China and Russia have long endured massive threats. War hawk JFK against China, Russia, and Cuba

So many myths have been fed to the American people. Here’s more information about the real John F. Kennedy. [1] 
From Global Research
By Shane Quinn
February 15, 2018

In April 1962, the Kennedy administration ordered nuclear missiles to be sent to Japan’s Okinawa Island. The weapons were directed at the People’s Republic of China, a nation the Americans had “lost” to Communism 13 years before.

President John F. Kennedy‘s decision to aim missiles at China occurred six months before the Cuban Missile Crisis, known as the October Crisis in Cuba. The missiles Kennedy directed at Mao Zedong’s China were “near identical” to those aimed at the US, after the Soviet Union sent nuclear-armed weapons to Cuba in October 1962.

The American missiles on occupied Okinawa – an island just over 500 miles from China’s coast – were “over 75 times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima” in August 1945. The nuclear weapon that leveled Hiroshima killed about 80,000 people initially, mostly civilians. However, further tens of thousands later died after succumbing to severe radiation poisoning.

In the early 1960s, China possessed by far the world’s largest population, at almost 700 million. Any order obeyed to fire such destructive weapons at China would have killed unprecedented numbers. Yet the American missiles on Okinawa remained hidden from public knowledge, and has only come to light in recent times. The reason for Kennedy’s order for missiles to be readied on Okinawa, can be traced to intense friction between two of Asia’s largest countries.

A 1962 aerial photograph shows Okinawa’s first Mace missile site at Bolo Point, Yomitan. (Source: Larry Johnston via APJJF)

During 1962, antagonism soared between China and American-backed India – primarily over border disputes along the Himalayas. It culminated in the Sino-Indian conflict, starting on 20 October, with much of the fighting occurring at over 4,000 meters. This forgotten conflict also began in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as the Americans were entirely distracted with Cuba. After a month of bloody fighting, China emerged victorious having secured territorial gains.

History, up to the current day, suggests the US holds the right to erect weapons wherever it chooses, ignoring the potential consequences. For example, in 1961, president Kennedy positioned intermediate-range “Jupiter” nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey – this time aimed at Russia. The Turkish border is little more than 300 miles from Russia, separated alone by diminutive Georgia.

None of this was lost on the Russians. In May the following year (1962), the Soviet president Nikita Khrushchev complained to a confidant that the Americans “have surrounded us”. Kennedy’s reckless deployment of missiles was also a crucial factor leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Behind the thinking of his Cuban missile decision, Khrushchev explained following his retirement that the Americans

“would learn just what it feels like to have enemy missiles pointing at you; we’d be doing nothing more than giving them a little of their own medicine”.

The enormous threats against Russia also had a deeper psychological impact. Over the past century and more, Russia was repeatedly invaded and almost destroyed by invading armies. From Napoleon Bonaparte’s 1812 offensive, through to Operation Barbarossa overseen by Adolf Hitler in 1941.

The intimidation of Russia, a long-time nuclear power, has continued apace to the present day. One significant menace is the continued existence of NATO as an organization – and the presence of its troops and weapons along Russia’s frontiers. NATO receives much of its funding from America, so is in reality a tool of imperialism, posing a significant global security threat.

In more rational times Dwight D. Eisenhower, NATO’s first supreme commander, wrote in 1951 that NATO

“will have failed” if “in 10 years all American troops stationed in Europe… have not been returned to the United States”.

Eisenhower would become a re-elected US president (1953-61), so his was not a voice without weight. It would be interesting to gauge his reaction if he knew that, by 2018, American troops were still present on European soil. This reality may have disturbed George Kennan too, the farsighted former US ambassador to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, himself no dove. In 1996 Kennan described NATO expansion eastwards, in continued violation of agreements, as “a strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions”.

Meanwhile, a further critical element in the placing of Soviet missiles in Cuba, was the Kennedy administration’s assaults on the island nation. There was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961, which ended in a Cuban rout of US-backed forces. Stung by this embarrassment, in January 1962 Kennedy outlined that “the Cuban problem” is “the top priority in the United States government”.

The ensuing Operation Mongoose brought the “terrors of the earth” to Cuba – a quote attributed to Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy’s top Latin American advisor. In the months before the missile crisis, Cuba was subjected to widescale terrorist attacks directed from America. This included the bombing of Cuban hotels and petrochemical plants, poisoning of crops and livestock, attacks on fishing boats, the tainting of sugar exports, etc.

In March 1962, it was made clear that the assaults were to lead to “final success” which would “require decisive US intervention”. The renewed invasion of Cuba was dated for October 1962 – it is no coincidence that Khrushchev sent his missiles to Cuba during the same month.

As the missile crisis peaked, the world came perilously close to a nuclear war, largely due to Kennedy’s hegemonic policies. This was all concealed from the American public, who were repeatedly informed the blame lay squarely with the USSR and its Cuban ally.

Image result for posada and bosch

Bosch and Posada (Source: Cuba Headlines)

Following the de-escalation in late October, the US immediately recommenced terrorist operations against Cuba. These murderous acts continued for decades in various forms. This included American support for the Cuban exiles, Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, two of the worst international terrorists of the post-World War II period.

Posada Carriles and Bosch are most infamously remembered for masterminding the 1976 destruction of a Cuban airliner, killing all 73 people aboard. However, the duo were also responsible for countless other terrorist attacks on embassies, consuls, tourist industries, ambassadors, civilians, etc. – not just in Cuba – but across Latin America.

Furthermore, the US continues its blockade of Cuba, which has lasted for more than five decades – despite opposition from virtually the entire world. The embargo was first introduced by Kennedy himself in October 1962.

After visiting Cuba two years ago, then president Barack Obama said he and Raul Castro “continue to have serious differences, including on democracy and human rights”. One could forgive the Cuban leader for being somewhat perplexed by this statement. Not mentioned by Obama was America’s efforts to bring “democracy and human rights” to Cuba, in the form of vicious terrorist assaults and economic strangulation.

Nor did Obama highlight Cuba’s central role in liberating southern Africa from apartheid. South Africa’s racist regime was heavily supported by the US, yet it appears trivial facts such as these are not worthy of mention by Obama, or indeed, the mainstream press.

Since the 1950s, the American record in introducing “human rights” and “freedom” to the world makes something of a mockery of its projected image. Instead, it is Cuba that has long been vilified by Western elites for supposed human rights abuses.

*

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. 

[1] Also, for those with the stomach, there is  The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh about the Kennedy presidency.

Andre Vltchek: Why I reject Western courts and justice

From Global Research

By Andre Vltchek

June 23, 2017

There is a small courthouse from the ‘British era’, standing right in the center of Hong Kong. It is neat, well-built, remarkably organized and some would even say – elegant. 

Earlier this year I visited there with an Afghan-British lawyer, who had been touring East Asia for several months. Hong Kong was her last destination; afterwards she was planning to return home to London. The Orient clearly confused and overwhelmed her, and no matter how ‘anti-imperialist’ she tried to look, most of her references were clearly going back to the adoptive homeland – the United Kingdom.

“It looks like England,” she exclaimed when standing in the middle of Hong Kong. There was clearly excitement and nostalgia in her voice.

To cheer her up even more, I took her to the courthouse. My good intentions backfired: as we were leaving, she uttered words that I expected but also feared for quite some time:

“You know, there are actually many good things that can be said about the British legal system.”

*

I thought about that short episode in Hong Kong now, as I drove all around her devastated country of childhood, Afghanistan. As always, I worked without protection, with no bulletproof vests, armored vehicles or military escorts, just with my Afghan driver who doubled as my interpreter and also as my friend. It was Ramadan and to let him rest, I periodically got behind the wheel. We were facing countless detentions, arrests and interrogations by police, military and who knows what security forces, but we were moving forward, always forward, despite all obstacles.

From that great distance, from the heights of the mountains of Afghanistan, the courthouse in Hong Kong kept falling into proportion and meaningful perspective.

It was surrounded by an enormous city, once usurped and sodomized by the British Crown. A city where ‘unruly locals’ were being killed, tortured, flogged and regularly imprisoned.

And it was not only Hong Kong that has suffered: the entire enormous country of China with one of the oldest and greatest cultures on Earth had been brutally ransacked, including its splendid capital – Beijing – that was invaded and almost totally destroyed by the French and British troops. For a long period, China was divided, humiliated, impoverished and tormented.

But the courthouse, a little neat temple of colonialist justice, now stood in the middle of the once occupied city, whispering about the days when it offered certainty and pride to all those who came to Hong Kong as colonizers, as well as to all those who served and licked the boots of their British masters.

The courthouse was providing confidence to people who were longing for one, just as they did during the grotesque and perverse days, as well as now.

Behind its walls ruled clearly defined and meticulously obeyed spirit of fairness: if one’s chicken got slaughtered, or if one’s tricycle god smashed by a hammer of a mad shopkeeper, the legendary British justice was administered promptly and properly.

Some people would argue, of course, that the entire colonialism was unjust, that the killing of tens of millions of people in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere was much more noteworthy than settling fairly and justly some domestic or real estate dispute. Such voices, however, have been always quickly silenced, or bought (with money, diplomas, or other means).

Certainly, the British Crown has been busy subjugating entire countries and continents, murdering innocent people, freely plundering and enslaving men, women and children. Tens of millions died in the British-triggered famines alone, on the Sub-Continent and elsewhere. But that was done “outside” the legal framework, and it was never fit to be discussed publicly in a ‘polite society’, by both the English people as well as by the émigré elites.

Now the UK has been absorbed by the ‘great’ Western Empire, governed by its offspring. Global genocides continue to murder millions. For those, no one gets punished, while the fines for speeding or not wearing seat belts are getting transparently dispersed among the servile citizens of the British Isles.

You kick your dog in public, and you could get arrested, then fined, or perhaps even thrown into jail. You shout at your girlfriend, she runs to police, and they open a ‘criminal investigation’ against you.

You shoot a few missiles at some independent country, killing dozens of innocent people, and it is business as usual. You overthrow some ‘unruly’ African government, and no court of justice, local or international, would even bother to hear the case against you, properly and seriously.

Continue reading

Responsible actions needed to ensure peace on the Korean Peninsula — a Chinese perspective

Global Research, May 01, 2017
People’s Daily 30 April 2017

Given the continued escalation of tensions on the Korean Peninsula over the past months, all concerned parties should implement the resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council in a more strict manner and return to peaceful negotiations, the People’s Daily said in an editorial published on Sunday.

The commentary came after Friday’s ministerial meeting on the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula hosted by the UN Security Council at the UN headquarters in New York.

The latest developments on the peninsula highlighted an imperative need for all parties to intensify their efforts to bring stakeholders to dialogue table, added the commentary published under the pen name Zhong Sheng, which is often used to express the paper’s views on foreign policy.

It is reasonable for the DPRK to pursue its own security, but its nuclear and missile ambitions have put itself and the whole region into dire peril, stressed the article titled “Responsible actions are needed to ensure peace of Korean Peninsula”.

The country has been immersed itself into a strong sense of insecurity given historic reasons and reality, the paper added.

The DPRK must not be obsessed in a wrong path of repeated nuclear tests and missile launches that resulted in rounds of sanctions, the commentary said, calling on the country to respect and comply with the relevant Security Council resolutions.

The article pointed out that the Republic of Korea(ROK) and the US also added fuel to the escalated tensions since the two allies, who have been maintaining a high-handed pressure on the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula, revealed a strategic intention to crush the DPRK.

It is almost impossible to ease the crisis on the peninsula if the ROK and the US continue their fantasy to settle the problem with more military actions but turn a blind eye to reasonable appeals of the DPRK, the paper stressed.

China is not a directly-concerned party of the peninsula crisis, and it does not hold the key to solving the nuclear issue on the peninsula, the commentary admitted.

But it emphasized that no matter what happens, China will never waiver in its clear-cut position regarding the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, which means it will stay committed to the goal of denuclearization as well as the path of dialogue and negotiation.

In the next step, the DPRK should refrain from further nuclear test or missile launches, the article urged, adding that the ROK and the US, for their part, also need to stop launching or expanding their military drills or deployment against the DPRK.

All stakeholders need to comprehensively understand and fully implement the DPRK-related resolutions adopted by the Security Council, the paper said. The international community needs to step up their anti-proliferation efforts against the DPRK action. Meanwhile,all parties also need to do more to persuade stakeholders back to peaceful dialogues, it added.

China will, with its utmost sincerity and efforts, safeguard the peace and stability of Northeast Asia and realize the goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula along with relevant parties, the paper vowed, stressing that though a peace lover, the country is fearless of any provocations or tests.

China has proposed the “dual-track approach” and “suspension for suspension” plan for peaceful settlement of the issue, in an attempt to help the parties breakout of the security dilemma and return to the negotiating table.

The objective, reasonable and feasible proposals, according to the editorial, not only conform to the requirements of the UN resolutions, but also meet the fundamental interest of all parties including the US and the DPRK.

Translated from Chinese, People’s Daily, April 2017.

Top Secret – Beijing has become one of the greatest cities on Earth!

Global Research, February 28, 2017
Chinese_flag_(Beijing)_-_IMG_1104

Open your eyes and see for yourself. Unclog your ears and hear. Discard your preconceptions, of all those propaganda refrains that are accompanying the myriad of brainwashing tunes that are being spread by the Western indoctrination media.

For decades, smearing Beijing, while negating its greatness, has been one of the most effective weapons used by the US and Europe in their cultural anti-revolutionary war against all those great independent nations of the planet, especially China.

For those who want to taste the reality, the best advice would be: enter Beijing and let Beijing speak for itself, without an intermediary or ‘interpreter’. But could it be done? Aren’t biases already too deeply engrained in the psyche of most of the people worldwide, people that are bombarded by professional disinformation campaigns manufactured by the Empire and its mouthpieces?

“I used to cry almost every night, from hopelessness and pain,” I was once told by one of the greatest contemporary concert pianists, Yuan Sheng, who decided to return to his native Beijing many years ago. “When I lived in New York, when I read and heard all those lies about my country and my city, I felt so helpless. I couldn’t explain the truth, as nobody around me was willing to listen.”

Old rattles have been played day and night on the BBC, the CNN and many other official channels of the West: the tear-jerking stories depicting the plights of the migrant workers, or some gruesome portrayals of China’s human rights record (all based on extremely arrogant Western dogmas, thoroughly incompatible with Chinese and Asian culture), or the mainstream interpretation of the Tiananmen Square events, or the loud and hypocritical laments about the disappearance of some old neighborhoods, and not to speak of the loud salvoes fired against Beijing’s ‘disastrous’ air pollution and traffic jams.

When a tremendous effort by the government had been made to accommodate the migrant workers arriving from the poorer provinces to Beijing and to other major cities, and when, simultaneously, the standard of living began to rise dramatically all over the Chinese countryside, the topic got quietly shelved. Hardly any credit has been given to the country’s leadership.

When new evidence about the 1989 Tiananmen events began to surface, when it was proved, again and again, that the West actually infiltrated and supported the so called ‘student pro-democracy movement’; and when the facts about the extremely violent nature of many of those ‘students’ became simply undisputable, the Western media clenched its fists and never backpedaled, never bothered to present arguments ‘from the other side’. On the contrary, it turned up the volume of its monotonous propagandist cacophony. Until now, in the eyes of the general Western public, Tiananmen Square is synonymous with ‘oppression’ and not with the great revolutionary history and stunning monumental beauty.

 

Brian Becker wrote for LiberationNews.org :

The fictionalized version of the “massacre” was later corrected in some very small measure by Western reporters who had participated in the fabrications and who were keen to touch up the record so that they could say they made “corrections.” But by then it was too late and they knew that too. Public consciousness had been shaped. The false narrative became the dominant narrative. They had successfully massacred the facts to fit the political needs of the U.S. government.

“Most of the hundreds of foreign journalists that night, including me, were in other parts of the city… Those who tried to remain close filed dramatic accounts that, in some cases, buttressed the myth of a student massacre,” wrote Jay Mathews, the Washington Post’s first Bureau Chief in Beijing, in a 1998 article in the Columbia Journalism Review.

Mathews’ article, which includes his own admissions to using the terminology of the Tiananmen Square massacre, came nine years after the fact and he acknowledged that corrections later had little impact.

As for violations of human rights in China in general and Beijing in particular, only one (Western) view is commonly presented in the West. As Tom Zwart (professor of cross-cultural law and human rights at Utrecht University) wrote on January 21st, 2017 for China Daily:

Generally, Western states seem to be strongly attached to promoting their own position and using it as a benchmark to judge others… While Western states are uncompromising about their own stance on human rights, China is keen on achieving harmony and therefore attaches less value to human rights dogma.

That is certainly a nobler approach, but the loud shouting, simplifications and vulgar insults coming from the Western media, politicians and academia, are effectively indoctrinating billions worldwide.

But let’s return to Beijing.

The Demolition of several old hutons in the capital was never presented (by Western media) for what it really was: as part of the great effort to improve living conditions and sanitation of the poor people. Instead it was portrayed as some atrocious crime against the city’s history and culture. Never mind that all truly architecturally valuable old neighborhoods were painstakingly preserved and restored, as were actually almost all important structures of the capital. Never mind that when asked, most huton dwellers are actually grateful for being awarded with comfortable and modern flats.

What about pollution? I encountered people in all corners of the world, who swore that they would never set foot in Beijing, as the pollution levels there are hazardous, almost murderous. Most of these same people said that they’d have no objections to travel to much more polluted cities which are located in the ‘client’ states of the West and therefore managed to escape the toughest criticism: Jakarta, Manila, Phnom Penh and Bangkok, to give just a few examples.

There is hardly any mention, at least in the West, that for years and decades Beijing has been engaged in an epic fight against pollution and in support of the environment: the massive improvement of ecological public transportation (already 17 mostly modern metro lines are in service, countless trolley bus lines, encouragement of electric vehicles, wide sidewalks and introduction of shared bicycles, plus several revolutionary new forms of public transportation soon to be introduced). There are tough emission controls in place, and a ban on scooters. There is also the huge expansion of green areas around and inside the city, as well as the recently imposed ban on smoking (one of the toughest in the world).

 

It was recently reported by local Chinese media outlets (including China Daily) that:

The Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region saw improvements in air quality in 2016… the average concentration of PM2.5, a hazardous pollutant, has decreased by 33 percent compared to the level of 2013…

Many other indicators have improved as well, although mentioning this fact on regular basis in the mainstream Western media would be ‘unacceptably pro-Chinese’.

*

In the last two decades, Beijing has become one of the world’s most exciting cities.

Its cultural life is second to none.

One of the curators of the National Center for Performing Arts (also known as “The Egg”, the largest opera house and performing center in the world) once explained to me:

When I used to live in London, I was dreaming about all those great world-class musicians and performers. Now I’m having meetings and dinners with them, all the time. It is because almost all great artists want to come to Beijing; to perform here.

One of the greatest (and free for all) museums on Earth, the China National Museum, is presently hosting two parallel world-class exhibitions: on the archeological treasures of Saudi Arabia, and the other on the collection from the Louvre Museum. In that institution, some of the greatest masterpieces of Salvador Dali rub shoulders with Chinese revolutionary art and anti-imperialist manifestos.

But now there are actually dozens of world-class museums and concert halls all over Beijing. In the iconic “798” (an old and massive weapons factory located on the outskirts of the city, which used to cover several square kilometers), literally hundreds of avant-garde art galleries are exhibiting everything from Western mainstream art including Andy Warhol or fashion images of Conde Nast, to the most ‘outrageous’ and politically daring ‘radical’ art, critical of the West, of capitalism, in China, and even of the government itself, is on display. It is mind-blowing! There is nothing like this anywhere in the West. Beijing artists are without any doubt much more innovative, daring and free than those in Paris, London or New York.

And on the other side of the city, around the ancient lakes and canals, dozens of clubs are hosting great bands from Africa and other parts of the world.

 

A prolific writer based in China, Jeff Brown contributed to this essay:

Beijing is one of the world’s greatest repositories of ancient history and modern humanities, showing off hundreds of world class museums, galleries, parks, temples, squares, shrines, monuments, mountains, lakes and rivers – all within a one-hour drive of the city center. You don’t need a car anyway. Beijing has the world’s largest metro system, 1,000 public bus routes and 66,000 licensed taxis to get you to all these myriad sites.

Since 1949, metropolitan Beijing has planted over a half a billion trees, shrubs and flowering bushes, as well as millions of square kilometers of green belts along the fringes of the nearby Gobi Desert, to stop its southern advance and to reduce dust levels blowing in from the north. By 2050, Beijing will have planted 100 billion trees to its north, covering more than ten percent of the country’s landmass

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2874368/Will-China-s-Great-GREEN-Wall-save-country-dust-storms-100-billion-tree-project-halt-advancing-Gobi-Desert.html.

This greenification program continues with a passion and love for nature. Beijing has identified and coddles, like rock stars, 40,000 urban trees that are over 100 years old, some dating back more than 1,000 years

http://www.fao.org/docrep/u9300e/u9300e04.htm

Contrary to ceaseless propaganda in the West, Beijing and all of China’s cities have shown nonstop improvement in air quality, and Beijing is spending billions to keep bettering its environment. This has been going on since the 1990s, something I can personally attest to

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-01/04/content_27853288.htm.

Tetovo, Cairo, Kathmandu, Accra, Manila, Delhi, Beirut, Ulaanbaatar, Baku, Dhaka and Sao Paulo, among others, all had higher 2016 pollution indexes than China’s capital, but only Beijing gets the mainstream media black eye

https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings.jsp?title=2016.

Why? Because Beijing is the heart and soul of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and thus, is not a NATO doormat and puppet, an intolerable affront to Western capitalism.

Proud, forward-looking, full of hope and dreams, Beijing is marching forward.

The West which is clearly in permanent decay, is shooting its poisonous but powerless arrows tinted with nihilism and spite, towards the great capital of this enormous nation which, after a long and dark period of humiliation and suffering is finally reclaiming its rightful place in the world.*

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and  Fighting Against Western Imperialism. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

U.S. Congress orders review of Russian & Chinese leadership’s nuclear strike ‘survivability’

From RT
January 30, 2017

US Congress orders review of Russian & Chinese leadership’s nuclear strike ‘survivability’

US provoking China into nuclear war? RT to air new Pilger documentary

From RT

https://www.rt.com/news/369577-us-provoking-china-nuclear-war/video/

© thecomingwarmovie.com

Nuclear war is no longer unthinkable as it may be provoked by a US military build-up in the Pacific, clearly aimed at confronting Beijing, John Pilger says in his new documentary ‘The Coming War on China’, set to be aired on rt.com and the RTD channel.

According to the BAFTA-winning journalist and filmmaker, mainstream media reports of Beijing’s ambitious expansion and reclaiming of land in the South China Sea is in fact a response to US military activity around its borders.

US President Barack Obama’s pivot to Asia in 2011 has resulted in the construction of 400 American bases, including in Guam, elsewhere in the South China Sea, South Korea and Japan – thereby encircling China.

Trailer: https://vimeo.com/191985092

Together they form what Pilger called in his film “a noose around China,” which is made of missiles, warships and nuclear weapons.

“The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama, has committed trillions of dollars to our nuclear arsenal. He’s committing trillions of future dollars to war in space. And we need an enemy for all this money and China is the perfect enemy,” James Bradley, author of China Mirage, says in the documentary.

The media is playing a key role in promoting this idea as “the threat of China is becoming big news,”Pilger states in ‘The Coming War on China’, adding that what is not reported is that China itself is under threat.

The award winning journalist recently appeared on RT’s Going Underground program, saying how dangerous US attempts to provoke China really are.

“The point about all of this is that, I don’t think anyone wants a nuclear war or even a war between great powers like the US and China. But what’s happening here is that laying of ground, a landscape of potential mistakes and accidents,” Pilger told host Afshin Rattansi.

“So, we’re back to that almost estranged Stranglove world that we were worried about,” he added, referring to Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 movie ‘Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,’ which satirizes the threat of nuclear conflict between the US and Soviet Union.

The documentary contains Pilger’s interview with US Assistant Secretary of State, Daniel R. Russel, who states that the American presence in the Pacific is “is warmly welcomed by the vast majority of the coastal states” and “is fully accepted by the Chinese.”

Which, according to Pilger, is far from the truth. “My impression is that they are scared,” he says.

READ MORE: US panel on China concerned by Beijing’s growing military might, urges Congress to investigate

“We stand at a few minutes to midnight in terms of the threat of nuclear war. That aim of this film is to break a science. A nuclear war is no longer unthinkable,” Pilger said of his documentary.

Watch ‘The Coming War on China’ film on December 9, 10, 11 on RT.com and RT’s documentary channel RTD.

https://www.rt.com/news/369577-us-provoking-china-nuclear-war/

Video: Russia and China challenge the Monroe Doctrine, Russia’s military facilities in Latin America

Global Research, July 16, 2016

One of the dogmas of US foreign policy is the so-called Monroe Doctrine dating back to, surprisingly enough, President James Monroe who in 1823 said, in an address before US Congress, that outside powers’ efforts to colonize or exploit Latin American countries would be viewed as acts of aggression by the United States. The sentence above pretty much encapsulates the average American’s understanding of the doctrine.

What is left unsaid is that the doctrine has no legal standing. It is not an international treaty or agreement, and the US Congress has not granted the Presidency a blanket authority to go to war against any external power encroaching upon the US “exclusive preserve.” What is equally left unsaid is Monroe’s quid pro quo: the US would likewise refrain from meddling in European politics, which radically changes the actual meaning of the doctrine. It is not merely an assertion of US dominance over a region, but rather a not reciprocated offer of a sphere of influence division between the US and European powers which actually came close to being codified in the form of the UN Security Council which, by granting veto power to its five permanent members, de facto divided the world into five spheres of influence.

Those days of US restraint and respect for international treaties are long gone. On the one hand, successive US administrations invoke various “open door” doctrines in order to intervene in every corner of the planet, usually with dire consequences, while at the same time seeking to preserve the Americas  for the US to exploit and colonize and deprive the sovereign states of that region the right to choose its allies and economic partners. Naturally, from the perspective of international law, such unilateral actions are untenable, and accepting them would set the precedent of recognizing the US as a privileged international actor, in effect making “American Exceptionalism” an internationally acknowledged reality.

This is the context in which Russian military installations in Latin America ought to be viewed. From the military point of view, their presence is as, if not more, important for political reasons than military ones.

These installations include the Lurdes Radioelectronic Reconnaissance Center which became operational in 1967, collecting intelligence for the GRU, KGB, and the Soviet Navy. Decommissioned in 2002, the site could be made operational should the circumstances require it, with Cuban government’s permission. At the moment there are no plans to do so, however.

In March 2016 the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had stated that there are no plans to reactivate Lurdes, ostensibly because the Russian Federation can gather the necessary intelligence by other means. In actuality, the status of Lurdes likely depends on the degree of US military aggressiveness in Eastern Europe. Luckily at the moment NATO, for all its belligerent rhetoric, does not want to go too far in provoking Russia, hence the “rotating” NATO troop presence which would be politically less difficult to back out of than permanent bases.

While the status of Lurdes is frozen, another project, this time in Nicaragua, is moving forward. Russia is establishing a GLONASS navigation system station in the country, a move that instantly led some in the US claim it is a reconnaissance installation. The station is part of a larger package of Russia-Nicaragua cooperation that also entails the provision of 50 T-72 tanks to the country. In the preceding years, and most recently in 2013, Nicaragua has been visited by Russian strategic bombers that also took the opportunity to visit Venezuela.

Collectively, these measures are relatively modest and are not comparable to US initiatives in Eastern Europe. There is certainly no discussion of another “Cuban Missile Crisis” type confrontation. Here one has to keep in mind that Russia is not the only international actor interested in defying the US-imposed quarantine of Latin America.

China has similar interests for identical reasons, namely the need to respond to the US encroachment of its positions around the South China Sea. China’s interest in Latin America has also been evidenced by the discussions of a so-called Nicaragua Canal that would offer an alternative to the US-controlled Panama Canal, an initiative that Washington also strongly opposes. Therefore if the US provocations toward both Russia and China continue, Latin America could very easily become a catalyst for closer security cooperation between the two countries.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

American propaganda works — Gallup Poll results on “main threat” to the U.S.

America has excelled at marketing since its inception. Hollywood and Madison Avenue are the visible marks of that success — selling “America” to the world which is no more real, lasting,or good than a Western stage set.

Edward Bernays was hired to push American products and American adventures abroad.

Demonizing is another form as well as an American pastime. And bingo! it works, at least for gullible Americans, who seem allergic to doing their own investigation and love playing the victim.

The latest Gallup poll showed who Americans regard as the biggest threat.

Question: Was “America” on the list?

From Fort Russ

Americans Name New Main Threat to the U.S

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
23rd February, 2016
 
A Gallup poll among Americans revealed that U.S citizens have changed their mind, and have highlighted a new main threat to the country.
According to the survey, the leading position on the list of threats to the United States in the opinion of Americans is North Korea (16%), followed by Russia (15%), followed by Iran (14%) and China (12%), reports RIA Novosti.
According to Gallup, this year respondent’s views on the main enemy were more varied than ever. Only four countries which Americans fear have remained unchanged over the last three years. The survey, which was conducted by telephone from 3rd to 7th February, involved 1021 participants.

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/02/americans-name-new-main-threat-to-us.html

Council on Foreign Relations’ grand strategy: China must be defeated, the TPP is essential to undermine China

In examining the CFR report on China, this excellent article provides possible background into the recent terrorist attack in Mali. It also gives perspective on Robert Legvold, invited by the Valdai Club to moderate the final key session with President Putin at its recent symposium. Legvold is connected with CFR and the Rockefeller-founded Harriman Institute.
Global Research, May 05, 2015
china-us

Wall Street’s Council on Foreign Relations has issued a major report, alleging that China must be defeated because it threatens to become a bigger power in the world than the U.S.

This report, which is titled Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” is introduced by Richard Haass, the CFR’s President, who affirms the report’s view that, “no relationship will matter more when it comes to defining the twenty-first century than the one between the United States and China.” He says that the report he is publishing argues that “strategic rivalry is highly likely if not inevitable between the existing major power of the day and the principal rising power.” Haass says that the authors “also argue that China has not evolved into the ‘responsible stakeholder’ that many in the United States hoped it would.” In other words: “cooperation” with China will probably need to become replaced by, as the report’s authors put it, “intense U.S.-China strategic competition.

Haass gives this report his personal imprimatur by saying that it “deserves to become an important part of the debate about U.S. foreign policy and the pivotal U.S.-China relationship.” He acknowledges that some people won’t agree with the views it expresses.

The report itself then opens by saying: “Since its founding, the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals, first on the North American continent, then in the Western hemisphere, and finally globally.” It praises “the American victory in the Cold War.” It then lavishes praise on America’s imperialistic dominance:

“The Department of Defense during the George H.W. Bush administration presciently contended that its ‘strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor’thereby consciously pursuing the strategy of primacy that the United States successfully employed to outlast the Soviet Union.”

The rest of the report is likewise concerned with the international dominance of America’s aristocracy or the people who control this country’s international corporations, rather than with the welfare of the public or as the U.S. Constitution described the objective of the American Government: “the general welfare.”

The Preamble, or sovereignty clause, in the Constitution, presented that goal in this broader context:

 ”in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

The Council on Foreign Relations, as a representative of Wall Street, is concerned only with the dominance of America’s aristocracy. Their new report, about “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” is like a declaration of war by America’s aristocracy, against China’s aristocracy. This report has no relationship to the U.S. Constitution, though it advises that the U.S. Government pursue this “Grand Strategy Toward China” irrespective of whether doing that would even be consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble.

The report repeats in many different contexts the basic theme, that China threatens “hegemonic” dominance in Asia. For example:

“China’s sustained economic success over the past thirty-odd years has enabled it to aggregate formidable power, making it the nation most capable of dominating the Asian continent and thus undermining the traditional U.S. geopolitical objective of ensuring that this arena remains free of hegemonic control.”

The report never allows the matter of America’s “hegemonic control” to be even raised. Thus, “hegemony” is presumed to be evil and to be something that the U.S. must block other nations from having, because there is a “traditional U.S. geopolitical objective of ensuring that this arena remains free of hegemonic control.” In other words: the U.S. isn’t being “hegemonic” by defeating aspiring hegemons. The report offers no term to refer to “hegemony” that’s being practiced by the U.S.

The report presents China as being supremacist, such as what (to quote again from the report) “historian Wang Gungwu has described as a ‘principle of superiority’ underwriting Beijing’s ‘long-hallowed tradition of treating foreign countries as all alike but unequal and inferior to China.’ Consistent with this principle, Henry Kissinger, describing the traditional sinocentric system, has correctly noted that China ‘considered itself, in a sense, the sole sovereign government of the world.’” America’s own ‘Manifest Destiny’ or right to regional (if not global) supremacy is not discussed, because supremacism is attributed only to the aristocracies in other countries, not to the aristocracy in this country.

Rather than the “general welfare,” this document emphasizes “U.S. Vital National Interests,” which are the interests of America’s aristocrats, the owners of America’s large international corporations.

This report urges:

“The United States should invest in defense capabilities and capacity specifically to defeat China’s emerging anti-access capabilities and permit successful U.S. power projection even against concerted opposition from Beijing. … Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget.”

In other words: the Government should spiral upward the U.S. debt even more vertically (which is good for Wall Street), and, in order to enable the increased ‘defense’ expenditures, only ‘defense’ expenditures should be freed from spending-caps. Forget the public, serve the owners of ‘defense’ firms and of the large international corporations who rely on the U.S. military to protect their property abroad.

The report says that China would have no reason to object to such policies: “There is no reason why a China that did not seek to overturn the balance of power in Asia should object to the policy prescriptions contained in this report.” Only a “hegemonic” China (such as the report incessantly alleges to exist, while the U.S. itself is not ‘hegemonic’) would object; and, therefore, the U.S. should ignore China’s objections, because they would be, by definition ‘hegemonic.’ Or, in other words: God is on our side, not on theirs.

“Washington simply cannot have it both ways—to accommodate Chinese concerns regarding U.S. power projection into Asia through ’strategic reassurance’ and at the same time to promote and defend U.S. vital national interests in this vast region.”

The authors make clear that U.S. President Obama is not sufficiently hostile toward China: “All signs suggest that President Obama and his senior colleagues have a profoundly different and much more benign diagnosis of China’s strategic objectives in Asia than do we.”

Furthermore, the report ends by portraying Obama as weak on the anti-China front: “Many of these omissions in U.S. policy would seem to stem from an administration worried that such actions would offend Beijing and therefore damage the possibility of enduring strategic cooperation between the two nations, thus the dominating emphasis on cooperation. That self-defeating preoccupation by the United States based on a long-term goal of U.S.-China strategic partnership that cannot be accomplished in the foreseeable future should end.”

The report’s “Recommendations for U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China” urges Congress to “Deliver on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, … as a geoeconomic answer to growing Chinese economic power and geopolitical coercion in Asia,” but it fails to mention that the Obama Administration has already embodied the authors’ viewpoint and objectives in the TPP, which Obama created, and which cuts China out; it could hardly be a better exemplar of their agenda. The authors, in fact, state the exact opposite: that Obama’s objective in his TPP has instead been merely “as a shot in the arm of a dying Doha Round at the World Trade Organization (WTO).” They even ignore that Obama had cut China out of his proposed TPP.

Furthermore, here is what President Obama himself told graduating West Point cadets on 28 May 2014:

“Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.”

He was saying that these future military leaders will be using guns and bombs to enforce America’s economic dominance. This is the same thing that the CFR report is saying.

His speech also asserted:

I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. … The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.”

(That even resembles: “Henry Kissinger, describing the traditional sinocentric system, has correctly noted that China ‘considered itself, in a sense, the sole sovereign government of the world.’” Obama is, in a sense, saying that America is the “sole sovereign government in the world.”)

He made clear that China is “dispensable,” and that the U.S. must stay on top.

However, there is a difference between Obama and the CFR on one important thing: Obama sees Russia as the chief country over which the U.S. must dominate militarily, and China as the chief country to dominate economically. But in that regard, he is actually old-line Republican, just like his 2012 opponent Mitt Romney is. The only difference from Romney on that is: Obama wasn’t so foolish as to acknowledge publicly a belief that he shared with Romney but already knew was an unpopular position to take in the general election.

Furthermore, whereas the CFR report ignores the public’s welfare, Obama does give lip-service to that as being a matter of concern (just as he gave lip-service to opposing Romney’s assertion that Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe”). After all, he is a ‘Democrat,’ and the authors of the CFR report write instead as if they were presenting a Republican Party campaign document. No ‘Democrat’ can be far-enough to the political right to satisfy Republican operatives. The pretense that they care about the public is therefore far less, because the Republican Party is far more open about its support of, by, and for, the super-rich. Mitt Romney wasn’t the only Republican who had contempt for the lower 47%. But even he tried to deny that he had meant it. In that sense, the CFR’s report is a Republican document, one which, quite simply, doesn’t offer the public the lip-service that Obama does (and which he politically must, in order to retain support even within his own party).

Perhaps on account of the CFR report’s condemning Obama for not being sufficiently right-wing — even though he is actually a conservative Republican on all but social issues (where China policy isn’t particularly relevant) — the report has received no mention in the mainstream press, ever since it was originally issued, back in March of this year. For whatever reason, America’s ‘news’ media ignored the report, notwithstanding its importance as an expression of old-style imperialistic thinking that comes from what many consider to be the prime foreign-affairs mouthpiece of America’s aristocracy — the CFR. The report’s first coverage was on 2 May 2015 at the World Socialist Web Site, which briefly paraphrased it but didn’t even link to it. Then, two days later, Stephen Lendman wrote about the CFR report. He briefly paraphrased it and passionately condemned it. He did link to the report. But he didn’t note the WSWS article, which had first informed the public of the CFR report’s existence — an existence which, until the WSWS article, all of America’s ‘press’ had simply ignored.

The present article is the first one to quote the CFR report, instead of merely to paraphrase and attack it. The quotations that were selected are ones presenting the report’s main points, so that readers here can see these points stated as they were written, rather than merely as I have interpreted them. My interpretation is in addition to, rather than a substitute for, what the report itself says.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

Slavs and Chinese are “niggers, brutes and beasts” in the eyes of Western Empire

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place”.

Winston Churchill on genocide of Palestinians to create nation of Israel

For those who care, this article is deeply disturbing.

Posted on Veterans Today

Deep-seated Western racism  is still alive and well in the hallowed halls of power, capital, and empire, says Jeff J. Brown of Radio Sinoland.

October 1, 2015

By Jeff J. Brown

Scientific_racism_irish

Here is a visual from a 19th century British scientific journal, “proving” that the Irish descended from subhuman Negroes. Irish, Russian, Chinese: they are all niggers in the eyes of Eurangloland

The conflicting visions between the Anti-West and Eurangloland (NATO, with Australia and New Zealand) continue unabated. China and Russia, the dynamic duo that stands tallest among the Anti-West, have been very visible recently. Russian and Chinese Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping attended China’s jaw dropping Victory Against Fascism Parade in Beijing, on September 3rd. Putin was Xi’s honored guest, as was the Russian detachment that participated in the parade.

Both Putin and Xi gave important speeches during the 70th anniversary session of the United Nations. Putin said all he could, without visibly spitting on the West’s name.  Xi’s US state visit was just as withering for Obama and the West.  Both leaders left America proudly waving the Anti-West banner and continue to be heroes for the world’s Moral Majority, that 85% of humanity who is mostly dark skinned and frequently Muslim, Hindu, Christian Orthodox, Buddhist, Animist, or in the Americas and Africa, dirt poor Christians.

The Western perpetrated genocide in the Ukraine and Uncle Sam’s never-ending onslaught to try to overthrow the Communist Party of China are ongoing reminders that Eurangloland’s colonial empire is very much intact and sad to say, thriving. One only needs to observe Western destabilization and/or military activities in the Americas, Africa and Asia, to swallow this bitter pill of truth: empires, with their extermination, genocide, war and economic enslavement, don’t fall overnight. All we fighters of truth and justice can do is keep flinging rocks at this 500 year-old, multi-headed Hydra, until it finally collapses from internal rot and external overreach. I’ll be 62 this year and even if I live into my eighties, I may still be writing in my dying days, about the pestilence of ongoing Western empire–instead of celebrating hopes for a new, more just and holistic cooperation among the world’s peoples, as well as dreams for the steady state use of Mother Earth’s precious natural and human resources. Only Eurangloland’s virulent racism and fascism, wrapped in the iron fist of an idealized, sanitized and mythical capitalism, stands in the way.

Massacre-of-Indian-women-and-children-in-Idaho-Frank-Leslie-illustrated

In my writings, I have often talked about racism as a facet of Western empire, but it has often been based on gut instinct and verifiable extermination and genocide of the Moral Majority, since Christopher Columbus first set foot in the Americas, in 1492. As Howard Zinn pointed out in his majestic book, A People’s History of the United States, when the natives, who Columbus first encountered, could not produce any gold to be stolen, he ordered that all of them be executed on the spot. This is the rest of modern history writ large, up to the present.

Russian POWs in WWII (600 x 408)

A book I just read really brings the West’s racism into disturbing and chilling focus. “Exterminate All the Brutes”: One Man’s Odyssey into the Heart of Darkness and the Origins of European Genocide, by Sven Lindqvist, really does live up to its title and subtitle. Of course, the great quote, “Exterminate all the brutes”, is a line taken from Joseph Conrad’s blistering, anti-colonial, reality-as-fiction masterpiece, The Heart of Darkness.
Mr. Lindqvist did a huge amount of research and reading of historical documents, and it pays off in blood-drenched spades. Yes, Adolf Hitler was an unreconstructed hater of Jews, but it was his National “Socialist” Party’s (NSP) platform and policy implementation to exterminate ten million Russians – Slavs, they were called – in order to make “elbow room” (later changed to “lebensraum”, or “living space”). The name “Slav” is fraught with racism. The word “slave” comes from Western Europe’s 8th century King Charlemagne using Slavs, to be worked to death in his mines. For the world’s Moral Majority, nothing about the West has changed in 1,200 years.

The justification for the NSP’s lebensraum was that Germans had the same right to stolen real estate, just like the other European colonial masters were doing across the Americas, Africa and Asia. When Hitler got elected Chancellor in 1933, there were only 250,000 Jews in Western Europe, including Germany. The biggest numbers of them were in Eastern Europe and Western Russia. Jews made up 10% of Hitler’s coveted Slavic lebensraum, but 40% of its urban populations. City folk were the ones who went to the concentration camps first, Russian or Jewish, because they were easy to round up in big numbers, being close to railway stations and good roads to transport them.

Hitler and the NSP were infatuated with Andrew Jackson’s 1830 Indian Removal Act and how it legalized the extermination of 15 million Native Americans. It simply codified what George Washington called the “necessary extirpation” of the natives, from “our settled lands”. Hitler & Co. also used America’s Indian reservations as a blueprint for Nazi concentration camps. Round them up and work them till they die. In fact, the etymological origin of the term “concentration camp” is colonial Spanish, not German.

Hitler’s and the NSP’s racist hatred of their dehumanized Slavs is graphically demonstrated by historical fact. Jews were not the first group to go to the gas chambers in Auschwitz. It was Russians. Just as the Americans made sure that white man’s Indian reservations were set up for enslavement and an early death, Russian prisoners of war perished like flies. Over three million Russians died in the camps, two million in the first year alone. Captured Russians were considered no better than the black skinned Herero and Namaqua tribes, which the Germans exterminated in today’s Namibia, in 1905 (the Germans did this in part to show that they were just as good as the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Americans, at large scale genocide, thus, just as deserving of lebensraum). Only 3.5% of “white” English and American prisoners of war died, but 57% of “Slav” Russians did.

The Chinese, the “Yellow Peril”, were gleefully addicted to British and American opium, in what has been called the “world’s longest running, largest global criminal enterprise in human history”, starting in the 1840s. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s family got its wealth from helping to addict and enslave around 100 million Chinese, as did many other thousands of “civilized” white families across America and Europe. After all, the Chinese were no better than yellow niggers.

When the US lost its lucrative slave trade from Africa, after the Civil War in 1865, these upstanding businessmen and Christians simply started sailing their US flag ships to Southern China, to capture and buy one million Chinese, to sell across the Americas. This went on until 1874, when the Chinese emperor’s ceaseless diplomatic and public relations campaigns in the West finally shamed them into stopping.

It was these Chinese “coolie” slaves (from the Chinese, kuli, or “bitter strength”) who built America’s railroads out West. Those who didn’t die from starvation and mistreatment were exterminated through ethnic cleansing across the Western United States. As with Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act, this frenzy of bloodlust against the Yellow Peril was codified by the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Like Native Americans and “freed” slaves, it was open season for slaughter, and many thousands of Chinese coolies were hunted and killed like rabid dogs. There is a reason why the saying, “He doesn’t stand a Chinaman’s chance”, became so popular in 19th century America. Because it was true.

coolie-slave-pauper-rat-eater-1871

Mr. Lindqvist spells out, with scathing research, why Slavs and the Yellow Peril were (and are) considered just as subhuman as Africans, in the eyes of Western Europeans and Americans. European and American colonialists called all the different dark skinned peoples in their colonies, “niggers”, “brutes”, “kaffirs”, “beasts”, “inferior races” and “lower races” – from the Caribbean to Central-South America to Africa and Asia – Russians and Chinese included. They were classified by the West’s best scientists as something between an ape and the superior Western race. Predestined extinction of these weaker, less intelligent subhumans was simply the natural order and this “scientific theory” filled volumes of academic journals in English, French, Spanish and German.

Hitler fondly called the Japanese “honorary Aryans”. When their imperial army slaughtered 300,000 innocent Chinese women, children, aged and others, during the 1937 Nanjing Massacre, it caused just as little outrage among Western Europeans and Americans, as all the countless genocides committed in their names and for their financial enrichment, since 1492. Which Westerners cared then and who cares today? Just look at Syria/Iraq, Palestine, the Ukraine, the Congo’s pygmies, the Amazon’s indigenous tribes and Burma’s Rohingya Muslim minority, to name a scant few. They are just the tip of the West’s ongoing, unwritten policy of genocide and extermination, either directly or by proxy. After all, as they say, niggers are just niggers.

Decapitated heads Nanjing massacre 1937

This has troubling implications for current events and the 21st century. What is clear is that this deep seated Western racism has not gone away. It is still alive and well in the hallowed halls of power, capital and empire. Western racism is clearly expressed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, America’s foreign policy czar since the Carter administration. He sums up his genocidal philosophy, with, “Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people”, and how important it is to, “Keep the barbarians killing each other”. “Barbarian” is only a slightly more socially acceptable synonym for “nigger”, and we can see his psychopathic, imperial handiwork in Afghanistan, where he created Al-Qaeda, Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Ukraine and elsewhere, not to mention the destabilization of China, via its predominately Muslim province of Xinjiang.

Westerners cannot write about their racial superiority and the perceived sub-humanity of non-Westerners, like they freely did until the 1950s. But racism is still manifestly the fundamental principle that drives America’s “exceptionalism” and the West’s “shining beacon on a hill” superiority.  This in turn serves to legitimize ongoing Western genocide, wars, government overthrows and economic and resource exploitation, relying on the “benign, invisible hand” of capitalism across Planet Earth.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill simply stated longstanding, Western imperial policy and popular, public sentiment, when justified the genocide of Palestinians with the aim of creating Israel:

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place”.

For Westerners, it was true then, and is still true today. Don’t believe me? Just ask Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. For the benefit of their citizens, they battle racism every day.

About Jeff J. Brown

Jeff J. Brown is the author of 44 Days (2013), China Rediscovered – A Personal Journey of Enlightenment in the Mouth of the Dragon (2015), and Doctor WriteRead’s Treasure Trove to Great English (2015). He is currently writing an historical fiction, Red Letters – The Diaries of Xi Jinping, due out in 2016. Jeff is a contributing editor at the Greanville Post, where he writes a monthly column, Dispatch from Beijing. He also writes a monthly column for The Saker, called the Moscow-Beijing Express. He is a member of The Anthill, a collective of authors who write about China, and also submits articles on Oped News and Firedog Lake. His work has been published by Paul Craig Roberts. Ron Unz, Alternative News Network and scores of other websites. He has been a featured guest on Press TV, Truth Jihad, Daily Coin, Shadow of Truth, KFCF Radio 88.1 and Wall St. for Main St., while also interviewing and podcasting on his own program, 44 Days Radio Sinoland.

In China, he has been a speaker at TEDx, the Bookworm Literary Festival, the Capital M Literary Festival, the Hutong, as well as being featured in an 18-part series of interviews on Radio Beijing AM774, with former BBC journalist, Bruce Connolly. He has guest lectured at international schools in Beijing and Tianjin and has moderated a presentation at Beihang University.

Jeff grew up in the heartland of the United States, Oklahoma, much of it on a family farm, and graduated from Oklahoma State University. He went to Brazil while in graduate school at Purdue University, to seek his fortune, which whet his appetite for traveling the globe. This helped inspire him to be a Peace Corps Volunteer in Tunisia in 1980 and he lived and worked in Africa, the Middle East, China and Europe for the next 21 years. All the while, he mastered Portuguese, Arabic, French and Mandarin, while traveling to over 85 countries. He then returned to America for nine years, whereupon he moved back to China in 2010. He currently lives in Beijing with his wife, where he teaches passionately in an international school. Jeff is a dual national French-American.

Jeff can be reached at 44 Days, jeff@44days.net, Facebook, Twitter and Wechat/Whatsapp: +86-18618144837

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/09/slavs-and-oriental-are-niggers-brutes-and-beasts-in-the-eyes-of-western-empire/