Simplicius the Thinker has a new essay out—shorter than his SitReps—that examines an article by Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting.
A good reminder of the new pareto effect in world politics. The West is now the 20%, and Rest of World (RoW) is now the 80%. Yet western policymakers just cannot see this. I suspect that the neocons will do exactly as they did with Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine: keeping upping the ante until they get a massive beat-down. Unfortunately, the stakes and the risks get higher each time.
I was listening to the Duran boys talking about Vietnam and Putin's visit. Vietnam seems to be following the Chinese path: strong central control but let the economy and markets do their stuff.
More to this story? Great work, Mark (and Simplicius)! Important and thought-provoking. I offer the following. [1] The Rhodes article was published in Foreign Affairs, the in-house journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. Ergo, the target audience is the Washington foreign policy establishment (and Deep State), including – of course – the subservient media. [2] Ben Rhodes goes through life with his lips sewn to Barack Obama’s rear end. Therefore, this article should be held to be an OFFICIAL Obama proclamation from the “Kingmaker” and Power Behind the Throne. [3] Significance? That sound you heard was Zhou being thrown under the bus. [4] Who then is The Anointed One? [5] World peace and harmony can only be attained with a re-tuned NeoCon foreign policy guided by Ben and Barack (the day-to-day lives of the peasants do NOT matter). The NeoCon goals are the same, but it is time to put a different shade of lipstick on the pig; a different boot stamping forever on that face. [6] Clearly, The Anointed One must put forth and implement the foreign policy wisdom of Barack Obama and his circle. Someone held by Washington as a trusted expert in this area. No more going rogue! Someone with the stature and experience of a Secretary of State. [7] We still have some forlorn hope that The Anointed One will face an election in November in a process where the American people have a real choice of candidates, or appear to have one. [8] Now comes the clever and devious part. They will keep Cackles as VP, and thereby avoid offending some key constituencies. [9] The Anointed One will be Hilary Rodham Clinton! She (I hope I have used the correct pronoun here) can raise big bucks, including from our Israeli masters, and she is a super-aggrieved victim of Orange Man Bad and his Russian handlers. In one fell swoop, she will garner the votes of women and unify a swath of minorities. Look for Chelsea and Melinda Gates to have major roles in the campaign. [10] A Hilary victory will right the “stolen election” of 2016 (and how is that for irony?). The Ultimate Revenge. Want more evidence? How about Hilary BFF Huma plotting and scheming with Alex Soros (the roses on their table were just a perfect counterpoint to the complete phoniness and malice of that twisted pair). [11] But wait! But wait, some will say. Hilary is a lousy candidate with abysmal likeability by the voters. Just as a reminder, Hilary was a couple of campaign stops in Wisconsin from victory in 2016. Yep, a lot more to the story.
I think I like this Copeland fellow. I like his X bio line: "Author: A World Safe for Commerce (Princeton UP, 2024); Economic Interdependence and War (PUP, 2015);..." Apparently he thinks like I do that good economic relationships and dependencies tend to lessen the risk of war (even if they are somewhat one-sided). That is what scares me somewhat about a guy like Colby having influence in a Trump admin, combined with Trump's attitude of economic warfare against China. We saw economics used as a tool against Japan prior to WWII and now against Russia. I don't think that approach has proven successful and I think economic sanctions and tariffs are ultimately self-defeating and incendiary.
The debate as to why the China military buildup over 30 years is well worth having (even aside from it being in lieu of world war). Is it because they are bellicose and imperialist? Or because they truly prioritize their own security and defense (and accordingly want to be able to defend themselves from the U.S.?) It is hard to know for sure (obviously). But if you look at China's long history (I took a course in it in college eons ago), they have almost exclusively fought within the territory we know as China. The fighting has been to consolidate territory or power within that geographical sphere. One exception is when the Mongols conquered China but they had a different culture and civilizational ethos. Generally it seems the Chinese have held to the Confucian idea of valuing diplomacy and agreement for peace over war. Yes, they think they are the center of the universe (to some extent) and are superior (to some extent) but that hasn't translated into actions aimed at wanting to rule the world. At least not yet. I do believe their primary concern is their own security and well-being - and I think our "diplomats" should engage them accordingly.
“I like an analytical framework that distinguishes forms of competition, and I identify three. One form is rivalry. That can be very healthy because it consists of each side — sometimes more than two sides — but each side striving to improve its own performance, and thereby out-compete, outdo the others. That is a competition which is not a zero-sum game. It is positive in its outcomes. And that is what we had for a considerable period of time in the U.S.-China relationship.”
“[There is] ‘adversarial animosity.’ Adversarial animosity is what happens when a runner in a race decides that he or she can win only by tripping up or hamstringing the competitor. Rather than trying to improve his or her own performance, someone who practices this form of competition strives to cripple the opposition. That is where we are with China at the moment.
“[Then, there] is enmity, which implies a desire to annihilate the other side. Perhaps this is the word to describe the total wars that the United States has fought — the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Cold War — in which the objective was to destroy the enemy and reconstitute the enemy in a form more congenial to the values of the United States.”
“So, with China, we have moved from rivalry — healthy competition — to a very unhealthy competition in which our basic effort to compete is not to improve ourselves very much but to cripple the Chinese.”
Healthy competition is one thing. Wall Street tipped the scales in Chinas favour by deindustrialising the US. China gained, but banker/industrialist globalists, without allegiance except to themselves, gained more. Same old.
A good reminder of the new pareto effect in world politics. The West is now the 20%, and Rest of World (RoW) is now the 80%. Yet western policymakers just cannot see this. I suspect that the neocons will do exactly as they did with Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine: keeping upping the ante until they get a massive beat-down. Unfortunately, the stakes and the risks get higher each time.
Hmm. Pentagon antivax vs Sinovac in Ph:
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/the-pentagons-anti-vax-psyops-campaign?
Figures.
China’s leaderships goal driving their behaviors are:
- Keep communist party in control
- expand economy
- fix demographics issue
- expand export markets beyond West
- safeguard import routes
- secure raw materials
I was listening to the Duran boys talking about Vietnam and Putin's visit. Vietnam seems to be following the Chinese path: strong central control but let the economy and markets do their stuff.
More to this story? Great work, Mark (and Simplicius)! Important and thought-provoking. I offer the following. [1] The Rhodes article was published in Foreign Affairs, the in-house journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. Ergo, the target audience is the Washington foreign policy establishment (and Deep State), including – of course – the subservient media. [2] Ben Rhodes goes through life with his lips sewn to Barack Obama’s rear end. Therefore, this article should be held to be an OFFICIAL Obama proclamation from the “Kingmaker” and Power Behind the Throne. [3] Significance? That sound you heard was Zhou being thrown under the bus. [4] Who then is The Anointed One? [5] World peace and harmony can only be attained with a re-tuned NeoCon foreign policy guided by Ben and Barack (the day-to-day lives of the peasants do NOT matter). The NeoCon goals are the same, but it is time to put a different shade of lipstick on the pig; a different boot stamping forever on that face. [6] Clearly, The Anointed One must put forth and implement the foreign policy wisdom of Barack Obama and his circle. Someone held by Washington as a trusted expert in this area. No more going rogue! Someone with the stature and experience of a Secretary of State. [7] We still have some forlorn hope that The Anointed One will face an election in November in a process where the American people have a real choice of candidates, or appear to have one. [8] Now comes the clever and devious part. They will keep Cackles as VP, and thereby avoid offending some key constituencies. [9] The Anointed One will be Hilary Rodham Clinton! She (I hope I have used the correct pronoun here) can raise big bucks, including from our Israeli masters, and she is a super-aggrieved victim of Orange Man Bad and his Russian handlers. In one fell swoop, she will garner the votes of women and unify a swath of minorities. Look for Chelsea and Melinda Gates to have major roles in the campaign. [10] A Hilary victory will right the “stolen election” of 2016 (and how is that for irony?). The Ultimate Revenge. Want more evidence? How about Hilary BFF Huma plotting and scheming with Alex Soros (the roses on their table were just a perfect counterpoint to the complete phoniness and malice of that twisted pair). [11] But wait! But wait, some will say. Hilary is a lousy candidate with abysmal likeability by the voters. Just as a reminder, Hilary was a couple of campaign stops in Wisconsin from victory in 2016. Yep, a lot more to the story.
Not sure that the Obama team would let a Clinton back in. The hatred is too deep.
I read somewhere recently that, yes, she is waiting in the wings.
I think I like this Copeland fellow. I like his X bio line: "Author: A World Safe for Commerce (Princeton UP, 2024); Economic Interdependence and War (PUP, 2015);..." Apparently he thinks like I do that good economic relationships and dependencies tend to lessen the risk of war (even if they are somewhat one-sided). That is what scares me somewhat about a guy like Colby having influence in a Trump admin, combined with Trump's attitude of economic warfare against China. We saw economics used as a tool against Japan prior to WWII and now against Russia. I don't think that approach has proven successful and I think economic sanctions and tariffs are ultimately self-defeating and incendiary.
The debate as to why the China military buildup over 30 years is well worth having (even aside from it being in lieu of world war). Is it because they are bellicose and imperialist? Or because they truly prioritize their own security and defense (and accordingly want to be able to defend themselves from the U.S.?) It is hard to know for sure (obviously). But if you look at China's long history (I took a course in it in college eons ago), they have almost exclusively fought within the territory we know as China. The fighting has been to consolidate territory or power within that geographical sphere. One exception is when the Mongols conquered China but they had a different culture and civilizational ethos. Generally it seems the Chinese have held to the Confucian idea of valuing diplomacy and agreement for peace over war. Yes, they think they are the center of the universe (to some extent) and are superior (to some extent) but that hasn't translated into actions aimed at wanting to rule the world. At least not yet. I do believe their primary concern is their own security and well-being - and I think our "diplomats" should engage them accordingly.
Calling Chas Freeman! Here are some books from a real diplomat and China expert!
https://chasfreeman.net/books-and-publications/
Ambassador Freeman:
On the changing U.S.-China relationship:
“I like an analytical framework that distinguishes forms of competition, and I identify three. One form is rivalry. That can be very healthy because it consists of each side — sometimes more than two sides — but each side striving to improve its own performance, and thereby out-compete, outdo the others. That is a competition which is not a zero-sum game. It is positive in its outcomes. And that is what we had for a considerable period of time in the U.S.-China relationship.”
“[There is] ‘adversarial animosity.’ Adversarial animosity is what happens when a runner in a race decides that he or she can win only by tripping up or hamstringing the competitor. Rather than trying to improve his or her own performance, someone who practices this form of competition strives to cripple the opposition. That is where we are with China at the moment.
“[Then, there] is enmity, which implies a desire to annihilate the other side. Perhaps this is the word to describe the total wars that the United States has fought — the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Cold War — in which the objective was to destroy the enemy and reconstitute the enemy in a form more congenial to the values of the United States.”
“So, with China, we have moved from rivalry — healthy competition — to a very unhealthy competition in which our basic effort to compete is not to improve ourselves very much but to cripple the Chinese.”
https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/10/05/2023/we-dont-do-diplomacy-anymore-interview-us-ambassador-chas-w-freeman-jr
Healthy competition is one thing. Wall Street tipped the scales in Chinas favour by deindustrialising the US. China gained, but banker/industrialist globalists, without allegiance except to themselves, gained more. Same old.
He is brilliant and so articulate! And a real China Hand to boot.
Thanks, ML!
They are symptoms of a civilisation in terminal decline.
Yikes. And we in Europe are 5-8 hours ahead of you! :)