 24/7 .
And it 's getting worse .
All of them do @ @ @ @ @ , the newspapers , the movies .
The internet .
No exceptions .
The corporate @ @ @ @ @ totalitarian .
CBS does it .
NBC does it .
ABC does it .
CNN @ @ @ @ @ it .
NPR does it .
And of course the NYTimes and WaPo do it @ @ @ @ @ '' voices telling you the same lies .
Enough to convince anyone .

Up to You.
^3000US citizens have no real political representation.
We don't live in a democracy. And our freedom is disappearing fast.
I don't want to be ruled by hypocrites, whores, and war criminals.
What about you? Time to push back against the corporate oligarchy.
And its multitude of minions and lackeys.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-16--Trump Authorized CIA To Wage Cyberwar On Iran And Others

ecently there have been a number of incidents in Iran where unexplained fires or explosion have destroyed some infrastructure : There was an explosion of a gas tank near a missile assembly facility in Khojir , some trouble at a transformer station near Tehran and some other incidents .
Most remarkably was an explosion and fire at the centrifuge assembly facility in Iran 's nuclear complex in Natanz .
While the incident in Natanz certainly smells of active sabotage the other incidents , like a recent explosion of gas cylinders at a hospital , look more like plain old accidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather normal accidents that occur in any large industrialized country in an attempt to sow fear and uncertainty in Iran .
Today a fire broke out on a shipyard in Bushehr .
Some Twitterati immediately speculated that it was part of the incident chain and related it to Iran 's nuclear reactor near that city .
Such speculation is nonsense .
Fires on shipyards break out all the time .
Just ask the U.S. Navy who 's USS Bonhomme Richard has now been burning for three days after a fire broke out during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one billion dollar ship into 40,000 tons of feedstock for a blast furnace .
Today 's yard fire in Iran slightly damaged seven laid up dhows ( vid ) , small civilian freight ships build from wood and used for coastal traffic in the Persian Gulf .
Israel has indirectly claimed responsibility for the Natanz incident : I have my doubts about such self serving Israeli claims .
It is more likely that the CIA has its fingers in these games .
There is a rather intense CIA program being run against Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressive Michael D'Andrea , the 'Prince of Darkness ' , to head the CIA 's Iran Mission Center but he gave the CIA wide ranging new powers to run cyber attacks against the country : The Central Intelligence Agency has conducted a series of covert cyber operations against Iran and other targets since winning a secret victory in 2018 when President Trump signed what amounts to a sweeping authorization for such activities , according to former U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the matter .
The secret authorization , known as a presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom in both the kinds of operations it conducts and who it targets , undoing many restrictions that had been in place under prior administrations .
The finding allows the CIA to more easily authorize its own covert cyber operations , rather than requiring the agency to get approval from the White House .
...
The “ very aggressive ” finding “ gave the agency very specific authorities to really take the fight offensively to a handful of adversarial countries , ” said a former U.S. government official .
These countries include Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — which are mentioned directly in the document — but the finding potentially applies to others as well , according to another former official .
“ The White House wanted a vehicle to strike back , ” said the second former official .
“ And this was the way to do it.
” This was another stupid step taken by the current administration .
Letting the CIA run an unsupervised war against the basic infrastructure of other countries will likely come back to haunt it : The finding has made it easier for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infrastructure , such as petrochemical plants , and to engage in the kind of hack-and-dump operations that Russian hackers and WikiLeaks popularized , in which tranches of stolen documents or data are leaked to journalists or posted on the internet .
It has also freed the agency to conduct disruptive operations against organizations that were largely off limits previously , such as banks and other financial institutions .
Another key change with the finding is it lessened the evidentiary requirements that limited the CIA ’ s ability to conduct covert cyber operations against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious institutions or businesses believed to be working on behalf of adversaries ’ foreign intelligence services , as well as individuals affiliated with these organizations , according to former officials .
...
The CIA has wasted no time in exercising the new freedoms won under Trump .
Since the finding was signed two years ago , the agency has carried out at least a dozen operations that were on its wish list , according to this former official .
“ This has been a combination of destructive things — stuff is on fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of data : leaking or things that look like leaking.
” Such loose definition of allowed targets will inevitably lead to operations that should be out of bounce .
The big danger here is that all sides can play such games .
The U.S. does not have a monopoly or even a large advantage in waging cyberwars .
It is in fact more vulnerable than others .
Edward Snowden provided proof that the NSA is unable to protect its own secrets .
Wikileaks published Vault 7 , the CIA 's own secret cyber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NSA and the CIA can not protect their systems one can only imagine how bad the security situation is in private institutions like U.S. banks , media organizations , charities , religious institutions or businesses .
If the CIA targets such institutions in other countries counter attacks on similar U.S. entities become legitimate .
The CIA 's operations like the Natanz explosion only increase instability .
Iran has more facilities where it can assemble its centrifuges .
The attack will not hinder its progress in enrichment technologies .
But the explosion created suspicion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International Atomic Energy Agency , who visit these facilities , are U.S. directed spies .
In consequence Iran may limit their access to its nuclear sites .
That again would decrease the knowledge about what Iran is or is not doing in its nuclear facilities .
That should not be in anyone 's interest .
Posted by b on July 15 , 2020 at 17:17 UTC | Permalink

R
Since June, fires or explosions have erupted at six factories and other facilities, two of them military in nature—the Parchin missile-production plant and the Natanz nuclear site.
ecently there have been a number of incidents in Iran where unexplained fires or explosion have destroyed some infrastructure:
There was an explosion of a gas tank near a missile assembly facility in Khojir, some trouble at a transformer station near Tehran and some other incidents. Most remarkably was an explosion and fire at the centrifuge assembly facility in Iran's nuclear complex in Natanz.
While the incident in Natanz certainly smells of active sabotage the other incidents, like a recent explosion of gas cylinders at a hospital, look more like plain old accidents.
Someone is amplifying a number of rather normal accidents that occur in any large industrialized country in an attempt to sow fear and uncertainty in Iran.
Today a fire broke out on a shipyard in Bushehr. Some Twitterati immediately speculated that it was part of the incident chain and related it to Iran's nuclear reactor near that city.
Such speculation is nonsense. Fires on shipyards break out all the time. Just ask the U.S. Navy who's USS Bonhomme Richard has now been burning for three days after a fire broke out during yard maintenance. That fire turned a one billion dollar ship into 40,000 tons of feedstock for a blast furnace. Today's yard fire in Iran slightly damaged seven laid up dhows (vid), small civilian freight ships build from wood and used for coastal traffic in the Persian Gulf.
Israel has indirectly claimed responsibility for the Natanz incident:
[A] Middle Eastern intelligence official with knowledge of the episode said Israel was responsible for the attack on the Natanz nuclear complex, using a powerful bomb. A member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps who was briefed on the matter also said that an explosive was used.
I have my doubts about such self serving Israeli claims. It is more likely that the CIA has its fingers in these games.
There is a rather intense CIA program being run against Iran. Trump has not only appointed the aggressive Michael D'Andrea, the 'Prince of Darkness', to head the CIA's Iran Mission Center but he gave the CIA wide ranging new powers to run cyber attacks against the country:
The Central Intelligence Agency has conducted a series of covert cyber operations against Iran and other targets since winning a secret victory in 2018 when President Trump signed what amounts to a sweeping authorization for such activities, according to former U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the matter. The secret authorization, known as a presidential finding, gives the spy agency more freedom in both the kinds of operations it conducts and who it targets, undoing many restrictions that had been in place under prior administrations. The finding allows the CIA to more easily authorize its own covert cyber operations, rather than requiring the agency to get approval from the White House.
...
The “very aggressive” finding “gave the agency very specific authorities to really take the fight offensively to a handful of adversarial countries,” said a former U.S. government official. These countries include Russia, China, Iran and North Korea — which are mentioned directly in the document — but the finding potentially applies to others as well, according to another former official. “The White House wanted a vehicle to strike back,” said the second former official. “And this was the way to do it.”
This was another stupid step taken by the current administration. Letting the CIA run an unsupervised war against the basic infrastructure of other countries will likely come back to haunt it:
The finding has made it easier for the CIA to damage adversaries’ critical infrastructure, such as petrochemical plants, and to engage in the kind of hack-and-dump operations that Russian hackers and WikiLeaks popularized, in which tranches of stolen documents or data are leaked to journalists or posted on the internet. It has also freed the agency to conduct disruptive operations against organizations that were largely off limits previously, such as banks and other financial institutions. Another key change with the finding is it lessened the evidentiary requirements that limited the CIA’s ability to conduct covert cyber operations against entities like media organizations, charities, religious institutions or businesses believed to be working on behalf of adversaries’ foreign intelligence services, as well as individuals affiliated with these organizations,according to former officials.
...
The CIA has wasted no time in exercising the new freedoms won under Trump. Since the finding was signed two years ago, the agency has carried out at least a dozen operations that were on its wish list, according to this former official. “This has been a combination of destructive things — stuff is on fire and exploding — and also public dissemination of data: leaking or things that look like leaking.”
Such loose definition of allowed targets will inevitably lead to operations that should be out of bounce.
The big danger here is that all sides can play such games. The U.S. does not have a monopoly or even a large advantage in waging cyberwars. It is in fact more vulnerable than others. Edward Snowden provided proof that the NSA is unable to protect its own secrets. Wikileaks published Vault 7, the CIA's own secret cyber attack tool collection. If even the NSA and the CIA cannot protect their systems one can only imagine how bad the security situation is in private institutions like U.S. banks, media organizations, charities, religious institutions or businesses.
If the CIA targets such institutions in other countries counter attacks on similar U.S. entities become legitimate.
The CIA's operations like the Natanz explosion only increase instability. Iran has more facilities where it can assemble its centrifuges. The attack will not hinder its progress in enrichment technologies. But the explosion created suspicion in Iran that the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who visit these facilities, are U.S. directed spies. In consequence Iran may limit their access to its nuclear sites. That again would decrease the knowledge about what Iran is or is not doing in its nuclear facilities.
That should not be in anyone's interest.
Posted by b on July 15, 2020 at 17:17 UTC | Permalink
SELECT COMMENTS


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-16--Don’t Talk to the Police

Don’t Talk to the Police

When a witness is summoned to testify before a grand jury or at a judicial or legislative proceeding , the lawyer for the witness frequently concludes that it may be in the client 's best interest to assert the Fifth Amendment `` right to remain silent , '' at least with respect to certain topics .
The lawyer will often give the witness a card to read aloud when asserting that privilege .
But precisely what words should the lawyer advise the client to read when invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege ?
For more than 100 years , lawyers have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advising their clients to state in almost exactly these words : `` On the advice of counsel , I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me . ''
This article explains why that unfortunate language is never in the best interests of the witness , and why it naturally tends to sound to most listeners as if the witness is somehow admitting that he can not tell the truth without confessing that he is guilty of some crime .
The article also points out that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the language or the theory of the Fifth Amendment , nor by the most recent controlling Supreme Court precedents .
The article concludes with a suggestion for an entirely new formulation for invoking the privilege , one which gives greater protection to the rights of the witness and also more faithfully captures what the Supreme Court of the United States has written about the nature of this precious constitutional privilege .

3 Pages Posted: 1 Mar 2012 Last revised: 5 Mar 2012
Date Written: February 2, 2012
Abstract
When a witness is summoned to testify before a grand jury or at a judicial or legislative proceeding, the lawyer for the witness frequently concludes that it may be in the client's best interest to assert the Fifth Amendment "right to remain silent," at least with respect to certain topics. The lawyer will often give the witness a card to read aloud when asserting that privilege. But precisely what words should the lawyer advise the client to read when invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege?
For more than 100 years, lawyers have shown surprisingly little imagination or ingenuity, advising their clients to state in almost exactly these words: "On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me."
This article explains why that unfortunate language is never in the best interests of the witness, and why it naturally tends to sound to most listeners as if the witness is somehow admitting that he cannot tell the truth without confessing that he is guilty of some crime. The article also points out that this archaic invocation is not required by either the language or the theory of the Fifth Amendment, nor by the most recent controlling Supreme Court precedents. The article concludes with a suggestion for an entirely new formulation for invoking the privilege, one which gives greater protection to the rights of the witness and also more faithfully captures what the Supreme Court of the United States has written about the nature of this precious constitutional privilege.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-16--Ayn Rand’s Promethean myth

Ayn Rand’s Promethean myth

Ayn Rand skilfully spread her ideas to a huge audience through her bestselling novels , turned into major films ; and disciples tried to turn her fictional utopia into a reality .
Like Nietzsche , Rand thought it is great men who justify humanity ’ s existence .
The artist is the master of his work ; his refusal to conform to society ’ s demands gives society its greatest benefit Ayn Rand , who was a friend of Greenspan ’ s , is little known in Europe , but she ’ s the author of two books which are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Fountainhead ( 1943 ) and Atlas Shrugged ( 1957 ) .
The latter is a saga which combines an investigation into the disappearance of great American entrepreneurs with a vision of utopia .
Highly talented individuals go missing one after another with the result that American society starts to crumble .
The investigation focuses on John Galt , an engineer , who is among the missing .
His disappearance is all the more surprising since he leaves behind an ( incomplete ) revolutionary invention which he hasn ’ t sought to profit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a free and inexhaustible energy source : static electricity .
Alan Greenspan recounts in his memoir The Age of Turbulence ( 1 ) how “ mind-boggling ” he found it to be approached after an International Monetary Fund meeting in 2004 by Andrei Illarionov , Vladimir Putin ’ s economic adviser , with the question : “ Next time you are in Moscow , would you be willing to meet with me and some of my friends to discuss Ayn Rand ?
” Albert Einstein , of my father 's persuasion if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , `` The tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time . '
But the coalition that poisons this struggling republic is an unnatural one , made up of rich cynics who supply the money , and poor ignoramuses who supply the votes .
They have nothing in common , except that the cynics will say anything and the morons will believe it . '
'' In prepping this article , we found this passage in another excellent piece on Rand by Hal Crowther , which fully applies to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with legions of fully brainwashed and incurable idiots in both the Rethug/Trumpist camp and among the Democrat/liberaloid faithful.
`` Albert Einstein , of my father 's persuasion if not of his party , once wrote despairingly , `` The tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time . '
But the coalition that poisons this struggling republic is an unnatural one , made up of rich cynics who supply the money , and poor ignoramuses who supply the votes .
They have nothing in common , except that the cynics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe it . '
'' The reader learns that Galt ’ s withdrawal from society was voluntary .
He believes that its unproductive members suck the life-blood from its creative , productive individuals , in an abuse of power made possible by the state .
Galt has persuaded other great minds to follow him , in effect bringing about the most disastrous strike in US history .
Galt and his companions found the city of Galt ’ s Gulch in a remote , mountainous part of the US , where these economic outlaws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of creativity , invention and enterprise .
A film of Atlas Shrugged is currently being planned starring Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie , both admirers of Ayn Rand .
Ayn Rand ’ s popularity is comparable to that of L Ron Hubbard , the founder of the Church of Scientology , so it ’ s not surprising that a group of her disciples tried to turn her fictional utopia into a reality .
In 1995 , 13 years after the author ’ s death , full-page announcements appeared in The Economist and Time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ prophetic genius ” to be no longer a dream , but a reality in the shape of Laissez Faire City .
Volunteers from around the world were invited to come and join .
In 1998 the members of Laissez Faire City formulated a plan to buy land in Costa Rica .
They ran into problems and turned instead to the idea of a virtual community on the internet .
Since the fundamental idea came down to not paying taxes ( an immoral levy , according to Rand , by which the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , the promoters of this utopia finally realised that it already existed in the flourishing , if less inspiring form of tax havens .
Ayn Rand ’ s biography goes some way to explaining her ideology : Alice Rosenbaum ( as she started out ) was born in Russia in 1905 and fled to the US in 1926 .
Communism and free-market capitalism both feed into the Promethean myth : in her journey from east to west , Rand left a country which distorted Promethean , utopian ambition for one which , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She remained active until the late 1970s ( she died in 1982 ) and exerted a powerful influence on American intellectual and political life , especially the upper echelons of the Republican party .
Ronald Reagan was one of her most fervent disciples .
An Ayn Rand Institute ( 2 ) remains dedicated to spreading her “ objectivist philosophy ” in order to promote the free market , the individual , freedom and the exercise of reason as antidotes to the forces of multiculturalism , environmental politics and ideologies which give too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other such manifestations of irrationality .
Every year , half a million copies of Ayn Rand ’ s works are sold , which has led some of her disciples to put her on a par with Hannah Arendt .
The Fountainhead is Rand ’ s other bestselling work .
( The fountainhead of the title refers to the creative force which comes from within the individual : “ A man ’ s ego is the fountainhead of human progress.
” ) The book tells the story of Howard Roark , a headstrong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflict with the forces of conformism .
At the end of the novel Roark appears in court accused of blowing up a recently completed public housing project which he himself designed .
He destroyed his own work because he felt its execution had distorted and bastardised his conception : despite guarantees that it would be constructed as he had conceived it , the buildings were altered to suit public taste .
There follows one of those courtroom scenes familiar to readers of American fiction in which Roark conducts his own defence .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of years ago , the first man discovered how to make fire .
He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light .
He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded .
But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm , to cook their food , to light their caves .
… That man , the unsubmissive and first , stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning .
Prometheus was chained to a rock and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stolen the fire of the gods .
Adam was condemned to suffer – because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge .
… The great creators – the thinkers , the artists , the scientists , the inventors – stood alone against the men of their time.
” The destruction of the buildings , Roark pleads , is not a crime : the artist is the master of his work and has the right to destroy it if it doesn ’ t correspond to his creative idea .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conform to society ’ s demands which gives society its greatest benefits .
A latter-day Prometheus , Roark defends the values of the individual , which in turn are the values of America .
The jury returns a not-guilty verdict .
In 1949 King Vidor brought The Fountainhead to the screen with a screenplay by Ayn Rand herself and Gary Cooper in the role of Roark .
Coming across the film by chance while channel-surfing , it seems like so many other Hollywood movies : Cooper is the solitary , indomitable hero surrounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cynical men .
Reversals of fortune flip him from success to failure and back again , and there ’ s even a seductive , independent heroine whose resistance is eventually overcome .
It ’ s got the lot .
What European viewers may miss is the film ’ s propaganda message .
( Ayn Rand also avoided making the political message of her novel too blatant . )
She doesn ’ t try to impose her ideas but , more skilfully , to show reality in such a way that the public is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so sees her ideas as natural .
Like most American films with patriotic , religious or political aims , The Fountainhead knows how to let the viewer simply enjoy the story .
Hollywood propagandists know that a subtle message goes across more effectively than a strident one .
Roark dramatises the universal desire to live free .
He is a creator who follows his own path and for whom only his work matters .
No one has control over him , neither God nor master .
In Europe , it was poets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Romantic genius .
As updated and Americanised by Rand , the creative genius no longer tries to escape the material world but instead seeks to transform it .
The architect is an artist but also a builder .
The European Romantic artists ’ domain was the salon .
Roark by contrast is a workman , a man of the construction site , an American Stakhanov .
In Rand ’ s writing , Man affirms himself through his mastery of matter using his brute force and virility .
From the first page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Roark is introduced standing naked at the edge of a cliff .
Like Friedrich Nietzsche , Ayn Rand thinks that it is great men who justify humanity ’ s existence ( and too bad for ordinary people , among whose ranks she doesn ’ t count herself , of course ) .
She shares his critique of philanthropy , his disdain for the crowd and most of all his faith in the individual who exists in himself without need of others and who draws his creativity from his own resources .
Ayn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest the bigotry which surrounds the neo-con revolution ; it has close affinities with Romantic revolt and its neo-paganism ( 3 ) .
Roark ’ s courtroom defence is in fact a long paean of self-praise : “ The creator served nothing and no one .
He had lived for himself .
And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind .
Such is the nature of achievement .
… The work of the creator has eliminated one form of disease after another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spirit , and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive .
… The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent .
He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves .
… The creator ’ s concern is the conquest of nature .
The parasite ’ s concern is the conquest of men .
The creator lives for his work .
He needs no other men .
His primary goal is within himself .
The parasite lives second-hand .
He needs others.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smith , bakes his bread not out of philanthropy but self-interest .
In living for himself and fulfilling himself as a pure individual , each will involuntarily collaborate and moreover contribute to the common good .
This optimism is in turn based on the belief that interdependence is in no way a defining characteristic of the human condition , but simply part of its pathology ( albeit a widespread one ) which points up the true nature of man in a healthy state .
Thus the only form of relations which exists between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , free exchange : “ the rational interests of men do not clash and … there is no conflict of interests among men … who deal with one another as traders , giving value for value .
The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships ” ( 4 ) .
Ayn Rand defends an ethic which is remarkable for its absence of any obligation towards others , only towards oneself .
As if by magic , this spirits away multiple forms of interdependence , power relations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence and injustices which poison human existence and against which in real life the appeal to reason is ineffective .
Ayn Rand ’ s ideology is addressed first and foremost to the powerful .
She confirms their favourable self-image and allows them to overlook what they really are : members of powerful networks striving to maintain their positions within them .
But her popular appeal extends to people in less exalted positions ; the models of Galt and Roark offer them an imaginary compensation for feelings of loneliness and inadequacy and provide a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to feel proud of what in reality makes them weak .
As faith in the individual is founded on the example of those who succeed , the social capital from which the successful benefit goes unmentioned so as to increase their personal value .
For those who are at the bottom of the ladder , failure is attributed to a lack of personal qualities .
One inevitable ( and beneficial ) form of dependence is the familial links through which each generation is attached to the preceding one .
In this regard it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her two bestsellers , Ayn Rand has no place for child characters , since the very existence of children entails relations between generations , which would be enough to ruin the model of the individual which she exalts .
Ayn Rand ’ s radical individualism implies at heart that , as Margaret Thatcher said , society doesn ’ t exist .
“ All ‘ mixed economies , ’ ” Ayn Rand wrote in 1963 , “ are in a precarious state of transition which , ultimately , has to turn to freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
The role of a free country such as the US is thus to make sure that things go in the right direction : that of an alliance between democracy and radical capitalism .
“ Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and , today , has the right to invade Soviet Russia , Cuba or any other slave pen ” ( 6 ) .
“ The invasion of an enslaved country , ” Rand maintains “ is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ayn Rand skilfully spread her ideas to a huge audience through her bestselling novels, turned into major films; and disciples tried to turn her fictional utopia into a reality. Like Nietzsche, Rand thought it is great men who justify humanity’s existence. The artist is the master of his work; his refusal to conform to society’s demands gives society its greatest benefit
Ayn Rand, who was a friend of Greenspan’s, is little known in Europe, but she’s the author of two books which are huge bestsellers in the United States, The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). The latter is a saga which combines an investigation into the disappearance of great American entrepreneurs with a vision of utopia. Highly talented individuals go missing one after another with the result that American society starts to crumble. The investigation focuses on John Galt, an engineer, who is among the missing. His disappearance is all the more surprising since he leaves behind an (incomplete) revolutionary invention which he hasn’t sought to profit from: a motor which runs on a free and inexhaustible energy source: static electricity.
Alan Greenspan recounts in his memoir The Age of Turbulence ( 1 ) how “mind-boggling” he found it to be approached after an International Monetary Fund meeting in 2004 by Andrei Illarionov, Vladimir Putin’s economic adviser, with the question: “Next time you are in Moscow, would you be willing to meet with me and some of my friends to discuss Ayn Rand?”
Albert Einstein, of my father's persuasion if not of his party, once wrote despairingly, "The tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time. ' But the coalition that poisons this struggling republic is an unnatural one, made up of rich cynics who supply the money, and poor ignoramuses who supply the votes. They have nothing in common, except that the cynics will say anything and the morons will believe it.'"
In prepping this article, we found this passage in another excellent piece on Rand by Hal Crowther, which fully applies to the semi-laughable nightmare we witness these days, with legions of fully brainwashed and incurable idiots in both the Rethug/Trumpist camp and among the Democrat/liberaloid faithful. " Albert Einstein, of my father's persuasion if not of his party, once wrote despairingly, "The tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time. ' But the coalition that poisons this struggling republic is an unnatural one, made up of rich cynics who supply the money, and poor ignoramuses who supply the votes. They have nothing in common, except that the cynics will say anything and the morons will believe it.'"
The reader learns that Galt’s withdrawal from society was voluntary. He believes that its unproductive members suck the life-blood from its creative, productive individuals, in an abuse of power made possible by the state. Galt has persuaded other great minds to follow him, in effect bringing about the most disastrous strike in US history. Galt and his companions found the city of Galt’s Gulch in a remote, mountainous part of the US, where these economic outlaws can make use of all their gifts of creativity, invention and enterprise. A film of Atlas Shrugged is currently being planned starring Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, both admirers of Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand’s popularity is comparable to that of L Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology, so it’s not surprising that a group of her disciples tried to turn her fictional utopia into a reality. In 1995, 13 years after the author’s death, full-page announcements appeared in The Economist and Time magazine declaring the big idea of this “prophetic genius” to be no longer a dream, but a reality in the shape of Laissez Faire City. Volunteers from around the world were invited to come and join.
In 1998 the members of Laissez Faire City formulated a plan to buy land in Costa Rica. They ran into problems and turned instead to the idea of a virtual community on the internet. Since the fundamental idea came down to not paying taxes (an immoral levy, according to Rand, by which the state seized money that rightfully belongs to individuals), the promoters of this utopia finally realised that it already existed in the flourishing, if less inspiring form of tax havens.
Reagan was a fervent disciple
Ayn Rand’s biography goes some way to explaining her ideology: Alice Rosenbaum (as she started out) was born in Russia in 1905 and fled to the US in 1926. Communism and free-market capitalism both feed into the Promethean myth: in her journey from east to west, Rand left a country which distorted Promethean, utopian ambition for one which, in her view, embodied its triumph.
Ayn Rand influenced or just corroborated the mean-spirited or antisocial tendencies existing in many prominent people: From top left, clockwise: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, the notorious scumbag Paul Ryan, George W Bush, war criminal at large, Jimmy Wales, cofounder of Wikipedia, and the disgusting phony and patron saint of the New Right, Newt Gingrich.
She remained active until the late 1970s (she died in 1982) and exerted a powerful influence on American intellectual and political life, especially the upper echelons of the Republican party. Ronald Reagan was one of her most fervent disciples. An Ayn Rand Institute (2) remains dedicated to spreading her “objectivist philosophy” in order to promote the free market, the individual, freedom and the exercise of reason as antidotes to the forces of multiculturalism, environmental politics and ideologies which give too great a role to the state and other such manifestations of irrationality. Every year, half a million copies of Ayn Rand’s works are sold, which has led some of her disciples to put her on a par with Hannah Arendt.
The Fountainhead is Rand’s other bestselling work. (The fountainhead of the title refers to the creative force which comes from within the individual: “A man’s ego is the fountainhead of human progress.”) The book tells the story of Howard Roark, a headstrong, misunderstood architect of genius who comes into conflict with the forces of conformism. At the end of the novel Roark appears in court accused of blowing up a recently completed public housing project which he himself designed. He destroyed his own work because he felt its execution had distorted and bastardised his conception: despite guarantees that it would be constructed as he had conceived it, the buildings were altered to suit public taste. There follows one of those courtroom scenes familiar to readers of American fiction in which Roark conducts his own defence. Here is how he begins:
“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. … That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures – because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer – because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. … The great creators – the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors – stood alone against the men of their time.”
The destruction of the buildings, Roark pleads, is not a crime: the artist is the master of his work and has the right to destroy it if it doesn’t correspond to his creative idea. It is precisely the artist’s refusal to conform to society’s demands which gives society its greatest benefits. A latter-day Prometheus, Roark defends the values of the individual, which in turn are the values of America. The jury returns a not-guilty verdict.
In 1949 King Vidor brought The Fountainhead to the screen with a screenplay by Ayn Rand herself and Gary Cooper in the role of Roark. Coming across the film by chance while channel-surfing, it seems like so many other Hollywood movies: Cooper is the solitary, indomitable hero surrounded by conformism and pitted against powerful, cynical men. Reversals of fortune flip him from success to failure and back again, and there’s even a seductive, independent heroine whose resistance is eventually overcome. It’s got the lot.
Subtle propaganda
What European viewers may miss is the film’s propaganda message. (Ayn Rand also avoided making the political message of her novel too blatant.) She doesn’t try to impose her ideas but, more skilfully, to show reality in such a way that the public is captivated by the picture she paints and so sees her ideas as natural.
Like most American films with patriotic, religious or political aims, The Fountainhead knows how to let the viewer simply enjoy the story. Hollywood propagandists know that a subtle message goes across more effectively than a strident one. Roark dramatises the universal desire to live free. He is a creator who follows his own path and for whom only his work matters. No one has control over him, neither God nor master.
In Europe, it was poets, writers and musicians who provided the archetypes of the Romantic genius. As updated and Americanised by Rand, the creative genius no longer tries to escape the material world but instead seeks to transform it. The architect is an artist but also a builder. The European Romantic artists’ domain was the salon. Roark by contrast is a workman, a man of the construction site, an American Stakhanov. In Rand’s writing, Man affirms himself through his mastery of matter using his brute force and virility. From the first page of the novel she shows her colours: Roark is introduced standing naked at the edge of a cliff.
Like Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand thinks that it is great men who justify humanity’s existence (and too bad for ordinary people, among whose ranks she doesn’t count herself, of course). She shares his critique of philanthropy, his disdain for the crowd and most of all his faith in the individual who exists in himself without need of others and who draws his creativity from his own resources. Ayn Rand’s Prometheanism doesn’t suggest the bigotry which surrounds the neo-con revolution; it has close affinities with Romantic revolt and its neo-paganism (3). Roark’s courtroom defence is in fact a long paean of self-praise:
“The creator served nothing and no one. He had lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement. … The work of the creator has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive. … The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. … The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men. The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others.”
The baker, according to Adam Smith, bakes his bread not out of philanthropy but self-interest. In living for himself and fulfilling himself as a pure individual, each will involuntarily collaborate and moreover contribute to the common good. This optimism is in turn based on the belief that interdependence is in no way a defining characteristic of the human condition, but simply part of its pathology (albeit a widespread one) which points up the true nature of man in a healthy state. Thus the only form of relations which exists between independent beings is, according to Rand, free exchange: “the rational interests of men do not clash and … there is no conflict of interests among men … who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value. The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships” (4).
Ayn Rand defends an ethic which is remarkable for its absence of any obligation towards others, only towards oneself. As if by magic, this spirits away multiple forms of interdependence, power relations, and abuses of power, and the violence and injustices which poison human existence and against which in real life the appeal to reason is ineffective.
Ayn Rand’s ideology is addressed first and foremost to the powerful. She confirms their favourable self-image and allows them to overlook what they really are: members of powerful networks striving to maintain their positions within them. But her popular appeal extends to people in less exalted positions; the models of Galt and Roark offer them an imaginary compensation for feelings of loneliness and inadequacy and provide a source of self-respect. She allows them to feel proud of what in reality makes them weak. As faith in the individual is founded on the example of those who succeed, the social capital from which the successful benefit goes unmentioned so as to increase their personal value. For those who are at the bottom of the ladder, failure is attributed to a lack of personal qualities.
One inevitable (and beneficial) form of dependence is the familial links through which each generation is attached to the preceding one. In this regard it is telling that despite the great length of her two bestsellers, Ayn Rand has no place for child characters, since the very existence of children entails relations between generations, which would be enough to ruin the model of the individual which she exalts. Ayn Rand’s radical individualism implies at heart that, as Margaret Thatcher said, society doesn’t exist.
“All ‘mixed economies,’” Ayn Rand wrote in 1963, “are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship” (5). The role of a free country such as the US is thus to make sure that things go in the right direction: that of an alliance between democracy and radical capitalism. “Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen” (6). “The invasion of an enslaved country,” Rand maintains “is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system” (7).


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-07-17--The Future for China

The Future for China

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post .
Be sure to share it widely .
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches by historian Eric Zuesse The Navy released a couple of photos on Tuesday of the destroyer sailing near the contested Spratly Islands , and a Navy spokesman confirmed that the ship conducted a freedom-of-navigation operation in the area .
The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson ( DDG 114 ) steams near the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea .
Ralph Johnson is deployed conducting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Having alienated the remaining 27 members of the European Union and set Anglo-Russian relations back a century , Boris Johnson has just declared an economic war on China .
… The proximate reason – that allowing Huawei into Britain ’ s 5G roll-out is a “ security risk ” – is patently false .
If that were true for 5G , it would be true of 3 and 4G .
If it were true then the company would have to be banished now , not in 2027 ( by when , incidentally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is not a shred , not a scintilla , not a jot or tittle , of evidence that Huawei has ever done anything wrong during its highly successful penetration of the British market , from which Britain has economically benefited mightily .
And if Chinese investment in 5G is not wanted – indeed , is being ejected – what of China ’ s powerful stake in Britain ’ s energy sector ?
What happens if China pulls the plugs on its nuclear power stations ?
Do all our lights go out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through ?
… BoJo ’ s decision to throw the Huawei 5G deal on the scrapheap shows UK poodle still obeys its US master ...
In this triple whammy of sanctions , gunboats and settlement , the brassy note of Jingoism plays ‘ Rule Britannia ’ , but no one seems to have noticed that China is a vastly richer and more powerful adversary than it was when we extorted Hong Kong from them in punishment for their attempt to halt the flood of British opium into China which caused the addiction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctions imposed on China in the Huawei affair will be returned several-fold by Beijing .
Elliott Roosevelt , FDR ’ s son who accompanied his father during crucial international meetings , felt that Truman was a traitor to his father ’ s anti-imperialistic legacy .
FDR , according to his son , Elliott , also wasn ’ t too fond of Churchill , who agreed with Truman because Churchill had always been a champion of British imperialism and he needed U.S. acceptance of that .
“ Roosevelt and Churchill Discuss Colonial Questions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elliott Roosevelt , As He Saw It ( New York : Duell , Sloan and Pearce , 1946 ) .
” “ Of course , ” he remarked , with a sly sort of assurance , “ of course , after the war , one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade.
” He paused .
The P.M. 's [ Churchill 's ] head was lowered ; he was watching Father steadily , from under one eyebrow .
“ No artificial barriers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favored economic agreements as possible .
Opportunities for expansion .
Markets open for healthy competition.
” His eye wandered innocently around the room .
Churchill shifted in his armchair .
“ The British Empire trade agreements , ” he began heavily , “ are — ” Father broke in .
“ Yes .
Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point .
It ’ s because of them that the people of India and Africa , of all the colonial Near East and Far East , are still as backward as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he crouched forward .
“ Mr .
President , England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Do-minions .
The trade that has made England great shall continue , and under conditions prescribed by England 's ministers.
” “ You see , ” said Father slowly , “ it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you , Winston , and me .
“ I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of backward countries .
Backward peoples .
How can this be done ?
It can ’ t be done , obviously , by eighteenth-century methods .
Now — ” “ Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country , but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration .
Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies .
Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living , by educating them , by bringing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.
” Around the room , all of us were leaning forward attentively .
[ Harry ] Hopkins [ a major FDR adviser ] was grinning .
Commander [ C. R. ] Thompson , Churchill 's aide , was looking glum and alarmed .
The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic .
“ Yes .
I can ’ t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery , and at the same time not work to free people all over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ I 'm glad you mentioned them .
They get their independence , you know , in 1946 .
And they ’ ve gotten modern sanitation , modern education ; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down “ There can be no tampering with the Empire ’ s economic agreements.
” “ They 're the foundation of our greatness.
” “ The peace , ” said Father firmly , “ can not include any continued despotism .
The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples .
Equality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competitive trade .
… ” It was after two in the morning when finally the British party said their good nights .
I helped Father into his cabin , and sat down to smoke a last cigarette with him .
Father grunted .
“ A real old Tory , is n't he ?
A real old Tory , of the old school.
” “ I thought for a minute he was [ you were ] going to bust , Pop.
” “ Oh , ” he smiled , “ I ’ ll be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t worry about that .
We ’ ll get along famously.
” “ So long as you keep off the subject of India.
” “ Mmm , I don ’ t know .
I think we ’ ll even talk some more about India , before we ’ re through .
And Burma .
And Java .
And Indo-China .
And Indonesia .
And all the African colonies .
And Egypt and Palestine .
We ’ ll talk about ’ em all.
” A similar kind of discussion occurred between Roosevelt and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1943 .
The following is Elliott ’ s description of his father ’ s talk with him one evening during that meeting : His thoughts turned to the problem of the colonies and the colonial markets , the problem which he felt was at the core of all chance for future peace .
‘ The thing is , ’ he remarked thoughtfully , replacing a smoked cigarette in his holder with a fresh one , ‘ the colonial system means war .
Exploit the resources of an India , a Burma , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those countries , but never put anything back into them , things like education , decent standards of living , minimum health requirements — all you ’ re doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war .
All you ’ re doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins .
The look that Churchill gets on his face when you mention India !
‘ India should be made a commonwealth at once .
After a certain number of years — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be able to choose whether she wants to remain in the Empire or have complete independence .
‘ As a commonwealth , she would be entitled to a modern form of government , an adequate health and educational standard .
But how can she have these things , when Britain is taking all the wealth of her national resources away from her , every year ?
Every year the Indian people have one thing to look forward to , like death and taxes .
Sure as shooting , they have a famine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they call it.
’ ‘ I must tell Churchill what I found out about his British Gambia today , ’ he said , with a note of determination .
‘ This morning , ’ he said , and now there was real feeling in his voice , ‘ at about eight-thirty , we drove through Bathurst to the airfield .
The natives were just getting to work .
In rags ... glum-looking .
...
They told us the natives would look happier around noontime , when the sun should have burned off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the prevailing wages for these men was one and nine .
One shilling , ninepence .
Less than fifty cents.
’ ‘ A { day ! }
Fifty cents a { day ! }
Besides which , they ’ re given a half-cup of rice.
’ He shifted uneasily in his big bed .
‘ Dirt , disease .
Very high mortality rate .
I asked .
Life expectancy — you ’ d never guess what it was .
Twenty-six years .
Those people are treated worse than the livestock .
Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silent for a moment .
‘ Churchill may have thought I wasn ’ t serious , last time .
He ’ ll find out , this time.
’ He looked at me thoughtfully for a moment .
‘ How is it , where you are ?
How is it in Algeria ? '
he asked .
I told him it was the same story .
Rich country , rich resources , natives desperately poor , a few white colonials that lived very well , a few native princes that lived very well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He nodded .
And then he went on to tell of what he thought should be done : France to be restored as a world power , then to be entrusted with her former colonies , as a trustee .
As trustee , she was to report each year on the progress of her stewardship , how the literacy rate was improving , how the death rate declining , how disease being stamped out , how .
... ‘ Wait a minute , ’ I interrupted .
‘ Who ’ s she going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ The organization of the United Nations , when it ’ s been set up , ’ answered Father .
It was the first time I ’ d ever heard of this plan .
‘ How else ?
’ I asked Father .
‘ The Big Four — ourselves , Britain , China , the Soviet Union — we 'll be responsible for the peace of the world after .
... ‘ … It 's already high time for us to be thinking of the future , building for it .
...
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tasks of bringing education , raising the standards of living , improving the health conditions — of all the backward , depressed colonial areas of the world .
‘ And when they ’ ve had a chance to reach maturity , they must have the opportunity extended them of independence .
After the United Nations as a whole have decided that they are prepared for it .
‘ If this isn ’ t done , we might as well agree that we ’ re in for another war.
’ Elliott ’ s book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Look Magazine : “ Father remarked , ” says Elliott Roosevelt , “ on how British and French financiers had dredged riches out of colonies .
... ” He continued later , “ How do they belong to France ?
Why does Morocco , inhabited by Moroccans , belong to France ?
By what logic and custom and historical rule ?
” Obviously , Winston Churchill ’ s dream came true when FDR died on 12 April 1945 and became replaced by Truman .
Among those statements by FDR , the one specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty violated what FDR had said to Churchill , “ I ’ m glad you mentioned them .
They get their independence , you know , in 1946.
” That U.S. commitment , “ freedom , ” to the Philippine nation , had already been made .
He promised to Churchill that it would be fulfilled , and that therefore Churchill would not be able to say that America is an imperialist power as England is .
It was a basic commitment from him .
Furthermore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Father pursued .
“ As few favored economic agreements as possible .
Opportunities for expansion .
Markets open for healthy competition.
” His eye wandered innocently around the room .
Churchill shifted in his armchair .
“ The British Empire trade agreements , ” he began heavily , “ are — ” Father broke in .
“ Yes .
Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point .
It ’ s because of them that the people of India and Africa , of all the colonial Near East and Far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are.
” And : “ ‘ The peace , ’ said Father firmly , ‘ can not include any continued despotism .
The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples.
’ ” In a sense , Hitler posthumously won WW II .
His ideology , imperialistic fascism , certainly did .
The path forward for China will be increasingly for China to serve as a defender of the independence of the nations in its area ( such as the Philippines ) , so that they won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s offers of military assistance .
Either this , or else China itself will cede control of its own neighborhood over to a distant enemy-nation , the ceaselessly grasping U.S. regime , and might as well just quit altogether , and become an American pawn itself .
Either all of the nations in that area will thrive together , or else the U.S.-UK alliance will succeed at crushing and swallowing-up them all .
This means that in the conflicts that China has with its nearby nations , China must grant those nations ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests .
China must accept its obligation to defend their interests in order to become enabled to assert its own .
Only if this is done will those nearby nations ally with China against the U.S .
Empire , not just militarily , but also in regard to commerce and trade .
For China not to take on this obligation would be unacceptable , not only for China , but for the entire world .
Regardless of what China wants , China has this obligation , now , to protect its region , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their military , and their corporations .
However , the U.S. regime ’ s unmistakable threat now to block China ’ s freight-traffic through the South China Sea will succeed if China becomes the first side to attack and tries to down any U.S. forces there .
Even if the U.S. strikes without warning and with no clear excuse , China will need to hold back for a while , before retaliating .
The U.S. has arrayed an awesome striking force in that area .
China will have to wait until the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but now is the time for China to negotiate with its neighbors .
Otherwise China will have almost the whole world against it , if China provides the bad optics of having been the first to strike .
During this time , therefore , China needs to be negotiating with each of the other regional players in order to persuade each one that only a unified facing-down against the U.S. in that region can even possibly salvage the independence of each one of them from now on .
Russia may also need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a protector of China , just in case the U.S. turns out to be uncompromising in its intention to take over the entire world .
Either Russia will soon enter this new World War that the UK-U.S. regimes are already waging , or else Russia will be forced to enter it only after Russia ’ s major allies will already have been swallowed-up by the U.S .
The safer choice for Russia is consequently to enter the war sooner , as a guarantor for their side , their allies , the independent nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations have already been defeated and swallowed-up .

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches by historian Eric Zuesse
O n July 14th, the two conjoined gangster-regimes, U.S. & UK, simultaneously started, with deadly seriousness, their aggressive economic war against China. n July 14th, the two conjoined gangster-regimes, U.S. & UK, simultaneously started, with deadly seriousness, their aggressive economic war against China.
After the US Department of State declared Beijing's maritime claims in the South China Sea and efforts to assert dominance to be unlawful , the US Navy destroyer USS Ralph Johnson further challenged China with a sail-by operation.
The Navy released a couple of photos on Tuesday of the destroyer sailing near the contested Spratly Islands, and a Navy spokesman confirmed that the ship conducted a freedom-of-navigation operation in the area.
The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson (DDG 114) steams near the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Ralph Johnson is deployed conducting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts for a free and open Indo-Pacific. U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Anthony Collier
Having alienated the remaining 27 members of the European Union and set Anglo-Russian relations back a century, Boris Johnson has just declared an economic war on China. … The proximate reason – that allowing Huawei into Britain’s 5G roll-out is a “security risk” – is patently false. If that were true for 5G, it would be true of 3 and 4G. If it were true then the company would have to be banished now, not in 2027 (by when, incidentally, 5G will be so last year).
There is not a shred, not a scintilla, not a jot or tittle, of evidence that Huawei has ever done anything wrong during its highly successful penetration of the British market, from which Britain has economically benefited mightily.
And if Chinese investment in 5G is not wanted – indeed, is being ejected – what of China’s powerful stake in Britain’s energy sector? What happens if China pulls the plugs on its nuclear power stations? Do all our lights go out? Has anyone thought this Chinese Kick-Away through? … BoJo’s decision to throw the Huawei 5G deal on the scrapheap shows UK poodle still obeys its US master...
In this triple whammy of sanctions, gunboats and settlement, the brassy note of Jingoism plays ‘Rule Britannia’, but no one seems to have noticed that China is a vastly richer and more powerful adversary than it was when we extorted Hong Kong from them in punishment for their attempt to halt the flood of British opium into China which caused the addiction of 90 million Chinese people.
The economic sanctions imposed on China in the Huawei affair will be returned several-fold by Beijing.
Galloway might be correct, that China will be able to survive UK’s attempts to stifle China’s rise as a global economic competitor to the UK-U.S. empire , but if the U.S. is allowed to block China’s shipments through the South China Sea, then the war against China has already been won. It’s much more serious.
China has internationally been losing each one of the major rounds in its territorial disputes regarding its territorial claims in the South China Sea. It’s as if the U.S. were losing territorial claims in the Caribbean, except that the South China Sea is far more geostrategically important to China than the Caribbean is to the United States. So, China’s losses here are geostrategic ones. Those are disputes versus the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia; and the U.S. regime has played a decisive role in each case on the basis of its bilateral treaties, such as the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty , which enables the Philippines to call upon U.S. military backing in case the Philippines needs muscle in order to assert a territorial claim against another country, such as, say, China, which is the giant in their neighborhood.
Elliott Roosevelt, FDR’s son who accompanied his father during crucial international meetings, felt that Truman was a traitor to his father’s anti-imperialistic legacy. FDR, according to his son, Elliott, also wasn’t too fond of Churchill, who agreed with Truman because Churchill had always been a champion of British imperialism and he needed U.S. acceptance of that.
Elliott wrote:
“Roosevelt and Churchill Discuss Colonial Questions, August 10, 1941, excerpt from Elliott Roosevelt, As He Saw It (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946).”
Father [FDR] started it.
“Of course,” he remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, “of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade.”
He paused. The P.M.'s [Churchill's] head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.
“No artificial barriers,” Father pursued. “As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.” His eye wandered innocently around the room.
Churchill shifted in his armchair. “The British Empire trade agreements,” he began heavily, “are — ”
Father broke in. “Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”
Churchill’s neck reddened and he crouched forward. “Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Do-minions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England's ministers.”
“You see,” said Father slowly, “it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.
“I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now — ”
“Who's talking eighteenth-century methods?"
“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation — by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”
Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. [Harry] Hopkins [a major FDR adviser] was grinning. Commander [C. R.] Thompson, Churchill's aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.
“You mentioned India,” he growled.
“Yes. I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy”
“What about the Philippines?”
“I'm glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they’ve gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down
“There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements.”
“They're artificial …"
“They're the foundation of our greatness.”
“The peace,” said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. …”
It was after two in the morning when finally the British party said their good nights. I helped Father into his cabin, and sat down to smoke a last cigarette with him.
Father grunted. “A real old Tory, isn't he? A real old Tory, of the old school.”
“I thought for a minute he was [you were] going to bust, Pop.”
“Oh,” he smiled, “I’ll be able to work with him. Don’t worry about that. We’ll get along famously.”
“So long as you keep off the subject of India.”
“Mmm, I don’t know. I think we’ll even talk some more about India, before we’re through. And Burma. And Java. And Indo-China. And Indonesia. And all the African colonies. And Egypt and Palestine. We’ll talk about ’em all.”
At the Casablanca Conference
A similar kind of discussion occurred between Roosevelt and Churchill at the Casablanca Conference in January 1943. The following is Elliott’s description of his father’s talk with him one evening during that meeting:
His thoughts turned to the problem of the colonies and the colonial markets, the problem which he felt was at the core of all chance for future peace. ‘The thing is,’ he remarked thoughtfully, replacing a smoked cigarette in his holder with a fresh one, ‘the colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of those countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements — all you’re doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you’re doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.
‘ The look that Churchill gets on his face when you mention India!
‘India should be made a commonwealth at once. After a certain number of years — five perhaps, or ten — she should be able to choose whether she wants to remain in the Empire or have complete independence.
‘As a commonwealth, she would be entitled to a modern form of government, an adequate health and educational standard. But how can she have these things, when Britain is taking all the wealth of her national resources away from her, every year? Every year the Indian people have one thing to look forward to, like death and taxes. Sure as shooting, they have a famine. The season of the famine, they call it.’
He paused for a moment, thinking.
‘I must tell Churchill what I found out about his British Gambia today,’ he said, with a note of determination.
‘At Bathurst?’ I prompted.
‘This morning,’ he said, and now there was real feeling in his voice, ‘at about eight-thirty, we drove through Bathurst to the airfield. The natives were just getting to work. In rags ... glum-looking. ... They told us the natives would look happier around noontime, when the sun should have burned off the dew and the chill. I was told the prevailing wages for these men was one and nine. One shilling, ninepence. Less than fifty cents.’
‘An hour?’ I asked, foolishly.
‘A {day!} Fifty cents a {day!} Besides which, they’re given a half-cup of rice.’ He shifted uneasily in his big bed. ‘Dirt, disease. Very high mortality rate. I asked. Life expectancy — you’d never guess what it was. Twenty-six years. Those people are treated worse than the livestock. Their cattle live longer!’
He was silent for a moment.
‘Churchill may have thought I wasn’t serious, last time. He’ll find out, this time.’ He looked at me thoughtfully for a moment. ‘How is it, where you are? How is it in Algeria?' he asked.
I told him it was the same story. Rich country, rich resources, natives desperately poor, a few white colonials that lived very well, a few native princes that lived very well, otherwise poverty, disease, ignorance. He nodded.
And then he went on to tell of what he thought should be done: France to be restored as a world power, then to be entrusted with her former colonies, as a trustee. As trustee, she was to report each year on the progress of her stewardship, how the literacy rate was improving, how the death rate declining, how disease being stamped out, how. ...
‘Wait a minute,’ I interrupted. ‘Who’s she going to report all this to?’
‘The organization of the United Nations, when it’s been set up,’ answered Father. It was the first time I’d ever heard of this plan. ‘How else?’ I asked Father. ‘The Big Four — ourselves, Britain, China, the Soviet Union — we'll be responsible for the peace of the world after. ...
‘… It's already high time for us to be thinking of the future, building for it. ... These great powers will have to assume the tasks of bringing education, raising the standards of living, improving the health conditions — of all the backward, depressed colonial areas of the world.
‘And when they’ve had a chance to reach maturity, they must have the opportunity extended them of independence. After the United Nations as a whole have decided that they are prepared for it.
‘If this isn’t done, we might as well agree that we’re in for another war.’
Elliott’s book as quoted in the 17 September 1946 Look Magazine:
“Father remarked,” says Elliott Roosevelt, “on how British and French financiers had dredged riches out of colonies. ...” He continued later, “How do they belong to France? Why does Morocco, inhabited by Moroccans, belong to France? By what logic and custom and historical rule?”
Obviously, Winston Churchill’s dream came true when FDR died on 12 April 1945 and became replaced by Truman.
Among those statements by FDR, the one specifically regarding the Philippines has particular relevance today. The 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty violated what FDR had said to Churchill, “I’m glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946.” That U.S. commitment, “freedom,” to the Philippine nation, had already been made. He promised to Churchill that it would be fulfilled, and that therefore Churchill would not be able to say that America is an imperialist power as England is. It was a basic commitment from him. Furthermore, FDR said:
“No artificial barriers,” Father pursued. “As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.” His eye wandered innocently around the room.
Churchill shifted in his armchair. “The British Empire trade agreements,” he began heavily, “are — ”
Father broke in. “Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”
And: “‘The peace,’ said Father firmly, ‘cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples.’”
other nation is “dispensable.” Hitler had agreed with Obama’s view, except that in Hitler’s mind, Germany was the only indispensable nation. He linked bilateral, and also multilateral, trade treaties, to the creation of both World Wars. The United States, after his death, has used them in exactly the same way — building toward a WW III. Truman was the death of FDR’s plan. For example, Barack Obama’s proposed TTIP international-trade treaty for the Pacific was specifically designed against China, so as to isolate and diminish China in international trade — precisely the sorts of things that FDR had condemned in his statements to Churchill. Obama was an anti-FDR, pro-Truman, Democrat, who repeatedly emphasized, “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.” Everynation is “dispensable.” Hitler had agreed with Obama’s view, except that in Hitler’s mind, Germany was the only indispensable nation.
In a sense, Hitler posthumously won WW II. His ideology, imperialistic fascism, certainly did.
The Philippine President, Rodrigo Duterte, condemns U.S. imperialism and repels any dependency of his country upon the U.S. military . He explains “I have nothing against America. They’re perfectly alright. Trump is my friend. But my foreign policy has shifted from the pro-Western one. I am now working on alliance with China, and I hope to start a good working relationship with Russia. Why? Because the Western world, the EU, and everything – it’s all this double talk.”
CONSEQUENTLY:
The path forward for China will be increasingly for China to serve as a defender of the independence of the nations in its area (such as the Philippines), so that they won’t need to accept the U.S. regime’s offers of military assistance. Either this, or else China itself will cede control of its own neighborhood over to a distant enemy-nation, the ceaselessly grasping U.S. regime, and might as well just quit altogether, and become an American pawn itself.
Either all of the nations in that area will thrive together, or else the U.S.-UK alliance will succeed at crushing and swallowing-up them all.
This means that in the conflicts that China has with its nearby nations, China must grant those nations’ interests as being also China’s interests. China must accept its obligation to defend their interests in order to become enabled to assert its own. Only if this is done will those nearby nations ally with China against the U.S. Empire, not just militarily, but also in regard to commerce and trade. For China not to take on this obligation would be unacceptable, not only for China, but for the entire world. Regardless of what China wants, China has this obligation, now, to protect its region, against America’s billionaires, and their military, and their corporations.
However, the U.S. regime’s unmistakable threat now to block China’s freight-traffic through the South China Sea will succeed if China becomes the first side to attack and tries to down any U.S. forces there. Even if the U.S. strikes without warning and with no clear excuse, China will need to hold back for a while, before retaliating. The U.S. has arrayed an awesome striking force in that area. China will have to wait until the U.S. attacks it first, in any event, but now is the time for China to negotiate with its neighbors. Otherwise China will have almost the whole world against it, if China provides the bad optics of having been the first to strike.
During this time, therefore, China needs to be negotiating with each of the other regional players in order to persuade each one that only a unified facing-down against the U.S. in that region can even possibly salvage the independence of each one of them from now on. Russia may also need to be brought into the arrangement as a protector of China, just in case the U.S. turns out to be uncompromising in its intention to take over the entire world. Either Russia will soon enter this new World War that the UK-U.S. regimes are already waging, or else Russia will be forced to enter it only after Russia’s major allies will already have been swallowed-up by the U.S. The safer choice for Russia is consequently to enter the war sooner, as a guarantor for their side, their allies, the independent nations, than to enter it after those nations have already been defeated and swallowed-up.