China: Big bully in the South China Sea

China: big bully in the South China Sea


by Don Hank

China is claiming vast amounts of water in the South China Sea and this claim is a nuisance to our allies, esp the Philippines, and to Vietnam, which, ironically, could become an ally under these circumstances.

The international tribunal in The Hague just declared China’s claims illegal. It was a no-brainer since no country has ever in history claimed thousands of square miles of ocean far removed from its territorial waters.

So what does China say about the court decision? So What? That’s what.

So why is China doing this?

Because it can.

And why can it?

Because back in the 70s, Kissinger and Nixon got this hare-brained idea to give China “Most Favored Nation” status, or in other words, to treat it just like any other friendly nation, even though it was anything but friendly. In short, the hare-brains made China fabulously rich but without changing its mind about us in the least. Their government still hates our guts.

So why would anyone in their right mind do something so stupid?

That’s easy. Even before the Neocons like Zbigniew Brzezinski and the majority of the last batch of GOP candidates decided that Russia was the number one enemy (wtihout explaining why), there had always been a fear of Russia taking over the world. It started in the 1800s when England — the most expansionist state in all of history — began propagandizing against Russia calling it “expansionist.” Haha! Get it? Wait, it wasn’t a joke! The notion stuck and is alive even today, when the US, currently the most expansionist country in the world, has taken to routinely calling Russia expansionist. Plus ça change….

Now there were two large powerful communist states in the world in the 70s, but somehow, these hare-brains in the White House thought that if the US made China rich, it would become a faithful ally against Russia. I explained this in greater detail here if you care to check it out.

So now, our stupidity has led to a huge crisis, with China, the ally who wouldn’t be one, threatening the entire Pacific Rim, building islands and putting military bases on them to keep everyone else out. Thank you, Kissinger and Nixon.

So what is the answer?

Ok, we made China rich, right? By giving this avowed enemy free trade status. It turns out Trump was right. We need to eliminate that status right now, drastically cutting back on purchases from China and bringing manufacturing back to the US. There’s no point in sending more warships into that area and causing confrontations when we hold the Chinese purse strings. Don’t expect Obama or Hillary to do this. They’ll just pretend to confront China while giggling up their sleeves, the way they are doing in Syria and Iraq.

Trump says he would cut China trade.

Just sayin’.


The elites are doing an about face


by Don Hank   August 25, 2015


George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor, seems to be following the lead of other prominent Neocon elites. Recently, Kissinger and Soros both warned against taunting the Russian bear or escalating the Ukraine conflict. This was remarkable for them, because they had always generally supported, at least by their actions and words, the Wolfowitz doctrine of encircling Russia, and indeed, Soros even admitted that one of his foundations had aided in the Maidan coup, as I pointed out here.

Now comes George Friedman and joins them in backtracking, reluctantly admitting here that maybe attacking the Russian ally Iran was never such a brilliant idea. He says the problem with this idea is that the plan might fail and thereby strengthen the Iranian position while weakening Israel’s position. No kidding.

I wrote to George via his Stratfor site and asked why no one ever mentions Daniel Greenfield’s famous speech on the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) principle, which that author skillfully demonstrates would effectively prevent a nuclear power (he doesn’t explicitly mention Iran) from attacking another. Israel is known to possess a nuclear arsenal.

I had mentioned Greenfield’s comments on MAD here in the context of the rush to war against Iran – which, nota bene, even the Israeli military leaders knew to be an unnecessarily risky idea.

So when you say “I stand with Israel,” are you saying you stand with these wise military leaders who oppose war with Iran or with the minority who want to take that needless risk?

See the problem with that slogan?

Below is my response to George:


Thank you for this report.

I find it intriguing that no commentator ever mentions, in the context of Israel vs Iran, Daniel Greenfield’s speech on the MAD principle, which prevents nuclear powers from attacking each other. The Israeli government is aware of Greenfield’s writings and certainly, many have read this speech and know this theory makes common sense. Since it is known that Israel and the US are nuclear powers and that neither would sit back and let Iran attack Israel, Iran, in the real world, would never nuke Israel. Further, any nuclear explosion in Israel would kill and harm millions of Palestinians and other Arab neighbors. The whole world would turn against Iran and that would end Iran’s ability to ever trade with any country again. It would, in a word, be suicide. In other words, the war hawks in Israel are directing an inordinate and unjustified amount of time and energy at preventing an impossibility.

It is obvious to me that the only reason Israeli war hawks keep beating the drums in Iran’s direction is that they want to stay on the good side of the Saudis, who they perceive as having the power to crush them via their protégés like ISIS.

Why not address this side of the story some time? It would not hurt your credibility and would almost certainly boost your readership.



When you see the elites distancing themselves from their past strongly held positions, it’s not because they had a change of heart or “saw the light.” It’s because an external force or forces have made it impossible to sustain those positions and they woke up to this reality.

Despite all the setbacks that Eurasia (mostly Russia and China) have suffered (such as the recent collapse of the Chinese stock market), this region has so far avoided, for the most part, the extravagance of Western Keynesianism – unbridled money printing, borrowing more than they can ever pay down or back to pay for reckless spending – and despite the “socialist” tag, neither of them spends, as a percentage of GDP, even a fraction of what Western “developed” countries spend on welfare or social programs. The Neocons haven’t a leg to stand on, and now the upper echelons aren’t in fact standing.

Further, Eurasia has managed to demonstrate the vast potential of its economic power and prestige, for example, via the new investment bank, the AIIB, to most of our “allies,” over 50 of which became founding members, as I pointed out here.

On top of that, Russia and China have been doing impressive joint military exercises lately, demonstrating not only that they possess the hardware to back down any opponent, but that they are a team. I am amused at analysts who discuss Russian military capability in great detail without ever mentioning that there is in fact no such thing as the “Russian” military. In today’s world, there is only a joint Russian-Chinese military that we must contend with – and get along with, like it or not. And while there are still US “allies,” most are only reluctant and leaning away from the constant wars made in USA.

I say all that to remind you of why the elites, like Soros, Kissinger and Friedman, are changing their tune. They simply have no choice. Reality is facing them like a brick wall, foiling their schemes of world dominance. I say this cautiously, but it would seem that Neoconservatism is dead for all practical purposes.

The elites, who had everything to lose, were the first to notice the tectonic plate shift in geopolitics.

The rest of America needs to pay attention.