The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Trump, China, and Taiwan
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The New York Times is trying to stir up a diplomatic spat between the U.S. and China:

Trump Speaks With Taiwan’s Leader, Likely Upsetting China

By MARK LANDLER 6:02 PM ET

President-elect Donald J. Trump spoke by telephone with Taiwan’s president on Friday, a striking break with diplomatic practice that could create a rift with China.

He is believed to be the first president or president-elect who has spoken to a Taiwanese leader since 1979.

Now it could be that Trump is playing 5-D chess or, more likely, he was just being friendly.

Last year I identified China-Taiwan as a topic on which Trump’s shoot-from-hip common sense is a poor fit. As I wrote on September 6, 2015 when the first poll ever came out showing Trump in the lead over Hillary:

The Statue of Liberty once stood for an American’s right to say what he felt was true. Now the Statue of Liberty has been repurposed as an icon of how Americans had better shut up about immigration and diversity.

Donald J. Trump is the living embodiment of the First Amendment.

On the other hand, there are a lot of foreign policy issues on which the President really shouldn’t mouth off. For example, the official stance of the United States government since February 1972 has been that China and Taiwan are one country that should be under one government; we just won’t say which one.

Now that I think about that, I have that wrong: that was the 1972-1978 policy dreamed up by those devious machiavels Nixon, Kissinger, and Chou. Then Carter cut formal ties with Taiwan. Then Congress retaliated by passing a law creating de facto ties with Taiwan.

In reality, both China and Taiwan are independent countries, but these diplomatic fictions have their reasons.

Granted, that’s ridiculous, but, at least so far it has worked. And therefore the President shouldn’t say it’s ridiculous even though everybody knows it is.

I don’t see any indication that Trump did this, but diplomatic relations have all sorts of abstruse protocols that that a president should follow unless he has a particularly carefully thought out reason not to.

A low energy guy like Obama, who more or less was raised to be some kind of Foreign Service diplomat, is probably not going to tell an interviewer that of course China and Taiwan are separate countries: everybody knows that. But a President Trump might.

In contrast, domestic policy (e.g., immigration policy) should be far more of a free for all than it is under the current rules of what’s respectable. Obama’s diplomatic Blank Screen approach where nobody is supposed to get the joke about why we elected this guy President has been a slow-moving disaster. I suspect that deep down Obama feels bad about how his Administration has, in effect, agitated blacks to murder each other, all in the name of #BlackLivesMatter. But “personnel is policy” and a lot of Obama’s appointees, such as Eric Holder, have been too dim to figure out what they are doing to America.

When it comes to domestic policy, Congress and the courts have huge says, so the President using his bully pulpit is a good thing: the embodiment of democracy.

But much of foreign policy, perhaps too much, is handed over to the President under the guise of the National Security state. So the President has less freedom to spout off his opinion about whatever comes to his attention… Trump has a little under a year and a half to grow into the job. It’s a challenge, but not impossible. Mostly, he needs to get across that he’s not going to upset settled foreign policy just for fun.

Trump should get himself a stuffed shirt Secretary of State in the William Rogers mode.

 
Hide 270 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “Trump should get himself a stuffed shirt Secretary of State in the William Rogers mode.”

    So you like Romney for SofS?

    • Replies: @bored identity
    I think that Sailer alludes to Huntsman...for some reason he repeatedly had shown a soft spot for this Unipartian-Mormon-Globalist with a pinch of healthy Atlanticism.


    Feed us Steve, the night is young !
  2. I honestly think that if the Orleanist pretender to the French throne called to offer his congratulations Trump would take the call.

    • LOL: dearieme
    • Replies: @tamako
    Nah, he won't. He certainly will take the call of the Carlist pretender to the Spanish throne, though. Might even negotiate the independence of Catalonia under the Carlists.
  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It could just be business, not political:

    http://shanghaiist.com/2016/11/18/trump_taiwan_expand.php

    The mayor of Taoyuan confirmed rumors on Wednesday that US president-elect Donald Trump was considering constructing a series of luxury hotels and resorts in the northwest Taiwanese city.

    A representative from the Trump Organization paid a visit to Taoyuan in September, expressing interest in the city’s Aerotropolis, a large-scale urban development project aimed at capitalizing on Taoyuan’s status as a transport hub for East Asia, Taiwan News reports.With the review process for the Aerotropolis still underway, Taoyuan’s mayor referred to the subject of the meeting as mere investment speculation. Other reports indicate that Eric Trump, the president-elect’s second son and executive vice president of the Trump Organization, will be coming to Taoyuan later this year to discuss the potential business opportunity.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Wouldn't it be great if we got hostile with China because of Trump's urgent need to build hotels?
  4. The news stories seem to make it sound as if Trump went out of his way to deliberately call Taiwan or something, but it’s not clear if he made the call himself or if he was called by Taiwan.

    • Replies: @jon

    it’s not clear if he made the call himself or if he was called by Taiwan.
     
    Trump recently tweeted that "The President of Taiwan CALLED ME ..." (caps his)

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/804848711599882240

    He also tweeted this an hour later: "Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call."

    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/804863098138005504
  5. Chris Buckley 储百亮 @ChuBailiang

    Xi met Kissinger on Friday, apparently reflecting the increasingly shaky notion that China could work on Trump through the usual eminences.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Chinese President Xi Jinping told former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger on Friday that China was watching U.S. politics "very closely" following the presidential election won by Republican Donald Trump.
     
    If his (possibly ghostwritten) book "On China" is any indication, Kissinger is the CCP's man in the US.
  6. Mitt Romney’s laundry uses a lot of starch…

  7. @Anonymous
    It could just be business, not political:

    http://shanghaiist.com/2016/11/18/trump_taiwan_expand.php

    The mayor of Taoyuan confirmed rumors on Wednesday that US president-elect Donald Trump was considering constructing a series of luxury hotels and resorts in the northwest Taiwanese city.

    A representative from the Trump Organization paid a visit to Taoyuan in September, expressing interest in the city's Aerotropolis, a large-scale urban development project aimed at capitalizing on Taoyuan's status as a transport hub for East Asia, Taiwan News reports.With the review process for the Aerotropolis still underway, Taoyuan's mayor referred to the subject of the meeting as mere investment speculation. Other reports indicate that Eric Trump, the president-elect's second son and executive vice president of the Trump Organization, will be coming to Taoyuan later this year to discuss the potential business opportunity.
     

    Wouldn’t it be great if we got hostile with China because of Trump’s urgent need to build hotels?

    • Troll: Clyde
  8. This wasn’t Trump freebooting. It was calculated payback for China’s treatment of Obama on the tarmac at the start of the G20.

    If I’m right, Obama won’t seize the opportunity to lambaste Trump for it. He’ll declare it “Butter Fingers!” Just as the Chinese did after Hangzhou.

  9. China seems to us NK to bait the US. Why should the US not use Taiwan the same way? It might be more effective than a freedom of navigation exercise.

    • Replies: @jon

    China seems to us NK to bait the US. Why should the US not use Taiwan the same way? It might be more effective than a freedom of navigation exercise.
     
    That's pretty much what John Bolton is arguing. And Trump has been spending a lot of time meeting with him re: Sec. State.

    The U.S. Can Play a ‘Taiwan Card’
    If China won’t back down in East Asia, Washington has options that would compel Beijing’s attention.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-can-play-a-taiwan-card-1453053872
  10. Apparently, Kissinger is still very much in the thick of things:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/china-grappling-with-trump-turns-to-old-friend-kissinger

    “The 93-year-old former secretary of state, who secretly brokered President Richard Nixon’s watershed visit in 1972, returned to Beijing to meet with state leaders Friday, just two weeks after huddling with Trump in New York.”

    “Dr. Kissinger, I am all ears to what you have to say about the current world situation and the future growth of China-U.S. relations.” [Xi Jinping]

    And lots more on what he’s likely saying to both sides:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/the-lessons-of-henry-kissinger/505868/

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Dr. K has time on his schedule because of fewer Theranos board meetings.
    , @Johann Ricke

    And lots more on what he’s likely saying to both sides:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/the-lessons-of-henry-kissinger/505868/
     
    Kissinger thinks that Obama was too hawkish (!) vis-a-vis China:

    JG: That the arc of history is bending in their direction.

    HK: Some Chinese strategists may think that. Or one can interpret their actions as “However you interpret the arc of history, a conflict between countries possessing the technologies we do, and their uncertain application, is so dangerous that however you explain its origins, we have a duty to try to cooperate to avoid it.”

    I think that this is President Xi’s view. But we will not be able to demonstrate which interpretation is correct for about 20 years. In the meantime, our policies must be broad-gauged enough to allow for both.

    JG: Has Obama been too hawkish toward China, then?

    HK: Not too hawkish but too short-term. To truly advance our relationship with China, we must speak in trends.
     
    , @Almost Missouri
    Thanks for the link.

    One of the more repulsive aspects of Former Concentration Camp Guard of Dubious Loyalty (FCCGoDL) Jeffery Goldberg's interview is how Goldberg relentlessly tries to mine Kissinger for anti-Trump ammunition. To his credit, Kissinger resolutely refuses to provide it. In his write-up of the interview, Goldberg editorializes Kissinger's comments to be as anti-Trump as possible anyway, though that slant is not evident in the original interview transcript.

    I suppose we should be grateful that FCCGoDL Goldberg is apparently so un-self-aware that he doesn't realize that by publishing the full transcript he unwittingly demonstrates how partisan and corrupt the media are, even such media as the formerly above-the-fray, ivory tower Atlantic, thanks to the influence of the FCCGoDLs of the world.
  11. @Sam Haysom
    I honestly think that if the Orleanist pretender to the French throne called to offer his congratulations Trump would take the call.

    Nah, he won’t. He certainly will take the call of the Carlist pretender to the Spanish throne, though. Might even negotiate the independence of Catalonia under the Carlists.

  12. I’m very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan, in spite of whatever illusion of insult to China we are supposed to believe that was. I guess I’m also unsuited to be president (not surprising).

    As you assume about Trump, I too would love to just blurt out what I really think (instead of just doing it here). Not only would I identify Taiwan as what it was before Nixon, I would also try to reverse history and stop facilitating the growth of China.

    I’m just an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old (now new again?) mold.

    If it is necessary to “rock the boat” in order to “stop the madness,” then my revolutionary motto would be in the spirit of Patrick Henry: “Give me truth or give me chaos.” I have no respect for dusty old diplomats who insist I just shut up and accept the way things are.

    What a rube I am. I must be an American.

    • Agree: Federalist
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I've been taken aback by it.
    , @newrouter
    "I’m very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan"

    Trump received a call from the leader of Taiwan.
    , @SFG
    I agree with you spiritually--Taiwan's stood strong against dictatorship and built itself into an advanced, democratic nation.

    But the Chinese have lots and lots of nukes. And even if you like the idea of them nuking San Francisco, some of that iodine and cesium and strontium are going to blow over the red states.

    It's why Romney or someone like him works for Secretary of State--diplomacy is all about talking out of both sides of your mouth, being circuitous, distinctions that are ridiculous on their face, and all kinds of beta stuff.

    But it beats war. If you're an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old mold, a few stupid diplomatic conventions are a good investment. Remember, the diplomats have to kiss ass. Your kids or grandkids will wind up fighting.
    , @Anonymous
    Depends on how you define isolationist I suppose. Pat Buchanan for example is an isolationist and opposes supporting Taiwan and supports ceding Asia and the western Pacific to China.

    Supporting Taiwan and slowing down China would require internationalism, not isolationism.
    , @Randal

    Not only would I identify Taiwan as what it was before Nixon, I would also try to reverse history and stop facilitating the growth of China.

    I’m just an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old (now new again?) mold.
     
    If the US were an "isolationist" country (ie one that minded its own business) then most likely the Chinese wouldn't be all that bothered by whether or not the US President talked to Taiwan's leader or not (or no more than they object to any other country talking to what they - with a lot of justice - see as a renegade Chinese province).

    It's precisely because the US is the opposite of a country that minds its own business - a global empire with a track record of starting wars against its rivals over pretexts of precisely this kind - that they sensibly object very strongly to any signs of any potential increase in the US's already substantial devotion of resources to supporting said renegade province in order to use it as a pretext and asset for provoking and militarily bullying China.

    If you are "isolationist" then what are you doing "protecting" Taiwan from its neighbour, on the other side of the world?

    As for the supposed issue the NYT is trying to manufacture, I suspect the Chinese will make some pro forma retaliation in some diplomatically inconvenient manner for the US elsewhere, at a time that suits them - following which of course the US regime and its apologists will act all hurt and claim to have been the victim of an "unprovoked" slight) but not make any big issue about it. They've no interest in starting out relations with Trump on a bad footing.
    , @TheJester
    I agree. Letting the rest of the world run its affairs as it deems fit is part of a healthy isolationism. To continue the old diplomatic rubrics is to assume that the United States is indeed a global empire that has a "dog in every fight" and can therefore compromise others' sovereignties at will. We have only to "look and see" to know that this assumption is expensive and dangerous to our own survival. At some point, the foreign diplomatic and economic interests become too complex to manage, i.e. the Pentagon and CIA supporting opposing factions in the nascent religious civil wars in the Middle East; regional trade agreements that gut our industrial base.

    Recall that the messes in the Balkans, the Middle East. and South Asia were the result of the arrogant American intent to reform societies by exporting liberal democratic values replete with radical postmodern feminism (whatever this means) to pre-industrial societies. As a free people, do we care how Kazakhstan governs itself ... or, whether Islam accepts or condemns homosexuality ... or how the Philippines deals with its drug problem ... or whether the Chinese "lose face" with respect to some alleged third-party affront related to Taiwan? These are none of our business.

    Let's keep these foreign spats as far away from us as possible ... as our founding fathers intended. With respect to trade, we'll trade with anyone who has something to trade, as long as it in our economic interest to do so.

  13. OT, but is Assange reading Unz?

    (Wikileaks directs readers to Unz.com’s ‘Obituary for the NY Times)

    • Replies: @Anonym
    That's interesting. Most likely that means he reads Sailer as opposed to the umpteen dwarves (sorry Pat, Derb).
  14. ” but diplomatic relations have all sorts of abstruse protocols that that a president should follow unless he has a particularly carefully thought out reason not to.”

    I’m using the Obama standards for this new administration. Has the Donald sent a cd of his greatest hits to the Queen of England?

  15. @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan, in spite of whatever illusion of insult to China we are supposed to believe that was. I guess I'm also unsuited to be president (not surprising).

    As you assume about Trump, I too would love to just blurt out what I really think (instead of just doing it here). Not only would I identify Taiwan as what it was before Nixon, I would also try to reverse history and stop facilitating the growth of China.

    I'm just an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old (now new again?) mold.

    If it is necessary to "rock the boat" in order to "stop the madness," then my revolutionary motto would be in the spirit of Patrick Henry: "Give me truth or give me chaos." I have no respect for dusty old diplomats who insist I just shut up and accept the way things are.

    What a rube I am. I must be an American.

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it
     
    Probably due to this tiny nation showing up China when it comes to electronics and high tech. Population: 23.34 million (2013) 65% or more of all smartphone, tablet and laptop design is done in Taiwan. Look at Taiwanese Foxconn with all its Mainland factories and massive Chinese (slave) labor force. If I am Chinese maximum leader (Xi's on first?) I am embarrassed.
    , @Johann Ricke

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it.
     
    They are very sensitive about all kinds of things. Mainly, it's an affectation that follows from their assumption that they are the greatest ethny/polity on earth, meaning that any policy or statement reflecting anything other than fawning admiration will be interpreted as a slight.
    , @Thirdeye

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it.
     
    There are both rational and emotional reasons for that. For years, the Kuomintang who established power in Taiwan after they were overthrown on the mainland considered itself the legitimate government of China and was supported in that position by the US. The ROC still has in its constitution a claim to be the government of China. ROC is not only the island of Taiwan but an archipelago across the Taiwan Strait that can threaten the security of Chinese coastal commerce. That's the rational part. Those conflicts should be resolvable by ROC constitutionally recognizing PRC's dominion over the mainland and their interest in the Taiwan Strait, right? Wrong! After Hong Kong and Macau, Taiwan is the last remaining geographic symbol of the Nineteenth Century humiliations imposed on China, which still bear heavily on Chinese consciousness. For ROC to officially renounce its claim on the mainland would be a ratification of Taiwan's political separateness that China has resented for the past 120 years (although that separation was in large part driven by culture, economics, and lack of interest in actually governing Taiwan by the Qing Dynasty).
    , @Federalist
    It's time they get over it.
  16. @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan, in spite of whatever illusion of insult to China we are supposed to believe that was. I guess I'm also unsuited to be president (not surprising).

    As you assume about Trump, I too would love to just blurt out what I really think (instead of just doing it here). Not only would I identify Taiwan as what it was before Nixon, I would also try to reverse history and stop facilitating the growth of China.

    I'm just an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old (now new again?) mold.

    If it is necessary to "rock the boat" in order to "stop the madness," then my revolutionary motto would be in the spirit of Patrick Henry: "Give me truth or give me chaos." I have no respect for dusty old diplomats who insist I just shut up and accept the way things are.

    What a rube I am. I must be an American.

    “I’m very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan”

    Trump received a call from the leader of Taiwan.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    “I’m very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan”

    Trump received a call from the leader of Taiwan.
     

    Even better, so...

    ...I'm very happy Trump accepted a call from the leader of Taiwan.

    What was he supposed to do, tell the leader of Taiwan, "I'm sorry, but I can't talk to you; my bosses in Beijing won't let me?"

    This is not one of those embarrassed commenter moments (which I've had) where I'm supposed to feel even stupider than I am.

    The point is the same, in fact better because he didn't initiate the call. Though I suppose somehow in the imaginary world of diplomacy this could be even more offensive to our Chinese creditors.

    Jeez, I hope the feng shui was right and his phone faced the right Chinese direction, and I hope nobody dialed any unlucky numbers.

  17. The media is fainting about Trump talking to the Taiwanese pres. What were they saying when Clinton BOMBED the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing Chinese nationals inside? How do these two diplomatic incidents compare on the stupidity, recklessness and fitness for office scales?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The US was much stronger relative to China back then, though. And Russia was at the low point, so China didn't have any allies.
  18. Prescient article Steve. And an interesting domestic-foreign dichotomy you make with respect to Trump. I’d never considered that before.

    Although, if we can get some real talk on the Zionist entity, the benefits to American may outweigh the cost of ruffling feathers in China.

  19. To be fair, Trump is not yet president and the president of Taiwan called him to offer her congratulations on his election. No doubt she knew exactly what she was doing but Trump, still living as a private citizen in his private home, took the call. Until he is sworn in as president he is not acting in an official capacity.

  20. What’s the risk here? I mean really who cares? We’re not supposed to talk to Taiwan at all? Because diplomatic protocol?

    Come on. That stuff is beltway bullshit and I’m glad Trump doesn’t gaf.

  21. @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan, in spite of whatever illusion of insult to China we are supposed to believe that was. I guess I'm also unsuited to be president (not surprising).

    As you assume about Trump, I too would love to just blurt out what I really think (instead of just doing it here). Not only would I identify Taiwan as what it was before Nixon, I would also try to reverse history and stop facilitating the growth of China.

    I'm just an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old (now new again?) mold.

    If it is necessary to "rock the boat" in order to "stop the madness," then my revolutionary motto would be in the spirit of Patrick Henry: "Give me truth or give me chaos." I have no respect for dusty old diplomats who insist I just shut up and accept the way things are.

    What a rube I am. I must be an American.

    I agree with you spiritually–Taiwan’s stood strong against dictatorship and built itself into an advanced, democratic nation.

    But the Chinese have lots and lots of nukes. And even if you like the idea of them nuking San Francisco, some of that iodine and cesium and strontium are going to blow over the red states.

    It’s why Romney or someone like him works for Secretary of State–diplomacy is all about talking out of both sides of your mouth, being circuitous, distinctions that are ridiculous on their face, and all kinds of beta stuff.

    But it beats war. If you’re an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old mold, a few stupid diplomatic conventions are a good investment. Remember, the diplomats have to kiss ass. Your kids or grandkids will wind up fighting.

    • Replies: @Federalist
    O.K. But all Trump did was take a phone call.
  22. Almost certainly a very deliberate move by Trump, consistent with his negotiating style.

    Make a bold, even shocking, opening gambit to throw the other side off balance; then, they feel relieved when you appear to moderate your position in return for getting something your opponent would have resisted giving in the first place.

    As in, appearing to threaten withdrawal of support from NATO, or the defence of Japan (he’ll get what he wants, namely increases in military spending from them).

    Or appearing to threaten banning muslims (he’ll settle for tightening screening and profiling, to the relief of his opponents).

    Or threatening to cancel trade agreements (he’ll settle for concessions on terms).

    Or expelling all illegal immigrants (I therefore have to assume his ‘real’ position is less than this – like settling for a more effective wall and vigorous, conspicuous deportation of criminal elements)

    And on and on. It’s becoming predictable, and it does seem to be one of his strongest suits. He’s a natural at it.

    So put on the table the specter of possible withdrawal of tacit US support for the status quo on Taiwan, including what must surely be behind-the-scenes arm-twisting by the US of the Taiwan separatists to curb their enthusiasm.

    I suspect China really, really doesn’t want to pushed into actually making good on their threats to invade Taiwan. Of course, neither does the US want to be pulled into WWIII over Taiwan.

    Is there any realistic safe path to accommodating China’s rise? The US would have to step aside in an awful lot of ways, and when does that ever happen in response to the rise of new powers? (the British Empire-to-US empire transition being a very special case).

    Kissinger talks about the dangers of the Thucydides Trap in his Atlantic interview.

    I think there’s almost zero chance it’s just Trump shooting from the hip.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri, Travis
  23. @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan, in spite of whatever illusion of insult to China we are supposed to believe that was. I guess I'm also unsuited to be president (not surprising).

    As you assume about Trump, I too would love to just blurt out what I really think (instead of just doing it here). Not only would I identify Taiwan as what it was before Nixon, I would also try to reverse history and stop facilitating the growth of China.

    I'm just an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old (now new again?) mold.

    If it is necessary to "rock the boat" in order to "stop the madness," then my revolutionary motto would be in the spirit of Patrick Henry: "Give me truth or give me chaos." I have no respect for dusty old diplomats who insist I just shut up and accept the way things are.

    What a rube I am. I must be an American.

    Depends on how you define isolationist I suppose. Pat Buchanan for example is an isolationist and opposes supporting Taiwan and supports ceding Asia and the western Pacific to China.

    Supporting Taiwan and slowing down China would require internationalism, not isolationism.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    My definition of isolationist includes being strong enough to talk to whomever we damn well please, without worrying about offending someone else.

    This is a form of independence, and I've come to realize that what we are beginning to do now is reassert that which began in 1776.

    I'm not suggesting we entangle ourselves in a Taiwan-China conflict, or that we somehow act as an ally of either. What bothers me is that we have been kowtowing to the very people who invented the term.

    Kowtowing to China, as we have done my entire adult life, only serves China. Personally, I don't like the way we left Taiwan in purgatory. Let's leave them both there and talk to them both. It's their business how they relate to each other, and our business how we relate to them.

    If China wants to tell the United States, or anyone else, how to communicate with Taiwan, then China needs to go ahead and make Taiwan part of China. As far as I can tell, this is all held in a doublethink (diplo-think) unreality, and we are just expected to play along until the frog gets boiled.

    Kowtowing to any country, allowing it to dictate how we relate to another country, amounts to foreign entanglement, just as much as allying with one does, and that is what I am against.

    It has been suggested here that Trump's actions like this one are part of his negotiating style. I'm certain that is true. This move is actually perfect. I submit that expressing ourselves here in like manner is also appropriate to this line of thought. If we can't even start out positing something other than what is already established practice, than what good are our arguments?
  24. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/02/world/trump-calls-to-world-leaders.html?_r=0

    Heh. “You wanted a shoot-from-the-hip kind of president, America. Now you’re going to get one, good and hard.”

    I don’t think Americans are going to care much that Trump isn’t going to run everything by the globalist committee first. That’s pretty much why they voted for him.

  25. @mobi
    Apparently, Kissinger is still very much in the thick of things:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/china-grappling-with-trump-turns-to-old-friend-kissinger

    "The 93-year-old former secretary of state, who secretly brokered President Richard Nixon’s watershed visit in 1972, returned to Beijing to meet with state leaders Friday, just two weeks after huddling with Trump in New York."

    ...

    “Dr. Kissinger, I am all ears to what you have to say about the current world situation and the future growth of China-U.S. relations.” [Xi Jinping]
     
    And lots more on what he's likely saying to both sides:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/the-lessons-of-henry-kissinger/505868/

    Dr. K has time on his schedule because of fewer Theranos board meetings.

    • Replies: @newrouter
    lol
    , @EriK
    Is it true that Gen. Mattis is or was on the Theranos board? He fits the demographic.
  26. On the “5-D chess” side of things:

    I haven’t read Trump’s Art of the Deal book, and even if I had, it may not spell things out programmatically, but … it seems to me that the way Trump approaches almost everything is to veer (apparently) wildly from one extreme side of an issue to the other. E.g., let the Russians handle Syria vs. we’re gonna bomb the sh*t out of ISIS; Mexican rapists are jumping our border vs. tea and sympathy with the Mexican President; Hillary should be in jail vs. thank her for her public service, etc.

    These opposing extremes are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but the rational consistency or lack thereof is not the point. The effect of this crazy-like-a-fox approach is that it signals to the counterparty that all options are on the table: we might go full retard on Syria, or we might just sit back and let the Russkies stop the bullets. We might get medieval with Mexican border jumpers, or we might build a new Entente Cordiale where Mexico does the dirty work for us. We might put Hillary in day-glo orange, or maybe just let her stew in her final irrelevance. In the case of China, we might observe the diplomatic niceties or we might call a spade a spade. We might abide by China’s accession to the WTO or we might say they don’t really mean it so why should we?

    This tactic may upset the staid formalities of the foreign policy establishment(s) of the world, but as a negotiating tactic, it is hard to beat. When one party is coming to the table with its options severely constrained and known to be so, while the other party has massive latitude and an obvious devil-may-care attitude about the outcome, well, it’s no mystery who’s gonna come out on top of that negotiation.

    So, so far so good, I say.

    • Replies: @CK
    So much of the commentary is written be people who have never made a deal or even driven a hard bargain.
    Can you imagine any of the talking heads asking, in one of our Chinese imports clothing stores, if the seller/salesperson could "do a little better" on the price of that mink coat?
    Most of the world accepts "dealing" as part of the daily routing. The bazaar, the farmer's market, the flea market, the souk. It is baby's milk in most cultures. You never pay the asking price you never accept the first offered price. In all those places you also know that you will be back again tomorrow or the next day and the same sellers will be back again tomorrow and the next day. Smart dealers always leave both parties satisfied and thus willing to deal again. People remember how the last deal went as they prepare for the next deal. From whence the presidential admonition "fool me once shame on you, won't be fooled again."
  27. If we’re going to go to war with China, don’t we have to go sooner rather than later, before we’re in a MAD situation or worse? What is the window we have right now – 10, 20 years? These things are hard to project 20 or 30 years out.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Go to war for what purpose?
    , @S. Anonyia
    Honestly- I think the window for us decisively winning ANY theoretical war against China OR Russia has passed, probably over 10 years ago. This is assuming both sides don't use nukes or chemical/biological agents, and it's a conventional war.

    Why?

    Simple- Obesity.

    We just don't have a big enough reserve of fit, mentally sound young people to do anything beyond what we currently do, muck around the Middle East.
  28. @Steve Sailer
    Dr. K has time on his schedule because of fewer Theranos board meetings.

    lol

  29. Trump has focused laser like on China during the campaign. This might be a way to rattle them enough to start a tariff war that may appear to MAGA, at least to his rust best constituents.

    He has also been complaining loudly that we are too predictable and some unpredictability is good for strategy. Taiwan policy provides excellent opportunity for unpredictability.

    He also has had an unusual phone call with Pakistan PM; praising him and the nation very profusely. Much different from commonly held opinion in U.S. policy circles and people.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-pakistan-a-fantastic-place-of-fantastic-people/

    Trump, instead of being a bumpkin, may actually be a Nixon who went to China and reorganize the foreign policy for the new era. How he starts dealing with Russia and NATO allies will give a huge window to his thinking.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Taiwan policy provides excellent opportunity for unpredictability."

    Or maybe China and Taiwan being at peace is one of those not broken things that doesn't need immediate fixing.

  30. @newrouter
    "Trump should get himself a stuffed shirt Secretary of State in the William Rogers mode."

    So you like Romney for SofS?

    I think that Sailer alludes to Huntsman…for some reason he repeatedly had shown a soft spot for this Unipartian-Mormon-Globalist with a pinch of healthy Atlanticism.

    Feed us Steve, the night is young !

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Don't forget Evan McMuffin!
    , @Jefferson
    "I think that Sailer alludes to Huntsman"

    His eye candy daughter Abby is one of the reasons to watch Fox News.
  31. OMG!!!

    Jared Taylor outed as Russian agent.

    http://www.amren.com/commentary/2016/12/official-amren-russian-propaganda/

    Surely, Sailer is working for Turkey.

  32. @epebble
    Trump has focused laser like on China during the campaign. This might be a way to rattle them enough to start a tariff war that may appear to MAGA, at least to his rust best constituents.

    He has also been complaining loudly that we are too predictable and some unpredictability is good for strategy. Taiwan policy provides excellent opportunity for unpredictability.

    He also has had an unusual phone call with Pakistan PM; praising him and the nation very profusely. Much different from commonly held opinion in U.S. policy circles and people.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-pakistan-a-fantastic-place-of-fantastic-people/

    Trump, instead of being a bumpkin, may actually be a Nixon who went to China and reorganize the foreign policy for the new era. How he starts dealing with Russia and NATO allies will give a huge window to his thinking.

    “Taiwan policy provides excellent opportunity for unpredictability.”

    Or maybe China and Taiwan being at peace is one of those not broken things that doesn’t need immediate fixing.

    • Replies: @epebble
    There is some unpredictability brewing on the other side of Eurasia too.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-russia-nato-idUSKBN13R2RA?il=0

    Looks like Trump foreign policy may become interesting.
    , @Randal

    Or maybe China and Taiwan being at peace is one of those not broken things that doesn’t need immediate fixing.
     
    Seems reasonable.

    Seems to me the Chinese view of Taiwan, as unfinished business from their civil war and a renegade province that would certainly have been reincorporated long ago were it not for interference by a superpower from the other side of the world, is at least as valid as the absolutist claim by the nationalists and US that Taiwan is an independent country that must have self determination (this is good self determination, you see, unlike bad Crimean self determination).

    The best result would probably be a natural and peaceful reunification as Chinese wealth, especially in the coastal provinces, overtakes Taiwanese wealth and local businessmen and other elites see the benefits for themselves of playing in the bigger pool, and manipulate opinion in favour of Chinese reunification. I'd say that should happen within a few decades, if the Chinese economy doesn't collapse (a possibility that can't be ruled out) and if the US can resist interfering to prevent it.

    It doesn't seem to me that there is any good outcome from a confrontation between China and the US over Taiwan, which will most likely end badly for Taiwan, for sure, and potentially disastrously for the world.

    I have noted elsewhere that Trump's picks so far (Mattis, Pompeo, Flynn) suggest the possibility of a direct US foreign policy switch from irrationality over Russia to irrationality over Iran. There are certainly voices that would like to manipulate US foreign policy towards a heightened military confrontation of China, as well.

    That's one of the costs of being an aggressively globally dominant military superpower - everyone wants to use you to defeat their own enemies, and everyone wants to use your military and economic power to wage their own crusades. And it's worth their while expending vast resources to manipulate US foreign policy in their favour, because it's potentially a game changer in any conflict or crusade.
  33. How about Jim Webb?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    From Webb's Wikipedia page:

    "In a 1990 New York Times opinion piece, Webb opposed further U.S. military escalation in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield citing lack of a coherent strategy and consent from the United States Congress. He also warned against a permanent military presence in the Middle East.[24] Seven months before the beginning of the 2003 Iraq War, Webb wrote an essay for The Washington Post in which he “questioned whether an overthrow of Saddam would "actually increase our ability to win the war against international terrorism" and pointed out that the measure of military success can be preventing wars as well as fighting them. He charged, "those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade." He concluded, "the Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S. occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. … In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets."[25]"

    I agree with you: I think Webb would be a good choice for SoS or SecDef. He's pretty based, and a real American patriot. And it would allow Trump to check off the (often) customary bipartisan box for his cabinet picks.
  34. …that new prostate medicine also helps.

  35. @Steve Sailer
    Dr. K has time on his schedule because of fewer Theranos board meetings.

    Is it true that Gen. Mattis is or was on the Theranos board? He fits the demographic.

    • Replies: @res
    Yes. https://www.theranos.com/leadership/board-of-directors
    Fortune had an article about this yesterday: http://fortune.com/2016/12/02/donald-trump-james-mattis-theranos/
    , @Jim Christian
    Mattis has a bit of a problem. Holmes would call him looking for help with the military in adopting her processes, except military medical authorities knew even in 2011 Theranos' processes weren't a fit and insiders even then were calling fraud on the entire enterprise. Supposedly Mattis looked into it, the question is how hard he pushed on Holmes' behalf and whether HE was aware he was, as a board member in conflict of interest.

    Chuckie Schumer is going to have a ball with this at confirmation-time. Although, Holmes is under investigation for SEC fraud regs, she's a big friend of the Clintons, although not a useful one of late. She used to be Chelsea Clinton's BFF for a few years, credibility of a sort. With investigations of the Clinton Foundation, the Global Initiative ongoing and with the Wikileaks revelations about how deep Chelsea really was involved, Chelsea also have legal troubles in HER future. I'm not sure Elizabeth Holmes and Chelsea are associates anymore, although Holmes was a donator to the C.F. and Hillary's campaign before the fraud became official. Schumer may have to back off on the Theranos thing, but then, all this is why we live in such interesting times.

    Feminism Inc. is so desperate for a real, live Smart Woman of Business they'll allow any mythical narrative and fraud to be perpetrated. As recently as late last year Holmes was being held up on the old pedestal at LinkedIn as the 9 Billion Dollar Woman Woman of Brilliance, long after insiders and employees were quitting, ratting and committing suicide. One of them was old George Schultz's grandson, a major whistle-blower, perhaps the final straw that finally collapsed the narrative to the consternation of George. They were getting close to an IPO, a few more months, the fraud would have been complete.
  36. @Opinionator
    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I've been taken aback by it.

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it

    Probably due to this tiny nation showing up China when it comes to electronics and high tech. Population: 23.34 million (2013) 65% or more of all smartphone, tablet and laptop design is done in Taiwan. Look at Taiwanese Foxconn with all its Mainland factories and massive Chinese (slave) labor force. If I am Chinese maximum leader (Xi’s on first?) I am embarrassed.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Nature or nurture?
  37. How about Henry Kissinger?

    • Replies: @The Inscrutable Chinaman
    He's only the key figure if Trump gives his views deference. Let's hope he does not. Worth looking into the $5 million payday he received to represent Rio Tinto before the ChiComs and the former Rio Tinto employee he sold out. Vile man.
    , @Bill B.
    Prof John Mearsheimer has pointed out that of all the prominent 'realist' school thinkers Kissinger was the only one to support the Vietnam incursion AND the Iraq invasion.

    What is the point of sounding 'wise' and 'sensible' if you get the really big things wrong?

    Personally I am suspicious of people who parade their wisdom regarding China if this means merely reshuffling the old cliches about the Middle Kingdom (no matter how deftly) but missing the brute reality staring one in the face.
  38. Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 3h3 hours ago

    Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call.
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    oh my!

  39. My office neighbor explained to me that as micro circuits get more and more sophisticated, the cost of a micro-chip “fab” (fabrication plant) is getting past the multiple-billions of dollars. There will come a point where it will be cheaper for the American micro-chip giant Intel to purchase their own aircraft carrier to “take out” TSMC rather than build the next generation “fab.”

    After he has to explain to me that TSMC stands for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, Intel’s most serious competitor, I gave him this other look of “not getting” his joke, “Why does Intel need to purchase an aircraft carrier — we could just offer some encouragement and have the PLA do this for us?”

    So why is China mad at Trump for making nice with Taiwan? The way China is wiping us out in cheap goods, Taiwan will wipe us out with the high-tech high-end stuff? But then if we snub Taiwan, Intel will purchase that aircraft carrier to wipe out their competitor TSMC, America will have a monopoly on high-end micro chips, and how does this help China?

    Maybe China being mad about us talking to Taiwan is a gambit to confuse us about our national self-interest?

    • Replies: @utu
    "Maybe China being mad about us talking to Taiwan is a gambit to confuse us about our national self-interest?" - You read too much to it. When it comes to Taiwan (or to Japan) China becomes totally irrational. I would not read anything to it. This is their major weakness.
  40. Ok, perhaps not a 5-D chess move by Trump.

    She called him to congratulate.

    (then again, a little late for a congratulatory call, isn’t it?)

    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    President of Taiwan is a chick, Tsai Ing-Wen. Where's my feminist battalion marching in her van? C'mon ladies!

    I say DJT gets double bumps from this: Anti-commie and pro-women all at once.
  41. In contrast, domestic policy (e.g., immigration policy) should be far more of a free for all than it is under the current rules of what’s respectable. Obama’s diplomatic Blank Screen approach where nobody is supposed to get the joke about why we elected this guy President has been a slow-moving disaster. I suspect that deep down Obama feels bad about how his Administration has, in effect, agitated blacks to murder each other, all in the name of #BlackLivesMatter. But “personnel is policy” and a lot of Obama’s appointees, such as Eric Holder, have been too dim to figure out what they are doing to America.

    When it comes to domestic policy, Congress and the courts have huge says, so the President using his bully pulpit is a good thing: the embodiment of democracy.

    But much of foreign policy, perhaps too much, is handed over to the President under the guise of the National Security state. So the President has less freedom to spout off his opinion about whatever comes to his attention

    Domestic policy has been moving in the direction that foreign policy has been for a long time, increasingly centralized around the President’s pen and phone.

  42. Trump world: get use to it.

  43. @Anonymous
    If we're going to go to war with China, don't we have to go sooner rather than later, before we're in a MAD situation or worse? What is the window we have right now - 10, 20 years? These things are hard to project 20 or 30 years out.

    Go to war for what purpose?

  44. @Clyde

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it
     
    Probably due to this tiny nation showing up China when it comes to electronics and high tech. Population: 23.34 million (2013) 65% or more of all smartphone, tablet and laptop design is done in Taiwan. Look at Taiwanese Foxconn with all its Mainland factories and massive Chinese (slave) labor force. If I am Chinese maximum leader (Xi's on first?) I am embarrassed.

    Nature or nurture?

    • Replies: @Clyde
    Nurture because Taiwan is run along the best lines of NE Asian capitalism. Their version of cooperative capitalism + mercantilism and taking care of the population. Though you could check out ??? how much of Taiwan's population is derived from native Taiwanese and what percentage derives from those fleeing Chinese communism a few decades ago.
    Taiwan is just across the water from Guangdong province so must be lots of economic cooperation between the two. Especially Taiwanese owners of Guangdong factories/industry.
    However:
    Taiwan Birth Rate Falls to World’s Lowest - voanews.com https://goo.gl/yt9VLf
    Taiwan announced this week that its fertility rate had fallen below one baby per woman, worrying the government about its future supply of manpower and brain power.
    Guangdong:
    The economy of Guangdong is large enough to be compared to that of many countries. in 2014, the gross domestic product (GDP) is about $1104.05 million, Guangdong has been the largest province by GDP since 1989 in Mainland China. Guangdong is responsible for 10.66 percent of the China' $10.36 trillion GDP.
  45. So funny to watch: trump you.

  46. Trump is setting the stage for negotiations with China. He means to change relations with the Chinese, and just let them and the whole world know that formal US recognition of Taiwan is a card he’s willing to play.

  47. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Times have changed rapidly, and we’re still following crazy diplomatic protocols dating beyond WWII. I’m all for Trump cleaning out the international swamp. It’s rancid. NATO would be a good place to begin house cleaning.

    We are a superpower. We’re allowed to make some faux pas along the way, with no real fuss being made by other countries. Many of them are as enamored of Trump as many of us are. He’s a bit of a celebrity, kind of like Mohammed Ali. Even those who don’t like him are oddly fascinated by him.

    Also, casting Obama as the ghost “bad cop” to Trump’s “good cop” could create some relationships that can be very beneficial in the long run. Obama has been such a mess, Trump would be ridiculous not to exploit Obama’s incompetence by presenting himself as “the good guy.”

    Trump is like the real teacher people like, replacing the substitute teacher nobody likes. Past enemies or critics can blame all their past behavior on Obama provoking them, and sidle up to Trump, who they believe might be at least receptive.

    I guess I’m just still surprised the media continues to be flummoxed by Trump. MSNBC, in particular, has become certified kabuki theater at this point. I think Racheal Maddow needs a professional evaluation. The woman is laughing maniacally while reporting on Trump… just spontaneously. When she laughs, it doesn’t make sense unless she’s either having a breakdown, or pretending she is about to. I’ve never seen a newsreader so bizarrely emotionally demonstrative since Dan Rather, and she beats him.

    She’s like an ex-wife who got hosed in a divorce, forcing her to live in a trailer, talking about her ex-husband recently winning mega lotto. Rachel displays the same weird, mistimed laughter.

    Begs the question, how do producer’s deal with a newsreader who might be suffering from a nervous breakdown? Do they just let ’em carry on until something wild happens? Is there some medical professional that can sit a newsreader down and say, “look… you’ve developed a nervous tic of blinking uncontrollably, talking out of the right side of your mouth, as if you’ve had a stroke, and laughing at strange moments. We think you need a few months off. Get some MRI’s and CAT scans going as long as you’ve got the time off.”

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Begs the question, how do producer’s deal with a newsreader who might be suffering from a nervous breakdown? Do they just let ‘em carry on until something wild happens?
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RPNLahXzGc
    , @Anon
    Nutwork News
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Great image re Rachel Maddow!
    , @Desiderius

    Trump is like the real teacher people like, replacing the substitute teacher nobody likes.
     
    Yes. I propose a Harf-Mattis scale to measure the effect.
    , @2Mintzin1
    Re Maddow: Mirthless laughter can be a sign that the person is in great emotional distress.

    "...how do producer’s deal with a newsreader who might be suffering from a nervous breakdown?"

    Well, perhaps Maddow's employers think of her as a sort of Howard Beal figure... useful keeping the ratings up, for a while.
  48. @Anonymous

    Chris Buckley 储百亮 @ChuBailiang

    Xi met Kissinger on Friday, apparently reflecting the increasingly shaky notion that China could work on Trump through the usual eminences.
     

    Chinese President Xi Jinping told former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger on Friday that China was watching U.S. politics “very closely” following the presidential election won by Republican Donald Trump.

    If his (possibly ghostwritten) book “On China” is any indication, Kissinger is the CCP’s man in the US.

  49. @Anonymous
    Depends on how you define isolationist I suppose. Pat Buchanan for example is an isolationist and opposes supporting Taiwan and supports ceding Asia and the western Pacific to China.

    Supporting Taiwan and slowing down China would require internationalism, not isolationism.

    My definition of isolationist includes being strong enough to talk to whomever we damn well please, without worrying about offending someone else.

    This is a form of independence, and I’ve come to realize that what we are beginning to do now is reassert that which began in 1776.

    I’m not suggesting we entangle ourselves in a Taiwan-China conflict, or that we somehow act as an ally of either. What bothers me is that we have been kowtowing to the very people who invented the term.

    Kowtowing to China, as we have done my entire adult life, only serves China. Personally, I don’t like the way we left Taiwan in purgatory. Let’s leave them both there and talk to them both. It’s their business how they relate to each other, and our business how we relate to them.

    If China wants to tell the United States, or anyone else, how to communicate with Taiwan, then China needs to go ahead and make Taiwan part of China. As far as I can tell, this is all held in a doublethink (diplo-think) unreality, and we are just expected to play along until the frog gets boiled.

    Kowtowing to any country, allowing it to dictate how we relate to another country, amounts to foreign entanglement, just as much as allying with one does, and that is what I am against.

    It has been suggested here that Trump’s actions like this one are part of his negotiating style. I’m certain that is true. This move is actually perfect. I submit that expressing ourselves here in like manner is also appropriate to this line of thought. If we can’t even start out positing something other than what is already established practice, than what good are our arguments?

    • Agree: Federalist
    • Replies: @Buck Turgidson
    We are the world's most powerful and influential nation, but we have been led for a long time by pathetically weak pussies who acted like they had inferiority complexes and were scared of offending anyone. We are sitting on a full house, but our past leaders acted as if they had been dealt a pair of 3s. Trump is going to do a 180 on this. I submit that obama, bush, and clinton were combinations of out-of-their-depth/globalist/lightweight/horrible negotiators/too worried about offending others/not ready for prime time. Donald Trump is ready for prime time. I really really hope that Trump initiates major immigration reform that represents the people's interests (e.g, moratorium) and does not follow idiots like obama and merkel et al. who envision themselves as leaders of the world (not their own countries). Donald should join forces with Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, Viktor Orban, hopefully Marine le Pen, and ram home the reality of a new nationalist paradigm, and let the third worlders know that the welcome mat is gone, and that they are staying home.
    , @bomag

    My definition of isolationist includes being strong enough to talk to whomever we damn well please, without worrying about offending someone else.
     
    But strength also means knowing the rules, and not needlessly alienating someone who could do us a favor in the future.
  50. Taiwan’s fatal mistake was in failing to develop nuclear weapons for itself. This -not vapid US promises- was the true path to security for itself.

    • Replies: @Rod1963
    Taiwan has the technological base to build them within six months. It's not hard when you a high tech country with a lot of smart people in it.
    , @reiner Tor
    They can build it, but China has promised they would attack Taiwan if they had an indication Taiwan was about to build nukes.

    South Korea, Japan, Germany etc. are also capable of building a nuke within a year. Not that hard for at least mid-sized rich first world countries.
    , @NOTA
    If it looks plausibly like we are going to stop defending them, my prediction is that the nuclear club will have a new confirmed member very quickly. One reason I'm not so enthusiastic about getting out of the business of defending Asia is that there are at least three high-tech industrial powerhouses (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) who would very quickly develop their own nukes and openly go nuclear.
  51. @mobi
    Apparently, Kissinger is still very much in the thick of things:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/china-grappling-with-trump-turns-to-old-friend-kissinger

    "The 93-year-old former secretary of state, who secretly brokered President Richard Nixon’s watershed visit in 1972, returned to Beijing to meet with state leaders Friday, just two weeks after huddling with Trump in New York."

    ...

    “Dr. Kissinger, I am all ears to what you have to say about the current world situation and the future growth of China-U.S. relations.” [Xi Jinping]
     
    And lots more on what he's likely saying to both sides:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/the-lessons-of-henry-kissinger/505868/

    And lots more on what he’s likely saying to both sides:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/the-lessons-of-henry-kissinger/505868/

    Kissinger thinks that Obama was too hawkish (!) vis-a-vis China:

    JG: That the arc of history is bending in their direction.

    HK: Some Chinese strategists may think that. Or one can interpret their actions as “However you interpret the arc of history, a conflict between countries possessing the technologies we do, and their uncertain application, is so dangerous that however you explain its origins, we have a duty to try to cooperate to avoid it.”

    I think that this is President Xi’s view. But we will not be able to demonstrate which interpretation is correct for about 20 years. In the meantime, our policies must be broad-gauged enough to allow for both.

    JG: Has Obama been too hawkish toward China, then?

    HK: Not too hawkish but too short-term. To truly advance our relationship with China, we must speak in trends.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "Kissinger thinks that Obama was too hawkish (!) vis-a-vis China"

    That's not what the quote says.

    "Not too hawkish but too short-term. To truly advance our relationship with China, we must speak in trends."

    And the trend is increasing Chinese economic and military power, decreasing US economic (and therefore military in medium/long term) power.

    http://www.fingleton.net/extract-from-in-the-jaws-of-the-dragon/

    If Trump can do anything about US decline, that will speak to China in the language they understand more than words can.

    "How many 14 nanometer microprocessor plants has the Pope?"
  52. @mobi
    Ok, perhaps not a 5-D chess move by Trump.

    She called him to congratulate.

    (then again, a little late for a congratulatory call, isn't it?)

    President of Taiwan is a chick, Tsai Ing-Wen. Where’s my feminist battalion marching in her van? C’mon ladies!

    I say DJT gets double bumps from this: Anti-commie and pro-women all at once.

  53. @Opinionator
    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I've been taken aback by it.

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it.

    They are very sensitive about all kinds of things. Mainly, it’s an affectation that follows from their assumption that they are the greatest ethny/polity on earth, meaning that any policy or statement reflecting anything other than fawning admiration will be interpreted as a slight.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Chinese have been big on All Under Heaven belonging to the Empire for 2000+ years. See the movie "Hero."
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Sounds like a certain racial group we have here, though on the other side of the bell curve.
    , @Clyde

    They are very sensitive about all kinds of things. Mainly, it’s an affectation that follows from their assumption that they are the greatest ethny/polity on earth, meaning that any policy or statement reflecting anything other than fawning admiration will be interpreted as a slight.
     
    Half of these affections are North Korean style robotic bluster and bullshit but you got it right! Talk about being on automatic! Exciting to them. Annoying to everyone else.
    , @bored identity
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far awry, when I was still just a little probationer- consumerist in a big, bad, cavernous store, my dad would squint his eyes on the bottom of some boxed toy that was already snail-trailed with my salivating wannabe ownership desire, and than he would say:

    " I'm not buying this crap from Taiwan/Hong Kong."


    That was a smart way to disguise his poor niggardly soul behind a wall of quality-control, obsessively patriotic protectionism.

    Point One: No crap from China was polluting shores of the Westworld at that time.


    Point Two: My fear of the future ain't get any better when President-elect 唐諾得 J. 川普 is already putting himself at risk of Ping Maying first his Country, then his presidency .

    The Main Point: I really miss my dad.
  54. @Steve Sailer
    "Taiwan policy provides excellent opportunity for unpredictability."

    Or maybe China and Taiwan being at peace is one of those not broken things that doesn't need immediate fixing.

    There is some unpredictability brewing on the other side of Eurasia too.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-russia-nato-idUSKBN13R2RA?il=0

    Looks like Trump foreign policy may become interesting.

    • Replies: @bored identity
    Never good sign, or always good sign? :



    On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks commented on President-Elect Donald Trump’s Defense, Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Transportation Secretary picks by saying Trump is “exceeding expectations.”

    Brooks said, “I have to say, he’s exceeding expectations. Sometimes, during the campaign, he seemed to be actively trying to misgovern. And here he seems to be trying to have an effective administration.

    They’re not all my — the people I would pick, but he won the election. Some of them are not only good for Trump, but genuinely good picks.”

     

    , @Brutusale
    The chick who's Norway's defense minister is just asking Daddy to protect her, all the while opening her legs for the rapefugee hoards created by the R2P baloney that she supports.

    Daddy should tell her to go buy her own gun.

    The defense ministers of Norway, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands:

    http://girltalkhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2-4-2014-7-08-46-AM-e1457638060447.png
  55. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Maybe F. William Engdahl is right?

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/is-donald-trump-really-only-a-showman-who-will-prepare-the-usa-for-war

    According to Engdahl, Donald Trump was put into office to,

    prepare America for war, a war the banks of Wall Street and the US military industrial complex are not presently in a position economically or industrially or otherwise, geopolitically, to win. His job will be to reposition the United States for them to reverse the trend to disintegration of American global hegemony, to, as the Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz Project for the New American Century put it in their September, 2000 report, “rebuild America’s defenses.” To do that preparation, a deception strategy that will fatally weaken the developing deep bonds between Russia and China will be priority. It’s already begun. We have a friendly phone call from The Donald to Vladimir the Fearsome in Moscow. Russian media is euphoric about a new era in US-Russia relations after Obama. Then suddenly we hear the war-mongering NATO head, Stoltenberg, suddenly purr soothing words to Russia. Float the idea that California Congressman and Putin acquaintance, Dana Rohrabacher, is leaked as a possible Secretary of State. It’s classic Kissinger Balance of Power geopolitics–seem to ally with the weaker of two mortal enemies, Russia, to isolate the stronger, China.

    Trump also wants to boost the Navy up to 350 ships, presumably for use in the Pacific:

    https://www.stripes.com/news/trump-wants-350-ship-navy-but-how-and-why-1.439619

  56. @newrouter
    "I’m very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan"

    Trump received a call from the leader of Taiwan.

    “I’m very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan”

    Trump received a call from the leader of Taiwan.

    Even better, so…

    …I’m very happy Trump accepted a call from the leader of Taiwan.

    What was he supposed to do, tell the leader of Taiwan, “I’m sorry, but I can’t talk to you; my bosses in Beijing won’t let me?”

    This is not one of those embarrassed commenter moments (which I’ve had) where I’m supposed to feel even stupider than I am.

    The point is the same, in fact better because he didn’t initiate the call. Though I suppose somehow in the imaginary world of diplomacy this could be even more offensive to our Chinese creditors.

    Jeez, I hope the feng shui was right and his phone faced the right Chinese direction, and I hope nobody dialed any unlucky numbers.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    We don't recognize Taiwan as an independent country, and we don't have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Communications with Taiwan usually run through the American Institute in Taiwan, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, the State Department, and the National Security Council.

    The president of Taiwan would not have made the call without prior arrangements by Trump or his transition team.
  57. @mobi
    OT, but is Assange reading Unz?

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/801524675134320640

    (Wikileaks directs readers to Unz.com's 'Obituary for the NY Times)

    That’s interesting. Most likely that means he reads Sailer as opposed to the umpteen dwarves (sorry Pat, Derb).

  58. @Inquiring Mind
    My office neighbor explained to me that as micro circuits get more and more sophisticated, the cost of a micro-chip "fab" (fabrication plant) is getting past the multiple-billions of dollars. There will come a point where it will be cheaper for the American micro-chip giant Intel to purchase their own aircraft carrier to "take out" TSMC rather than build the next generation "fab."

    After he has to explain to me that TSMC stands for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, Intel's most serious competitor, I gave him this other look of "not getting" his joke, "Why does Intel need to purchase an aircraft carrier -- we could just offer some encouragement and have the PLA do this for us?"

    So why is China mad at Trump for making nice with Taiwan? The way China is wiping us out in cheap goods, Taiwan will wipe us out with the high-tech high-end stuff? But then if we snub Taiwan, Intel will purchase that aircraft carrier to wipe out their competitor TSMC, America will have a monopoly on high-end micro chips, and how does this help China?

    Maybe China being mad about us talking to Taiwan is a gambit to confuse us about our national self-interest?

    “Maybe China being mad about us talking to Taiwan is a gambit to confuse us about our national self-interest?” – You read too much to it. When it comes to Taiwan (or to Japan) China becomes totally irrational. I would not read anything to it. This is their major weakness.

  59. But much of foreign policy, perhaps too much, is handed over to the President under the guise of the National Security state. So the President has less freedom to spout off his opinion about whatever comes to his attention… Trump has a little under a year and a half to grow into the job. It’s a challenge, but not impossible. Mostly, he needs to get across that he’s not going to upset settled foreign policy just for fun.

    Agree that Trump needs to get a silver-tongued mouthpiece where foreign policy is concerned. The free-for-all is fine for domestic affairs, but he sends the wrong tweet about some delicate foreign policy matter, he’s going to wind up in a repeat of the 1908 Daily Telegraph Affair (where Kaiser Wilhelm I wound up simultaneously alienating every great power in Europe plus the Japanese by mouthing off in a press interview). Bluster and showboating doesn’t translate well across languages and cultures and between nuclear powers. A decent SecState candidate to start managing these matters now should be a top priority for the transition.

  60. @Johann Ricke

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it.
     
    They are very sensitive about all kinds of things. Mainly, it's an affectation that follows from their assumption that they are the greatest ethny/polity on earth, meaning that any policy or statement reflecting anything other than fawning admiration will be interpreted as a slight.

    The Chinese have been big on All Under Heaven belonging to the Empire for 2000+ years. See the movie “Hero.”

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    The Chinese have been big on All Under Heaven belonging to the Empire for 2000+ years. See the movie “Hero.”
     
    That's the long-term worry. Today, Taiwan. Tomorrow, the world. In that methodical way that the Chinese emperors of yore added to their holdings - taking only enough that they could control (i.e. avoiding rebellions by renegade generals to form independent kingdoms), consolidating that control, and then adding some more. Except now what can be controlled from afar has been supercharged by modern communications and logistics. Official propaganda aside, China has always been a territorially expansive power. In the last 200 years, its relative weakness has limited its reach. But as late as 1792, the Chinese were engaged in imperial adventures that ended only when the treasury's seemingly bottomless depths were exhausted.
    , @frayedthread
    Saw that, and saw another flick with the same plot, but with a VERY different take on things, vastly underrated I think: The Emperor and the Assassin
    Way less jingoistic than Hero.
  61. I would frankly love to know what various national intelligence services are telling their respective governments right now about Trump and the political situation inside the United States. If the Current Year has shown us anything, it’s how deeply unreliable, fragmented and perceptually biased any picture of current affairs, especially concerning politics, is in this country right now. I wonder if foreign spies have any better ideas about what’s going on, better sources, or whatever, or if they’re mostly just relying themselves on the skewed media.

    I’ll note in passing that the New York Times’ second listed available language on the front page of their website is Chinese, and that the country from which they get the second-largest amount of their traffic (after the US) is Mainland China.

  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    In reality, both China and Taiwan are independent countries, but these diplomatic fictions have their reasons.

    I believe Taiwan’s constitution still claims sovereignty over mainland China. I think the analogy would be something like if a state or some states seceded, fought the federal government, claimed sovereignty over the United States, and after cessation of hostilities both the federal government in D.C. and the breakaway states claimed sovereignty over the United States. The federal government would be sensitive to other countries recognizing the breakaway states.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    I believe Taiwan’s constitution still claims sovereignty over mainland China. I think the analogy would be something like if a state or some states seceded, fought the federal government, claimed sovereignty over the United States, and after cessation of hostilities both the federal government in D.C. and the breakaway states claimed sovereignty over the United States. The federal government would be sensitive to other countries recognizing the breakaway states.
     
    The Taiwanese want to change it. The Chinese, however, have said that any such change would be grounds for military action:

    In 1991, President Lee Teng-hui unofficially claimed that the government would no longer challenge the rule of the Communists in mainland China, the ROC government under Kuomintang (KMT) rule actively maintained that it was the sole legitimate government of China. The Courts in Taiwan have never accepted President Lee's statement, primarily due to the reason that the (now defunct) National Assembly never officially changed the acclaimed national borders. Notably, the People's Republic of China claims that changing the national borders would be "a precursor to Taiwan independence". The task of changing the national borders now requires a constitutional amendment passed by the Legislative Yuan and ratified by a majority of all eligible ROC voters, which the PRC has implied would constitute grounds for military attack.
     
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I can see the sensitivity about this in the '70s, on the heels of the Cultural Revolution, wars with India and Vietnam, China being dirt-poor, etc. But China is a grownup country now. Maybe it's time to treat them like one.
  63. I’m now thinking she wouldn’t have risked the call – and risked it being rejected by Trump, consistent with protocol, thereby strengthening China’s hand – unless the word was slipped to her that the call would be accepted.

    Ok, 5-D chess is back on.

    • Replies: @Thomas

    Ok, 5-D chess is back on.
     
    The question is, who's playing it? I could see Taiwan's government maybe thinking they could get some advantage with this. The other big question is who is going to run Trump's foreign policy, if it's going to be neocons back in charge again (including those of the "Blue Team" flavor)? Supposedly, Stephen Yates, a former Dick Cheney advisor and Heritage Foundation guy, helped set up this call.
  64. @anon
    Taiwan's fatal mistake was in failing to develop nuclear weapons for itself. This -not vapid US promises- was the true path to security for itself.

    Taiwan has the technological base to build them within six months. It’s not hard when you a high tech country with a lot of smart people in it.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    My understanding is that Japan is six weeks from the PM giving the go ahead to having a delivery capable nuclear weapon ready to go.

    Mind you, I heard this years ago so that time frame may have been cut down since then.
  65. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    “I’m very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan”

    Trump received a call from the leader of Taiwan.
     

    Even better, so...

    ...I'm very happy Trump accepted a call from the leader of Taiwan.

    What was he supposed to do, tell the leader of Taiwan, "I'm sorry, but I can't talk to you; my bosses in Beijing won't let me?"

    This is not one of those embarrassed commenter moments (which I've had) where I'm supposed to feel even stupider than I am.

    The point is the same, in fact better because he didn't initiate the call. Though I suppose somehow in the imaginary world of diplomacy this could be even more offensive to our Chinese creditors.

    Jeez, I hope the feng shui was right and his phone faced the right Chinese direction, and I hope nobody dialed any unlucky numbers.

    We don’t recognize Taiwan as an independent country, and we don’t have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Communications with Taiwan usually run through the American Institute in Taiwan, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, the State Department, and the National Security Council.

    The president of Taiwan would not have made the call without prior arrangements by Trump or his transition team.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Okay then, so in essence Trump did make the call.

    This dance is very interesting. I can feel myself going down the Chinese diplomatic rabbit hole...

    So did the President of Taiwan have to get permission from Beijing to participate in this call? The answer to that would seem to indicate who is or isn't independent, regardless of who we "recognize."
  66. @mobi
    I'm now thinking she wouldn't have risked the call - and risked it being rejected by Trump, consistent with protocol, thereby strengthening China's hand - unless the word was slipped to her that the call would be accepted.

    Ok, 5-D chess is back on.

    Ok, 5-D chess is back on.

    The question is, who’s playing it? I could see Taiwan’s government maybe thinking they could get some advantage with this. The other big question is who is going to run Trump’s foreign policy, if it’s going to be neocons back in charge again (including those of the “Blue Team” flavor)? Supposedly, Stephen Yates, a former Dick Cheney advisor and Heritage Foundation guy, helped set up this call.

  67. God almighty people here are already having a case of the vapors and bringing out the feinting couches and worrying about nuclear war. All because the PM of Taiwan telephones Trump and they have a chat.

    You folks must really think the Chinese leadership are a bunch of emotional children? They aren’t, they’re hardass pragmatists and negotiators. They scream and rant over the slightest thing we do because it scares our political and intellectual classes into rolling over like beat dogs.

    Yeah they’re aggressive and nasty, and worse they spy on everyone and steal our IP like we’re giving it away. They hack our government computer networks and mess with our power grid. I’m sure when Trump got briefed on China’s espionage efforts here, he shit a brick. It’s that bad.

    Nice folks eh? And Sailer is worried they might call us a bad name. Sheesh. They already do it behind our backs.

    That being said, in the hell would they want to commit suicide over a stinking island? As it is they are sitting fat, dumb and richer than Croesus so why spoil it with nukes. Muslims they are not.

    Look take it from their position. We are their principal trading partner and source of revenue that keeps China running full tilt and made their leadership quite wealthy. They screw with us and it’s game over for them, and they won’t have a safe haven in the West should events in China go pear shaped. Hint they aren’t buying up expensive houses in Canada and the U.S. for just investment purposes or having their babies here. Their leadership knows they are sitting a time bomb.

    In the end Trump and China will come to a agreement because it benefits both sides.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @No_0ne
    "They scream and rant over the slightest thing we do because it scares our political and intellectual classes into rolling over like beat dogs."

    Well put.
  68. @Steve Sailer
    The Chinese have been big on All Under Heaven belonging to the Empire for 2000+ years. See the movie "Hero."

    The Chinese have been big on All Under Heaven belonging to the Empire for 2000+ years. See the movie “Hero.”

    That’s the long-term worry. Today, Taiwan. Tomorrow, the world. In that methodical way that the Chinese emperors of yore added to their holdings – taking only enough that they could control (i.e. avoiding rebellions by renegade generals to form independent kingdoms), consolidating that control, and then adding some more. Except now what can be controlled from afar has been supercharged by modern communications and logistics. Official propaganda aside, China has always been a territorially expansive power. In the last 200 years, its relative weakness has limited its reach. But as late as 1792, the Chinese were engaged in imperial adventures that ended only when the treasury’s seemingly bottomless depths were exhausted.

  69. I would be grateful for some historical examples of wars started due to someone shooting their mouth off.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Kaiser Wilhelm's PR tended to do a lot to alienate Britain.
    , @5371
    More usually, that is the excuse used to explain to the rubes wars which started for other reasons.
    , @anon

    I would be grateful for some historical examples of wars started due to someone shooting their mouth off.
     
    Well, there was a French Dauphin talking some righteous shit to Henry V, essentially requesting that Henry V stop annoying them with his goofy notions, and go play tennis like a good little twit...


    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=henry+v+tennis+balls


    Henry... took it a bit personally, and so it kind of escalated from there:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHihAPr2Rc


    Hope this helps.

    , @Jim Don Bob
    First Iraq War courtesy of April Glaspie's big mouth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspiettps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
  70. @Anonymous

    In reality, both China and Taiwan are independent countries, but these diplomatic fictions have their reasons.
     
    I believe Taiwan's constitution still claims sovereignty over mainland China. I think the analogy would be something like if a state or some states seceded, fought the federal government, claimed sovereignty over the United States, and after cessation of hostilities both the federal government in D.C. and the breakaway states claimed sovereignty over the United States. The federal government would be sensitive to other countries recognizing the breakaway states.

    I believe Taiwan’s constitution still claims sovereignty over mainland China. I think the analogy would be something like if a state or some states seceded, fought the federal government, claimed sovereignty over the United States, and after cessation of hostilities both the federal government in D.C. and the breakaway states claimed sovereignty over the United States. The federal government would be sensitive to other countries recognizing the breakaway states.

    The Taiwanese want to change it. The Chinese, however, have said that any such change would be grounds for military action:

    In 1991, President Lee Teng-hui unofficially claimed that the government would no longer challenge the rule of the Communists in mainland China, the ROC government under Kuomintang (KMT) rule actively maintained that it was the sole legitimate government of China. The Courts in Taiwan have never accepted President Lee’s statement, primarily due to the reason that the (now defunct) National Assembly never officially changed the acclaimed national borders. Notably, the People’s Republic of China claims that changing the national borders would be “a precursor to Taiwan independence”. The task of changing the national borders now requires a constitutional amendment passed by the Legislative Yuan and ratified by a majority of all eligible ROC voters, which the PRC has implied would constitute grounds for military attack.

  71. A thing to know about Taiwan’s current government is that they’re the ones who are opposed to the “One China” idea generally, and more inclined towards potential independence (in other words, not the ones who fled from the Mainland and started the ROC; Taiwan has 2 big political coalitions: the KMT who are the ones descended from Chiang Kai-Shek’s people from the Mainland and who expect an eventual reunification; and the DPP, which tend to represent Taiwanese natives and non-Han Chinese, as well as business interests, and are more focused on Taiwanese independence. The DPP is the current ruling party). There’s been rising tension on this point lately with China’s increased overseas aggressiveness.

    There’s too much history of small, vulnerable, but crafty countries playing “let’s you and him fight” with big, powerful, but unevenly led ones for their own advantage (see, e.g., the start of WWI, or the US-Israel relationship). It’s games like this that Trump will need to watch out for.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    There’s too much history of small, vulnerable, but crafty countries playing “let’s you and him fight” with big, powerful, but unevenly led ones for their own advantage (see, e.g., the start of WWI, or the US-Israel relationship). It’s games like this that Trump will need to watch out for.
     
    In Taiwan's case, since the battleground would be Taiwan itself, that's doubtful. They just want a lifeline. What's in it for us? Maybe the shock of defeat will upend the Chinese government, resulting in a cataclysmic Chinese civil war between Xi and his domestic enemies, with perhaps partition among contending warlords as the best-case outcome for regional and global security.
  72. @Anonymous
    We don't recognize Taiwan as an independent country, and we don't have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Communications with Taiwan usually run through the American Institute in Taiwan, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, the State Department, and the National Security Council.

    The president of Taiwan would not have made the call without prior arrangements by Trump or his transition team.

    Okay then, so in essence Trump did make the call.

    This dance is very interesting. I can feel myself going down the Chinese diplomatic rabbit hole…

    So did the President of Taiwan have to get permission from Beijing to participate in this call? The answer to that would seem to indicate who is or isn’t independent, regardless of who we “recognize.”

  73. @European-American
    I would be grateful for some historical examples of wars started due to someone shooting their mouth off.

    Kaiser Wilhelm’s PR tended to do a lot to alienate Britain.

  74. The call is said to have been arranged by Stephen Yates, a foreign policy operative who worked for the Bush administration and was an advisor to Cheney. Apparently Yates is in Taiwan right now. He is fluent in Mandarin and was a Mormon missionary in Taiwan.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    BTW, one of the first congressmen to applaud Trump's call was Rep. Matt Salmon from Arizona, who was also a Mormon missionary to Taiwan.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308609-gop-lawmakers-praise-trump-for-taiwan-call

    Republican lawmakers have praised president-elect Donald Trump following the news that he spoke on the phone with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen.

    Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) applauded Trump for “making a strong statement” with the historic conversation.

    "I commend [President-elect] Trump for reaching out to the democratically-elected President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen,” Salmon said in a statement to The Hill.

    Salmon chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. He is a former missionary in Taiwan, and attended the recent inauguration of the new Taiwanese president.
     
  75. Tangentially-related:

    Singapore may prove a tough nut for China to crack over regional security

    As the impounding of Singaporean troop carriers in Hong Kong exposes rising tensions between China and Singapore, the Lion City is unlikely to budge on core security interests concerning Beijing – its military relationship with Taiwan, worries over the South China Sea and its hosting of the U.S. military.

    Singaporean officials, retired military officers and analysts stress that even while Singapore publicly plays down the spat, its leadership will not easily give in to what it sees as intimidation on matters of national importance.

    All three points – Taiwan, the South China Sea and its deepening relationship with the Pentagon – reflect positions refined over decades as the tiny island state seeks to secure itself in a region now undergoing historic strategic shifts amid China’s rise.

    “We are a small country and larger countries – not just China – routinely try intimidation. But because China wants us to accept the appellation of ‘Chinese country’ and because so many Singaporeans are of Chinese descent, their actions have a special resonance.”

  76. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    The call is said to have been arranged by Stephen Yates, a foreign policy operative who worked for the Bush administration and was an advisor to Cheney. Apparently Yates is in Taiwan right now. He is fluent in Mandarin and was a Mormon missionary in Taiwan.

    BTW, one of the first congressmen to applaud Trump’s call was Rep. Matt Salmon from Arizona, who was also a Mormon missionary to Taiwan.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308609-gop-lawmakers-praise-trump-for-taiwan-call

    Republican lawmakers have praised president-elect Donald Trump following the news that he spoke on the phone with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen.

    Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) applauded Trump for “making a strong statement” with the historic conversation.

    “I commend [President-elect] Trump for reaching out to the democratically-elected President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen,” Salmon said in a statement to The Hill.

    Salmon chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. He is a former missionary in Taiwan, and attended the recent inauguration of the new Taiwanese president.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Oh boy ...
    , @Opinionator
    I don't think many well-informed Americans are aware of it, but it is my understanding that that there is an extremely strong Taiwan lobby in the United States. Not as powerful and influential as the Israel Lobby but still quite aggressive.
  77. @Thomas
    A thing to know about Taiwan's current government is that they're the ones who are opposed to the "One China" idea generally, and more inclined towards potential independence (in other words, not the ones who fled from the Mainland and started the ROC; Taiwan has 2 big political coalitions: the KMT who are the ones descended from Chiang Kai-Shek's people from the Mainland and who expect an eventual reunification; and the DPP, which tend to represent Taiwanese natives and non-Han Chinese, as well as business interests, and are more focused on Taiwanese independence. The DPP is the current ruling party). There's been rising tension on this point lately with China's increased overseas aggressiveness.

    There's too much history of small, vulnerable, but crafty countries playing "let's you and him fight" with big, powerful, but unevenly led ones for their own advantage (see, e.g., the start of WWI, or the US-Israel relationship). It's games like this that Trump will need to watch out for.

    There’s too much history of small, vulnerable, but crafty countries playing “let’s you and him fight” with big, powerful, but unevenly led ones for their own advantage (see, e.g., the start of WWI, or the US-Israel relationship). It’s games like this that Trump will need to watch out for.

    In Taiwan’s case, since the battleground would be Taiwan itself, that’s doubtful. They just want a lifeline. What’s in it for us? Maybe the shock of defeat will upend the Chinese government, resulting in a cataclysmic Chinese civil war between Xi and his domestic enemies, with perhaps partition among contending warlords as the best-case outcome for regional and global security.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Maybe the shock of defeat will upend the Chinese government"

    Or maybe the US would get defeated in a completely ridiculous war over an island 8,000 miles away?

  78. @European-American
    I would be grateful for some historical examples of wars started due to someone shooting their mouth off.

    More usually, that is the excuse used to explain to the rubes wars which started for other reasons.

  79. @Johann Ricke

    There’s too much history of small, vulnerable, but crafty countries playing “let’s you and him fight” with big, powerful, but unevenly led ones for their own advantage (see, e.g., the start of WWI, or the US-Israel relationship). It’s games like this that Trump will need to watch out for.
     
    In Taiwan's case, since the battleground would be Taiwan itself, that's doubtful. They just want a lifeline. What's in it for us? Maybe the shock of defeat will upend the Chinese government, resulting in a cataclysmic Chinese civil war between Xi and his domestic enemies, with perhaps partition among contending warlords as the best-case outcome for regional and global security.

    “Maybe the shock of defeat will upend the Chinese government”

    Or maybe the US would get defeated in a completely ridiculous war over an island 8,000 miles away?

    • Replies: @Thomas
    A shooting war is pretty unlikely under any circumstances (a couple of people have pointed out how much, for example, Taiwanese businesses like Foxconn have invested in the mainland, which is par for the course for overseas Chinese in general), but there are plenty of reasons you don't want to unnecessarily inflame relations with China (like, for example, their having a permanent UN Security Council veto).

    One thing to note is that the initial public position Chinese government is taking over this right now is 1) blame Taiwan for a "petty gambit"; and 2) downplay it hard to their own people (they're censoring it on Weibo, which is the local version of Facebook). (http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/trump-tsai-phone-call-spells-trouble-for-sino-us-ties-say-analysts) I'm assuming they see this as a means of offering Trump a way to save face and avoid a bigger incident (of course, his domestic enemies in the press might frustrate that). Nobody in that part of the world ever says publicly what they really mean. Note also they have to keep it from their own people because they really don't want to have to deal with domestic pressure from an impression of Trump as someone who is trying to bully China. I'm assuming that in private, they're hitting the roof with Obama and anyone they might have to talk to, whoever that is, on Trump's team.

    Again, though, with Mattis (Bill Kristol's would-be President) SecDef, and now this... watch the neocons.

    , @Johann Ricke

    Or maybe the US would get defeated in a completely ridiculous war over an island 8,000 miles away?
     
    Before the advent of long range ballistic missiles and modern communications and logistics, 8,000 miles used to mean something. Now it means we need better missile defenses and forces closer to our most dangerous potential adversaries. Right now, that's China.

    We could hang back and hope that the situation swings our way. The risk is that the entire Far East (including Australia and New Zealand) is unified under Chinese rule. And the ever-expanding empire sets its sights on the resource-rich Americas, starting with Chile, and working its way north. As with the Soviets, hope for the adversary's eventual collapse needs to be balanced with the ability to resist any attacks that materialize.
    , @Anonymous
    It would be stupid and would make the US look stupid.

    The only positive might be that a diplomatic or military conflict with Beijing would give Trump the political capital to do things like very high tariffs and make companies produce domestically, which might otherwise be more difficult under normal circumstances. It would be a domestic political victory for Trump.
  80. @Anonymous
    BTW, one of the first congressmen to applaud Trump's call was Rep. Matt Salmon from Arizona, who was also a Mormon missionary to Taiwan.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308609-gop-lawmakers-praise-trump-for-taiwan-call

    Republican lawmakers have praised president-elect Donald Trump following the news that he spoke on the phone with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen.

    Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) applauded Trump for “making a strong statement” with the historic conversation.

    "I commend [President-elect] Trump for reaching out to the democratically-elected President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen,” Salmon said in a statement to The Hill.

    Salmon chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. He is a former missionary in Taiwan, and attended the recent inauguration of the new Taiwanese president.
     

    Oh boy …

  81. @anon
    Times have changed rapidly, and we're still following crazy diplomatic protocols dating beyond WWII. I'm all for Trump cleaning out the international swamp. It's rancid. NATO would be a good place to begin house cleaning.

    We are a superpower. We're allowed to make some faux pas along the way, with no real fuss being made by other countries. Many of them are as enamored of Trump as many of us are. He's a bit of a celebrity, kind of like Mohammed Ali. Even those who don't like him are oddly fascinated by him.

    Also, casting Obama as the ghost "bad cop" to Trump's "good cop" could create some relationships that can be very beneficial in the long run. Obama has been such a mess, Trump would be ridiculous not to exploit Obama's incompetence by presenting himself as "the good guy."

    Trump is like the real teacher people like, replacing the substitute teacher nobody likes. Past enemies or critics can blame all their past behavior on Obama provoking them, and sidle up to Trump, who they believe might be at least receptive.

    I guess I'm just still surprised the media continues to be flummoxed by Trump. MSNBC, in particular, has become certified kabuki theater at this point. I think Racheal Maddow needs a professional evaluation. The woman is laughing maniacally while reporting on Trump... just spontaneously. When she laughs, it doesn't make sense unless she's either having a breakdown, or pretending she is about to. I've never seen a newsreader so bizarrely emotionally demonstrative since Dan Rather, and she beats him.

    She's like an ex-wife who got hosed in a divorce, forcing her to live in a trailer, talking about her ex-husband recently winning mega lotto. Rachel displays the same weird, mistimed laughter.

    Begs the question, how do producer's deal with a newsreader who might be suffering from a nervous breakdown? Do they just let 'em carry on until something wild happens? Is there some medical professional that can sit a newsreader down and say, "look... you've developed a nervous tic of blinking uncontrollably, talking out of the right side of your mouth, as if you've had a stroke, and laughing at strange moments. We think you need a few months off. Get some MRI's and CAT scans going as long as you've got the time off."

    Begs the question, how do producer’s deal with a newsreader who might be suffering from a nervous breakdown? Do they just let ‘em carry on until something wild happens?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RPNLahXzGc

    • Replies: @anon
    Watch the nervous tics of Maddow. Note in particular, she speaks out of the right side of her mouth. Is that the aftereffects of a stroke? There must be some nervous system issue attached to that odd, but consistent trait:


    https://youtu.be/IkTuSHOj19U?t=26s


    Now watch art imitating life, with corresponding nervous tics included:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s66VNF5-624


    I'd also like to add Mika Brzezinski to the list of targets for professionals in white lab coats, except the woman is clearly neurotic, in such a way that in encumbers her ability to read from a teleprompter, or relate to others in a professional manner. Challenging the viewers to wonder if this might be the day she has a complete breakdown on the air shouldn't be a fundamental premise of her show:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l4uUur_LlQ


    Mika discovers, on air, what "Furry Conventions" are about:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp76cHN2FDU


    To be fair, it was entertaining, but it begs the question of why they present this as some kind of news commentary show, rather than an adulterated, current-event version of "Match Game" that used to be hosted by the perverse and depressing Gene Rayburn, and his perverse and depressing panel of embittered, minor celebrities. It has the exact same vibe. Mika is not stable. Why try to present her as a professional for comedic value, when it undermines the show's credibility as a proper news commentary show? Especially since we've seen what has manifested politically, due in part to the lack of professionalism of the news organizations that ironically consider the outcome of our national election to be such a bitter blow they didn't see coming, much like the drunken asshole who finds himself plopped on his ass outside the bar to the applause of the people inside he thought loved him?

  82. @Steve Sailer
    "Maybe the shock of defeat will upend the Chinese government"

    Or maybe the US would get defeated in a completely ridiculous war over an island 8,000 miles away?

    A shooting war is pretty unlikely under any circumstances (a couple of people have pointed out how much, for example, Taiwanese businesses like Foxconn have invested in the mainland, which is par for the course for overseas Chinese in general), but there are plenty of reasons you don’t want to unnecessarily inflame relations with China (like, for example, their having a permanent UN Security Council veto).

    One thing to note is that the initial public position Chinese government is taking over this right now is 1) blame Taiwan for a “petty gambit”; and 2) downplay it hard to their own people (they’re censoring it on Weibo, which is the local version of Facebook). (http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/trump-tsai-phone-call-spells-trouble-for-sino-us-ties-say-analysts) I’m assuming they see this as a means of offering Trump a way to save face and avoid a bigger incident (of course, his domestic enemies in the press might frustrate that). Nobody in that part of the world ever says publicly what they really mean. Note also they have to keep it from their own people because they really don’t want to have to deal with domestic pressure from an impression of Trump as someone who is trying to bully China. I’m assuming that in private, they’re hitting the roof with Obama and anyone they might have to talk to, whoever that is, on Trump’s team.

    Again, though, with Mattis (Bill Kristol’s would-be President) SecDef, and now this… watch the neocons.

  83. @Steve Sailer
    "Maybe the shock of defeat will upend the Chinese government"

    Or maybe the US would get defeated in a completely ridiculous war over an island 8,000 miles away?

    Or maybe the US would get defeated in a completely ridiculous war over an island 8,000 miles away?

    Before the advent of long range ballistic missiles and modern communications and logistics, 8,000 miles used to mean something. Now it means we need better missile defenses and forces closer to our most dangerous potential adversaries. Right now, that’s China.

    We could hang back and hope that the situation swings our way. The risk is that the entire Far East (including Australia and New Zealand) is unified under Chinese rule. And the ever-expanding empire sets its sights on the resource-rich Americas, starting with Chile, and working its way north. As with the Soviets, hope for the adversary’s eventual collapse needs to be balanced with the ability to resist any attacks that materialize.

    • Replies: @anon
    There are no missile defenses. If you recall, China sent a nuclear submarine around Catalina Island a year or two ago. You may have heard of frightened people in the beach cities observing "test missiles" shot from Andrews air force base shortly after the sub sighting. It seemed that everyone was a lot less on edge than they should have been. It was certainly bothering me at the time. If these episodes happened while Trump was president, there would have been panic in the streets. With Obama, hardly a gasp.

    The fact is, China or Russia can launch warheads from a submarine and paste greater Los Angeles in a matter of minutes. Ain't no defense against that, except their knowledge that we're capable of responding in kind.
    , @CK
    Some folks need pills for ED; other folks just need imaginary horrors. Cuban paratroopers dropping on Colorado too?
    Something unusual might happen in the never never so kill them all today.
    Oh My God It's Space Monsters from Planet 9 we need to blow up all the rest of the
    solar system first. And do you really trust that nuclear engine in the sky?
  84. @Anonymous
    The news stories seem to make it sound as if Trump went out of his way to deliberately call Taiwan or something, but it's not clear if he made the call himself or if he was called by Taiwan.

    it’s not clear if he made the call himself or if he was called by Taiwan.

    Trump recently tweeted that “The President of Taiwan CALLED ME …” (caps his)

    He also tweeted this an hour later: “Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call.”

  85. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "Maybe the shock of defeat will upend the Chinese government"

    Or maybe the US would get defeated in a completely ridiculous war over an island 8,000 miles away?

    It would be stupid and would make the US look stupid.

    The only positive might be that a diplomatic or military conflict with Beijing would give Trump the political capital to do things like very high tariffs and make companies produce domestically, which might otherwise be more difficult under normal circumstances. It would be a domestic political victory for Trump.

  86. @Anonymous
    BTW, one of the first congressmen to applaud Trump's call was Rep. Matt Salmon from Arizona, who was also a Mormon missionary to Taiwan.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308609-gop-lawmakers-praise-trump-for-taiwan-call

    Republican lawmakers have praised president-elect Donald Trump following the news that he spoke on the phone with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen.

    Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) applauded Trump for “making a strong statement” with the historic conversation.

    "I commend [President-elect] Trump for reaching out to the democratically-elected President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen,” Salmon said in a statement to The Hill.

    Salmon chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. He is a former missionary in Taiwan, and attended the recent inauguration of the new Taiwanese president.
     

    I don’t think many well-informed Americans are aware of it, but it is my understanding that that there is an extremely strong Taiwan lobby in the United States. Not as powerful and influential as the Israel Lobby but still quite aggressive.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    I don’t think many well-informed Americans are aware of it, but it is my understanding that that there is an extremely strong Taiwan lobby in the United States. Not as powerful and influential as the Israel Lobby but still quite aggressive.
     
    The China lobby is far stronger. For one thing, it's got a lot more money. Corporate America is completely in China's pocket because of the size of the market, which is now #1 in the world in revenue terms for Yum Brands and #3 in the world for GM, just behind the EU. The Taiwanese can't even buy near end-of-life F-16's from Uncle Sam because China got Obama to nix the sale.

    Bottom line is that most American support for Taiwan is based on the perception is that we will have to resist Chinese territorial ambitions at some point and that Taiwan is a reasonable battleground for that war, if the Chinese decide to move in that direction. It would be preferable if given China's traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians. That's what the American bases in the Far East are for, to channel any Chinese attacks away from our Cold War allies in the region, which also happen to be important trading partners and markets for US goods.
  87. Everyone wants to spin this incident into confirming the reality he hopes actually exists. I have to admit I am a bit of a sick puppy since like the idea of destabilizing China/Taiwan in order to induce manufacturing back to the States. And so from a strategic point of view, this could be an Asian version of the Iran/Iraq war from the ’80’s and our only goal is to keep the fighting going on as long as possible so that maximum amount of high-tech plant is destroyed. Keep US soldiers out of the fighting but sell Taiwan as much military hardware as they need to keep the hostilities blazing as long as possible. In the meantime the high-tech plant will need to relocate to the US.

  88. @anon
    Times have changed rapidly, and we're still following crazy diplomatic protocols dating beyond WWII. I'm all for Trump cleaning out the international swamp. It's rancid. NATO would be a good place to begin house cleaning.

    We are a superpower. We're allowed to make some faux pas along the way, with no real fuss being made by other countries. Many of them are as enamored of Trump as many of us are. He's a bit of a celebrity, kind of like Mohammed Ali. Even those who don't like him are oddly fascinated by him.

    Also, casting Obama as the ghost "bad cop" to Trump's "good cop" could create some relationships that can be very beneficial in the long run. Obama has been such a mess, Trump would be ridiculous not to exploit Obama's incompetence by presenting himself as "the good guy."

    Trump is like the real teacher people like, replacing the substitute teacher nobody likes. Past enemies or critics can blame all their past behavior on Obama provoking them, and sidle up to Trump, who they believe might be at least receptive.

    I guess I'm just still surprised the media continues to be flummoxed by Trump. MSNBC, in particular, has become certified kabuki theater at this point. I think Racheal Maddow needs a professional evaluation. The woman is laughing maniacally while reporting on Trump... just spontaneously. When she laughs, it doesn't make sense unless she's either having a breakdown, or pretending she is about to. I've never seen a newsreader so bizarrely emotionally demonstrative since Dan Rather, and she beats him.

    She's like an ex-wife who got hosed in a divorce, forcing her to live in a trailer, talking about her ex-husband recently winning mega lotto. Rachel displays the same weird, mistimed laughter.

    Begs the question, how do producer's deal with a newsreader who might be suffering from a nervous breakdown? Do they just let 'em carry on until something wild happens? Is there some medical professional that can sit a newsreader down and say, "look... you've developed a nervous tic of blinking uncontrollably, talking out of the right side of your mouth, as if you've had a stroke, and laughing at strange moments. We think you need a few months off. Get some MRI's and CAT scans going as long as you've got the time off."

    Nutwork News

  89. @Anonymous

    In reality, both China and Taiwan are independent countries, but these diplomatic fictions have their reasons.
     
    I believe Taiwan's constitution still claims sovereignty over mainland China. I think the analogy would be something like if a state or some states seceded, fought the federal government, claimed sovereignty over the United States, and after cessation of hostilities both the federal government in D.C. and the breakaway states claimed sovereignty over the United States. The federal government would be sensitive to other countries recognizing the breakaway states.

    I can see the sensitivity about this in the ’70s, on the heels of the Cultural Revolution, wars with India and Vietnam, China being dirt-poor, etc. But China is a grownup country now. Maybe it’s time to treat them like one.

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
    The war with Vietnam is a short war that is meant to accomplish several goals. The first is to show China's resolve in trying to get Vietnam to retreat from Cambodia (Cambodia was invaded by Vietnam at that time). The second is to demonstrate the Soviet Union's impotency in defending Vietnam (just a few months before the war, the Soviet Union and Vietnam signed a mutual defense pact.). Relations between Vietnam and China has gone sour and Vietnam has been lobbing bombs across the border to China prior to the war. After the war the border between Vietnam and China became tranquil again. The Americans at that time were none too happy to see Vietnam get a beating from China.


    The war with India is a good example in showing India's territorial aggressiveness (you have never heard that one do you?) towards its neighbors of which China is but one.

    http://gregoryclark.net/redif.html
    http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/podcasts/renewed-tension-indiachina-border-whos-blame

  90. @Glossy
    The media is fainting about Trump talking to the Taiwanese pres. What were they saying when Clinton BOMBED the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing Chinese nationals inside? How do these two diplomatic incidents compare on the stupidity, recklessness and fitness for office scales?

    The US was much stronger relative to China back then, though. And Russia was at the low point, so China didn’t have any allies.

  91. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @European-American
    I would be grateful for some historical examples of wars started due to someone shooting their mouth off.

    I would be grateful for some historical examples of wars started due to someone shooting their mouth off.

    Well, there was a French Dauphin talking some righteous shit to Henry V, essentially requesting that Henry V stop annoying them with his goofy notions, and go play tennis like a good little twit…

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=henry+v+tennis+balls

    Henry… took it a bit personally, and so it kind of escalated from there:

    Hope this helps.

    • Replies: @anon
    Bad link to the Henry V tennis balls taunt. Here's a good link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHAAH8PCnMo
  92. @Anonym
    China seems to us NK to bait the US. Why should the US not use Taiwan the same way? It might be more effective than a freedom of navigation exercise.

    China seems to us NK to bait the US. Why should the US not use Taiwan the same way? It might be more effective than a freedom of navigation exercise.

    That’s pretty much what John Bolton is arguing. And Trump has been spending a lot of time meeting with him re: Sec. State.

    The U.S. Can Play a ‘Taiwan Card’
    If China won’t back down in East Asia, Washington has options that would compel Beijing’s attention.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-can-play-a-taiwan-card-1453053872

  93. @Opinionator
    I don't think many well-informed Americans are aware of it, but it is my understanding that that there is an extremely strong Taiwan lobby in the United States. Not as powerful and influential as the Israel Lobby but still quite aggressive.

    I don’t think many well-informed Americans are aware of it, but it is my understanding that that there is an extremely strong Taiwan lobby in the United States. Not as powerful and influential as the Israel Lobby but still quite aggressive.

    The China lobby is far stronger. For one thing, it’s got a lot more money. Corporate America is completely in China’s pocket because of the size of the market, which is now #1 in the world in revenue terms for Yum Brands and #3 in the world for GM, just behind the EU. The Taiwanese can’t even buy near end-of-life F-16’s from Uncle Sam because China got Obama to nix the sale.

    Bottom line is that most American support for Taiwan is based on the perception is that we will have to resist Chinese territorial ambitions at some point and that Taiwan is a reasonable battleground for that war, if the Chinese decide to move in that direction. It would be preferable if given China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians. That’s what the American bases in the Far East are for, to channel any Chinese attacks away from our Cold War allies in the region, which also happen to be important trading partners and markets for US goods.

    • Replies: @Randal

    China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness
     
    ROFL! How many centuries are you going back with that?

    Is that the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has built China a global empire with oppressed colonies groaning under Chinese rule on all the continents of the world? Oh, hang on...

    Or is it the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has seen China grow - mostly by continual war, interventionism and profiting from others' wars - from a small collection of backward colonies a mere handful of centuries ago to a globe-bestriding military colossus today? Oh, hang on....

    It would be preferable if given China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians.
     
    Well if that were the wish then perhaps the sensible course would have been not allowing the less rational amongst the US foreign policy elites to drive US policy on Russia, responding to the Soviet defeat with a consistently aggressive drive to push into Russia's remaining spheres of interest at every opportunity by military, diplomatic and economic aggression and political subversion, against every remaining Russian ally, and even against Russia itself.

    Putin might be naive enough to fall for an attempt by the Trump administration to claim that all that's history now and that he should turn away from the allies he was forced - by the US - to turn to, in the face of massive US pressure. He'd be a fool to do so, imo, though (and he doesn't strike me as all that foolish), because while the voices of reason on Russia might for the moment be in the ascendant in the US regime, there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that will remain the case for long.
    , @Anonym
    Bottom line is that most American support for Taiwan is based on the perception is that we will have to resist Chinese territorial ambitions at some point and that Taiwan is a reasonable battleground for that war, if the Chinese decide to move in that direction. It would be preferable if given China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians. That’s what the American bases in the Far East are for, to channel any Chinese attacks away from our Cold War allies in the region, which also happen to be important trading partners and markets for US goods.

    Practically the best thing Trump can do to limit Chinese territorial ambitions is to call a halt to Chinese immigration into the USA and Anglosphere, and to discourage Chinese investment as well. Long term, we need to get our birthrates up, especially in a eugenic fashion if we are to compete.

  94. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Johann Ricke

    Or maybe the US would get defeated in a completely ridiculous war over an island 8,000 miles away?
     
    Before the advent of long range ballistic missiles and modern communications and logistics, 8,000 miles used to mean something. Now it means we need better missile defenses and forces closer to our most dangerous potential adversaries. Right now, that's China.

    We could hang back and hope that the situation swings our way. The risk is that the entire Far East (including Australia and New Zealand) is unified under Chinese rule. And the ever-expanding empire sets its sights on the resource-rich Americas, starting with Chile, and working its way north. As with the Soviets, hope for the adversary's eventual collapse needs to be balanced with the ability to resist any attacks that materialize.

    There are no missile defenses. If you recall, China sent a nuclear submarine around Catalina Island a year or two ago. You may have heard of frightened people in the beach cities observing “test missiles” shot from Andrews air force base shortly after the sub sighting. It seemed that everyone was a lot less on edge than they should have been. It was certainly bothering me at the time. If these episodes happened while Trump was president, there would have been panic in the streets. With Obama, hardly a gasp.

    The fact is, China or Russia can launch warheads from a submarine and paste greater Los Angeles in a matter of minutes. Ain’t no defense against that, except their knowledge that we’re capable of responding in kind.

  95. @anon

    I would be grateful for some historical examples of wars started due to someone shooting their mouth off.
     
    Well, there was a French Dauphin talking some righteous shit to Henry V, essentially requesting that Henry V stop annoying them with his goofy notions, and go play tennis like a good little twit...


    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=henry+v+tennis+balls


    Henry... took it a bit personally, and so it kind of escalated from there:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHihAPr2Rc


    Hope this helps.

    Bad link to the Henry V tennis balls taunt. Here’s a good link:

  96. @Johann Ricke

    And lots more on what he’s likely saying to both sides:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/the-lessons-of-henry-kissinger/505868/
     
    Kissinger thinks that Obama was too hawkish (!) vis-a-vis China:

    JG: That the arc of history is bending in their direction.

    HK: Some Chinese strategists may think that. Or one can interpret their actions as “However you interpret the arc of history, a conflict between countries possessing the technologies we do, and their uncertain application, is so dangerous that however you explain its origins, we have a duty to try to cooperate to avoid it.”

    I think that this is President Xi’s view. But we will not be able to demonstrate which interpretation is correct for about 20 years. In the meantime, our policies must be broad-gauged enough to allow for both.

    JG: Has Obama been too hawkish toward China, then?

    HK: Not too hawkish but too short-term. To truly advance our relationship with China, we must speak in trends.
     

    “Kissinger thinks that Obama was too hawkish (!) vis-a-vis China”

    That’s not what the quote says.

    “Not too hawkish but too short-term. To truly advance our relationship with China, we must speak in trends.”

    And the trend is increasing Chinese economic and military power, decreasing US economic (and therefore military in medium/long term) power.

    http://www.fingleton.net/extract-from-in-the-jaws-of-the-dragon/

    If Trump can do anything about US decline, that will speak to China in the language they understand more than words can.

    “How many 14 nanometer microprocessor plants has the Pope?”

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    That’s not what the quote says.
     
    It's a non-affirmation affirmation - the obverse of a non-denial denial.
  97. @anon
    Taiwan's fatal mistake was in failing to develop nuclear weapons for itself. This -not vapid US promises- was the true path to security for itself.

    They can build it, but China has promised they would attack Taiwan if they had an indication Taiwan was about to build nukes.

    South Korea, Japan, Germany etc. are also capable of building a nuke within a year. Not that hard for at least mid-sized rich first world countries.

  98. @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan, in spite of whatever illusion of insult to China we are supposed to believe that was. I guess I'm also unsuited to be president (not surprising).

    As you assume about Trump, I too would love to just blurt out what I really think (instead of just doing it here). Not only would I identify Taiwan as what it was before Nixon, I would also try to reverse history and stop facilitating the growth of China.

    I'm just an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old (now new again?) mold.

    If it is necessary to "rock the boat" in order to "stop the madness," then my revolutionary motto would be in the spirit of Patrick Henry: "Give me truth or give me chaos." I have no respect for dusty old diplomats who insist I just shut up and accept the way things are.

    What a rube I am. I must be an American.

    Not only would I identify Taiwan as what it was before Nixon, I would also try to reverse history and stop facilitating the growth of China.

    I’m just an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old (now new again?) mold.

    If the US were an “isolationist” country (ie one that minded its own business) then most likely the Chinese wouldn’t be all that bothered by whether or not the US President talked to Taiwan’s leader or not (or no more than they object to any other country talking to what they – with a lot of justice – see as a renegade Chinese province).

    It’s precisely because the US is the opposite of a country that minds its own business – a global empire with a track record of starting wars against its rivals over pretexts of precisely this kind – that they sensibly object very strongly to any signs of any potential increase in the US’s already substantial devotion of resources to supporting said renegade province in order to use it as a pretext and asset for provoking and militarily bullying China.

    If you are “isolationist” then what are you doing “protecting” Taiwan from its neighbour, on the other side of the world?

    As for the supposed issue the NYT is trying to manufacture, I suspect the Chinese will make some pro forma retaliation in some diplomatically inconvenient manner for the US elsewhere, at a time that suits them – following which of course the US regime and its apologists will act all hurt and claim to have been the victim of an “unprovoked” slight) but not make any big issue about it. They’ve no interest in starting out relations with Trump on a bad footing.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    It’s precisely because the US is the opposite of a country that minds its own business – a global empire with a track record of starting wars against its rivals over pretexts of precisely this kind – that they sensibly object very strongly to any signs of any potential increase in the US’s already substantial devotion of resources to supporting said renegade province in order to use it as a pretext and asset for provoking and militarily bullying China.
     
    The US was an empire when it included the Philippines and Cuba. What it presides over today is an alliance rather than an empire. The idea that we're bullying China is ludicrous, unless "bullying" is now redefined as preventing China's addition of new territory to its already vast landholdings accumulated at swordpoint over thousands of years*. Was France "bullying" Britain when it recognized the breakaway provinces that comprised these United States 200 centuries ago? What is this - nursery school?

    * Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors. It is in no position to call any other country a bully, and certainly not any country that is merely acting to check its aggressive and acquisitive impulses.

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm kind of slow, but I gradually realized how my use of the term "isolationist" is out of place.

    In any case, I didn't claim that the US is isolationist; I claimed that I am. I can see how that is problematic to the rest of my argument. I get into trouble, out of my depth, when I cheer refreshingly independent actions by my next president, actions that may signal future entanglements but paradoxically appeal to me on an intuitive level.

    Is he applying leverage? Sending a message? How should I know (or you)? He is beginning to work with the Risk board he will inherit. We are entangled in it, non-isolationist, because generations of our leaders (and outside manipulators) have put us there; we are beholden to China for the same reasons.

    To extricate ourselves from globalism, we must free ourselves from China.

    Balls and hubris may be required. Of course, it is doubtful that anyone in power or about to accede to it actually wants this. I'm poorly educated, but the last isolationist president I know of was George Washington. I am an ignorant dreamer.

  99. @Dave Pinsen
    How about Henry Kissinger?

    https://twitter.com/nfergus/status/804765130286305280

    He’s only the key figure if Trump gives his views deference. Let’s hope he does not. Worth looking into the $5 million payday he received to represent Rio Tinto before the ChiComs and the former Rio Tinto employee he sold out. Vile man.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I meant how about Kissinger for Trump's Secretary of State.
  100. As a newspaper how does the word,”likely” appear in a headline? That’s too subjective of a word to be used for a headline for what is supposed to be a fact based report.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    You are right to question that. I think Steve gave the answer in his own lede: the NYT is trying to stir up trouble for Trump, no matter that it has international repercussions.

    This has so far gone unremarked in all the wild-man-Trump-is-upsetting-important-diplomatic-stabilities-for-his-ego ululating: the NYT (and therefore all big US media) are, and have long been, doing exactly that with impunity. Trump was elected by the nation and is trying to act in the national interest. The NYT and cohorts serve different masters and hate the nation, and their actions show it.
  101. @Johann Ricke

    I don’t think many well-informed Americans are aware of it, but it is my understanding that that there is an extremely strong Taiwan lobby in the United States. Not as powerful and influential as the Israel Lobby but still quite aggressive.
     
    The China lobby is far stronger. For one thing, it's got a lot more money. Corporate America is completely in China's pocket because of the size of the market, which is now #1 in the world in revenue terms for Yum Brands and #3 in the world for GM, just behind the EU. The Taiwanese can't even buy near end-of-life F-16's from Uncle Sam because China got Obama to nix the sale.

    Bottom line is that most American support for Taiwan is based on the perception is that we will have to resist Chinese territorial ambitions at some point and that Taiwan is a reasonable battleground for that war, if the Chinese decide to move in that direction. It would be preferable if given China's traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians. That's what the American bases in the Far East are for, to channel any Chinese attacks away from our Cold War allies in the region, which also happen to be important trading partners and markets for US goods.

    China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness

    ROFL! How many centuries are you going back with that?

    Is that the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has built China a global empire with oppressed colonies groaning under Chinese rule on all the continents of the world? Oh, hang on…

    Or is it the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has seen China grow – mostly by continual war, interventionism and profiting from others’ wars – from a small collection of backward colonies a mere handful of centuries ago to a globe-bestriding military colossus today? Oh, hang on….

    It would be preferable if given China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians.

    Well if that were the wish then perhaps the sensible course would have been not allowing the less rational amongst the US foreign policy elites to drive US policy on Russia, responding to the Soviet defeat with a consistently aggressive drive to push into Russia’s remaining spheres of interest at every opportunity by military, diplomatic and economic aggression and political subversion, against every remaining Russian ally, and even against Russia itself.

    Putin might be naive enough to fall for an attempt by the Trump administration to claim that all that’s history now and that he should turn away from the allies he was forced – by the US – to turn to, in the face of massive US pressure. He’d be a fool to do so, imo, though (and he doesn’t strike me as all that foolish), because while the voices of reason on Russia might for the moment be in the ascendant in the US regime, there’s no reason whatsoever to suppose that will remain the case for long.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    ROFL! How many centuries are you going back with that?

    Is that the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has built China a global empire with oppressed colonies groaning under Chinese rule on all the continents of the world? Oh, hang on…

    Or is it the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has seen China grow – mostly by continual war, interventionism and profiting from others’ wars – from a small collection of backward colonies a mere handful of centuries ago to a globe-bestriding military colossus today? Oh, hang on….
     
    As far back as the provenance of China's territorial claims in the region, which are constantly shifting. Its claim to the South China Sea, which is 2/3 the area of the continental US, goes back to the Ming dynasty, which actually completely dismantled its navy. China's historians claim that the Yuan dynasty (whose protagonist Kublai Khan, Genghis's grandson, is featured in the Netflix series "Marco Polo") was Chinese. And any student of European history knows that the Mongols overran Hungary and Poland before retreating to more defensible lines.

    As to countries groaning under European rule, it's actually under European rule that, on average, the natives have done the least groaning, with population numbers increasing in leaps and bounds, thanks to investments in infrastructure and education. While the expression "mission civilisatrice" tends to meet with a knowing cynicism among the politically-correct, European rule was, by and large, a boon to the natives. European administrators invested in infrastructure where native rulers had largely invested in sumptuous palaces and obscene luxuries for themselves.

    The tendency of native rulers to lord it over their subjects is why so many former European colonies are far poorer than the territories that remain under European rule. Compare Bermuda, a barren island with no natural resources, with any of the former British colonies in the Caribbean.

    As to atrocities, in the late 18th century, the Chinese emperor issued an extermination order proscribing the Dzungars, wiping out perhaps 80% of the population. Now, some historians have taken to describing the displacement and death through disease of the Native American population as genocide, but in China, you had the highest official in the land actually issuing this order. Of course, this was back when the Chinese thought that China was universally-recognized as the Center of the World, and the Chinese leader wasn't simply the leader of the temporal world, he was the Son of God. Today, they still think it's the Center of the World, and view foreigners who aren't inclined to accept this assumption of Chinese superiority much as a European explorer in the cooking pot perceives the benighted cannibals who are about to have him for dinner - he's working on the ropes that bind him and looking for an opportunity to turn the tables.
    , @Johann Ricke

    ROFL! How many centuries are you going back with that?
     
    What's interesting is that for thousands of years, the Chinese leadership has tended to mine Chinese history for ideas on goals, strategy and tactics. In "On China", Kissinger writes about how Mao reached back 2000 years for a historical analogy on what to do with respect to the McMahon line, back in the 1960's. He decided to attack India and successfully annexed 14,000 square miles of Indian territory. From other sources, Mao is said to have regarded the medieval Chinese historical novels "The Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and "The Water Margin" as manuals of statecraft.
  102. @Steve Sailer
    "Taiwan policy provides excellent opportunity for unpredictability."

    Or maybe China and Taiwan being at peace is one of those not broken things that doesn't need immediate fixing.

    Or maybe China and Taiwan being at peace is one of those not broken things that doesn’t need immediate fixing.

    Seems reasonable.

    Seems to me the Chinese view of Taiwan, as unfinished business from their civil war and a renegade province that would certainly have been reincorporated long ago were it not for interference by a superpower from the other side of the world, is at least as valid as the absolutist claim by the nationalists and US that Taiwan is an independent country that must have self determination (this is good self determination, you see, unlike bad Crimean self determination).

    The best result would probably be a natural and peaceful reunification as Chinese wealth, especially in the coastal provinces, overtakes Taiwanese wealth and local businessmen and other elites see the benefits for themselves of playing in the bigger pool, and manipulate opinion in favour of Chinese reunification. I’d say that should happen within a few decades, if the Chinese economy doesn’t collapse (a possibility that can’t be ruled out) and if the US can resist interfering to prevent it.

    It doesn’t seem to me that there is any good outcome from a confrontation between China and the US over Taiwan, which will most likely end badly for Taiwan, for sure, and potentially disastrously for the world.

    I have noted elsewhere that Trump’s picks so far (Mattis, Pompeo, Flynn) suggest the possibility of a direct US foreign policy switch from irrationality over Russia to irrationality over Iran. There are certainly voices that would like to manipulate US foreign policy towards a heightened military confrontation of China, as well.

    That’s one of the costs of being an aggressively globally dominant military superpower – everyone wants to use you to defeat their own enemies, and everyone wants to use your military and economic power to wage their own crusades. And it’s worth their while expending vast resources to manipulate US foreign policy in their favour, because it’s potentially a game changer in any conflict or crusade.

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
    Spot on.
    , @Johann Ricke

    I have noted elsewhere that Trump’s picks so far (Mattis, Pompeo, Flynn) suggest the possibility of a direct US foreign policy switch from irrationality over Russia to irrationality over Iran.
     
    Au contraire. Iran is the one country Uncle Sam can stomp into the ground, militarily, without breaking a sweat. A supersized version of Reagan's Operation Praying Mantis would neuter Iran's Air Force and Navy, in the run-up to the flattening of Iran's nuclear program. A nuclear Iran means Arab regimes with competing nuclear programs of their own. A coup or an Islamist uprising among one of these regimes could mean loose nukes. It's time we started bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, preferably before it takes delivery of, and learns how to use any of the new weaponry it's purchased with Obama's bribe money.
  103. It’s good to read these comments and remind oneself that the left does not have a monopoly for idiotic ideas or actions when it comes to foreign policy.

  104. @Ed
    As a newspaper how does the word,"likely" appear in a headline? That's too subjective of a word to be used for a headline for what is supposed to be a fact based report.

    You are right to question that. I think Steve gave the answer in his own lede: the NYT is trying to stir up trouble for Trump, no matter that it has international repercussions.

    This has so far gone unremarked in all the wild-man-Trump-is-upsetting-important-diplomatic-stabilities-for-his-ego ululating: the NYT (and therefore all big US media) are, and have long been, doing exactly that with impunity. Trump was elected by the nation and is trying to act in the national interest. The NYT and cohorts serve different masters and hate the nation, and their actions show it.

    • Agree: Randal
    • Replies: @NOTA
    The NYT is more or less the newspaper of the ruling class. It often does good reporting, sometimes the best available on some topic, but its reporting is always from that ruling-class perspective. The blind spots of the ruling class are the blind spots of the NYT.

    My guess is that this story reflects the view of a bunch of foreign service insiders who are the NYT's sources. They may be right or wrong (what the hell do I know about delicate diplomatic games?), but I don't think this is primarily about either partisan politics or hatred of Trump or America or whatever.
    , @Anonymous

    You are right to question that. I think Steve gave the answer in his own lede: the NYT is trying to stir up trouble for Trump, no matter that it has international repercussions.
     
    Right, the MSM's relentless quest to portray Trump as an unstable wildman makes it much more difficult for Trump and the Chinese to save face in what could have passed as a minor diplomatic incident.
  105. @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm very happy Trump called up the leader of Taiwan, in spite of whatever illusion of insult to China we are supposed to believe that was. I guess I'm also unsuited to be president (not surprising).

    As you assume about Trump, I too would love to just blurt out what I really think (instead of just doing it here). Not only would I identify Taiwan as what it was before Nixon, I would also try to reverse history and stop facilitating the growth of China.

    I'm just an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old (now new again?) mold.

    If it is necessary to "rock the boat" in order to "stop the madness," then my revolutionary motto would be in the spirit of Patrick Henry: "Give me truth or give me chaos." I have no respect for dusty old diplomats who insist I just shut up and accept the way things are.

    What a rube I am. I must be an American.

    I agree. Letting the rest of the world run its affairs as it deems fit is part of a healthy isolationism. To continue the old diplomatic rubrics is to assume that the United States is indeed a global empire that has a “dog in every fight” and can therefore compromise others’ sovereignties at will. We have only to “look and see” to know that this assumption is expensive and dangerous to our own survival. At some point, the foreign diplomatic and economic interests become too complex to manage, i.e. the Pentagon and CIA supporting opposing factions in the nascent religious civil wars in the Middle East; regional trade agreements that gut our industrial base.

    Recall that the messes in the Balkans, the Middle East. and South Asia were the result of the arrogant American intent to reform societies by exporting liberal democratic values replete with radical postmodern feminism (whatever this means) to pre-industrial societies. As a free people, do we care how Kazakhstan governs itself … or, whether Islam accepts or condemns homosexuality … or how the Philippines deals with its drug problem … or whether the Chinese “lose face” with respect to some alleged third-party affront related to Taiwan? These are none of our business.

    Let’s keep these foreign spats as far away from us as possible … as our founding fathers intended. With respect to trade, we’ll trade with anyone who has something to trade, as long as it in our economic interest to do so.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Trotsky said, "you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

    Even in the days of the Founders where the other continents were weeks away by ship , the "avoid foreign entanglements" thing was honored mostly in the breach. We view the American Revolution as central when it fact it was just one aspect of larger French-English rivalries.
  106. @Johann Ricke

    I don’t think many well-informed Americans are aware of it, but it is my understanding that that there is an extremely strong Taiwan lobby in the United States. Not as powerful and influential as the Israel Lobby but still quite aggressive.
     
    The China lobby is far stronger. For one thing, it's got a lot more money. Corporate America is completely in China's pocket because of the size of the market, which is now #1 in the world in revenue terms for Yum Brands and #3 in the world for GM, just behind the EU. The Taiwanese can't even buy near end-of-life F-16's from Uncle Sam because China got Obama to nix the sale.

    Bottom line is that most American support for Taiwan is based on the perception is that we will have to resist Chinese territorial ambitions at some point and that Taiwan is a reasonable battleground for that war, if the Chinese decide to move in that direction. It would be preferable if given China's traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians. That's what the American bases in the Far East are for, to channel any Chinese attacks away from our Cold War allies in the region, which also happen to be important trading partners and markets for US goods.

    Bottom line is that most American support for Taiwan is based on the perception is that we will have to resist Chinese territorial ambitions at some point and that Taiwan is a reasonable battleground for that war, if the Chinese decide to move in that direction. It would be preferable if given China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians. That’s what the American bases in the Far East are for, to channel any Chinese attacks away from our Cold War allies in the region, which also happen to be important trading partners and markets for US goods.

    Practically the best thing Trump can do to limit Chinese territorial ambitions is to call a halt to Chinese immigration into the USA and Anglosphere, and to discourage Chinese investment as well. Long term, we need to get our birthrates up, especially in a eugenic fashion if we are to compete.

    • Replies: @Randal

    Practically the best thing Trump can do to limit Chinese territorial ambitions is to call a halt to Chinese immigration into the USA and Anglosphere
     
    Absolutely this.

    China has a tendency to regard overseas communities of Han Chinese as part of its own sphere (understandably - we used to have a similar view ourselves). And there are an awful lot of Chinese. As a result, it's basic common sense not to let substantial communities of Chinese build up in areas of your own territory. Small numbers are not a problem, but large numbers should be an absolute no.
    , @DB Cooper
    The issue between Taiwan and China has nothing to do with territorial ambitions. It has everything to do with the concept of 'one china' that is deeply rooted in the Chinese historical experience.

    This territorial ambitions thing is absolutely nonsense, although it has been an accepted notion that has no objective reality. Communist China, once it came to power began conceding territories to its neighbors left and right. A quick check can confirm this. Compare the map of the PRC (People's Republic of China) with its predecessor the ROC (Republic of China) and you will notice China territories shrinks on all size.

    There is a country that has territorial ambitions and has demonstrated time and again of its ruthless land grabbing and bullying of its neighbors. What country is that? India. Surprise?
    , @Jack D
    I think this is exactly backward. What leverage we have over the Chinese stems from the fact that all the money they have to fund their territorial ambitions comes from the West and especially from the US. WE have paid for their aircraft carriers and artificial islands one iPhone and pair of sneakers at a time and if we don't keep paying they won't be able to build any more. Before they starting trading with the West, under Mao they were as poor as church mice. It's like Trump's make the Mexicans pay for the wall idea in reverse, where WE are the Mexicans. So what we have to do is tell them, no ticky, no laundry - if we are going to keep sending them money it comes with strings attached.
  107. @mobi
    Apparently, Kissinger is still very much in the thick of things:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/china-grappling-with-trump-turns-to-old-friend-kissinger

    "The 93-year-old former secretary of state, who secretly brokered President Richard Nixon’s watershed visit in 1972, returned to Beijing to meet with state leaders Friday, just two weeks after huddling with Trump in New York."

    ...

    “Dr. Kissinger, I am all ears to what you have to say about the current world situation and the future growth of China-U.S. relations.” [Xi Jinping]
     
    And lots more on what he's likely saying to both sides:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/the-lessons-of-henry-kissinger/505868/

    Thanks for the link.

    One of the more repulsive aspects of Former Concentration Camp Guard of Dubious Loyalty (FCCGoDL) Jeffery Goldberg’s interview is how Goldberg relentlessly tries to mine Kissinger for anti-Trump ammunition. To his credit, Kissinger resolutely refuses to provide it. In his write-up of the interview, Goldberg editorializes Kissinger’s comments to be as anti-Trump as possible anyway, though that slant is not evident in the original interview transcript.

    I suppose we should be grateful that FCCGoDL Goldberg is apparently so un-self-aware that he doesn’t realize that by publishing the full transcript he unwittingly demonstrates how partisan and corrupt the media are, even such media as the formerly above-the-fray, ivory tower Atlantic, thanks to the influence of the FCCGoDLs of the world.

  108. Fwiw I put this in the same boat as moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem.

    Provocative? Sure but it makes the complainers look silly. Every one knows China has no control over Taiwan. Why shouldn’t Israel be able to decide its own capital? Petty!

    • Replies: @Randal

    Fwiw I put this in the same boat as moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem.

    Provocative? Sure but it makes the complainers look silly. Every one knows China has no control over Taiwan. Why shouldn’t Israel be able to decide its own capital? Petty!
     
    No personal offence intended, but if it is honest then this is typically parochial American thinking on foreign affairs, or simply partisan Israeli thinking.

    Most of the world recognises that Israeli occupation of the whole of Jerusalem is problematic. Only outright Israeli partisans think that it's just a simplistic matter of "Israel deciding its own capital", and such partisans are a lot less common around the world than they are amongst the US media and political establishment (for various reasons including disproportionate jewish nationalist "influence" in the US media and politics, and silly ideas about Israel in American culture resulting from some protestant churches' religious dogma on the topic).

    Likewise on Taiwan, most of the world recognises that there are actually two sides to the Taiwan story - a separate nation with the usual rights of national sovereignty and self determination, versus the renegade Chinese province that is only still independent at all because the US interfered to prevent the full conclusion of the Chinese civil war.

    Those are two validly different points of view, about which reasonable people can disagree and about which partisans have fanatically opposed ideas, but on which neither side is likely to let itself be pushed past any point of no return without resorting to war. As a result most people very much prefer to leave the status quo as it is. They aren't going to thank the side that chooses to destabilise it, whether it's China pushing to resolve the situation by force or the US trying to engage in the usual self-serving American posturing over supposed principles.
  109. @Opinionator
    Nature or nurture?

    Nurture because Taiwan is run along the best lines of NE Asian capitalism. Their version of cooperative capitalism + mercantilism and taking care of the population. Though you could check out ??? how much of Taiwan’s population is derived from native Taiwanese and what percentage derives from those fleeing Chinese communism a few decades ago.
    Taiwan is just across the water from Guangdong province so must be lots of economic cooperation between the two. Especially Taiwanese owners of Guangdong factories/industry.
    However:
    Taiwan Birth Rate Falls to World’s Lowest – voanews.com https://goo.gl/yt9VLf
    Taiwan announced this week that its fertility rate had fallen below one baby per woman, worrying the government about its future supply of manpower and brain power.
    Guangdong:
    The economy of Guangdong is large enough to be compared to that of many countries. in 2014, the gross domestic product (GDP) is about $1104.05 million, Guangdong has been the largest province by GDP since 1989 in Mainland China. Guangdong is responsible for 10.66 percent of the China’ $10.36 trillion GDP.

  110. @anon
    Taiwan's fatal mistake was in failing to develop nuclear weapons for itself. This -not vapid US promises- was the true path to security for itself.

    If it looks plausibly like we are going to stop defending them, my prediction is that the nuclear club will have a new confirmed member very quickly. One reason I’m not so enthusiastic about getting out of the business of defending Asia is that there are at least three high-tech industrial powerhouses (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) who would very quickly develop their own nukes and openly go nuclear.

    • Replies: @Randal

    If it looks plausibly like we are going to stop defending them, my prediction is that the nuclear club will have a new confirmed member very quickly.
     
    Highly unlikely, imo. Becoming openly a nuclear weapons state would be as disastrous for Taiwan as it would be for Iran, notwithstanding the superficially tempting deterrence arguments for both countries. And as with Iran, no realistic covertly built nuclear force could effectively deter the superpower threat it faces, anyway. In both cases, starting to build nuclear weapons would be far more likely to trigger an attack designed to pre-empt the establishment of an effective deterrent force, than to provide any useful deterrent power early enough to be effective.

    One reason I’m not so enthusiastic about getting out of the business of defending Asia is that there are at least three high-tech industrial powerhouses (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) who would very quickly develop their own nukes and openly go nuclear.
     
    Technologically these countries could all go nuclear quite easily, but economically only perhaps Japan has the economic strength to do so with any hope of surviving the global backlash. Thanks in part to the US sphere finding it such a useful tool with which to harass Iran, there's a pretty strong global taboo now around nuclear proliferation. Neither South Korea nor Taiwan imo could afford to go nuclear without US approval, which imo is unlikely to be forthcoming in almost any plausible scenario.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Maybe we need PacTO--the Pacific Treaty Organization. All the Pacific economic powerhouses get nukes and agree to defend each other. Then the US slowly withdraws and leaves them to defend themselves.
  111. @NOTA
    If it looks plausibly like we are going to stop defending them, my prediction is that the nuclear club will have a new confirmed member very quickly. One reason I'm not so enthusiastic about getting out of the business of defending Asia is that there are at least three high-tech industrial powerhouses (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) who would very quickly develop their own nukes and openly go nuclear.

    If it looks plausibly like we are going to stop defending them, my prediction is that the nuclear club will have a new confirmed member very quickly.

    Highly unlikely, imo. Becoming openly a nuclear weapons state would be as disastrous for Taiwan as it would be for Iran, notwithstanding the superficially tempting deterrence arguments for both countries. And as with Iran, no realistic covertly built nuclear force could effectively deter the superpower threat it faces, anyway. In both cases, starting to build nuclear weapons would be far more likely to trigger an attack designed to pre-empt the establishment of an effective deterrent force, than to provide any useful deterrent power early enough to be effective.

    One reason I’m not so enthusiastic about getting out of the business of defending Asia is that there are at least three high-tech industrial powerhouses (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) who would very quickly develop their own nukes and openly go nuclear.

    Technologically these countries could all go nuclear quite easily, but economically only perhaps Japan has the economic strength to do so with any hope of surviving the global backlash. Thanks in part to the US sphere finding it such a useful tool with which to harass Iran, there’s a pretty strong global taboo now around nuclear proliferation. Neither South Korea nor Taiwan imo could afford to go nuclear without US approval, which imo is unlikely to be forthcoming in almost any plausible scenario.

  112. @Almost Missouri
    On the "5-D chess" side of things:

    I haven't read Trump's Art of the Deal book, and even if I had, it may not spell things out programmatically, but ... it seems to me that the way Trump approaches almost everything is to veer (apparently) wildly from one extreme side of an issue to the other. E.g., let the Russians handle Syria vs. we're gonna bomb the sh*t out of ISIS; Mexican rapists are jumping our border vs. tea and sympathy with the Mexican President; Hillary should be in jail vs. thank her for her public service, etc.

    These opposing extremes are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but the rational consistency or lack thereof is not the point. The effect of this crazy-like-a-fox approach is that it signals to the counterparty that all options are on the table: we might go full retard on Syria, or we might just sit back and let the Russkies stop the bullets. We might get medieval with Mexican border jumpers, or we might build a new Entente Cordiale where Mexico does the dirty work for us. We might put Hillary in day-glo orange, or maybe just let her stew in her final irrelevance. In the case of China, we might observe the diplomatic niceties or we might call a spade a spade. We might abide by China's accession to the WTO or we might say they don't really mean it so why should we?

    This tactic may upset the staid formalities of the foreign policy establishment(s) of the world, but as a negotiating tactic, it is hard to beat. When one party is coming to the table with its options severely constrained and known to be so, while the other party has massive latitude and an obvious devil-may-care attitude about the outcome, well, it's no mystery who's gonna come out on top of that negotiation.

    So, so far so good, I say.

    So much of the commentary is written be people who have never made a deal or even driven a hard bargain.
    Can you imagine any of the talking heads asking, in one of our Chinese imports clothing stores, if the seller/salesperson could “do a little better” on the price of that mink coat?
    Most of the world accepts “dealing” as part of the daily routing. The bazaar, the farmer’s market, the flea market, the souk. It is baby’s milk in most cultures. You never pay the asking price you never accept the first offered price. In all those places you also know that you will be back again tomorrow or the next day and the same sellers will be back again tomorrow and the next day. Smart dealers always leave both parties satisfied and thus willing to deal again. People remember how the last deal went as they prepare for the next deal. From whence the presidential admonition “fool me once shame on you, won’t be fooled again.”

  113. @Thea
    Fwiw I put this in the same boat as moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem.

    Provocative? Sure but it makes the complainers look silly. Every one knows China has no control over Taiwan. Why shouldn't Israel be able to decide its own capital? Petty!

    Fwiw I put this in the same boat as moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem.

    Provocative? Sure but it makes the complainers look silly. Every one knows China has no control over Taiwan. Why shouldn’t Israel be able to decide its own capital? Petty!

    No personal offence intended, but if it is honest then this is typically parochial American thinking on foreign affairs, or simply partisan Israeli thinking.

    Most of the world recognises that Israeli occupation of the whole of Jerusalem is problematic. Only outright Israeli partisans think that it’s just a simplistic matter of “Israel deciding its own capital”, and such partisans are a lot less common around the world than they are amongst the US media and political establishment (for various reasons including disproportionate jewish nationalist “influence” in the US media and politics, and silly ideas about Israel in American culture resulting from some protestant churches’ religious dogma on the topic).

    Likewise on Taiwan, most of the world recognises that there are actually two sides to the Taiwan story – a separate nation with the usual rights of national sovereignty and self determination, versus the renegade Chinese province that is only still independent at all because the US interfered to prevent the full conclusion of the Chinese civil war.

    Those are two validly different points of view, about which reasonable people can disagree and about which partisans have fanatically opposed ideas, but on which neither side is likely to let itself be pushed past any point of no return without resorting to war. As a result most people very much prefer to leave the status quo as it is. They aren’t going to thank the side that chooses to destabilise it, whether it’s China pushing to resolve the situation by force or the US trying to engage in the usual self-serving American posturing over supposed principles.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    the usual self-serving American posturing over supposed principles
     
    The principles of the self-serving are in fact merely supposed, but they were not, and are not, the only actors.

    Take care not to obscure actual principles, and their importance, lest you find yourself without any at all when you have need of them.

  114. @Anonym
    Bottom line is that most American support for Taiwan is based on the perception is that we will have to resist Chinese territorial ambitions at some point and that Taiwan is a reasonable battleground for that war, if the Chinese decide to move in that direction. It would be preferable if given China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians. That’s what the American bases in the Far East are for, to channel any Chinese attacks away from our Cold War allies in the region, which also happen to be important trading partners and markets for US goods.

    Practically the best thing Trump can do to limit Chinese territorial ambitions is to call a halt to Chinese immigration into the USA and Anglosphere, and to discourage Chinese investment as well. Long term, we need to get our birthrates up, especially in a eugenic fashion if we are to compete.

    Practically the best thing Trump can do to limit Chinese territorial ambitions is to call a halt to Chinese immigration into the USA and Anglosphere

    Absolutely this.

    China has a tendency to regard overseas communities of Han Chinese as part of its own sphere (understandably – we used to have a similar view ourselves). And there are an awful lot of Chinese. As a result, it’s basic common sense not to let substantial communities of Chinese build up in areas of your own territory. Small numbers are not a problem, but large numbers should be an absolute no.

  115. @Johann Ricke

    Or maybe the US would get defeated in a completely ridiculous war over an island 8,000 miles away?
     
    Before the advent of long range ballistic missiles and modern communications and logistics, 8,000 miles used to mean something. Now it means we need better missile defenses and forces closer to our most dangerous potential adversaries. Right now, that's China.

    We could hang back and hope that the situation swings our way. The risk is that the entire Far East (including Australia and New Zealand) is unified under Chinese rule. And the ever-expanding empire sets its sights on the resource-rich Americas, starting with Chile, and working its way north. As with the Soviets, hope for the adversary's eventual collapse needs to be balanced with the ability to resist any attacks that materialize.

    Some folks need pills for ED; other folks just need imaginary horrors. Cuban paratroopers dropping on Colorado too?
    Something unusual might happen in the never never so kill them all today.
    Oh My God It’s Space Monsters from Planet 9 we need to blow up all the rest of the
    solar system first. And do you really trust that nuclear engine in the sky?

  116. I believe it was Tsai who called him (after a long post-election wait), not the other way around.

    But most people here don’t seem to know who Tsai Ing-wen is.

    By Asian standards, Tsai is a leftist. She wants the Han population to apologize to the native Taiwanese aborigines. She’s dismissive of masculinity. She pushes LGBT agendas. All the things that plague the west, she wants for Taiwan.

    Trump should not have cozied up to a SJWish politician just for the purpose of antagonizing the PRC.

    Taiwanese independence is a separate issue. I wouldn’t care if Taiwan was independent, as long as it war ruled by ethnic Han nationalists who promoted a good relationship with the homeland, like Singapore does.

    The battle against globalist, postmodern values is much more important than the separatism of one small island, which is unlikely to move from the status quo anyway. Now that Russia is seen as a friend by the alt-right, they’ve moved on to portraying China as the ultimate enemy, even though China’s global ambitions are basically nonexistent outside of its own backyard. A better strategy would be to align with nationalistic, anti-liberal governments around the world, and defeat leftism together.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The battle against globalist, postmodern values is much more important than the separatism of one small island
     
    The battle against globalist, postmodern values is the one battle that really matters.
  117. @Anonymous
    If we're going to go to war with China, don't we have to go sooner rather than later, before we're in a MAD situation or worse? What is the window we have right now - 10, 20 years? These things are hard to project 20 or 30 years out.

    Honestly- I think the window for us decisively winning ANY theoretical war against China OR Russia has passed, probably over 10 years ago. This is assuming both sides don’t use nukes or chemical/biological agents, and it’s a conventional war.

    Why?

    Simple- Obesity.

    We just don’t have a big enough reserve of fit, mentally sound young people to do anything beyond what we currently do, muck around the Middle East.

  118. @anon
    Times have changed rapidly, and we're still following crazy diplomatic protocols dating beyond WWII. I'm all for Trump cleaning out the international swamp. It's rancid. NATO would be a good place to begin house cleaning.

    We are a superpower. We're allowed to make some faux pas along the way, with no real fuss being made by other countries. Many of them are as enamored of Trump as many of us are. He's a bit of a celebrity, kind of like Mohammed Ali. Even those who don't like him are oddly fascinated by him.

    Also, casting Obama as the ghost "bad cop" to Trump's "good cop" could create some relationships that can be very beneficial in the long run. Obama has been such a mess, Trump would be ridiculous not to exploit Obama's incompetence by presenting himself as "the good guy."

    Trump is like the real teacher people like, replacing the substitute teacher nobody likes. Past enemies or critics can blame all their past behavior on Obama provoking them, and sidle up to Trump, who they believe might be at least receptive.

    I guess I'm just still surprised the media continues to be flummoxed by Trump. MSNBC, in particular, has become certified kabuki theater at this point. I think Racheal Maddow needs a professional evaluation. The woman is laughing maniacally while reporting on Trump... just spontaneously. When she laughs, it doesn't make sense unless she's either having a breakdown, or pretending she is about to. I've never seen a newsreader so bizarrely emotionally demonstrative since Dan Rather, and she beats him.

    She's like an ex-wife who got hosed in a divorce, forcing her to live in a trailer, talking about her ex-husband recently winning mega lotto. Rachel displays the same weird, mistimed laughter.

    Begs the question, how do producer's deal with a newsreader who might be suffering from a nervous breakdown? Do they just let 'em carry on until something wild happens? Is there some medical professional that can sit a newsreader down and say, "look... you've developed a nervous tic of blinking uncontrollably, talking out of the right side of your mouth, as if you've had a stroke, and laughing at strange moments. We think you need a few months off. Get some MRI's and CAT scans going as long as you've got the time off."

    Great image re Rachel Maddow!

  119. @Johann Ricke

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it.
     
    They are very sensitive about all kinds of things. Mainly, it's an affectation that follows from their assumption that they are the greatest ethny/polity on earth, meaning that any policy or statement reflecting anything other than fawning admiration will be interpreted as a slight.

    Sounds like a certain racial group we have here, though on the other side of the bell curve.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Sounds like a certain racial group we have here, though on the other side of the bell curve.
     
    So true!
  120. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “President-elect Donald J. Trump spoke by telephone with Taiwan’s president on Friday, a striking break with diplomatic practice that could create a rift with China.”

    ?????

    American presidents haven’t spoken on the phone with Taiwanese leaders since 79? How crazy is that?

    I didn’t know it was this crazy.

    Or maybe they did but didn’t make it public. Trump did. I dunno.

    Anyway, if Taiwan wants independence, it should give back all the art treasures it took from China when KMT made its final exile.

    https://www.npm.gov.tw/en/Article.aspx?sNo=02000019

  121. I don’t know, every time the media has declared that Trump made a mistake or is doomed, the media is always the one with egg on its face and Trump looks like he’s ten steps ahead of them at all times. I’m not sure that Trump plays 5D chess intentionally but it always comes off that way because the situations where “5D chess” is played tends to be with a bunch of petulant leftists and arrogant neocons, both groups are long overdue for a reality check.

  122. @TheJester
    I agree. Letting the rest of the world run its affairs as it deems fit is part of a healthy isolationism. To continue the old diplomatic rubrics is to assume that the United States is indeed a global empire that has a "dog in every fight" and can therefore compromise others' sovereignties at will. We have only to "look and see" to know that this assumption is expensive and dangerous to our own survival. At some point, the foreign diplomatic and economic interests become too complex to manage, i.e. the Pentagon and CIA supporting opposing factions in the nascent religious civil wars in the Middle East; regional trade agreements that gut our industrial base.

    Recall that the messes in the Balkans, the Middle East. and South Asia were the result of the arrogant American intent to reform societies by exporting liberal democratic values replete with radical postmodern feminism (whatever this means) to pre-industrial societies. As a free people, do we care how Kazakhstan governs itself ... or, whether Islam accepts or condemns homosexuality ... or how the Philippines deals with its drug problem ... or whether the Chinese "lose face" with respect to some alleged third-party affront related to Taiwan? These are none of our business.

    Let's keep these foreign spats as far away from us as possible ... as our founding fathers intended. With respect to trade, we'll trade with anyone who has something to trade, as long as it in our economic interest to do so.

    Trotsky said, “you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

    Even in the days of the Founders where the other continents were weeks away by ship , the “avoid foreign entanglements” thing was honored mostly in the breach. We view the American Revolution as central when it fact it was just one aspect of larger French-English rivalries.

  123. @anon
    Times have changed rapidly, and we're still following crazy diplomatic protocols dating beyond WWII. I'm all for Trump cleaning out the international swamp. It's rancid. NATO would be a good place to begin house cleaning.

    We are a superpower. We're allowed to make some faux pas along the way, with no real fuss being made by other countries. Many of them are as enamored of Trump as many of us are. He's a bit of a celebrity, kind of like Mohammed Ali. Even those who don't like him are oddly fascinated by him.

    Also, casting Obama as the ghost "bad cop" to Trump's "good cop" could create some relationships that can be very beneficial in the long run. Obama has been such a mess, Trump would be ridiculous not to exploit Obama's incompetence by presenting himself as "the good guy."

    Trump is like the real teacher people like, replacing the substitute teacher nobody likes. Past enemies or critics can blame all their past behavior on Obama provoking them, and sidle up to Trump, who they believe might be at least receptive.

    I guess I'm just still surprised the media continues to be flummoxed by Trump. MSNBC, in particular, has become certified kabuki theater at this point. I think Racheal Maddow needs a professional evaluation. The woman is laughing maniacally while reporting on Trump... just spontaneously. When she laughs, it doesn't make sense unless she's either having a breakdown, or pretending she is about to. I've never seen a newsreader so bizarrely emotionally demonstrative since Dan Rather, and she beats him.

    She's like an ex-wife who got hosed in a divorce, forcing her to live in a trailer, talking about her ex-husband recently winning mega lotto. Rachel displays the same weird, mistimed laughter.

    Begs the question, how do producer's deal with a newsreader who might be suffering from a nervous breakdown? Do they just let 'em carry on until something wild happens? Is there some medical professional that can sit a newsreader down and say, "look... you've developed a nervous tic of blinking uncontrollably, talking out of the right side of your mouth, as if you've had a stroke, and laughing at strange moments. We think you need a few months off. Get some MRI's and CAT scans going as long as you've got the time off."

    Trump is like the real teacher people like, replacing the substitute teacher nobody likes.

    Yes. I propose a Harf-Mattis scale to measure the effect.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    For instance, this interview:

    http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/12/02/must-see-tucker-carlson-interviews-ny-times-public-editor-liz-spayd-over-anti-trump-bias-video/

    Would be a solid five on the scale. Wonder what Trump said to Pinch?
  124. @Randal

    Or maybe China and Taiwan being at peace is one of those not broken things that doesn’t need immediate fixing.
     
    Seems reasonable.

    Seems to me the Chinese view of Taiwan, as unfinished business from their civil war and a renegade province that would certainly have been reincorporated long ago were it not for interference by a superpower from the other side of the world, is at least as valid as the absolutist claim by the nationalists and US that Taiwan is an independent country that must have self determination (this is good self determination, you see, unlike bad Crimean self determination).

    The best result would probably be a natural and peaceful reunification as Chinese wealth, especially in the coastal provinces, overtakes Taiwanese wealth and local businessmen and other elites see the benefits for themselves of playing in the bigger pool, and manipulate opinion in favour of Chinese reunification. I'd say that should happen within a few decades, if the Chinese economy doesn't collapse (a possibility that can't be ruled out) and if the US can resist interfering to prevent it.

    It doesn't seem to me that there is any good outcome from a confrontation between China and the US over Taiwan, which will most likely end badly for Taiwan, for sure, and potentially disastrously for the world.

    I have noted elsewhere that Trump's picks so far (Mattis, Pompeo, Flynn) suggest the possibility of a direct US foreign policy switch from irrationality over Russia to irrationality over Iran. There are certainly voices that would like to manipulate US foreign policy towards a heightened military confrontation of China, as well.

    That's one of the costs of being an aggressively globally dominant military superpower - everyone wants to use you to defeat their own enemies, and everyone wants to use your military and economic power to wage their own crusades. And it's worth their while expending vast resources to manipulate US foreign policy in their favour, because it's potentially a game changer in any conflict or crusade.

    Spot on.

  125. @NOTA
    If it looks plausibly like we are going to stop defending them, my prediction is that the nuclear club will have a new confirmed member very quickly. One reason I'm not so enthusiastic about getting out of the business of defending Asia is that there are at least three high-tech industrial powerhouses (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) who would very quickly develop their own nukes and openly go nuclear.

    Maybe we need PacTO–the Pacific Treaty Organization. All the Pacific economic powerhouses get nukes and agree to defend each other. Then the US slowly withdraws and leaves them to defend themselves.

  126. @Anonym
    Bottom line is that most American support for Taiwan is based on the perception is that we will have to resist Chinese territorial ambitions at some point and that Taiwan is a reasonable battleground for that war, if the Chinese decide to move in that direction. It would be preferable if given China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians. That’s what the American bases in the Far East are for, to channel any Chinese attacks away from our Cold War allies in the region, which also happen to be important trading partners and markets for US goods.

    Practically the best thing Trump can do to limit Chinese territorial ambitions is to call a halt to Chinese immigration into the USA and Anglosphere, and to discourage Chinese investment as well. Long term, we need to get our birthrates up, especially in a eugenic fashion if we are to compete.

    The issue between Taiwan and China has nothing to do with territorial ambitions. It has everything to do with the concept of ‘one china’ that is deeply rooted in the Chinese historical experience.

    This territorial ambitions thing is absolutely nonsense, although it has been an accepted notion that has no objective reality. Communist China, once it came to power began conceding territories to its neighbors left and right. A quick check can confirm this. Compare the map of the PRC (People’s Republic of China) with its predecessor the ROC (Republic of China) and you will notice China territories shrinks on all size.

    There is a country that has territorial ambitions and has demonstrated time and again of its ruthless land grabbing and bullying of its neighbors. What country is that? India. Surprise?

    • LOL: Lot
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I have a Hungarian encyclopedia from 1936 with multiple maps of China, and they show an independent Tibet as well as an independent Manchukuo, though I think it's mentioned on the maps that Manchukuo was not recognized by many governments around the world, nor by the League of Nations. Hong Kong and Macau are also shown as separate, as well as Port Arthur (the latter belonging to Japan). It's not shown on those maps, but there were British and I think French exclaves (e.g. a couple districts of Shanghai) in China.

    Since the 1950s at the latest, all these belong to China. So China did increase moderately in size after the founding of the PRC.

    It also waged a short shooting war with the USSR in I think the 1970s over some islands on a border river and similar border disputes, since then they've resolved all of these, mostly awarding those disputed areas to China.
    , @Anonym
    The issue between Taiwan and China has nothing to do with territorial ambitions. It has everything to do with the concept of ‘one china’ that is deeply rooted in the Chinese historical experience.

    I partly agree with this. I also think that the Taiwan issue is partly (mostly?) China feeling its oats - being equal to the US in terms of GDP, on a growth curve to supplant it, more populous, smarter according to IQ tests, and cashed up. It wants to translate/convert monetary power to other dimensions - military and territorial. It has peacefully set up colonies/diaspora in most Western countries, especially Canada, Australia and New Zealand in terms of percentage, and in absolute figures, the USA. It is using those assets and through state-owned companies, buying up assets outside. It's not just wealthy Chinese seeking safe havens, although that is part of it. It is also building its military on the cheap through this process - those military hardware designs did not migrate back to the motherland by accident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese#Country_statistics

    This territorial ambitions thing is absolutely nonsense, although it has been an accepted notion that has no objective reality. Communist China, once it came to power began conceding territories to its neighbors left and right. A quick check can confirm this. Compare the map of the PRC (People’s Republic of China) with its predecessor the ROC (Republic of China) and you will notice China territories shrinks on all size.

    PRC invaded Tibet in 1950, and has been accused of swamping the country with Han Chinese. A demographic takeover.

    https://freetibet.org/about/legal-status-tibet
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Demographics

    1905 was a high point in Chinese territory, or close to it. But what territory have the Communists ceded? They basically came from nothing and regained territory and shifted the borders outward. I don't see a lot of ceding. Perhaps you can name the areas ceded by the PRC?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp0tqdu7fH4
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_changes_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
    , @reiner Tor
    I forgot to add that Taiwan was not shown part of China in 1936 either. It was shown ad part of the Japanese Empire.
    , @The most deplorable one
    I guess they will want those parts of Vietnam back that they once owned (1,000 years or so ago.) Also, parts of what is now Russia (that were parts of China less than 200 years ago.)

    Once they become the global Hegemon once again it might happen.
  127. @Steve Sailer
    The Chinese have been big on All Under Heaven belonging to the Empire for 2000+ years. See the movie "Hero."

    Saw that, and saw another flick with the same plot, but with a VERY different take on things, vastly underrated I think: The Emperor and the Assassin
    Way less jingoistic than Hero.

  128. @Randal

    China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness
     
    ROFL! How many centuries are you going back with that?

    Is that the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has built China a global empire with oppressed colonies groaning under Chinese rule on all the continents of the world? Oh, hang on...

    Or is it the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has seen China grow - mostly by continual war, interventionism and profiting from others' wars - from a small collection of backward colonies a mere handful of centuries ago to a globe-bestriding military colossus today? Oh, hang on....

    It would be preferable if given China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians.
     
    Well if that were the wish then perhaps the sensible course would have been not allowing the less rational amongst the US foreign policy elites to drive US policy on Russia, responding to the Soviet defeat with a consistently aggressive drive to push into Russia's remaining spheres of interest at every opportunity by military, diplomatic and economic aggression and political subversion, against every remaining Russian ally, and even against Russia itself.

    Putin might be naive enough to fall for an attempt by the Trump administration to claim that all that's history now and that he should turn away from the allies he was forced - by the US - to turn to, in the face of massive US pressure. He'd be a fool to do so, imo, though (and he doesn't strike me as all that foolish), because while the voices of reason on Russia might for the moment be in the ascendant in the US regime, there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that will remain the case for long.

    ROFL! How many centuries are you going back with that?

    Is that the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has built China a global empire with oppressed colonies groaning under Chinese rule on all the continents of the world? Oh, hang on…

    Or is it the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has seen China grow – mostly by continual war, interventionism and profiting from others’ wars – from a small collection of backward colonies a mere handful of centuries ago to a globe-bestriding military colossus today? Oh, hang on….

    As far back as the provenance of China’s territorial claims in the region, which are constantly shifting. Its claim to the South China Sea, which is 2/3 the area of the continental US, goes back to the Ming dynasty, which actually completely dismantled its navy. China’s historians claim that the Yuan dynasty (whose protagonist Kublai Khan, Genghis’s grandson, is featured in the Netflix series “Marco Polo”) was Chinese. And any student of European history knows that the Mongols overran Hungary and Poland before retreating to more defensible lines.

    As to countries groaning under European rule, it’s actually under European rule that, on average, the natives have done the least groaning, with population numbers increasing in leaps and bounds, thanks to investments in infrastructure and education. While the expression “mission civilisatrice” tends to meet with a knowing cynicism among the politically-correct, European rule was, by and large, a boon to the natives. European administrators invested in infrastructure where native rulers had largely invested in sumptuous palaces and obscene luxuries for themselves.

    The tendency of native rulers to lord it over their subjects is why so many former European colonies are far poorer than the territories that remain under European rule. Compare Bermuda, a barren island with no natural resources, with any of the former British colonies in the Caribbean.

    As to atrocities, in the late 18th century, the Chinese emperor issued an extermination order proscribing the Dzungars, wiping out perhaps 80% of the population. Now, some historians have taken to describing the displacement and death through disease of the Native American population as genocide, but in China, you had the highest official in the land actually issuing this order. Of course, this was back when the Chinese thought that China was universally-recognized as the Center of the World, and the Chinese leader wasn’t simply the leader of the temporal world, he was the Son of God. Today, they still think it’s the Center of the World, and view foreigners who aren’t inclined to accept this assumption of Chinese superiority much as a European explorer in the cooking pot perceives the benighted cannibals who are about to have him for dinner – he’s working on the ropes that bind him and looking for an opportunity to turn the tables.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    As to countries groaning under European rule, it’s actually under European rule that, on average, the natives have done the least groaning, with population numbers increasing in leaps and bounds, thanks to investments in infrastructure and education. While the expression “mission civilisatrice” tends to meet with a knowing cynicism among the politically-correct, European rule was, by and large, a boon to the natives. European administrators invested in infrastructure where native rulers had largely invested in sumptuous palaces and obscene luxuries for themselves.
     
    I agree that colonialism was generally a boon for the natives. It was a disaster for the Europeans.

    Establishing colonies in Africa was madness.
  129. Does anyone get the feeling that Secretary of State plays a more ceremonial, even symbolic role than in the past? Look at the recent hires. Maybe it’s because with modern telecommunications and jet travel Presidents can be their own Secretaries of State? Treasury, Attorney General, and Defense look to me like the more important cabinet positions today. A stuffed shirt like Romney may be just what Trump needs.

  130. @Randal

    Or maybe China and Taiwan being at peace is one of those not broken things that doesn’t need immediate fixing.
     
    Seems reasonable.

    Seems to me the Chinese view of Taiwan, as unfinished business from their civil war and a renegade province that would certainly have been reincorporated long ago were it not for interference by a superpower from the other side of the world, is at least as valid as the absolutist claim by the nationalists and US that Taiwan is an independent country that must have self determination (this is good self determination, you see, unlike bad Crimean self determination).

    The best result would probably be a natural and peaceful reunification as Chinese wealth, especially in the coastal provinces, overtakes Taiwanese wealth and local businessmen and other elites see the benefits for themselves of playing in the bigger pool, and manipulate opinion in favour of Chinese reunification. I'd say that should happen within a few decades, if the Chinese economy doesn't collapse (a possibility that can't be ruled out) and if the US can resist interfering to prevent it.

    It doesn't seem to me that there is any good outcome from a confrontation between China and the US over Taiwan, which will most likely end badly for Taiwan, for sure, and potentially disastrously for the world.

    I have noted elsewhere that Trump's picks so far (Mattis, Pompeo, Flynn) suggest the possibility of a direct US foreign policy switch from irrationality over Russia to irrationality over Iran. There are certainly voices that would like to manipulate US foreign policy towards a heightened military confrontation of China, as well.

    That's one of the costs of being an aggressively globally dominant military superpower - everyone wants to use you to defeat their own enemies, and everyone wants to use your military and economic power to wage their own crusades. And it's worth their while expending vast resources to manipulate US foreign policy in their favour, because it's potentially a game changer in any conflict or crusade.

    I have noted elsewhere that Trump’s picks so far (Mattis, Pompeo, Flynn) suggest the possibility of a direct US foreign policy switch from irrationality over Russia to irrationality over Iran.

    Au contraire. Iran is the one country Uncle Sam can stomp into the ground, militarily, without breaking a sweat. A supersized version of Reagan’s Operation Praying Mantis would neuter Iran’s Air Force and Navy, in the run-up to the flattening of Iran’s nuclear program. A nuclear Iran means Arab regimes with competing nuclear programs of their own. A coup or an Islamist uprising among one of these regimes could mean loose nukes. It’s time we started bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, preferably before it takes delivery of, and learns how to use any of the new weaponry it’s purchased with Obama’s bribe money.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Yep. We should have done it when they seized our sailors. Losing an oil terminal would get their attention.
  131. @Desiderius

    Trump is like the real teacher people like, replacing the substitute teacher nobody likes.
     
    Yes. I propose a Harf-Mattis scale to measure the effect.

    For instance, this interview:

    http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/12/02/must-see-tucker-carlson-interviews-ny-times-public-editor-liz-spayd-over-anti-trump-bias-video/

    Would be a solid five on the scale. Wonder what Trump said to Pinch?

  132. Obama wont let China buy German-founded Aixtron…. Aixtron has, or used to, dominate GaN CVD tool for LED manufacture…..
    http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1330924

  133. @Anonymous Nephew
    "Kissinger thinks that Obama was too hawkish (!) vis-a-vis China"

    That's not what the quote says.

    "Not too hawkish but too short-term. To truly advance our relationship with China, we must speak in trends."

    And the trend is increasing Chinese economic and military power, decreasing US economic (and therefore military in medium/long term) power.

    http://www.fingleton.net/extract-from-in-the-jaws-of-the-dragon/

    If Trump can do anything about US decline, that will speak to China in the language they understand more than words can.

    "How many 14 nanometer microprocessor plants has the Pope?"

    That’s not what the quote says.

    It’s a non-affirmation affirmation – the obverse of a non-denial denial.

  134. @EriK
    Is it true that Gen. Mattis is or was on the Theranos board? He fits the demographic.
    • Replies: @NOTA
    He should have just traded some cattle futures to get rich....
  135. @Randal

    China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness
     
    ROFL! How many centuries are you going back with that?

    Is that the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has built China a global empire with oppressed colonies groaning under Chinese rule on all the continents of the world? Oh, hang on...

    Or is it the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has seen China grow - mostly by continual war, interventionism and profiting from others' wars - from a small collection of backward colonies a mere handful of centuries ago to a globe-bestriding military colossus today? Oh, hang on....

    It would be preferable if given China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians.
     
    Well if that were the wish then perhaps the sensible course would have been not allowing the less rational amongst the US foreign policy elites to drive US policy on Russia, responding to the Soviet defeat with a consistently aggressive drive to push into Russia's remaining spheres of interest at every opportunity by military, diplomatic and economic aggression and political subversion, against every remaining Russian ally, and even against Russia itself.

    Putin might be naive enough to fall for an attempt by the Trump administration to claim that all that's history now and that he should turn away from the allies he was forced - by the US - to turn to, in the face of massive US pressure. He'd be a fool to do so, imo, though (and he doesn't strike me as all that foolish), because while the voices of reason on Russia might for the moment be in the ascendant in the US regime, there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that will remain the case for long.

    ROFL! How many centuries are you going back with that?

    What’s interesting is that for thousands of years, the Chinese leadership has tended to mine Chinese history for ideas on goals, strategy and tactics. In “On China”, Kissinger writes about how Mao reached back 2000 years for a historical analogy on what to do with respect to the McMahon line, back in the 1960’s. He decided to attack India and successfully annexed 14,000 square miles of Indian territory. From other sources, Mao is said to have regarded the medieval Chinese historical novels “The Romance of the Three Kingdoms” and “The Water Margin” as manuals of statecraft.

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
    "He decided to attack India and successfully annexed 14,000 square miles of Indian territory."

    Nonsense. It was Indian's expansionist policy that precipitate the 1962 war between India and China. And it is India that is still occupying a piece of Chinese territory. In 1951 India invaded and annexed South Tibet and occupy it to this day. South Tibet includes Tawang, birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama and home to a four hundred years old Tibetan monastery. Since then India has been ruling South Tibet with an iron hand, including a law that allows the state to detain or kill anyone with impunity. The law is called AFSPA (Armed Force Special Power Act) and is imposed on area India deemed 'disturbed', such as South Tibet and Kashmir. In case you couldn't find South Tibet on a map, the place was renamed to the so called 'Arunachal Pradesh' by India in 1987. The 1962 war was prompted by Nehru's 'forward policy' that have the Indian army created posts deeper and deeper (north of the McMahon line) into Chinese territory.
  136. The Chinese have been doing a lot of pushing lately. Trump taking the call from Taiwan is some push back. Planned or not, it might be better to cause some stir than to let the Chicoms dictate terms.

  137. @Randal

    Not only would I identify Taiwan as what it was before Nixon, I would also try to reverse history and stop facilitating the growth of China.

    I’m just an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old (now new again?) mold.
     
    If the US were an "isolationist" country (ie one that minded its own business) then most likely the Chinese wouldn't be all that bothered by whether or not the US President talked to Taiwan's leader or not (or no more than they object to any other country talking to what they - with a lot of justice - see as a renegade Chinese province).

    It's precisely because the US is the opposite of a country that minds its own business - a global empire with a track record of starting wars against its rivals over pretexts of precisely this kind - that they sensibly object very strongly to any signs of any potential increase in the US's already substantial devotion of resources to supporting said renegade province in order to use it as a pretext and asset for provoking and militarily bullying China.

    If you are "isolationist" then what are you doing "protecting" Taiwan from its neighbour, on the other side of the world?

    As for the supposed issue the NYT is trying to manufacture, I suspect the Chinese will make some pro forma retaliation in some diplomatically inconvenient manner for the US elsewhere, at a time that suits them - following which of course the US regime and its apologists will act all hurt and claim to have been the victim of an "unprovoked" slight) but not make any big issue about it. They've no interest in starting out relations with Trump on a bad footing.

    It’s precisely because the US is the opposite of a country that minds its own business – a global empire with a track record of starting wars against its rivals over pretexts of precisely this kind – that they sensibly object very strongly to any signs of any potential increase in the US’s already substantial devotion of resources to supporting said renegade province in order to use it as a pretext and asset for provoking and militarily bullying China.

    The US was an empire when it included the Philippines and Cuba. What it presides over today is an alliance rather than an empire. The idea that we’re bullying China is ludicrous, unless “bullying” is now redefined as preventing China’s addition of new territory to its already vast landholdings accumulated at swordpoint over thousands of years*. Was France “bullying” Britain when it recognized the breakaway provinces that comprised these United States 200 centuries ago? What is this – nursery school?

    * Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors. It is in no position to call any other country a bully, and certainly not any country that is merely acting to check its aggressive and acquisitive impulses.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    * Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors.
     
    No, not really. Its territorial extent was the result of a cultural coalescence around rice farming and Confucian ideology. China's sense of nationhood has traditionally been very inward-looking. China's bloody conflicts were mostly dynastic, not territorial. Chinese leaders were as often as not willing to trade away territories for the sake of dynastic politics, i.e. as a way to gain allies.
    , @reiner Tor

    Was France “bullying” Britain when it recognized the breakaway provinces that comprised these United States 200 centuries ago?
     
    In any event, it was a very hostile act, culminating in open war. Since Chinese leaders have the healthier instincts of 18th century European statesmen, they are also probably viewing it as an openly hostile act.

    Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors.
     
    It "conquered" Manchuria when the Manchus conquered China and Manchuria became a Chinese province. In the 18th century a Manju emperor unwisely allowed the Han Chinese peasants from the overpopulated provinces to settle this province, which meant that when the Manchus were toppled, they had nowhere to flee.

    Inner Mongolia was added at the same time. Ethnic Han Chinese expansion was a bit like how the Tamils got into Sri Lanka, settled there by overlords of another ethnicity.
    , @DukeofQin
    Alliance is a charitable way to put it. More accurately America's allies are satrapies with some local autonomy. This system is somewhat instable but ingenious in its own because like all Imperial governance, it begins with the coopting and collaboration of local elites. Speaking of the Philippines, the preferred candidate by the state department that was trounced by Duterte was a woman who had spent half her life in the US and wasn't even a Filipino citizen when she started campaigning and is married to a US military officer. Who needs an occupation force when local compradors come so easily and cheaply. Taiwan's new President is a Columbia educated spinster cat lady (with a new dog since becoming president) that is busy decrying Chinese privilege (Aboriginal lives matter) and pushing gay marriage. As Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, enforced occupation is costly and expensive. The long March through the institutions of America's liberal hegemony didn't stop at its borders and is much cheaper and subversive. Muslims to their credit are seemingly immune thanks to their actually still believing in their religion.

    As to so called Chinese territorial aggression, all I can say is I wish. As a racial nationalist cognizant of the existential threat posed by America's liberal messianic mission, I could only hope the Communists were half as committed to the destruction of the Western world order as the Pentagon talking points claim they are. Really a couple of uninhabited Acres of the South China Sea is apparently the new Sudetenland. Freedom of navigation for billions of dollars of (Chinese) trade is such a great concern for them too. Honestly your propaganda has become about as believable as Clinton's poll numbers.
  138. @Almost Missouri
    You are right to question that. I think Steve gave the answer in his own lede: the NYT is trying to stir up trouble for Trump, no matter that it has international repercussions.

    This has so far gone unremarked in all the wild-man-Trump-is-upsetting-important-diplomatic-stabilities-for-his-ego ululating: the NYT (and therefore all big US media) are, and have long been, doing exactly that with impunity. Trump was elected by the nation and is trying to act in the national interest. The NYT and cohorts serve different masters and hate the nation, and their actions show it.

    The NYT is more or less the newspaper of the ruling class. It often does good reporting, sometimes the best available on some topic, but its reporting is always from that ruling-class perspective. The blind spots of the ruling class are the blind spots of the NYT.

    My guess is that this story reflects the view of a bunch of foreign service insiders who are the NYT’s sources. They may be right or wrong (what the hell do I know about delicate diplomatic games?), but I don’t think this is primarily about either partisan politics or hatred of Trump or America or whatever.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Don't underestimate Trump hatred as a motivation. I looked at the NY web page today and in addition to having their knickers in a bunch about Taiwan, maybe 1/2 the other headlines had an explicit or semi-explicit anti-Trump angle. "Trump's Tough Trade Talk Could Damage American Factories" (funny that the NYTimes never cared about damaging American factories before). "To some [the author], Trump's claims suggest that he will seek to roll back protections that date as far back as the civil rights era." "New Report on Global Temperatures is Wrong, [our favored] Scientists Say", etc.

    And this is before he has even taken office. You can expect an endless drumbeat of negative press. The only saving grace is that those who are not true believers no longer attach any weight to such obviously biased reporting.
  139. @Rod1963
    God almighty people here are already having a case of the vapors and bringing out the feinting couches and worrying about nuclear war. All because the PM of Taiwan telephones Trump and they have a chat.

    You folks must really think the Chinese leadership are a bunch of emotional children? They aren't, they're hardass pragmatists and negotiators. They scream and rant over the slightest thing we do because it scares our political and intellectual classes into rolling over like beat dogs.

    Yeah they're aggressive and nasty, and worse they spy on everyone and steal our IP like we're giving it away. They hack our government computer networks and mess with our power grid. I'm sure when Trump got briefed on China's espionage efforts here, he shit a brick. It's that bad.

    Nice folks eh? And Sailer is worried they might call us a bad name. Sheesh. They already do it behind our backs.

    That being said, in the hell would they want to commit suicide over a stinking island? As it is they are sitting fat, dumb and richer than Croesus so why spoil it with nukes. Muslims they are not.

    Look take it from their position. We are their principal trading partner and source of revenue that keeps China running full tilt and made their leadership quite wealthy. They screw with us and it's game over for them, and they won't have a safe haven in the West should events in China go pear shaped. Hint they aren't buying up expensive houses in Canada and the U.S. for just investment purposes or having their babies here. Their leadership knows they are sitting a time bomb.

    In the end Trump and China will come to a agreement because it benefits both sides.

    “They scream and rant over the slightest thing we do because it scares our political and intellectual classes into rolling over like beat dogs.”

    Well put.

  140. @NOTA
    The NYT is more or less the newspaper of the ruling class. It often does good reporting, sometimes the best available on some topic, but its reporting is always from that ruling-class perspective. The blind spots of the ruling class are the blind spots of the NYT.

    My guess is that this story reflects the view of a bunch of foreign service insiders who are the NYT's sources. They may be right or wrong (what the hell do I know about delicate diplomatic games?), but I don't think this is primarily about either partisan politics or hatred of Trump or America or whatever.

    Don’t underestimate Trump hatred as a motivation. I looked at the NY web page today and in addition to having their knickers in a bunch about Taiwan, maybe 1/2 the other headlines had an explicit or semi-explicit anti-Trump angle. “Trump’s Tough Trade Talk Could Damage American Factories” (funny that the NYTimes never cared about damaging American factories before). “To some [the author], Trump’s claims suggest that he will seek to roll back protections that date as far back as the civil rights era.” “New Report on Global Temperatures is Wrong, [our favored] Scientists Say”, etc.

    And this is before he has even taken office. You can expect an endless drumbeat of negative press. The only saving grace is that those who are not true believers no longer attach any weight to such obviously biased reporting.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    Fair enough. The ruling class despises Trump, both for cultural reasons, and more importantly because he is threatening the system that brought them to the top, and the troughs at which they feed. And so the NYT hates Trump.
  141. Like the leader of South Korea, the Taiwanese is a barren spinster. Prefect representative of a nation with a TFR of 1.1. Why fight for countries that have no will to live?

  142. @Anonym
    Bottom line is that most American support for Taiwan is based on the perception is that we will have to resist Chinese territorial ambitions at some point and that Taiwan is a reasonable battleground for that war, if the Chinese decide to move in that direction. It would be preferable if given China’s traditional territorial aggressiveness, they invaded Central Asia or Siberia, and fought it out with the Russians. That’s what the American bases in the Far East are for, to channel any Chinese attacks away from our Cold War allies in the region, which also happen to be important trading partners and markets for US goods.

    Practically the best thing Trump can do to limit Chinese territorial ambitions is to call a halt to Chinese immigration into the USA and Anglosphere, and to discourage Chinese investment as well. Long term, we need to get our birthrates up, especially in a eugenic fashion if we are to compete.

    I think this is exactly backward. What leverage we have over the Chinese stems from the fact that all the money they have to fund their territorial ambitions comes from the West and especially from the US. WE have paid for their aircraft carriers and artificial islands one iPhone and pair of sneakers at a time and if we don’t keep paying they won’t be able to build any more. Before they starting trading with the West, under Mao they were as poor as church mice. It’s like Trump’s make the Mexicans pay for the wall idea in reverse, where WE are the Mexicans. So what we have to do is tell them, no ticky, no laundry – if we are going to keep sending them money it comes with strings attached.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    I think this is exactly backward. What leverage we have over the Chinese stems from the fact that all the money they have to fund their territorial ambitions comes from the West and especially from the US. WE have paid for their aircraft carriers and artificial islands one iPhone and pair of sneakers at a time and if we don’t keep paying they won’t be able to build any more. Before they starting trading with the West, under Mao they were as poor as church mice. It’s like Trump’s make the Mexicans pay for the wall idea in reverse, where WE are the Mexicans. So what we have to do is tell them, no ticky, no laundry – if we are going to keep sending them money it comes with strings attached.

    I should have been more accurate with what I originally said. Trump has said he would impose tariffs, which will have some effect, not as large an effect as they would have 10-20 years ago.

    However, over the long term the important issue is one of demographics, investment, colonization. The US could learn something from China's advancement and their use of the diaspora. Instead, the US under the Kenyan has instituted FATCA, which seeks to basically lop off the US diaspora advantage at the knees. One of the first things Trump ought to do is repeal FATCA.

    https://www.americansabroad.org/taxation/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese#Country_statistics

    There is a big danger in white countries operating with the belief in PC, while a US sized and powered country of greater IQ, with an impenetrable language compared to English giving an asymmetrical advantage in communications, is operating like an enlightened but basically unreconstructed European colonial power of past centuries, except they are doing it to other countries, including our own.
  143. The Trump fanboys in here don’t get it: Sometimes, anti-interventionism means you need to nod and smile politely. Pretending to ignore Taiwan is the anti-interventionist stance.

    • Replies: @anon
    This

    And you don't bloviate to Pakistan you look forward to fixing their problems

    What is the purpose of these calls?
  144. In other regional news:

    China’s military conducted a salvo of 10 missile flight tests late last month in a show of force during the transition to the Donald Trump administration.

    Chinese state media reported Thursday that the simultaneous flight tests of 10 DF-21 intermediate-range ballistic missiles were carried out in China.

    The missiles “can destroy U.S. Asia-Pacific bases at any time,” the dispatch from the official Xinhua news agency reported.

    The flight tests were disclosed by China Central Television on Nov. 28 and coincide with President-elect Donald Trump’s high-profile announcements of new senior government officials.

    All the more reason to get those missile defenses rigged up and operational.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    I wonder who's more likely to have plenty of agents in place - China (in the US weapons/missile programs) or the US (in the Chinese weapons/missile programs)?

    US readers will know better than I - are the various US defence contractors like Raytheon stuffed to the gills with H1B employees/contractors?
  145. @Jack D
    Don't underestimate Trump hatred as a motivation. I looked at the NY web page today and in addition to having their knickers in a bunch about Taiwan, maybe 1/2 the other headlines had an explicit or semi-explicit anti-Trump angle. "Trump's Tough Trade Talk Could Damage American Factories" (funny that the NYTimes never cared about damaging American factories before). "To some [the author], Trump's claims suggest that he will seek to roll back protections that date as far back as the civil rights era." "New Report on Global Temperatures is Wrong, [our favored] Scientists Say", etc.

    And this is before he has even taken office. You can expect an endless drumbeat of negative press. The only saving grace is that those who are not true believers no longer attach any weight to such obviously biased reporting.

    Fair enough. The ruling class despises Trump, both for cultural reasons, and more importantly because he is threatening the system that brought them to the top, and the troughs at which they feed. And so the NYT hates Trump.

  146. Why are a lot of people inferring some potential impending major foreign policy shift from the news that someone talked to someone else on the phone? To me, in this case, the cigar is just a cigar.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In the broader sense, this actually isn't a foreign policy shift, but a continuation of the basic foreign policy strategy that has guided the US - detente with the relatively weaker power, antagonize the relatively stronger power, in Eurasia. Back in the 70s, the relatively stronger power was Russia, the relatively weaker was China.
  147. @anon
    Times have changed rapidly, and we're still following crazy diplomatic protocols dating beyond WWII. I'm all for Trump cleaning out the international swamp. It's rancid. NATO would be a good place to begin house cleaning.

    We are a superpower. We're allowed to make some faux pas along the way, with no real fuss being made by other countries. Many of them are as enamored of Trump as many of us are. He's a bit of a celebrity, kind of like Mohammed Ali. Even those who don't like him are oddly fascinated by him.

    Also, casting Obama as the ghost "bad cop" to Trump's "good cop" could create some relationships that can be very beneficial in the long run. Obama has been such a mess, Trump would be ridiculous not to exploit Obama's incompetence by presenting himself as "the good guy."

    Trump is like the real teacher people like, replacing the substitute teacher nobody likes. Past enemies or critics can blame all their past behavior on Obama provoking them, and sidle up to Trump, who they believe might be at least receptive.

    I guess I'm just still surprised the media continues to be flummoxed by Trump. MSNBC, in particular, has become certified kabuki theater at this point. I think Racheal Maddow needs a professional evaluation. The woman is laughing maniacally while reporting on Trump... just spontaneously. When she laughs, it doesn't make sense unless she's either having a breakdown, or pretending she is about to. I've never seen a newsreader so bizarrely emotionally demonstrative since Dan Rather, and she beats him.

    She's like an ex-wife who got hosed in a divorce, forcing her to live in a trailer, talking about her ex-husband recently winning mega lotto. Rachel displays the same weird, mistimed laughter.

    Begs the question, how do producer's deal with a newsreader who might be suffering from a nervous breakdown? Do they just let 'em carry on until something wild happens? Is there some medical professional that can sit a newsreader down and say, "look... you've developed a nervous tic of blinking uncontrollably, talking out of the right side of your mouth, as if you've had a stroke, and laughing at strange moments. We think you need a few months off. Get some MRI's and CAT scans going as long as you've got the time off."

    Re Maddow: Mirthless laughter can be a sign that the person is in great emotional distress.

    “…how do producer’s deal with a newsreader who might be suffering from a nervous breakdown?”

    Well, perhaps Maddow’s employers think of her as a sort of Howard Beal figure… useful keeping the ratings up, for a while.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Mirthless laughter can be a sign that the person is in great emotional distress
     
    A wounded Deer –leaps highest –
    I've heard the Hunter tell –
    'Tis but the ecstasy of death –
    And then the Brake is still!

    The smitten Rock that gushes!
    The trampled Steel that springs!
    A Cheek is always redder
    Just where the Hectic stings!

    Mirth is the Mail of Anguish –
    In which it cautious Arm,
    Lest Anybody spy the blood
    And "you're hurt" exclaim!

    - Dickinson
  148. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @countenance
    Why are a lot of people inferring some potential impending major foreign policy shift from the news that someone talked to someone else on the phone? To me, in this case, the cigar is just a cigar.

    In the broader sense, this actually isn’t a foreign policy shift, but a continuation of the basic foreign policy strategy that has guided the US – detente with the relatively weaker power, antagonize the relatively stronger power, in Eurasia. Back in the 70s, the relatively stronger power was Russia, the relatively weaker was China.

  149. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri
    You are right to question that. I think Steve gave the answer in his own lede: the NYT is trying to stir up trouble for Trump, no matter that it has international repercussions.

    This has so far gone unremarked in all the wild-man-Trump-is-upsetting-important-diplomatic-stabilities-for-his-ego ululating: the NYT (and therefore all big US media) are, and have long been, doing exactly that with impunity. Trump was elected by the nation and is trying to act in the national interest. The NYT and cohorts serve different masters and hate the nation, and their actions show it.

    You are right to question that. I think Steve gave the answer in his own lede: the NYT is trying to stir up trouble for Trump, no matter that it has international repercussions.

    Right, the MSM’s relentless quest to portray Trump as an unstable wildman makes it much more difficult for Trump and the Chinese to save face in what could have passed as a minor diplomatic incident.

  150. @Rod1963
    Taiwan has the technological base to build them within six months. It's not hard when you a high tech country with a lot of smart people in it.

    My understanding is that Japan is six weeks from the PM giving the go ahead to having a delivery capable nuclear weapon ready to go.

    Mind you, I heard this years ago so that time frame may have been cut down since then.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    I don't know anything, but I would be very surprised if Japan did not have the ability to quickly demonstrate a deterrent if, say, they had a falling out with the US (or we fell apart for some reason--financial disaster, civil war, zombie apocalypse, whatever) and they no longer felt confident of being under our nuclear umbrella.
    , @Neil Templeton
    Three or four dozen market players armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons is the true meaning of global economy. The universal incentive is to keep everyone happy so none go rogue. I am curious to see the effect on cinema and other arts as the probability of nuclear war becomes an important household target datum again.
  151. Meanwhile, like it’s not already bad as it is with Pizzagate, the libtards are on their way to screw up the Mother Earth:

    • Replies: @SFG
    Some people are attracted to animals, so why not plants?
    , @SPMoore8
    Here I had just worked my way up to LGBTQQIAA and I know I'm still mssing a few letters, and now I have to add an E for Ecosexuals? If they give me too many more letters along with a couple of "U"'s I can win Scrabble game here.
  152. @Opinionator
    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I've been taken aback by it.

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it.

    There are both rational and emotional reasons for that. For years, the Kuomintang who established power in Taiwan after they were overthrown on the mainland considered itself the legitimate government of China and was supported in that position by the US. The ROC still has in its constitution a claim to be the government of China. ROC is not only the island of Taiwan but an archipelago across the Taiwan Strait that can threaten the security of Chinese coastal commerce. That’s the rational part. Those conflicts should be resolvable by ROC constitutionally recognizing PRC’s dominion over the mainland and their interest in the Taiwan Strait, right? Wrong! After Hong Kong and Macau, Taiwan is the last remaining geographic symbol of the Nineteenth Century humiliations imposed on China, which still bear heavily on Chinese consciousness. For ROC to officially renounce its claim on the mainland would be a ratification of Taiwan’s political separateness that China has resented for the past 120 years (although that separation was in large part driven by culture, economics, and lack of interest in actually governing Taiwan by the Qing Dynasty).

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Seems reasonable. Thanks for the explanation.

    I disagree, however, that Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan can reasonably be seen as "humiliations."

  153. @bored identity
    Meanwhile, like it's not already bad as it is with Pizzagate, the libtards are on their way to screw up the Mother Earth:

    https://twitter.com/VICEUK/status/804973450611683329

    Some people are attracted to animals, so why not plants?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Some people are attracted to animals, so why not plants?
     
    How is the Cosby prosecution coming along?
  154. @Seth Largo
    The Trump fanboys in here don't get it: Sometimes, anti-interventionism means you need to nod and smile politely. Pretending to ignore Taiwan is the anti-interventionist stance.

    This

    And you don’t bloviate to Pakistan you look forward to fixing their problems

    What is the purpose of these calls?

    • Replies: @epebble
    He may be playing 5-D chess as a great disrupter. The election was all about who is a more credible changemaker. He may be strategizing about turning established policy upside down and see what happens. Taiwan, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea on nice side and China, India, NATO allies, Japan, South Korea, Mexico on naughty side? Who knows, you have to break a few eggs to make omelette.
  155. @European-American
    I would be grateful for some historical examples of wars started due to someone shooting their mouth off.

    First Iraq War courtesy of April Glaspie’s big mouth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspiettps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

  156. @Johann Ricke

    ROFL! How many centuries are you going back with that?
     
    What's interesting is that for thousands of years, the Chinese leadership has tended to mine Chinese history for ideas on goals, strategy and tactics. In "On China", Kissinger writes about how Mao reached back 2000 years for a historical analogy on what to do with respect to the McMahon line, back in the 1960's. He decided to attack India and successfully annexed 14,000 square miles of Indian territory. From other sources, Mao is said to have regarded the medieval Chinese historical novels "The Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and "The Water Margin" as manuals of statecraft.

    “He decided to attack India and successfully annexed 14,000 square miles of Indian territory.”

    Nonsense. It was Indian’s expansionist policy that precipitate the 1962 war between India and China. And it is India that is still occupying a piece of Chinese territory. In 1951 India invaded and annexed South Tibet and occupy it to this day. South Tibet includes Tawang, birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama and home to a four hundred years old Tibetan monastery. Since then India has been ruling South Tibet with an iron hand, including a law that allows the state to detain or kill anyone with impunity. The law is called AFSPA (Armed Force Special Power Act) and is imposed on area India deemed ‘disturbed’, such as South Tibet and Kashmir. In case you couldn’t find South Tibet on a map, the place was renamed to the so called ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ by India in 1987. The 1962 war was prompted by Nehru’s ‘forward policy’ that have the Indian army created posts deeper and deeper (north of the McMahon line) into Chinese territory.

    • Replies: @Wedford
    Arunachal Pradesh was inherited by India from the British. Just saying.
  157. @Johann Ricke

    It’s precisely because the US is the opposite of a country that minds its own business – a global empire with a track record of starting wars against its rivals over pretexts of precisely this kind – that they sensibly object very strongly to any signs of any potential increase in the US’s already substantial devotion of resources to supporting said renegade province in order to use it as a pretext and asset for provoking and militarily bullying China.
     
    The US was an empire when it included the Philippines and Cuba. What it presides over today is an alliance rather than an empire. The idea that we're bullying China is ludicrous, unless "bullying" is now redefined as preventing China's addition of new territory to its already vast landholdings accumulated at swordpoint over thousands of years*. Was France "bullying" Britain when it recognized the breakaway provinces that comprised these United States 200 centuries ago? What is this - nursery school?

    * Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors. It is in no position to call any other country a bully, and certainly not any country that is merely acting to check its aggressive and acquisitive impulses.

    * Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors.

    No, not really. Its territorial extent was the result of a cultural coalescence around rice farming and Confucian ideology. China’s sense of nationhood has traditionally been very inward-looking. China’s bloody conflicts were mostly dynastic, not territorial. Chinese leaders were as often as not willing to trade away territories for the sake of dynastic politics, i.e. as a way to gain allies.

  158. @Johann Ricke
    In other regional news:

    China’s military conducted a salvo of 10 missile flight tests late last month in a show of force during the transition to the Donald Trump administration.

    Chinese state media reported Thursday that the simultaneous flight tests of 10 DF-21 intermediate-range ballistic missiles were carried out in China.

    The missiles “can destroy U.S. Asia-Pacific bases at any time,” the dispatch from the official Xinhua news agency reported.

    The flight tests were disclosed by China Central Television on Nov. 28 and coincide with President-elect Donald Trump’s high-profile announcements of new senior government officials.
     
    All the more reason to get those missile defenses rigged up and operational.

    I wonder who’s more likely to have plenty of agents in place – China (in the US weapons/missile programs) or the US (in the Chinese weapons/missile programs)?

    US readers will know better than I – are the various US defence contractors like Raytheon stuffed to the gills with H1B employees/contractors?

    • Replies: @epebble
    Defense contractors need U.S. Citizens with security clearance for classified work; so no H-1B or immigrants. However, many naturalized citizens work in classified programs. Many of these (as well as native citizens like Snowden) have committed treason.
    , @Johann Ricke

    I wonder who’s more likely to have plenty of agents in place – China (in the US weapons/missile programs) or the US (in the Chinese weapons/missile programs)?

    US readers will know better than I – are the various US defence contractors like Raytheon stuffed to the gills with H1B employees/contractors?
     

    The US gets lots of walk-ins, some more notorious than others. Given the large number of Christians (~10% of the population) and perhaps secret Falungong adherents (some of whom have received asylum stateside) in China, I expect there's a significant number of Chinese prospects available for recruitment. Another significant pool of prospects for CIA recruitment is the large number of Chinese students stateside who then return to China upon graduation, and perhaps work for the Chinese government. Given the extent to which China is now a major source of tourist revenues around the world, I'd say talent-spotting for Chinese assets is now wide open in a way it never was back when it was a hermetically-sealed society. They can send agents to spy on us, but we can recruit Chinese college grads with stateside degrees to burrow deep inside their government in a way that no Chinese grad will ever be able to penetrate the US government.

    We also get a good number of walk-ins. One PLA bird colonel-equivalent defected in March 2001, leading the Chinese to launch a series of provocations that resulted in the forced landing of the EP-3 on Chinese soil in April 1, 2001. A senior aide to an up-and-coming Poliburo member (i.e. one of 25 people that includes President Xi Jinping) Bo Xilai attempted to defect at the US consulate in Chengdu. This article heading describes more or less what happened: Clinton Turned Away High-Level Chinese Defector to Assist Beijing Leaders Another senior, although below Politburo-level official was arrested as part of President Xi Jinping's purge in 2014. This aide had a brother stateside to whom he had entrusted what is said to be a treasure trove of information about the Chinese leadership. Given the optics of handing back a green card holder (i.e. someone with American legal permanent resident status) on American soil to the Chinese government in spite of his intelligence value, Obama appears to not have intervened to send him back.

    Re H1b employees in defense, I can't vouch for the info, but a 30-second search yielded this:


    Here is what I know about clearances. Mostly clearances of 3 levels. Confidential (C), Secret (S) and Top Secret (TS). Clearances of given out by Department of Defence (DoD), Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy and Department of Justice. Levels of clearances may differ depending upon who is giving them. To apply for a security clearnce on should a naturalized/Native citizen of US. However under special circumstances becuase of the project or the individuals unique or unusal skill or expertise a non-citizen can be given clearance. This type of clearance is called Limited Access Authorization and will not go higher than Secret level. Any level of clearnce precedes a complete background investigation in terms of national, local and credit history, past criminal background investigation, where one lived in the past including overseas. This takes more one 1 year or more based on ones previous history. Hope this helps.

     

  159. @DB Cooper
    The issue between Taiwan and China has nothing to do with territorial ambitions. It has everything to do with the concept of 'one china' that is deeply rooted in the Chinese historical experience.

    This territorial ambitions thing is absolutely nonsense, although it has been an accepted notion that has no objective reality. Communist China, once it came to power began conceding territories to its neighbors left and right. A quick check can confirm this. Compare the map of the PRC (People's Republic of China) with its predecessor the ROC (Republic of China) and you will notice China territories shrinks on all size.

    There is a country that has territorial ambitions and has demonstrated time and again of its ruthless land grabbing and bullying of its neighbors. What country is that? India. Surprise?

    I have a Hungarian encyclopedia from 1936 with multiple maps of China, and they show an independent Tibet as well as an independent Manchukuo, though I think it’s mentioned on the maps that Manchukuo was not recognized by many governments around the world, nor by the League of Nations. Hong Kong and Macau are also shown as separate, as well as Port Arthur (the latter belonging to Japan). It’s not shown on those maps, but there were British and I think French exclaves (e.g. a couple districts of Shanghai) in China.

    Since the 1950s at the latest, all these belong to China. So China did increase moderately in size after the founding of the PRC.

    It also waged a short shooting war with the USSR in I think the 1970s over some islands on a border river and similar border disputes, since then they’ve resolved all of these, mostly awarding those disputed areas to China.

    • Agree: PV van der Byl
    • Replies: @DB Cooper
    The last century saw China being carved up by the Western powers and Japan. Your map just confirm it.

    Compare the map of PRC and ROC.
  160. @DB Cooper
    The issue between Taiwan and China has nothing to do with territorial ambitions. It has everything to do with the concept of 'one china' that is deeply rooted in the Chinese historical experience.

    This territorial ambitions thing is absolutely nonsense, although it has been an accepted notion that has no objective reality. Communist China, once it came to power began conceding territories to its neighbors left and right. A quick check can confirm this. Compare the map of the PRC (People's Republic of China) with its predecessor the ROC (Republic of China) and you will notice China territories shrinks on all size.

    There is a country that has territorial ambitions and has demonstrated time and again of its ruthless land grabbing and bullying of its neighbors. What country is that? India. Surprise?

    The issue between Taiwan and China has nothing to do with territorial ambitions. It has everything to do with the concept of ‘one china’ that is deeply rooted in the Chinese historical experience.

    I partly agree with this. I also think that the Taiwan issue is partly (mostly?) China feeling its oats – being equal to the US in terms of GDP, on a growth curve to supplant it, more populous, smarter according to IQ tests, and cashed up. It wants to translate/convert monetary power to other dimensions – military and territorial. It has peacefully set up colonies/diaspora in most Western countries, especially Canada, Australia and New Zealand in terms of percentage, and in absolute figures, the USA. It is using those assets and through state-owned companies, buying up assets outside. It’s not just wealthy Chinese seeking safe havens, although that is part of it. It is also building its military on the cheap through this process – those military hardware designs did not migrate back to the motherland by accident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese#Country_statistics

    This territorial ambitions thing is absolutely nonsense, although it has been an accepted notion that has no objective reality. Communist China, once it came to power began conceding territories to its neighbors left and right. A quick check can confirm this. Compare the map of the PRC (People’s Republic of China) with its predecessor the ROC (Republic of China) and you will notice China territories shrinks on all size.

    PRC invaded Tibet in 1950, and has been accused of swamping the country with Han Chinese. A demographic takeover.

    https://freetibet.org/about/legal-status-tibet
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Demographics

    1905 was a high point in Chinese territory, or close to it. But what territory have the Communists ceded? They basically came from nothing and regained territory and shifted the borders outward. I don’t see a lot of ceding. Perhaps you can name the areas ceded by the PRC?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_changes_of_the_People’s_Republic_of_China

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
    "PRC invaded Tibet in 1950, and has been accused of swamping the country with Han Chinese."

    PRC did send in army in 1951 to Tibet and I have to say that of all the stupid and crazy things the PRC did in its first thirty years of misrule, sending in army to prevent the carving up of Tibet is one of the things that the PRC did right. I am convinced that had PRC not sent in the army, Tibet would have been ended up like Mongolia. This is not an invasion of a sovereignty country. On this note I would like to remind you that not a single country, USA and Britain included, regard Tibet as an independent country at any time.

    The link you provided are just not being truthful. I can categorically state that all countries regard China's sovereignty over Tibet with the exception of Great Britain. Britain's position on this has been flip then flop then flip again. It first regard China's sovereignty over Tibet, then latter on for reason of its own imperial design (Britain has a presence in the Indian subcontinent at that time) regard China's suzerainty over Tibet, then in 2008 its position flip again and once again regard China's sovereignty over Tibet.


    "Perhaps you can name the areas ceded by the PRC?"

    Let me name two but give you the link for your to find out more.

    Part of present Burma that borders China used to be part of China (compare map of ROC). PRC ceded it to Burma because it was under the MacMahon line because the MacMahon line stretches all the way from India into Burma. Mind you that the MacMahon line is a blatant display of colonial duplicities and no Chinese government, be it the ROC or PRC ever recognize it.

    On this note the PRC offered to settle its border with India along the MacMahon line in the 1950s but was rejected by India hence the border disputes with India continue to this day.

    There is a study done a few years ago on China's border settlement. Here is the link

    http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8782.html


    Here is the link on what's going on between China and India that leads to the present territorial disputes:

    http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/podcasts/India_China_Border.mp3
    , @DB Cooper
  161. @bored identity
    Meanwhile, like it's not already bad as it is with Pizzagate, the libtards are on their way to screw up the Mother Earth:

    https://twitter.com/VICEUK/status/804973450611683329

    Here I had just worked my way up to LGBTQQIAA and I know I’m still mssing a few letters, and now I have to add an E for Ecosexuals? If they give me too many more letters along with a couple of “U”‘s I can win Scrabble game here.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Here I had just worked my way up to LGBTQQIAA and I know I’m still mssing a few letters, and now I have to add an E for Ecosexuals? If they give me too many more letters along with a couple of “U”‘s I can win Scrabble game here."

    1st World problems.
  162. @reiner Tor
    I have a Hungarian encyclopedia from 1936 with multiple maps of China, and they show an independent Tibet as well as an independent Manchukuo, though I think it's mentioned on the maps that Manchukuo was not recognized by many governments around the world, nor by the League of Nations. Hong Kong and Macau are also shown as separate, as well as Port Arthur (the latter belonging to Japan). It's not shown on those maps, but there were British and I think French exclaves (e.g. a couple districts of Shanghai) in China.

    Since the 1950s at the latest, all these belong to China. So China did increase moderately in size after the founding of the PRC.

    It also waged a short shooting war with the USSR in I think the 1970s over some islands on a border river and similar border disputes, since then they've resolved all of these, mostly awarding those disputed areas to China.

    The last century saw China being carved up by the Western powers and Japan. Your map just confirm it.

    Compare the map of PRC and ROC.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    China has hardly been "carved up."
    , @reiner Tor
    The ROC claimed sovereignty over large territories over which it never had any control at all. Much of the core of the country (ex-Manchuria, ex-Tibet, ex-Outer Mongolia) was under the rule of warlords, communists, etc. That China decreased compared to those borders was inevitable.

    Hungary lost two-thirds of its territory in 1918-20. While much of those losses (including most of Slovakia and the whole of Croatia, the latter not even counted among the "two-thirds" since Hungarians recognized it was essentially a separate country) were reasonable, it included areas where a third of ethnic Hungarians lived, the vast majority of them in areas adjacent to the Hungarian border. (I.e. it would've been easy to modify the borders to vastly reduce resentment in Hungary.)

    I don't see the need for me to be grieving over comparatively minor changes in the Chinese borders, which mostly included recently colonized areas (or areas which never belonged to China proper), and which have mostly been reversed anyway. But the losses mostly happened during the last century of the Qing empire, so the PRC has been expanding ever since, peacefully or otherwise, and intends to do so further.

    That said, of course I don't wish the US fight a war over Taiwan (or anything else), since I recognize how bad it would be for all involved (including the rest of the world).
  163. @Randal

    Fwiw I put this in the same boat as moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem.

    Provocative? Sure but it makes the complainers look silly. Every one knows China has no control over Taiwan. Why shouldn’t Israel be able to decide its own capital? Petty!
     
    No personal offence intended, but if it is honest then this is typically parochial American thinking on foreign affairs, or simply partisan Israeli thinking.

    Most of the world recognises that Israeli occupation of the whole of Jerusalem is problematic. Only outright Israeli partisans think that it's just a simplistic matter of "Israel deciding its own capital", and such partisans are a lot less common around the world than they are amongst the US media and political establishment (for various reasons including disproportionate jewish nationalist "influence" in the US media and politics, and silly ideas about Israel in American culture resulting from some protestant churches' religious dogma on the topic).

    Likewise on Taiwan, most of the world recognises that there are actually two sides to the Taiwan story - a separate nation with the usual rights of national sovereignty and self determination, versus the renegade Chinese province that is only still independent at all because the US interfered to prevent the full conclusion of the Chinese civil war.

    Those are two validly different points of view, about which reasonable people can disagree and about which partisans have fanatically opposed ideas, but on which neither side is likely to let itself be pushed past any point of no return without resorting to war. As a result most people very much prefer to leave the status quo as it is. They aren't going to thank the side that chooses to destabilise it, whether it's China pushing to resolve the situation by force or the US trying to engage in the usual self-serving American posturing over supposed principles.

    the usual self-serving American posturing over supposed principles

    The principles of the self-serving are in fact merely supposed, but they were not, and are not, the only actors.

    Take care not to obscure actual principles, and their importance, lest you find yourself without any at all when you have need of them.

  164. @Johann Ricke

    It’s precisely because the US is the opposite of a country that minds its own business – a global empire with a track record of starting wars against its rivals over pretexts of precisely this kind – that they sensibly object very strongly to any signs of any potential increase in the US’s already substantial devotion of resources to supporting said renegade province in order to use it as a pretext and asset for provoking and militarily bullying China.
     
    The US was an empire when it included the Philippines and Cuba. What it presides over today is an alliance rather than an empire. The idea that we're bullying China is ludicrous, unless "bullying" is now redefined as preventing China's addition of new territory to its already vast landholdings accumulated at swordpoint over thousands of years*. Was France "bullying" Britain when it recognized the breakaway provinces that comprised these United States 200 centuries ago? What is this - nursery school?

    * Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors. It is in no position to call any other country a bully, and certainly not any country that is merely acting to check its aggressive and acquisitive impulses.

    Was France “bullying” Britain when it recognized the breakaway provinces that comprised these United States 200 centuries ago?

    In any event, it was a very hostile act, culminating in open war. Since Chinese leaders have the healthier instincts of 18th century European statesmen, they are also probably viewing it as an openly hostile act.

    Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors.

    It “conquered” Manchuria when the Manchus conquered China and Manchuria became a Chinese province. In the 18th century a Manju emperor unwisely allowed the Han Chinese peasants from the overpopulated provinces to settle this province, which meant that when the Manchus were toppled, they had nowhere to flee.

    Inner Mongolia was added at the same time. Ethnic Han Chinese expansion was a bit like how the Tamils got into Sri Lanka, settled there by overlords of another ethnicity.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    In any event, it was a very hostile act, culminating in open war.
     
    Not hostile in the sense that the Battle of Britain, say, was hostile.

    Just another move in the great chess game that had been going on for centuries. Nothing like total war.
    , @Anon
    Hi,

    Could you elaborate on the statement about the Tamils of Ceylon? I see your point in reference to the Tamils of the central highlands, but I'm curious to know if you're referring to anything else, under the Sinhalese kings maybe?

    RSDB
  165. @EriK
    Is it true that Gen. Mattis is or was on the Theranos board? He fits the demographic.

    Mattis has a bit of a problem. Holmes would call him looking for help with the military in adopting her processes, except military medical authorities knew even in 2011 Theranos’ processes weren’t a fit and insiders even then were calling fraud on the entire enterprise. Supposedly Mattis looked into it, the question is how hard he pushed on Holmes’ behalf and whether HE was aware he was, as a board member in conflict of interest.

    Chuckie Schumer is going to have a ball with this at confirmation-time. Although, Holmes is under investigation for SEC fraud regs, she’s a big friend of the Clintons, although not a useful one of late. She used to be Chelsea Clinton’s BFF for a few years, credibility of a sort. With investigations of the Clinton Foundation, the Global Initiative ongoing and with the Wikileaks revelations about how deep Chelsea really was involved, Chelsea also have legal troubles in HER future. I’m not sure Elizabeth Holmes and Chelsea are associates anymore, although Holmes was a donator to the C.F. and Hillary’s campaign before the fraud became official. Schumer may have to back off on the Theranos thing, but then, all this is why we live in such interesting times.

    Feminism Inc. is so desperate for a real, live Smart Woman of Business they’ll allow any mythical narrative and fraud to be perpetrated. As recently as late last year Holmes was being held up on the old pedestal at LinkedIn as the 9 Billion Dollar Woman Woman of Brilliance, long after insiders and employees were quitting, ratting and committing suicide. One of them was old George Schultz’s grandson, a major whistle-blower, perhaps the final straw that finally collapsed the narrative to the consternation of George. They were getting close to an IPO, a few more months, the fraud would have been complete.

  166. @Jack D
    I think this is exactly backward. What leverage we have over the Chinese stems from the fact that all the money they have to fund their territorial ambitions comes from the West and especially from the US. WE have paid for their aircraft carriers and artificial islands one iPhone and pair of sneakers at a time and if we don't keep paying they won't be able to build any more. Before they starting trading with the West, under Mao they were as poor as church mice. It's like Trump's make the Mexicans pay for the wall idea in reverse, where WE are the Mexicans. So what we have to do is tell them, no ticky, no laundry - if we are going to keep sending them money it comes with strings attached.

    I think this is exactly backward. What leverage we have over the Chinese stems from the fact that all the money they have to fund their territorial ambitions comes from the West and especially from the US. WE have paid for their aircraft carriers and artificial islands one iPhone and pair of sneakers at a time and if we don’t keep paying they won’t be able to build any more. Before they starting trading with the West, under Mao they were as poor as church mice. It’s like Trump’s make the Mexicans pay for the wall idea in reverse, where WE are the Mexicans. So what we have to do is tell them, no ticky, no laundry – if we are going to keep sending them money it comes with strings attached.

    I should have been more accurate with what I originally said. Trump has said he would impose tariffs, which will have some effect, not as large an effect as they would have 10-20 years ago.

    However, over the long term the important issue is one of demographics, investment, colonization. The US could learn something from China’s advancement and their use of the diaspora. Instead, the US under the Kenyan has instituted FATCA, which seeks to basically lop off the US diaspora advantage at the knees. One of the first things Trump ought to do is repeal FATCA.

    https://www.americansabroad.org/taxation/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese#Country_statistics

    There is a big danger in white countries operating with the belief in PC, while a US sized and powered country of greater IQ, with an impenetrable language compared to English giving an asymmetrical advantage in communications, is operating like an enlightened but basically unreconstructed European colonial power of past centuries, except they are doing it to other countries, including our own.

  167. @DB Cooper
    The issue between Taiwan and China has nothing to do with territorial ambitions. It has everything to do with the concept of 'one china' that is deeply rooted in the Chinese historical experience.

    This territorial ambitions thing is absolutely nonsense, although it has been an accepted notion that has no objective reality. Communist China, once it came to power began conceding territories to its neighbors left and right. A quick check can confirm this. Compare the map of the PRC (People's Republic of China) with its predecessor the ROC (Republic of China) and you will notice China territories shrinks on all size.

    There is a country that has territorial ambitions and has demonstrated time and again of its ruthless land grabbing and bullying of its neighbors. What country is that? India. Surprise?

    I forgot to add that Taiwan was not shown part of China in 1936 either. It was shown ad part of the Japanese Empire.

    • Replies: @mobi

    I forgot to add that Taiwan was not shown part of China in 1936 either. It was shown ad part of the Japanese Empire.
     
    I dunno, but something tells me perhaps Hungary circa 1936 should not be taken as an impartial judge of the legitimate boundaries of China? (something about an Axis with Imperial Japan comes to mind).
  168. @2Mintzin1
    Re Maddow: Mirthless laughter can be a sign that the person is in great emotional distress.

    "...how do producer’s deal with a newsreader who might be suffering from a nervous breakdown?"

    Well, perhaps Maddow's employers think of her as a sort of Howard Beal figure... useful keeping the ratings up, for a while.

    Mirthless laughter can be a sign that the person is in great emotional distress

    A wounded Deer –leaps highest –
    I’ve heard the Hunter tell –
    ‘Tis but the ecstasy of death –
    And then the Brake is still!

    The smitten Rock that gushes!
    The trampled Steel that springs!
    A Cheek is always redder
    Just where the Hectic stings!

    Mirth is the Mail of Anguish –
    In which it cautious Arm,
    Lest Anybody spy the blood
    And “you’re hurt” exclaim!

    – Dickinson

  169. @DB Cooper
    The issue between Taiwan and China has nothing to do with territorial ambitions. It has everything to do with the concept of 'one china' that is deeply rooted in the Chinese historical experience.

    This territorial ambitions thing is absolutely nonsense, although it has been an accepted notion that has no objective reality. Communist China, once it came to power began conceding territories to its neighbors left and right. A quick check can confirm this. Compare the map of the PRC (People's Republic of China) with its predecessor the ROC (Republic of China) and you will notice China territories shrinks on all size.

    There is a country that has territorial ambitions and has demonstrated time and again of its ruthless land grabbing and bullying of its neighbors. What country is that? India. Surprise?

    I guess they will want those parts of Vietnam back that they once owned (1,000 years or so ago.) Also, parts of what is now Russia (that were parts of China less than 200 years ago.)

    Once they become the global Hegemon once again it might happen.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    China is doomed by geography never to be a global hegemon.
  170. @bored identity
    I think that Sailer alludes to Huntsman...for some reason he repeatedly had shown a soft spot for this Unipartian-Mormon-Globalist with a pinch of healthy Atlanticism.


    Feed us Steve, the night is young !

    Don’t forget Evan McMuffin!

    • Replies: @bored identity
    There were always few holes in Hegelian dialectics:

    Reagan was a Prez, Bush Sr. was Veep, Bush Sr. was Ambassador in China,Trump is a Prez ,Pence is Veep , Huntsman was Ambassador in China, Pence will be Prez, Huntsman will be Veep, Somebody will always be Ambassador in China...


    It's complicated.
  171. @SPMoore8
    Here I had just worked my way up to LGBTQQIAA and I know I'm still mssing a few letters, and now I have to add an E for Ecosexuals? If they give me too many more letters along with a couple of "U"'s I can win Scrabble game here.

    “Here I had just worked my way up to LGBTQQIAA and I know I’m still mssing a few letters, and now I have to add an E for Ecosexuals? If they give me too many more letters along with a couple of “U”‘s I can win Scrabble game here.”

    1st World problems.

  172. @bored identity
    I think that Sailer alludes to Huntsman...for some reason he repeatedly had shown a soft spot for this Unipartian-Mormon-Globalist with a pinch of healthy Atlanticism.


    Feed us Steve, the night is young !

    “I think that Sailer alludes to Huntsman”

    His eye candy daughter Abby is one of the reasons to watch Fox News.

  173. @SFG
    Some people are attracted to animals, so why not plants?

    Some people are attracted to animals, so why not plants?

    How is the Cosby prosecution coming along?

  174. @reiner Tor
    I forgot to add that Taiwan was not shown part of China in 1936 either. It was shown ad part of the Japanese Empire.

    I forgot to add that Taiwan was not shown part of China in 1936 either. It was shown ad part of the Japanese Empire.

    I dunno, but something tells me perhaps Hungary circa 1936 should not be taken as an impartial judge of the legitimate boundaries of China? (something about an Axis with Imperial Japan comes to mind).

    • Replies: @RSDB
    Taiwan (=Formosa) was ceded to Japan in 1895 at the Treaty of Shimonoseki:

    http://www.taiwanbasic.com/treaties/Shimonoseki.htm

    and ceded back in 1945. I'm not sure how reliable Hungary would have been as an Axis member in '36, though I seem to remember considerable cultural connections with Japan (and some nuts insisting Japanese and Hungarian were closely related languages).

    Regards,
    RSDB
    , @reiner Tor
    So can you show me that both Manchukuo and Tibet were not a de facto separate from China proper in the 1930s? The internet is unfortunately full of alternate history etc. maps.

    This was an encyclopedia (published by a Jewish publishing company), edited in 1935 (maps are also from 1935), so I don't know the relevance of the Anti-Comintern Pact (I guess that's what you are referring to) concluded in November 1936 by Germany and Japan, which Hungary joined in 1941 (when a new treaty was created), or the Tripartite Pact (which Hungary joined in 1940). Hungary had very little interests in the Far East, Hungarian (and especially Hungarian Jewish) cartographers merely had the desire to show the Far East as accurately as possible. If it was some European map, some political interference might be more suspect.
  175. Wasn’t the whole point of electing Trump to knock the legs out from under the Globalist setup ? To “kick in the front door and bring the whole rotten structure tumbling down” ? What are the Chinese going to do if he cozies up to Taiwan ? Not stock Walmart anymore ? I voted for Trump to No. 1 : kick out the illegal immigrants , send all the black Muzzie trash back to their s**tholes or at least cut off their welfare benefits . No. 2 : bring good jobs back to the USA and keep good jobs here as well . Not suck up to Carrier and claim that saving 1000 jobs and still letting another 1000 go to Mexico is a victory . Carrier gets 5.6 billion dollars in US gov’t sales per year , use that leverage . No. 3 : stop fighting the Jew master’s wars . Get out of the ME entirely , Assad is better for the people of Syria than what we at the behest of the Jew have wrought in that country . No 4 : enforce the law of the land . Sanctuary cities ? Cut off all Federal funds for starters and “Sanctuary Universities” the same . If he does that he will get the support of the people that elected him and he can move forward , if not he will loose our support double quick and the Dems will smell the blood in the water . No. 5 : relentlessly pursue the Clintons for their crimes .

  176. Well if that were the wish then perhaps the sensible course would have been not allowing the less rational amongst the US foreign policy elites to drive US policy on Russia, responding to the Soviet defeat with a consistently aggressive drive to push into Russia’s remaining spheres of interest at every opportunity by military, diplomatic and economic aggression and political subversion, against every remaining Russian ally, and even against Russia itself.

    While I echo many of your sentiments (the questionable nature of America accusing China of an aggressive foreign policy being primary among them – China’s history of conquest seems exceeded by Portugal’s), I have little sympathy for Russian complaints about subversion. While I may wish them well in their fight against subversion, the latter is a wonderful example of turnabout being fair play. Russians have no room to complain about subversion. Or about having their former satellites turned into US satellites. If Russia wanted a legitimate say in eastern Europe, she might have thought twice about that whole Iron Curtain thing.

    What’s interesting is that for thousands of years, the Chinese leadership has tended to mine Chinese history for ideas on goals, strategy and tactics.

    Or for propaganda, anyway.

    * Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors. It is in no position to call any other country a bully, and certainly not any country that is merely acting to check its aggressive and acquisitive impulses.

    That’s like saying Germany started out as a tiny land grab on the northern coast of Europe, Italy started out as a tiny province surrounding Rome, Israel started out as a patch of land stolen from the Canaanites, Russia started out as a province around Kiev, etc; true, but irrelevant.

    China’s military conducted a salvo of 10 missile flight tests late last month in a show of force during the transition to the Donald Trump administration.

    That seems an odd way to say, “at the end of Hussein’s administration.”

    All the more reason to get those missile defenses rigged up and operational.

    ABM systems seem inherently doomed to failure, at least, at the strategic level. That’s just my not-particularly-informed opinion.

    Inner Mongolia was added at the same time.

    If China had learned anything from history, it was not to sit by and let Mongols unite and invade. In fact, I should think the world had learned that lesson. That there are any Mongols (etc.) living today is a testament to the mercy (or stupidity) of the Chinese (inter alia).

    • Replies: @Randal

    While I echo many of your sentiments (the questionable nature of America accusing China of an aggressive foreign policy being primary among them – China’s history of conquest seems exceeded by Portugal’s), I have little sympathy for Russian complaints about subversion. While I may wish them well in their fight against subversion, the latter is a wonderful example of turnabout being fair play. Russians have no room to complain about subversion. Or about having their former satellites turned into US satellites. If Russia wanted a legitimate say in eastern Europe, she might have thought twice about that whole Iron Curtain thing.
     
    I'm not really all that bothered about sympathy, nor am I much interested in attributing Soviet activities to the Russian state or nation. I'm mostly concerned about the real world situation, and who is the aggressor and who the defender in current disputes. As far as I can see, since the fall of the Soviet Union it's been Russia that was pushed back and back, until it chose to take a stand (around 2008), whereupon it was accused of aggression for every occasion when it took action to prevent itself being pushed further back.

    Though in this case it was, as you note, just a case of refuting Johann Ricke's hypocritical (from a westerner) accusation against China. (I don't regard China as any kind of nobly non-interventionist exemplar, of course, but historically China's expansion has been qualitatively different from that of the western imperial powers, and again I see the US's attempt to maintain its presence in the western Pacific as inherently aggressive given China's inevitable security concerns about a rival superpower (and established military aggressor state) parked on its borders. It's as though Britain had declared an intention to fight against the Monroe Doctrine.)

    The rest of your comment seems to be addressed to Ricke's points, rather than to me, and you make some good responses.
  177. @mobi

    I forgot to add that Taiwan was not shown part of China in 1936 either. It was shown ad part of the Japanese Empire.
     
    I dunno, but something tells me perhaps Hungary circa 1936 should not be taken as an impartial judge of the legitimate boundaries of China? (something about an Axis with Imperial Japan comes to mind).

    Taiwan (=Formosa) was ceded to Japan in 1895 at the Treaty of Shimonoseki:

    http://www.taiwanbasic.com/treaties/Shimonoseki.htm

    and ceded back in 1945. I’m not sure how reliable Hungary would have been as an Axis member in ’36, though I seem to remember considerable cultural connections with Japan (and some nuts insisting Japanese and Hungarian were closely related languages).

    Regards,
    RSDB

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    some nuts insisting Japanese and Hungarian were closely related languages
     
    The nuttiest ideas of the Hungarian far right came into existence during the Cold War among émigrés around the world. (And some of the ideas of the far right were pretty nutty already, so it's quite crazy.) E.g. the idea that the Sumerian language was related to Hungarian was first published by a former military officer called Ferenc Badiny Jós in Buenos Aires in maybe the 1970s. I think the Japanese relation was also a product of that age. The idea of Turkish relation came earlier, before the Finno-Ugric theory was established science.
  178. @Anonymous Nephew
    I wonder who's more likely to have plenty of agents in place - China (in the US weapons/missile programs) or the US (in the Chinese weapons/missile programs)?

    US readers will know better than I - are the various US defence contractors like Raytheon stuffed to the gills with H1B employees/contractors?

    Defense contractors need U.S. Citizens with security clearance for classified work; so no H-1B or immigrants. However, many naturalized citizens work in classified programs. Many of these (as well as native citizens like Snowden) have committed treason.

  179. @res
    Yes. https://www.theranos.com/leadership/board-of-directors
    Fortune had an article about this yesterday: http://fortune.com/2016/12/02/donald-trump-james-mattis-theranos/

    He should have just traded some cattle futures to get rich….

  180. @Jack Hanson
    My understanding is that Japan is six weeks from the PM giving the go ahead to having a delivery capable nuclear weapon ready to go.

    Mind you, I heard this years ago so that time frame may have been cut down since then.

    I don’t know anything, but I would be very surprised if Japan did not have the ability to quickly demonstrate a deterrent if, say, they had a falling out with the US (or we fell apart for some reason–financial disaster, civil war, zombie apocalypse, whatever) and they no longer felt confident of being under our nuclear umbrella.

  181. @Johann Ricke

    I have noted elsewhere that Trump’s picks so far (Mattis, Pompeo, Flynn) suggest the possibility of a direct US foreign policy switch from irrationality over Russia to irrationality over Iran.
     
    Au contraire. Iran is the one country Uncle Sam can stomp into the ground, militarily, without breaking a sweat. A supersized version of Reagan's Operation Praying Mantis would neuter Iran's Air Force and Navy, in the run-up to the flattening of Iran's nuclear program. A nuclear Iran means Arab regimes with competing nuclear programs of their own. A coup or an Islamist uprising among one of these regimes could mean loose nukes. It's time we started bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, preferably before it takes delivery of, and learns how to use any of the new weaponry it's purchased with Obama's bribe money.

    Yep. We should have done it when they seized our sailors. Losing an oil terminal would get their attention.

  182. Ancient Romans had a Forum,
    E-I-E-I-O
    And It Had Nigerian Prince On It’s Board,
    E-I-E-I-O :

    UNITED COLORS OF BENETTON AD :https://twitter.com/americaneedsyou
    https://www.americaneedsyou.org/locations/njny/
    http://www.harbus.org/2004/adebayo-ogunlesi-hbs-79-2996/

    Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum

    Members of the Forum will be charged with providing their individual views to the President – informed by their unique vantage points in the private sector – on how government policy impacts economic growth, job creation, and productivity.

    The Forum is designed to provide direct input to the President from many of the best and brightest in the business world in a frank, non-bureaucratic, and non-partisan manner.

    Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum Members

    Stephen A. Schwarzman (Forum Chairman), Chairman, CEO, and Co-Founder of Blackstone;

    Jamie Dimon JPMorgan Chase’s Chief Executive ;

    Bob Iger, CEO , Disney, Co-chair of the Partnership for a New American Economy;

    Doug McMillon, President and CEO of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ;

    Paul Atkins, CEO, Patomak Global Partners, LLC, Former Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission;

    Mary Barra, Chairman and CEO, General Motors;

    Toby Cosgrove, CEO, Cleveland Clinic;

    Larry Fink, Chairman and CEO, BlackRock;

    Rich Lesser, President and CEO, Boston Consulting Group;

    Jim McNerney, Former Chairman, President, and CEO, Boeing;

    Adebayo “Bayo” Ogunlesi,Chairman and Managing Partner,Global Infrastructure Partners;
    https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000034079

    Ginni Rometty, Chairman, President, and CEO, IBM;

    Kevin Warsh, Shepard Family Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Economics, Hoover Institute, Former Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;

    Mark Weinberger, Global Chairman and CEO, EY;

    Jack Welch, Former Chairman and CEO, General Electric;

    Daniel Yergin, Pulitzer Prize-winner, Vice Chairman of IHS Markit;

    I guess, you really never can’t get what you want…

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I guess, you really never can’t get what you want…
     
    We'll see. Perhaps the men in that room have been reconsidering as many of their former positions as the readers of this forum.
  183. @Jack Hanson
    My understanding is that Japan is six weeks from the PM giving the go ahead to having a delivery capable nuclear weapon ready to go.

    Mind you, I heard this years ago so that time frame may have been cut down since then.

    Three or four dozen market players armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons is the true meaning of global economy. The universal incentive is to keep everyone happy so none go rogue. I am curious to see the effect on cinema and other arts as the probability of nuclear war becomes an important household target datum again.

  184. as always Sailer :

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    I'd like to hereby recognize the excellent moderation here, which used to be called KOMMENT KONTROL a lot, but since the Overton window shifted Steve also shifted to the right a little, and so there are less complaints. If Svigor can figure out how to put his point across the rest of us should be able to.

    Maybe be less of a douche, and donate occasionally?
  185. I cannot believe (well, I guess I can, but still), that no one in the media has brought up the 2001 spy plane incident. As you may recall, newly inaugurated Bush in April of 2001 was tested by China when it had fighter planes take out a spy plane by bumping it around Hainan Island, causing it to crash, on some pretext that it flew in or to close to some sort of aggrandized Chinese zone of control. I was out of the U.S. at the time and was watching the international media reaction to the incident, which portrayed it as early evidence of Bush’s weakness. The outcome of the incident was a minor face losing for Bush as the crew was returned after a rather long delay and the plane returned in pieces with the U.S. paying some sort of recovery invoice and losing the tech on board the plane to the PLA. NPR does not remember this with enough specificity to note it during its breathless coverage this morning, but I do, and I’m just an average moron. Look, I don’t know if Trump or someone on his staff had this in mind, but to me, he’s making very clear from jump that the tests run two ways, and he’s not going to be messed with easily.

  186. @Rex May
    How about Jim Webb?

    From Webb’s Wikipedia page:

    “In a 1990 New York Times opinion piece, Webb opposed further U.S. military escalation in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield citing lack of a coherent strategy and consent from the United States Congress. He also warned against a permanent military presence in the Middle East.[24] Seven months before the beginning of the 2003 Iraq War, Webb wrote an essay for The Washington Post in which he “questioned whether an overthrow of Saddam would “actually increase our ability to win the war against international terrorism” and pointed out that the measure of military success can be preventing wars as well as fighting them. He charged, “those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade.” He concluded, “the Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S. occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. … In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets.”[25]”

    I agree with you: I think Webb would be a good choice for SoS or SecDef. He’s pretty based, and a real American patriot. And it would allow Trump to check off the (often) customary bipartisan box for his cabinet picks.

  187. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Steve, have you thought about moving to the midwest or east coast? I think it’s mainly the west coast that’s vulnerable to Chinese nukes.

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-coming-war-on-china/

    “The United States,” wrote Amitai Etzioni, professor of international Affairs at George Washington University, “is preparing for a war with China, a momentous decision that so far has failed to receive a thorough review from elected officials, namely the White House and Congress.” This war would begin with a “blinding attack against Chinese anti-access facilities, including land and sea-based missile launchers … satellite and anti-satellite weapons”.

    The incalculable risk is that “deep inland strikes could be mistakenly perceived by the Chinese as pre-emptive attempts to take out its nuclear weapons, thus cornering them into ‘a terrible use-it-or-lose-it dilemma’ [that would] lead to nuclear war.”

  188. China plays the long game. With our debt, they can wait till we collapse to pick up the pieces.

  189. Ok bitch I’ll just spam some music

  190. If there is any underlying strategy to Trump’s action my guess it is to establish himself as an alpha dog in the mix after Obama having been treated dismissively when he arrived on his last visit and the US for decades now being subservient to China on trade deals and currency manipulation.

    Seems to me that taking Tsai’s call sends a very clear message that Trump will negotiate with China in a very Trumpian way and business as usual will not be followed.

    • Replies: @epebble
    Dilbert has an analysis on how this is Trump's negotiation ploy:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153990140846/trump-and-the-taiwan-call
  191. @epebble
    There is some unpredictability brewing on the other side of Eurasia too.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-russia-nato-idUSKBN13R2RA?il=0

    Looks like Trump foreign policy may become interesting.

    Never good sign, or always good sign? :

    On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks commented on President-Elect Donald Trump’s Defense, Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Transportation Secretary picks by saying Trump is “exceeding expectations.”

    Brooks said, “I have to say, he’s exceeding expectations. Sometimes, during the campaign, he seemed to be actively trying to misgovern. And here he seems to be trying to have an effective administration.

    They’re not all my — the people I would pick, but he won the election. Some of them are not only good for Trump, but genuinely good picks.”

  192. You know fellows , when I was just a young man my girl friend could write me a love letter , no naughty stuff mind you , just with the faint scent of sensual love and OHH god how that shit stirred me . But now I am older and maybe not much wiser but I read Donald’s love letters and while I am encouraged until he gives up the good thing I’m not buying it . You feel me ? Kick them out of our white country ! WTF Do you think we hired for ? Man up , you were hired to do a job , now do it . Orange man ,

  193. @Harry Baldwin
    Sounds like a certain racial group we have here, though on the other side of the bell curve.

    Sounds like a certain racial group we have here, though on the other side of the bell curve.

    So true!

  194. @Jason Liu
    I believe it was Tsai who called him (after a long post-election wait), not the other way around.

    But most people here don't seem to know who Tsai Ing-wen is.

    By Asian standards, Tsai is a leftist. She wants the Han population to apologize to the native Taiwanese aborigines. She's dismissive of masculinity. She pushes LGBT agendas. All the things that plague the west, she wants for Taiwan.

    Trump should not have cozied up to a SJWish politician just for the purpose of antagonizing the PRC.

    Taiwanese independence is a separate issue. I wouldn't care if Taiwan was independent, as long as it war ruled by ethnic Han nationalists who promoted a good relationship with the homeland, like Singapore does.

    The battle against globalist, postmodern values is much more important than the separatism of one small island, which is unlikely to move from the status quo anyway. Now that Russia is seen as a friend by the alt-right, they've moved on to portraying China as the ultimate enemy, even though China's global ambitions are basically nonexistent outside of its own backyard. A better strategy would be to align with nationalistic, anti-liberal governments around the world, and defeat leftism together.

    The battle against globalist, postmodern values is much more important than the separatism of one small island

    The battle against globalist, postmodern values is the one battle that really matters.

  195. @Johann Ricke

    ROFL! How many centuries are you going back with that?

    Is that the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has built China a global empire with oppressed colonies groaning under Chinese rule on all the continents of the world? Oh, hang on…

    Or is it the kind of territorial aggressiveness that has seen China grow – mostly by continual war, interventionism and profiting from others’ wars – from a small collection of backward colonies a mere handful of centuries ago to a globe-bestriding military colossus today? Oh, hang on….
     
    As far back as the provenance of China's territorial claims in the region, which are constantly shifting. Its claim to the South China Sea, which is 2/3 the area of the continental US, goes back to the Ming dynasty, which actually completely dismantled its navy. China's historians claim that the Yuan dynasty (whose protagonist Kublai Khan, Genghis's grandson, is featured in the Netflix series "Marco Polo") was Chinese. And any student of European history knows that the Mongols overran Hungary and Poland before retreating to more defensible lines.

    As to countries groaning under European rule, it's actually under European rule that, on average, the natives have done the least groaning, with population numbers increasing in leaps and bounds, thanks to investments in infrastructure and education. While the expression "mission civilisatrice" tends to meet with a knowing cynicism among the politically-correct, European rule was, by and large, a boon to the natives. European administrators invested in infrastructure where native rulers had largely invested in sumptuous palaces and obscene luxuries for themselves.

    The tendency of native rulers to lord it over their subjects is why so many former European colonies are far poorer than the territories that remain under European rule. Compare Bermuda, a barren island with no natural resources, with any of the former British colonies in the Caribbean.

    As to atrocities, in the late 18th century, the Chinese emperor issued an extermination order proscribing the Dzungars, wiping out perhaps 80% of the population. Now, some historians have taken to describing the displacement and death through disease of the Native American population as genocide, but in China, you had the highest official in the land actually issuing this order. Of course, this was back when the Chinese thought that China was universally-recognized as the Center of the World, and the Chinese leader wasn't simply the leader of the temporal world, he was the Son of God. Today, they still think it's the Center of the World, and view foreigners who aren't inclined to accept this assumption of Chinese superiority much as a European explorer in the cooking pot perceives the benighted cannibals who are about to have him for dinner - he's working on the ropes that bind him and looking for an opportunity to turn the tables.

    As to countries groaning under European rule, it’s actually under European rule that, on average, the natives have done the least groaning, with population numbers increasing in leaps and bounds, thanks to investments in infrastructure and education. While the expression “mission civilisatrice” tends to meet with a knowing cynicism among the politically-correct, European rule was, by and large, a boon to the natives. European administrators invested in infrastructure where native rulers had largely invested in sumptuous palaces and obscene luxuries for themselves.

    I agree that colonialism was generally a boon for the natives. It was a disaster for the Europeans.

    Establishing colonies in Africa was madness.

  196. “Conservative political types” …

    Eliot Cohen, a former State Department official who helped to coordinate the letter against Trump this spring, initially encouraged conservatives to warm to Trump, before reversing his position in a Washington Post op-ed

    Working with Trump at this early stage, he wrote in November, “would carry a high risk of compromising one’s integrity and reputation.”

    “Conservative political types should not volunteer to serve in this administration, at least for now.”

    I guess PNAC Season 2 is canceled due to disgustingly low raitings

  197. @reiner Tor

    Was France “bullying” Britain when it recognized the breakaway provinces that comprised these United States 200 centuries ago?
     
    In any event, it was a very hostile act, culminating in open war. Since Chinese leaders have the healthier instincts of 18th century European statesmen, they are also probably viewing it as an openly hostile act.

    Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors.
     
    It "conquered" Manchuria when the Manchus conquered China and Manchuria became a Chinese province. In the 18th century a Manju emperor unwisely allowed the Han Chinese peasants from the overpopulated provinces to settle this province, which meant that when the Manchus were toppled, they had nowhere to flee.

    Inner Mongolia was added at the same time. Ethnic Han Chinese expansion was a bit like how the Tamils got into Sri Lanka, settled there by overlords of another ethnicity.

    In any event, it was a very hostile act, culminating in open war.

    Not hostile in the sense that the Battle of Britain, say, was hostile.

    Just another move in the great chess game that had been going on for centuries. Nothing like total war.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Not total war hostile, but hostile enough.
  198. @Johann Ricke

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it.
     
    They are very sensitive about all kinds of things. Mainly, it's an affectation that follows from their assumption that they are the greatest ethny/polity on earth, meaning that any policy or statement reflecting anything other than fawning admiration will be interpreted as a slight.

    They are very sensitive about all kinds of things. Mainly, it’s an affectation that follows from their assumption that they are the greatest ethny/polity on earth, meaning that any policy or statement reflecting anything other than fawning admiration will be interpreted as a slight.

    Half of these affections are North Korean style robotic bluster and bullshit but you got it right! Talk about being on automatic! Exciting to them. Annoying to everyone else.

  199. @SFG
    I agree with you spiritually--Taiwan's stood strong against dictatorship and built itself into an advanced, democratic nation.

    But the Chinese have lots and lots of nukes. And even if you like the idea of them nuking San Francisco, some of that iodine and cesium and strontium are going to blow over the red states.

    It's why Romney or someone like him works for Secretary of State--diplomacy is all about talking out of both sides of your mouth, being circuitous, distinctions that are ridiculous on their face, and all kinds of beta stuff.

    But it beats war. If you're an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old mold, a few stupid diplomatic conventions are a good investment. Remember, the diplomats have to kiss ass. Your kids or grandkids will wind up fighting.

    O.K. But all Trump did was take a phone call.

  200. @Opinionator
    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I've been taken aback by it.

    It’s time they get over it.

  201. @Thirdeye

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it.
     
    There are both rational and emotional reasons for that. For years, the Kuomintang who established power in Taiwan after they were overthrown on the mainland considered itself the legitimate government of China and was supported in that position by the US. The ROC still has in its constitution a claim to be the government of China. ROC is not only the island of Taiwan but an archipelago across the Taiwan Strait that can threaten the security of Chinese coastal commerce. That's the rational part. Those conflicts should be resolvable by ROC constitutionally recognizing PRC's dominion over the mainland and their interest in the Taiwan Strait, right? Wrong! After Hong Kong and Macau, Taiwan is the last remaining geographic symbol of the Nineteenth Century humiliations imposed on China, which still bear heavily on Chinese consciousness. For ROC to officially renounce its claim on the mainland would be a ratification of Taiwan's political separateness that China has resented for the past 120 years (although that separation was in large part driven by culture, economics, and lack of interest in actually governing Taiwan by the Qing Dynasty).

    Seems reasonable. Thanks for the explanation.

    I disagree, however, that Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan can reasonably be seen as “humiliations.”

    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    I disagree, however, that Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan can reasonably be seen as “humiliations.”
     
    They were seized by Britain, Portugal, and Japan respectively during the Nineteenth Century. The status of Hong Kong and Macau were resolved to China's satisfaction by legal means. Taiwan, as the remaining territory not to be repatriated, remains a sore spot (even though China historically had only a tenuous interest in Taiwan and never established any real civil authority there).
  202. @DB Cooper
    The last century saw China being carved up by the Western powers and Japan. Your map just confirm it.

    Compare the map of PRC and ROC.

    China has hardly been “carved up.”

  203. @The Inscrutable Chinaman
    He's only the key figure if Trump gives his views deference. Let's hope he does not. Worth looking into the $5 million payday he received to represent Rio Tinto before the ChiComs and the former Rio Tinto employee he sold out. Vile man.

    I meant how about Kissinger for Trump’s Secretary of State.

  204. You a raciss MF Sailer you feel me ? Here I am just trying to celebrate the talent of the Black man and you block me .

    Oh my god the jew sings it better

  205. @Anonym
    The issue between Taiwan and China has nothing to do with territorial ambitions. It has everything to do with the concept of ‘one china’ that is deeply rooted in the Chinese historical experience.

    I partly agree with this. I also think that the Taiwan issue is partly (mostly?) China feeling its oats - being equal to the US in terms of GDP, on a growth curve to supplant it, more populous, smarter according to IQ tests, and cashed up. It wants to translate/convert monetary power to other dimensions - military and territorial. It has peacefully set up colonies/diaspora in most Western countries, especially Canada, Australia and New Zealand in terms of percentage, and in absolute figures, the USA. It is using those assets and through state-owned companies, buying up assets outside. It's not just wealthy Chinese seeking safe havens, although that is part of it. It is also building its military on the cheap through this process - those military hardware designs did not migrate back to the motherland by accident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese#Country_statistics

    This territorial ambitions thing is absolutely nonsense, although it has been an accepted notion that has no objective reality. Communist China, once it came to power began conceding territories to its neighbors left and right. A quick check can confirm this. Compare the map of the PRC (People’s Republic of China) with its predecessor the ROC (Republic of China) and you will notice China territories shrinks on all size.

    PRC invaded Tibet in 1950, and has been accused of swamping the country with Han Chinese. A demographic takeover.

    https://freetibet.org/about/legal-status-tibet
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Demographics

    1905 was a high point in Chinese territory, or close to it. But what territory have the Communists ceded? They basically came from nothing and regained territory and shifted the borders outward. I don't see a lot of ceding. Perhaps you can name the areas ceded by the PRC?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp0tqdu7fH4
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_changes_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

    “PRC invaded Tibet in 1950, and has been accused of swamping the country with Han Chinese.”

    PRC did send in army in 1951 to Tibet and I have to say that of all the stupid and crazy things the PRC did in its first thirty years of misrule, sending in army to prevent the carving up of Tibet is one of the things that the PRC did right. I am convinced that had PRC not sent in the army, Tibet would have been ended up like Mongolia. This is not an invasion of a sovereignty country. On this note I would like to remind you that not a single country, USA and Britain included, regard Tibet as an independent country at any time.

    The link you provided are just not being truthful. I can categorically state that all countries regard China’s sovereignty over Tibet with the exception of Great Britain. Britain’s position on this has been flip then flop then flip again. It first regard China’s sovereignty over Tibet, then latter on for reason of its own imperial design (Britain has a presence in the Indian subcontinent at that time) regard China’s suzerainty over Tibet, then in 2008 its position flip again and once again regard China’s sovereignty over Tibet.

    “Perhaps you can name the areas ceded by the PRC?”

    Let me name two but give you the link for your to find out more.

    Part of present Burma that borders China used to be part of China (compare map of ROC). PRC ceded it to Burma because it was under the MacMahon line because the MacMahon line stretches all the way from India into Burma. Mind you that the MacMahon line is a blatant display of colonial duplicities and no Chinese government, be it the ROC or PRC ever recognize it.

    On this note the PRC offered to settle its border with India along the MacMahon line in the 1950s but was rejected by India hence the border disputes with India continue to this day.

    There is a study done a few years ago on China’s border settlement. Here is the link

    http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8782.html

    Here is the link on what’s going on between China and India that leads to the present territorial disputes:

    http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/podcasts/India_China_Border.mp3

  206. On the other hand es muy guapa , no ?

  207. @Anonym
    The issue between Taiwan and China has nothing to do with territorial ambitions. It has everything to do with the concept of ‘one china’ that is deeply rooted in the Chinese historical experience.

    I partly agree with this. I also think that the Taiwan issue is partly (mostly?) China feeling its oats - being equal to the US in terms of GDP, on a growth curve to supplant it, more populous, smarter according to IQ tests, and cashed up. It wants to translate/convert monetary power to other dimensions - military and territorial. It has peacefully set up colonies/diaspora in most Western countries, especially Canada, Australia and New Zealand in terms of percentage, and in absolute figures, the USA. It is using those assets and through state-owned companies, buying up assets outside. It's not just wealthy Chinese seeking safe havens, although that is part of it. It is also building its military on the cheap through this process - those military hardware designs did not migrate back to the motherland by accident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese#Country_statistics

    This territorial ambitions thing is absolutely nonsense, although it has been an accepted notion that has no objective reality. Communist China, once it came to power began conceding territories to its neighbors left and right. A quick check can confirm this. Compare the map of the PRC (People’s Republic of China) with its predecessor the ROC (Republic of China) and you will notice China territories shrinks on all size.

    PRC invaded Tibet in 1950, and has been accused of swamping the country with Han Chinese. A demographic takeover.

    https://freetibet.org/about/legal-status-tibet
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Demographics

    1905 was a high point in Chinese territory, or close to it. But what territory have the Communists ceded? They basically came from nothing and regained territory and shifted the borders outward. I don't see a lot of ceding. Perhaps you can name the areas ceded by the PRC?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp0tqdu7fH4
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_changes_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
  208. @The most deplorable one
    I guess they will want those parts of Vietnam back that they once owned (1,000 years or so ago.) Also, parts of what is now Russia (that were parts of China less than 200 years ago.)

    Once they become the global Hegemon once again it might happen.

    China is doomed by geography never to be a global hegemon.

  209. @Anonymous Nephew
    I wonder who's more likely to have plenty of agents in place - China (in the US weapons/missile programs) or the US (in the Chinese weapons/missile programs)?

    US readers will know better than I - are the various US defence contractors like Raytheon stuffed to the gills with H1B employees/contractors?

    I wonder who’s more likely to have plenty of agents in place – China (in the US weapons/missile programs) or the US (in the Chinese weapons/missile programs)?

    US readers will know better than I – are the various US defence contractors like Raytheon stuffed to the gills with H1B employees/contractors?

    The US gets lots of walk-ins, some more notorious than others. Given the large number of Christians (~10% of the population) and perhaps secret Falungong adherents (some of whom have received asylum stateside) in China, I expect there’s a significant number of Chinese prospects available for recruitment. Another significant pool of prospects for CIA recruitment is the large number of Chinese students stateside who then return to China upon graduation, and perhaps work for the Chinese government. Given the extent to which China is now a major source of tourist revenues around the world, I’d say talent-spotting for Chinese assets is now wide open in a way it never was back when it was a hermetically-sealed society. They can send agents to spy on us, but we can recruit Chinese college grads with stateside degrees to burrow deep inside their government in a way that no Chinese grad will ever be able to penetrate the US government.

    We also get a good number of walk-ins. One PLA bird colonel-equivalent defected in March 2001, leading the Chinese to launch a series of provocations that resulted in the forced landing of the EP-3 on Chinese soil in April 1, 2001. A senior aide to an up-and-coming Poliburo member (i.e. one of 25 people that includes President Xi Jinping) Bo Xilai attempted to defect at the US consulate in Chengdu. This article heading describes more or less what happened: Clinton Turned Away High-Level Chinese Defector to Assist Beijing Leaders Another senior, although below Politburo-level official was arrested as part of President Xi Jinping’s purge in 2014. This aide had a brother stateside to whom he had entrusted what is said to be a treasure trove of information about the Chinese leadership. Given the optics of handing back a green card holder (i.e. someone with American legal permanent resident status) on American soil to the Chinese government in spite of his intelligence value, Obama appears to not have intervened to send him back.

    Re H1b employees in defense, I can’t vouch for the info, but a 30-second search yielded this:

    Here is what I know about clearances. Mostly clearances of 3 levels. Confidential (C), Secret (S) and Top Secret (TS). Clearances of given out by Department of Defence (DoD), Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy and Department of Justice. Levels of clearances may differ depending upon who is giving them. To apply for a security clearnce on should a naturalized/Native citizen of US. However under special circumstances becuase of the project or the individuals unique or unusal skill or expertise a non-citizen can be given clearance. This type of clearance is called Limited Access Authorization and will not go higher than Secret level. Any level of clearnce precedes a complete background investigation in terms of national, local and credit history, past criminal background investigation, where one lived in the past including overseas. This takes more one 1 year or more based on ones previous history. Hope this helps.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "They can send agents to spy on us, but we can recruit Chinese college grads with stateside degrees to burrow deep inside their government in a way that no Chinese grad will ever be able to penetrate the US government."

    That's a very optimistic take. I get the impression Chinese students overseas are viscerally pro-China in a way that US students (either at home or overseas) aren't. When the Chinese leadership last visited London thousands of Chinese students turned out to cheer them (and also to drown out the Free Tibet protesters). If Trump visited the UK, American students would be booing him alongside the UK left.

    Remember students in the West are implicitly taught to denigrate their own heritage (even STEM students - see New Scientist or The Lancet) where Chinese students are taught from childhood to celebrate it. While I hope your view is right, I'm not too sure.

  210. @Desiderius

    In any event, it was a very hostile act, culminating in open war.
     
    Not hostile in the sense that the Battle of Britain, say, was hostile.

    Just another move in the great chess game that had been going on for centuries. Nothing like total war.

    Not total war hostile, but hostile enough.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Not total war hostile, but hostile enough.
     
    Hostile enough for war, but Britain and France had already been intermittently at war for a solid century, and only had "peace" in the prior century because the English monarch was in the employ of the (much stronger) French. War, especially colonial war, in that context was just one of many accepted means of competition between rival powers.

    This is not the case today. In retaining those global commitments worth retaining, our leaders should be careful that a prudent excess of caution is not misinterpreted as pusillanimity or disingenuity. Just as on the domestic front the leapfrogging loyalties of the left aren't as warmly received as they are offered, so too in foreign relations our current policy of extreme solicitude of (real and imagined) foreign sensitivities has not borne the hoped-for fruit.

    It is time for a more manly approach.
  211. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Begs the question, how do producer’s deal with a newsreader who might be suffering from a nervous breakdown? Do they just let ‘em carry on until something wild happens?
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RPNLahXzGc

    Watch the nervous tics of Maddow. Note in particular, she speaks out of the right side of her mouth. Is that the aftereffects of a stroke? There must be some nervous system issue attached to that odd, but consistent trait:

    Now watch art imitating life, with corresponding nervous tics included:

    I’d also like to add Mika Brzezinski to the list of targets for professionals in white lab coats, except the woman is clearly neurotic, in such a way that in encumbers her ability to read from a teleprompter, or relate to others in a professional manner. Challenging the viewers to wonder if this might be the day she has a complete breakdown on the air shouldn’t be a fundamental premise of her show:

    Mika discovers, on air, what “Furry Conventions” are about:

    To be fair, it was entertaining, but it begs the question of why they present this as some kind of news commentary show, rather than an adulterated, current-event version of “Match Game” that used to be hosted by the perverse and depressing Gene Rayburn, and his perverse and depressing panel of embittered, minor celebrities. It has the exact same vibe. Mika is not stable. Why try to present her as a professional for comedic value, when it undermines the show’s credibility as a proper news commentary show? Especially since we’ve seen what has manifested politically, due in part to the lack of professionalism of the news organizations that ironically consider the outcome of our national election to be such a bitter blow they didn’t see coming, much like the drunken asshole who finds himself plopped on his ass outside the bar to the applause of the people inside he thought loved him?

  212. @Johann Ricke

    It’s precisely because the US is the opposite of a country that minds its own business – a global empire with a track record of starting wars against its rivals over pretexts of precisely this kind – that they sensibly object very strongly to any signs of any potential increase in the US’s already substantial devotion of resources to supporting said renegade province in order to use it as a pretext and asset for provoking and militarily bullying China.
     
    The US was an empire when it included the Philippines and Cuba. What it presides over today is an alliance rather than an empire. The idea that we're bullying China is ludicrous, unless "bullying" is now redefined as preventing China's addition of new territory to its already vast landholdings accumulated at swordpoint over thousands of years*. Was France "bullying" Britain when it recognized the breakaway provinces that comprised these United States 200 centuries ago? What is this - nursery school?

    * Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors. It is in no position to call any other country a bully, and certainly not any country that is merely acting to check its aggressive and acquisitive impulses.

    Alliance is a charitable way to put it. More accurately America’s allies are satrapies with some local autonomy. This system is somewhat instable but ingenious in its own because like all Imperial governance, it begins with the coopting and collaboration of local elites. Speaking of the Philippines, the preferred candidate by the state department that was trounced by Duterte was a woman who had spent half her life in the US and wasn’t even a Filipino citizen when she started campaigning and is married to a US military officer. Who needs an occupation force when local compradors come so easily and cheaply. Taiwan’s new President is a Columbia educated spinster cat lady (with a new dog since becoming president) that is busy decrying Chinese privilege (Aboriginal lives matter) and pushing gay marriage. As Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, enforced occupation is costly and expensive. The long March through the institutions of America’s liberal hegemony didn’t stop at its borders and is much cheaper and subversive. Muslims to their credit are seemingly immune thanks to their actually still believing in their religion.

    As to so called Chinese territorial aggression, all I can say is I wish. As a racial nationalist cognizant of the existential threat posed by America’s liberal messianic mission, I could only hope the Communists were half as committed to the destruction of the Western world order as the Pentagon talking points claim they are. Really a couple of uninhabited Acres of the South China Sea is apparently the new Sudetenland. Freedom of navigation for billions of dollars of (Chinese) trade is such a great concern for them too. Honestly your propaganda has become about as believable as Clinton’s poll numbers.

  213. The more I think about this the more it seems like a fake crisis spread by the fake news.When Obama sold nearly 2 billion in military equipment to Taiwan a year ago, the Chinese protested and no fuss was made in the press. Now we are supposed to believe that Trump caused a crisis simply by his taking a phone call.

  214. @Randal

    Not only would I identify Taiwan as what it was before Nixon, I would also try to reverse history and stop facilitating the growth of China.

    I’m just an isolationist, protectionist, America-firster in the old (now new again?) mold.
     
    If the US were an "isolationist" country (ie one that minded its own business) then most likely the Chinese wouldn't be all that bothered by whether or not the US President talked to Taiwan's leader or not (or no more than they object to any other country talking to what they - with a lot of justice - see as a renegade Chinese province).

    It's precisely because the US is the opposite of a country that minds its own business - a global empire with a track record of starting wars against its rivals over pretexts of precisely this kind - that they sensibly object very strongly to any signs of any potential increase in the US's already substantial devotion of resources to supporting said renegade province in order to use it as a pretext and asset for provoking and militarily bullying China.

    If you are "isolationist" then what are you doing "protecting" Taiwan from its neighbour, on the other side of the world?

    As for the supposed issue the NYT is trying to manufacture, I suspect the Chinese will make some pro forma retaliation in some diplomatically inconvenient manner for the US elsewhere, at a time that suits them - following which of course the US regime and its apologists will act all hurt and claim to have been the victim of an "unprovoked" slight) but not make any big issue about it. They've no interest in starting out relations with Trump on a bad footing.

    I’m kind of slow, but I gradually realized how my use of the term “isolationist” is out of place.

    In any case, I didn’t claim that the US is isolationist; I claimed that I am. I can see how that is problematic to the rest of my argument. I get into trouble, out of my depth, when I cheer refreshingly independent actions by my next president, actions that may signal future entanglements but paradoxically appeal to me on an intuitive level.

    Is he applying leverage? Sending a message? How should I know (or you)? He is beginning to work with the Risk board he will inherit. We are entangled in it, non-isolationist, because generations of our leaders (and outside manipulators) have put us there; we are beholden to China for the same reasons.

    To extricate ourselves from globalism, we must free ourselves from China.

    Balls and hubris may be required. Of course, it is doubtful that anyone in power or about to accede to it actually wants this. I’m poorly educated, but the last isolationist president I know of was George Washington. I am an ignorant dreamer.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    I’m poorly educated, but the last isolationist president I know of was George Washington. I am an ignorant dreamer.
     
    Googling around, I see we've had quite a few presidents who could be called isolationist, and our country has followed that path several times in its history.

    Perhaps there is more precedent and hope than I am aware of. It really is hard to wake up from the current paradigm. I need to take more red pills.
    , @Randal
    I'm a Trump supporter myself, insofar as that's relevant for a foreigner to the US like me. I have no animus towards him, but I suspect that his responding to this call was an entirely innocent act on his part - an error based upon his understandable ignorance of the particular details of the situation. A President would have advisors to prevent him from making such an error, but those are either not in place yet or chose not to prevent it for manipulative reasons - who knows?

    Anyway, it's not a big deal, and clearly as Sailer suggests, it's only high profile because the NYT and other media Trump-haters want to make it so, out of malice. It will blow over, most likely, when the media moves on to some other target, as long as Trump quietly apologises to the Chinese in due course, and doesn't double down on it and create a new policy in order to avoid embarrassment (which is probably what the confrontationists amongst his advisors want to happen).

    To extricate ourselves from globalism, we must free ourselves from China.
     
    Yes, this is true. And Russia, and Iran. And Israel and Saudi Arabia, indeed. But it won't be easy, since so many fantastically rich and powerful groups who have influential access to the ear of the President and of US Senators and Congressmen have so much to gain from continuing US involvement in their particular causes.

    As for extricating from China, it requires American recognition that the situation in the western Pacific is akin to the one in South and Central America in the C19th, where the rising power of the US confronted the existing global power of Britain. Britain, fortunately, chose not to oppose that rising power in the US's own backyard and effectively acceded to what became the Monroe Doctrine. It could have been different, and Britain could have fought the US over its own access to the region (remember the two countries were at open war only a few years before, in 1812).

    The US regime needs to recognise that its power in the western Pacific is a legacy of historical circumstance (WW2) and not ultimately sustainable in the face of a rising Chinese superpower.

    If the US chooses instead to try to hold onto its self-appointed right to have the western Pacific within its own sphere of influence, then it will end badly for the US as well as China, I suspect (but even worse for the peoples of the countries the US claims to be "defending", of course).

    As for isolationist, I don't think any US government has really been honestly "isolationist". The term is mostly just a dishonest smear term used against non-interventionists. What it most closely applied to was US regimes that took a stand against getting involved in European wars (whilst happily pushing US interference in the countries it saw as its own backyard). Even those who genuinely argued for the US not to go abroad to look for dragons to slay never advocated "isolation". Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, is not an argument for "isolation".
  215. @mobi

    I forgot to add that Taiwan was not shown part of China in 1936 either. It was shown ad part of the Japanese Empire.
     
    I dunno, but something tells me perhaps Hungary circa 1936 should not be taken as an impartial judge of the legitimate boundaries of China? (something about an Axis with Imperial Japan comes to mind).

    So can you show me that both Manchukuo and Tibet were not a de facto separate from China proper in the 1930s? The internet is unfortunately full of alternate history etc. maps.

    [MORE]

    This was an encyclopedia (published by a Jewish publishing company), edited in 1935 (maps are also from 1935), so I don’t know the relevance of the Anti-Comintern Pact (I guess that’s what you are referring to) concluded in November 1936 by Germany and Japan, which Hungary joined in 1941 (when a new treaty was created), or the Tripartite Pact (which Hungary joined in 1940). Hungary had very little interests in the Far East, Hungarian (and especially Hungarian Jewish) cartographers merely had the desire to show the Far East as accurately as possible. If it was some European map, some political interference might be more suspect.

  216. @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm kind of slow, but I gradually realized how my use of the term "isolationist" is out of place.

    In any case, I didn't claim that the US is isolationist; I claimed that I am. I can see how that is problematic to the rest of my argument. I get into trouble, out of my depth, when I cheer refreshingly independent actions by my next president, actions that may signal future entanglements but paradoxically appeal to me on an intuitive level.

    Is he applying leverage? Sending a message? How should I know (or you)? He is beginning to work with the Risk board he will inherit. We are entangled in it, non-isolationist, because generations of our leaders (and outside manipulators) have put us there; we are beholden to China for the same reasons.

    To extricate ourselves from globalism, we must free ourselves from China.

    Balls and hubris may be required. Of course, it is doubtful that anyone in power or about to accede to it actually wants this. I'm poorly educated, but the last isolationist president I know of was George Washington. I am an ignorant dreamer.

    I’m poorly educated, but the last isolationist president I know of was George Washington. I am an ignorant dreamer.

    Googling around, I see we’ve had quite a few presidents who could be called isolationist, and our country has followed that path several times in its history.

    Perhaps there is more precedent and hope than I am aware of. It really is hard to wake up from the current paradigm. I need to take more red pills.

  217. @RSDB
    Taiwan (=Formosa) was ceded to Japan in 1895 at the Treaty of Shimonoseki:

    http://www.taiwanbasic.com/treaties/Shimonoseki.htm

    and ceded back in 1945. I'm not sure how reliable Hungary would have been as an Axis member in '36, though I seem to remember considerable cultural connections with Japan (and some nuts insisting Japanese and Hungarian were closely related languages).

    Regards,
    RSDB

    some nuts insisting Japanese and Hungarian were closely related languages

    The nuttiest ideas of the Hungarian far right came into existence during the Cold War among émigrés around the world. (And some of the ideas of the far right were pretty nutty already, so it’s quite crazy.) E.g. the idea that the Sumerian language was related to Hungarian was first published by a former military officer called Ferenc Badiny Jós in Buenos Aires in maybe the 1970s. I think the Japanese relation was also a product of that age. The idea of Turkish relation came earlier, before the Finno-Ugric theory was established science.

    • Replies: @üeljaŋ
    Suggestions of contact between Turkic and Hungarian languages are on an entirely different plane from hypotheses of common origin of Hungarian and Sumerian or Hungarian and Japanese. Unlike the latter hypotheses, traces of linguistic contact between Turkic and Hungarian are numerous and undeniable, rather like, say, the proliferation of French-derived words in the English language since 1066 CE. Of course, such shared words do not prove anything about a common origin of the Turkic and Hungarian languages or their speakers; they merely prove that ancient speakers of Turkic and Hungarian languages have had cultural interactions with one another.
  218. @DB Cooper
    The last century saw China being carved up by the Western powers and Japan. Your map just confirm it.

    Compare the map of PRC and ROC.

    The ROC claimed sovereignty over large territories over which it never had any control at all. Much of the core of the country (ex-Manchuria, ex-Tibet, ex-Outer Mongolia) was under the rule of warlords, communists, etc. That China decreased compared to those borders was inevitable.

    [MORE]

    Hungary lost two-thirds of its territory in 1918-20. While much of those losses (including most of Slovakia and the whole of Croatia, the latter not even counted among the “two-thirds” since Hungarians recognized it was essentially a separate country) were reasonable, it included areas where a third of ethnic Hungarians lived, the vast majority of them in areas adjacent to the Hungarian border. (I.e. it would’ve been easy to modify the borders to vastly reduce resentment in Hungary.)

    I don’t see the need for me to be grieving over comparatively minor changes in the Chinese borders, which mostly included recently colonized areas (or areas which never belonged to China proper), and which have mostly been reversed anyway. But the losses mostly happened during the last century of the Qing empire, so the PRC has been expanding ever since, peacefully or otherwise, and intends to do so further.

    That said, of course I don’t wish the US fight a war over Taiwan (or anything else), since I recognize how bad it would be for all involved (including the rest of the world).

  219. @Johann Ricke

    I wonder who’s more likely to have plenty of agents in place – China (in the US weapons/missile programs) or the US (in the Chinese weapons/missile programs)?

    US readers will know better than I – are the various US defence contractors like Raytheon stuffed to the gills with H1B employees/contractors?
     

    The US gets lots of walk-ins, some more notorious than others. Given the large number of Christians (~10% of the population) and perhaps secret Falungong adherents (some of whom have received asylum stateside) in China, I expect there's a significant number of Chinese prospects available for recruitment. Another significant pool of prospects for CIA recruitment is the large number of Chinese students stateside who then return to China upon graduation, and perhaps work for the Chinese government. Given the extent to which China is now a major source of tourist revenues around the world, I'd say talent-spotting for Chinese assets is now wide open in a way it never was back when it was a hermetically-sealed society. They can send agents to spy on us, but we can recruit Chinese college grads with stateside degrees to burrow deep inside their government in a way that no Chinese grad will ever be able to penetrate the US government.

    We also get a good number of walk-ins. One PLA bird colonel-equivalent defected in March 2001, leading the Chinese to launch a series of provocations that resulted in the forced landing of the EP-3 on Chinese soil in April 1, 2001. A senior aide to an up-and-coming Poliburo member (i.e. one of 25 people that includes President Xi Jinping) Bo Xilai attempted to defect at the US consulate in Chengdu. This article heading describes more or less what happened: Clinton Turned Away High-Level Chinese Defector to Assist Beijing Leaders Another senior, although below Politburo-level official was arrested as part of President Xi Jinping's purge in 2014. This aide had a brother stateside to whom he had entrusted what is said to be a treasure trove of information about the Chinese leadership. Given the optics of handing back a green card holder (i.e. someone with American legal permanent resident status) on American soil to the Chinese government in spite of his intelligence value, Obama appears to not have intervened to send him back.

    Re H1b employees in defense, I can't vouch for the info, but a 30-second search yielded this:


    Here is what I know about clearances. Mostly clearances of 3 levels. Confidential (C), Secret (S) and Top Secret (TS). Clearances of given out by Department of Defence (DoD), Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy and Department of Justice. Levels of clearances may differ depending upon who is giving them. To apply for a security clearnce on should a naturalized/Native citizen of US. However under special circumstances becuase of the project or the individuals unique or unusal skill or expertise a non-citizen can be given clearance. This type of clearance is called Limited Access Authorization and will not go higher than Secret level. Any level of clearnce precedes a complete background investigation in terms of national, local and credit history, past criminal background investigation, where one lived in the past including overseas. This takes more one 1 year or more based on ones previous history. Hope this helps.

     

    “They can send agents to spy on us, but we can recruit Chinese college grads with stateside degrees to burrow deep inside their government in a way that no Chinese grad will ever be able to penetrate the US government.”

    That’s a very optimistic take. I get the impression Chinese students overseas are viscerally pro-China in a way that US students (either at home or overseas) aren’t. When the Chinese leadership last visited London thousands of Chinese students turned out to cheer them (and also to drown out the Free Tibet protesters). If Trump visited the UK, American students would be booing him alongside the UK left.

    Remember students in the West are implicitly taught to denigrate their own heritage (even STEM students – see New Scientist or The Lancet) where Chinese students are taught from childhood to celebrate it. While I hope your view is right, I’m not too sure.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Remember students in the West are implicitly taught to denigrate their own heritage (even STEM students – see New Scientist or The Lancet) where Chinese students are taught from childhood to celebrate it.
     
    And Chinese students at Western universities are also taught to denigrate Western culture. Which could only strengthen their feelings of superiority. Why would they happily join a Western intelligence service against their own country?
    , @Jefferson
    "That’s a very optimistic take. I get the impression Chinese students overseas are viscerally pro-China in a way that US students (either at home or overseas) aren’t. When the Chinese leadership last visited London thousands of Chinese students turned out to cheer them (and also to drown out the Free Tibet protesters). If Trump visited the UK, American students would be booing him alongside the UK left.

    Remember students in the West are implicitly taught to denigrate their own heritage (even STEM students – see New Scientist or The Lancet) where Chinese students are taught from childhood to celebrate it. While I hope your view is right, I’m not too sure."


    There is no such thing as microaggression in China, so patriotism is not seen as racist over there. The Chinese don't burn their own flags because they are taught that China is a superpower to be proud of, not ashamed of.

    Even though China is an extremely politically incorrect country, once the Chinese come to America their U.S born offsprings absorb our PC snowflake microaggression culture like a sponge, hence the extremely annoying Chinese American Social Justice Warrior.

    That's why I dislike Chinese Americans even more than I dislike FOB Chinese. Chinese Americans are a lot worst than their FOB Chinese parents.

    FOB Chinese people's politically incorrect views can sometimes get them into trouble with American Social Justice Warriors, like the video of the FOB Chinese female student on a college campus who was booed for saying she has experienced way more racism from Blacks than from Whites.

    An American born Chinaman would never in a million years admit to experiencing more racism from Blacks than from Whites.

    , @DukeofQin
    It's mostly wishful thinking. Chinese spies come from the same place as most American spies, disaffected individuals. Men denied promotions, men with money problems, men with women problems, men with gambling problems, men caught in the crossfire between politically dueling politburo members one of whom whose wife just had someone murdered for skimming from their corruption money. There is a reason why shows like the Manchurian candidate and the Americans are popular, because they are riveting fiction not because they are really plausible. True believers are the rare diamond in the rough when it comes to the mountains of men with character flaws that make up the majority of spies and traitors. US subversion is more subtle but even more pernicious in its way. The CIAs humint capabilities are notoriously bad, this is a barely disguised open secret, so the chances of a Chinese teenager converted to an asset and selling out Chinese secrets for thirty or so years is as plausible as your black genius hacker. Howevever the power of American memeplex to gradually shift the Overton window of a percentage of Chinese students to leftism as it has done to generations of Americans is more dangerous and damaging by far.
    , @Johann Ricke

    FOB Chinese people's politically incorrect views can sometimes get them into trouble with American Social Justice Warriors, like the video of the FOB Chinese female student on a college campus who was booed for saying she has experienced way more racism from Blacks than from Whites.

    An American born Chinaman would never in a million years admit to experiencing more racism from Blacks than from Whites.
     
    You've described precisely why Chinese students stateside might be susceptible to recruitment. They've been fed a steady diet of Communist propaganda about about how all minorities in the US are perennially under the white man's boot. Then they arrive on these shores and discover that it was all a lie; the average white person they encounter hasn't a racist bone in his body, whereas a significant number of blacks are hostile, and on the whole, the black student body is clearly the sub-standard product of racial quotas.

    They start wondering what else the Communist Party hasn't been straight about. Then they run across photos from the Tiananmen Square massacre, putting the lie to the paternalistic, benevolent image that the Party projects. The further discovery of information about the death tolls of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution and Mao's serial pedophilic habits further lowers the image of the Communist Party in their eyes.

    Once a target is susceptible, there are many angles for an agent runner to work, some in combination. Chinese patriotism in helping to control, and perhaps rid the country of, the cancerous tumor that runs China today. An American bolthole in the event of impending discovery and a land in which their children can grow up in liberty. Money. Big stacks of it, for the right information. A chance to move their extended families abroad without the usual decade-long wait.
  220. @reiner Tor

    some nuts insisting Japanese and Hungarian were closely related languages
     
    The nuttiest ideas of the Hungarian far right came into existence during the Cold War among émigrés around the world. (And some of the ideas of the far right were pretty nutty already, so it's quite crazy.) E.g. the idea that the Sumerian language was related to Hungarian was first published by a former military officer called Ferenc Badiny Jós in Buenos Aires in maybe the 1970s. I think the Japanese relation was also a product of that age. The idea of Turkish relation came earlier, before the Finno-Ugric theory was established science.

    Suggestions of contact between Turkic and Hungarian languages are on an entirely different plane from hypotheses of common origin of Hungarian and Sumerian or Hungarian and Japanese. Unlike the latter hypotheses, traces of linguistic contact between Turkic and Hungarian are numerous and undeniable, rather like, say, the proliferation of French-derived words in the English language since 1066 CE. Of course, such shared words do not prove anything about a common origin of the Turkic and Hungarian languages or their speakers; they merely prove that ancient speakers of Turkic and Hungarian languages have had cultural interactions with one another.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    You are correct, of course. A lot of our words are Turkish in origin, dating mostly to the first millennium AD, though a number of lone words are from the Ottoman occupation of (a good third of) Hungary.

    Now some nuttier elements on the far right go way beyond what can be established based on these linguistic findings.

    BTW I'd have little problem if it turned out we are related (genetically or otherwise) to Turks, who are at least a strong military power. Of course it might be better to be related to Italians (and French and other Latins) like the Romanians, or to Germans, or to Slavs, but our language is what it is, and it seems to be distantly related to Finnish and Estonian. With the many loan words from Turkish (and from Slavic languages and German and Latin etc.), but no close relations toany other language. Genetically, of course, we are Central Europeans related to our neighbors.
    , @Elsewhere
    Nice handle, (moon). I hope you continue to use it.
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    I used to hear that Turkish was related to Japanese and Korean. My parents used to have some Turkish neighbors, and they commented on some of the similarities between the Turkish language and my mother's native Korean. Nowadays though, most linguists have revised their views, considering Japanese and Korean to be isolates rather than part of the broader Altaic family as Turkish is.

    As far as Hungarian and Turkish being related, this goes back to the much more archaic view in linguistics of their being one large "Ural-Altaic" family. Uralic and Altaic are now considered completely separate groups. To my recollection, the Uralic languages consist of Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, and some isolated languages spoken in Northern Russia.
  221. @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm kind of slow, but I gradually realized how my use of the term "isolationist" is out of place.

    In any case, I didn't claim that the US is isolationist; I claimed that I am. I can see how that is problematic to the rest of my argument. I get into trouble, out of my depth, when I cheer refreshingly independent actions by my next president, actions that may signal future entanglements but paradoxically appeal to me on an intuitive level.

    Is he applying leverage? Sending a message? How should I know (or you)? He is beginning to work with the Risk board he will inherit. We are entangled in it, non-isolationist, because generations of our leaders (and outside manipulators) have put us there; we are beholden to China for the same reasons.

    To extricate ourselves from globalism, we must free ourselves from China.

    Balls and hubris may be required. Of course, it is doubtful that anyone in power or about to accede to it actually wants this. I'm poorly educated, but the last isolationist president I know of was George Washington. I am an ignorant dreamer.

    I’m a Trump supporter myself, insofar as that’s relevant for a foreigner to the US like me. I have no animus towards him, but I suspect that his responding to this call was an entirely innocent act on his part – an error based upon his understandable ignorance of the particular details of the situation. A President would have advisors to prevent him from making such an error, but those are either not in place yet or chose not to prevent it for manipulative reasons – who knows?

    Anyway, it’s not a big deal, and clearly as Sailer suggests, it’s only high profile because the NYT and other media Trump-haters want to make it so, out of malice. It will blow over, most likely, when the media moves on to some other target, as long as Trump quietly apologises to the Chinese in due course, and doesn’t double down on it and create a new policy in order to avoid embarrassment (which is probably what the confrontationists amongst his advisors want to happen).

    To extricate ourselves from globalism, we must free ourselves from China.

    Yes, this is true. And Russia, and Iran. And Israel and Saudi Arabia, indeed. But it won’t be easy, since so many fantastically rich and powerful groups who have influential access to the ear of the President and of US Senators and Congressmen have so much to gain from continuing US involvement in their particular causes.

    As for extricating from China, it requires American recognition that the situation in the western Pacific is akin to the one in South and Central America in the C19th, where the rising power of the US confronted the existing global power of Britain. Britain, fortunately, chose not to oppose that rising power in the US’s own backyard and effectively acceded to what became the Monroe Doctrine. It could have been different, and Britain could have fought the US over its own access to the region (remember the two countries were at open war only a few years before, in 1812).

    The US regime needs to recognise that its power in the western Pacific is a legacy of historical circumstance (WW2) and not ultimately sustainable in the face of a rising Chinese superpower.

    If the US chooses instead to try to hold onto its self-appointed right to have the western Pacific within its own sphere of influence, then it will end badly for the US as well as China, I suspect (but even worse for the peoples of the countries the US claims to be “defending”, of course).

    As for isolationist, I don’t think any US government has really been honestly “isolationist”. The term is mostly just a dishonest smear term used against non-interventionists. What it most closely applied to was US regimes that took a stand against getting involved in European wars (whilst happily pushing US interference in the countries it saw as its own backyard). Even those who genuinely argued for the US not to go abroad to look for dragons to slay never advocated “isolation”. Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none, is not an argument for “isolation”.

  222. @Buzz Mohawk
    My definition of isolationist includes being strong enough to talk to whomever we damn well please, without worrying about offending someone else.

    This is a form of independence, and I've come to realize that what we are beginning to do now is reassert that which began in 1776.

    I'm not suggesting we entangle ourselves in a Taiwan-China conflict, or that we somehow act as an ally of either. What bothers me is that we have been kowtowing to the very people who invented the term.

    Kowtowing to China, as we have done my entire adult life, only serves China. Personally, I don't like the way we left Taiwan in purgatory. Let's leave them both there and talk to them both. It's their business how they relate to each other, and our business how we relate to them.

    If China wants to tell the United States, or anyone else, how to communicate with Taiwan, then China needs to go ahead and make Taiwan part of China. As far as I can tell, this is all held in a doublethink (diplo-think) unreality, and we are just expected to play along until the frog gets boiled.

    Kowtowing to any country, allowing it to dictate how we relate to another country, amounts to foreign entanglement, just as much as allying with one does, and that is what I am against.

    It has been suggested here that Trump's actions like this one are part of his negotiating style. I'm certain that is true. This move is actually perfect. I submit that expressing ourselves here in like manner is also appropriate to this line of thought. If we can't even start out positing something other than what is already established practice, than what good are our arguments?

    We are the world’s most powerful and influential nation, but we have been led for a long time by pathetically weak pussies who acted like they had inferiority complexes and were scared of offending anyone. We are sitting on a full house, but our past leaders acted as if they had been dealt a pair of 3s. Trump is going to do a 180 on this. I submit that obama, bush, and clinton were combinations of out-of-their-depth/globalist/lightweight/horrible negotiators/too worried about offending others/not ready for prime time. Donald Trump is ready for prime time. I really really hope that Trump initiates major immigration reform that represents the people’s interests (e.g, moratorium) and does not follow idiots like obama and merkel et al. who envision themselves as leaders of the world (not their own countries). Donald should join forces with Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, Viktor Orban, hopefully Marine le Pen, and ram home the reality of a new nationalist paradigm, and let the third worlders know that the welcome mat is gone, and that they are staying home.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    I agree with you fully, that nationalism is the way we must go.

    The current vote in Italy is another indication that populism, a probable booster of nationalism, continues its momemtum against everything the Powers That Be shout through their megaphone.
  223. @Svigor

    Well if that were the wish then perhaps the sensible course would have been not allowing the less rational amongst the US foreign policy elites to drive US policy on Russia, responding to the Soviet defeat with a consistently aggressive drive to push into Russia’s remaining spheres of interest at every opportunity by military, diplomatic and economic aggression and political subversion, against every remaining Russian ally, and even against Russia itself.
     
    While I echo many of your sentiments (the questionable nature of America accusing China of an aggressive foreign policy being primary among them - China's history of conquest seems exceeded by Portugal's), I have little sympathy for Russian complaints about subversion. While I may wish them well in their fight against subversion, the latter is a wonderful example of turnabout being fair play. Russians have no room to complain about subversion. Or about having their former satellites turned into US satellites. If Russia wanted a legitimate say in eastern Europe, she might have thought twice about that whole Iron Curtain thing.

    What’s interesting is that for thousands of years, the Chinese leadership has tended to mine Chinese history for ideas on goals, strategy and tactics.
     
    Or for propaganda, anyway.

    * Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors. It is in no position to call any other country a bully, and certainly not any country that is merely acting to check its aggressive and acquisitive impulses.
     
    That's like saying Germany started out as a tiny land grab on the northern coast of Europe, Italy started out as a tiny province surrounding Rome, Israel started out as a patch of land stolen from the Canaanites, Russia started out as a province around Kiev, etc; true, but irrelevant.

    China’s military conducted a salvo of 10 missile flight tests late last month in a show of force during the transition to the Donald Trump administration.
     
    That seems an odd way to say, "at the end of Hussein's administration."

    All the more reason to get those missile defenses rigged up and operational.
     
    ABM systems seem inherently doomed to failure, at least, at the strategic level. That's just my not-particularly-informed opinion.

    Inner Mongolia was added at the same time.
     
    If China had learned anything from history, it was not to sit by and let Mongols unite and invade. In fact, I should think the world had learned that lesson. That there are any Mongols (etc.) living today is a testament to the mercy (or stupidity) of the Chinese (inter alia).

    While I echo many of your sentiments (the questionable nature of America accusing China of an aggressive foreign policy being primary among them – China’s history of conquest seems exceeded by Portugal’s), I have little sympathy for Russian complaints about subversion. While I may wish them well in their fight against subversion, the latter is a wonderful example of turnabout being fair play. Russians have no room to complain about subversion. Or about having their former satellites turned into US satellites. If Russia wanted a legitimate say in eastern Europe, she might have thought twice about that whole Iron Curtain thing.

    I’m not really all that bothered about sympathy, nor am I much interested in attributing Soviet activities to the Russian state or nation. I’m mostly concerned about the real world situation, and who is the aggressor and who the defender in current disputes. As far as I can see, since the fall of the Soviet Union it’s been Russia that was pushed back and back, until it chose to take a stand (around 2008), whereupon it was accused of aggression for every occasion when it took action to prevent itself being pushed further back.

    Though in this case it was, as you note, just a case of refuting Johann Ricke’s hypocritical (from a westerner) accusation against China. (I don’t regard China as any kind of nobly non-interventionist exemplar, of course, but historically China’s expansion has been qualitatively different from that of the western imperial powers, and again I see the US’s attempt to maintain its presence in the western Pacific as inherently aggressive given China’s inevitable security concerns about a rival superpower (and established military aggressor state) parked on its borders. It’s as though Britain had declared an intention to fight against the Monroe Doctrine.)

    The rest of your comment seems to be addressed to Ricke’s points, rather than to me, and you make some good responses.

  224. @Anonymous Nephew
    "They can send agents to spy on us, but we can recruit Chinese college grads with stateside degrees to burrow deep inside their government in a way that no Chinese grad will ever be able to penetrate the US government."

    That's a very optimistic take. I get the impression Chinese students overseas are viscerally pro-China in a way that US students (either at home or overseas) aren't. When the Chinese leadership last visited London thousands of Chinese students turned out to cheer them (and also to drown out the Free Tibet protesters). If Trump visited the UK, American students would be booing him alongside the UK left.

    Remember students in the West are implicitly taught to denigrate their own heritage (even STEM students - see New Scientist or The Lancet) where Chinese students are taught from childhood to celebrate it. While I hope your view is right, I'm not too sure.

    Remember students in the West are implicitly taught to denigrate their own heritage (even STEM students – see New Scientist or The Lancet) where Chinese students are taught from childhood to celebrate it.

    And Chinese students at Western universities are also taught to denigrate Western culture. Which could only strengthen their feelings of superiority. Why would they happily join a Western intelligence service against their own country?

  225. @Anonymous Nephew
    "They can send agents to spy on us, but we can recruit Chinese college grads with stateside degrees to burrow deep inside their government in a way that no Chinese grad will ever be able to penetrate the US government."

    That's a very optimistic take. I get the impression Chinese students overseas are viscerally pro-China in a way that US students (either at home or overseas) aren't. When the Chinese leadership last visited London thousands of Chinese students turned out to cheer them (and also to drown out the Free Tibet protesters). If Trump visited the UK, American students would be booing him alongside the UK left.

    Remember students in the West are implicitly taught to denigrate their own heritage (even STEM students - see New Scientist or The Lancet) where Chinese students are taught from childhood to celebrate it. While I hope your view is right, I'm not too sure.

    “That’s a very optimistic take. I get the impression Chinese students overseas are viscerally pro-China in a way that US students (either at home or overseas) aren’t. When the Chinese leadership last visited London thousands of Chinese students turned out to cheer them (and also to drown out the Free Tibet protesters). If Trump visited the UK, American students would be booing him alongside the UK left.

    Remember students in the West are implicitly taught to denigrate their own heritage (even STEM students – see New Scientist or The Lancet) where Chinese students are taught from childhood to celebrate it. While I hope your view is right, I’m not too sure.”

    There is no such thing as microaggression in China, so patriotism is not seen as racist over there. The Chinese don’t burn their own flags because they are taught that China is a superpower to be proud of, not ashamed of.

    Even though China is an extremely politically incorrect country, once the Chinese come to America their U.S born offsprings absorb our PC snowflake microaggression culture like a sponge, hence the extremely annoying Chinese American Social Justice Warrior.

    That’s why I dislike Chinese Americans even more than I dislike FOB Chinese. Chinese Americans are a lot worst than their FOB Chinese parents.

    FOB Chinese people’s politically incorrect views can sometimes get them into trouble with American Social Justice Warriors, like the video of the FOB Chinese female student on a college campus who was booed for saying she has experienced way more racism from Blacks than from Whites.

    An American born Chinaman would never in a million years admit to experiencing more racism from Blacks than from Whites.

    • Replies: @Anon
    The coward slave that quits his post,
    Let Argus eyes the traitor scan,
    And infamy, eternal, brand
    The anti-Chinese Chinaman!

    (after Harkin)
  226. @Johann Ricke

    Chinese people are very, very sensitive about Taiwan. I’ve been taken aback by it.
     
    They are very sensitive about all kinds of things. Mainly, it's an affectation that follows from their assumption that they are the greatest ethny/polity on earth, meaning that any policy or statement reflecting anything other than fawning admiration will be interpreted as a slight.

    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far awry, when I was still just a little probationer- consumerist in a big, bad, cavernous store, my dad would squint his eyes on the bottom of some boxed toy that was already snail-trailed with my salivating wannabe ownership desire, and than he would say:

    ” I’m not buying this crap from Taiwan/Hong Kong.”

    That was a smart way to disguise his poor niggardly soul behind a wall of quality-control, obsessively patriotic protectionism.

    Point One: No crap from China was polluting shores of the Westworld at that time.

    Point Two: My fear of the future ain’t get any better when President-elect 唐諾得 J. 川普 is already putting himself at risk of Ping Maying first his Country, then his presidency .

    The Main Point: I really miss my dad.

    • Replies: @Buck Turgidson
    B.I. -- Your dad sounds like my kind of guy.
  227. @Buzz Mohawk
    My definition of isolationist includes being strong enough to talk to whomever we damn well please, without worrying about offending someone else.

    This is a form of independence, and I've come to realize that what we are beginning to do now is reassert that which began in 1776.

    I'm not suggesting we entangle ourselves in a Taiwan-China conflict, or that we somehow act as an ally of either. What bothers me is that we have been kowtowing to the very people who invented the term.

    Kowtowing to China, as we have done my entire adult life, only serves China. Personally, I don't like the way we left Taiwan in purgatory. Let's leave them both there and talk to them both. It's their business how they relate to each other, and our business how we relate to them.

    If China wants to tell the United States, or anyone else, how to communicate with Taiwan, then China needs to go ahead and make Taiwan part of China. As far as I can tell, this is all held in a doublethink (diplo-think) unreality, and we are just expected to play along until the frog gets boiled.

    Kowtowing to any country, allowing it to dictate how we relate to another country, amounts to foreign entanglement, just as much as allying with one does, and that is what I am against.

    It has been suggested here that Trump's actions like this one are part of his negotiating style. I'm certain that is true. This move is actually perfect. I submit that expressing ourselves here in like manner is also appropriate to this line of thought. If we can't even start out positing something other than what is already established practice, than what good are our arguments?

    My definition of isolationist includes being strong enough to talk to whomever we damn well please, without worrying about offending someone else.

    But strength also means knowing the rules, and not needlessly alienating someone who could do us a favor in the future.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Don't expect any favors from China.
  228. @reiner Tor

    Was France “bullying” Britain when it recognized the breakaway provinces that comprised these United States 200 centuries ago?
     
    In any event, it was a very hostile act, culminating in open war. Since Chinese leaders have the healthier instincts of 18th century European statesmen, they are also probably viewing it as an openly hostile act.

    Note that China started out thousands of years ago as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River. Its present territorial extent is the result of aggressive and bloody land grabs carried out against its neighbors.
     
    It "conquered" Manchuria when the Manchus conquered China and Manchuria became a Chinese province. In the 18th century a Manju emperor unwisely allowed the Han Chinese peasants from the overpopulated provinces to settle this province, which meant that when the Manchus were toppled, they had nowhere to flee.

    Inner Mongolia was added at the same time. Ethnic Han Chinese expansion was a bit like how the Tamils got into Sri Lanka, settled there by overlords of another ethnicity.

    Hi,

    Could you elaborate on the statement about the Tamils of Ceylon? I see your point in reference to the Tamils of the central highlands, but I’m curious to know if you’re referring to anything else, under the Sinhalese kings maybe?

    RSDB

  229. @epebble
    There is some unpredictability brewing on the other side of Eurasia too.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-russia-nato-idUSKBN13R2RA?il=0

    Looks like Trump foreign policy may become interesting.

    The chick who’s Norway’s defense minister is just asking Daddy to protect her, all the while opening her legs for the rapefugee hoards created by the R2P baloney that she supports.

    Daddy should tell her to go buy her own gun.

    The defense ministers of Norway, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands:

  230. @Jefferson
    "That’s a very optimistic take. I get the impression Chinese students overseas are viscerally pro-China in a way that US students (either at home or overseas) aren’t. When the Chinese leadership last visited London thousands of Chinese students turned out to cheer them (and also to drown out the Free Tibet protesters). If Trump visited the UK, American students would be booing him alongside the UK left.

    Remember students in the West are implicitly taught to denigrate their own heritage (even STEM students – see New Scientist or The Lancet) where Chinese students are taught from childhood to celebrate it. While I hope your view is right, I’m not too sure."


    There is no such thing as microaggression in China, so patriotism is not seen as racist over there. The Chinese don't burn their own flags because they are taught that China is a superpower to be proud of, not ashamed of.

    Even though China is an extremely politically incorrect country, once the Chinese come to America their U.S born offsprings absorb our PC snowflake microaggression culture like a sponge, hence the extremely annoying Chinese American Social Justice Warrior.

    That's why I dislike Chinese Americans even more than I dislike FOB Chinese. Chinese Americans are a lot worst than their FOB Chinese parents.

    FOB Chinese people's politically incorrect views can sometimes get them into trouble with American Social Justice Warriors, like the video of the FOB Chinese female student on a college campus who was booed for saying she has experienced way more racism from Blacks than from Whites.

    An American born Chinaman would never in a million years admit to experiencing more racism from Blacks than from Whites.

    The coward slave that quits his post,
    Let Argus eyes the traitor scan,
    And infamy, eternal, brand
    The anti-Chinese Chinaman!

    (after Harkin)

  231. @Anonymous Nephew
    "They can send agents to spy on us, but we can recruit Chinese college grads with stateside degrees to burrow deep inside their government in a way that no Chinese grad will ever be able to penetrate the US government."

    That's a very optimistic take. I get the impression Chinese students overseas are viscerally pro-China in a way that US students (either at home or overseas) aren't. When the Chinese leadership last visited London thousands of Chinese students turned out to cheer them (and also to drown out the Free Tibet protesters). If Trump visited the UK, American students would be booing him alongside the UK left.

    Remember students in the West are implicitly taught to denigrate their own heritage (even STEM students - see New Scientist or The Lancet) where Chinese students are taught from childhood to celebrate it. While I hope your view is right, I'm not too sure.

    It’s mostly wishful thinking. Chinese spies come from the same place as most American spies, disaffected individuals. Men denied promotions, men with money problems, men with women problems, men with gambling problems, men caught in the crossfire between politically dueling politburo members one of whom whose wife just had someone murdered for skimming from their corruption money. There is a reason why shows like the Manchurian candidate and the Americans are popular, because they are riveting fiction not because they are really plausible. True believers are the rare diamond in the rough when it comes to the mountains of men with character flaws that make up the majority of spies and traitors. US subversion is more subtle but even more pernicious in its way. The CIAs humint capabilities are notoriously bad, this is a barely disguised open secret, so the chances of a Chinese teenager converted to an asset and selling out Chinese secrets for thirty or so years is as plausible as your black genius hacker. Howevever the power of American memeplex to gradually shift the Overton window of a percentage of Chinese students to leftism as it has done to generations of Americans is more dangerous and damaging by far.

  232. @üeljaŋ
    Suggestions of contact between Turkic and Hungarian languages are on an entirely different plane from hypotheses of common origin of Hungarian and Sumerian or Hungarian and Japanese. Unlike the latter hypotheses, traces of linguistic contact between Turkic and Hungarian are numerous and undeniable, rather like, say, the proliferation of French-derived words in the English language since 1066 CE. Of course, such shared words do not prove anything about a common origin of the Turkic and Hungarian languages or their speakers; they merely prove that ancient speakers of Turkic and Hungarian languages have had cultural interactions with one another.

    You are correct, of course. A lot of our words are Turkish in origin, dating mostly to the first millennium AD, though a number of lone words are from the Ottoman occupation of (a good third of) Hungary.

    Now some nuttier elements on the far right go way beyond what can be established based on these linguistic findings.

    BTW I’d have little problem if it turned out we are related (genetically or otherwise) to Turks, who are at least a strong military power. Of course it might be better to be related to Italians (and French and other Latins) like the Romanians, or to Germans, or to Slavs, but our language is what it is, and it seems to be distantly related to Finnish and Estonian. With the many loan words from Turkish (and from Slavic languages and German and Latin etc.), but no close relations toany other language. Genetically, of course, we are Central Europeans related to our neighbors.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I have that book about the Hungarian origin of Sumerian, I bought it on a lark in Yorktown in NYC 30 years ago. The bookstore and the Hungarians are long gone.

    Of course, claiming Sumerian is a major plum and everyone wants it, because then one can claim Mohenjo Daro and Indus Valley Civilization. That is why Dravidians also claim it.

    There are IIRC something like 14 languages in the Finno-Ugric group, including Finnish, Estonian (very close to Finnish), Mordvin, Mari, etc. etc. and Hungarian. I think the validity of that group is beyond dispute.

    The reason for the larger "Uralic-Altaic" family is because the grammar of the Turkic languages (another 15 or so, including Turkish, Azeri, Mongol, etc. etc.) is similar to the Finno Ugrics. I studied this many years ago. The number of Turkish loan words in Hungarian is not the reason for the classification. What it really means is that it suggests that, a long time ago the Turkic and Finno Ugric languages had a common ancestor. (Since Indo-European is usually carried back about 6 thousand years ago that would mean probably before that.) Given geographical proximity and nomadic lifestyle I don't think that's so hard to believe.

    That's also why you will sometimes encounter attempts to add Japanese or Korean to the mix. But again, long long time ago. This ties into the school of thought that holds that _all_ languages go back to a common ancestor. It's pretty far fetched but seems to be a respectable school of thought.
  233. @bored identity
    Ancient Romans had a Forum,
    E-I-E-I-O
    And It Had Nigerian Prince On It's Board,
    E-I-E-I-O :

    https://youtu.be/rgoDthw-hOc
    UNITED COLORS OF BENETTON AD :https://twitter.com/americaneedsyou
    https://www.americaneedsyou.org/locations/njny/
    http://www.harbus.org/2004/adebayo-ogunlesi-hbs-79-2996/



    Trump's Strategic and Policy Forum

    Members of the Forum will be charged with providing their individual views to the President – informed by their unique vantage points in the private sector – on how government policy impacts economic growth, job creation, and productivity.

    The Forum is designed to provide direct input to the President from many of the best and brightest in the business world in a frank, non-bureaucratic, and non-partisan manner.


    Trump's Strategic and Policy Forum Members

    Stephen A. Schwarzman (Forum Chairman), Chairman, CEO, and Co-Founder of Blackstone;

    Jamie Dimon JPMorgan Chase’s Chief Executive ;

    Bob Iger, CEO , Disney, Co-chair of the Partnership for a New American Economy;

    Doug McMillon, President and CEO of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ;

    Paul Atkins, CEO, Patomak Global Partners, LLC, Former Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission;

    Mary Barra, Chairman and CEO, General Motors;

    Toby Cosgrove, CEO, Cleveland Clinic;

    Larry Fink, Chairman and CEO, BlackRock;

    Rich Lesser, President and CEO, Boston Consulting Group;

    Jim McNerney, Former Chairman, President, and CEO, Boeing;

    Adebayo “Bayo” Ogunlesi,Chairman and Managing Partner,Global Infrastructure Partners;
    https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000034079

    Ginni Rometty, Chairman, President, and CEO, IBM;

    Kevin Warsh, Shepard Family Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Economics, Hoover Institute, Former Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;

    Mark Weinberger, Global Chairman and CEO, EY;

    Jack Welch, Former Chairman and CEO, General Electric;

    Daniel Yergin, Pulitzer Prize-winner, Vice Chairman of IHS Markit;

     

    I guess, you really never can't get what you want...

    I guess, you really never can’t get what you want…

    We’ll see. Perhaps the men in that room have been reconsidering as many of their former positions as the readers of this forum.

  234. @reiner Tor
    Not total war hostile, but hostile enough.

    Not total war hostile, but hostile enough.

    Hostile enough for war, but Britain and France had already been intermittently at war for a solid century, and only had “peace” in the prior century because the English monarch was in the employ of the (much stronger) French. War, especially colonial war, in that context was just one of many accepted means of competition between rival powers.

    This is not the case today. In retaining those global commitments worth retaining, our leaders should be careful that a prudent excess of caution is not misinterpreted as pusillanimity or disingenuity. Just as on the domestic front the leapfrogging loyalties of the left aren’t as warmly received as they are offered, so too in foreign relations our current policy of extreme solicitude of (real and imagined) foreign sensitivities has not borne the hoped-for fruit.

    It is time for a more manly approach.

  235. @bored identity
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far awry, when I was still just a little probationer- consumerist in a big, bad, cavernous store, my dad would squint his eyes on the bottom of some boxed toy that was already snail-trailed with my salivating wannabe ownership desire, and than he would say:

    " I'm not buying this crap from Taiwan/Hong Kong."


    That was a smart way to disguise his poor niggardly soul behind a wall of quality-control, obsessively patriotic protectionism.

    Point One: No crap from China was polluting shores of the Westworld at that time.


    Point Two: My fear of the future ain't get any better when President-elect 唐諾得 J. 川普 is already putting himself at risk of Ping Maying first his Country, then his presidency .

    The Main Point: I really miss my dad.

    B.I. — Your dad sounds like my kind of guy.

    • Replies: @bored identity
    He died this September...
  236. @Dave Pinsen
    I can see the sensitivity about this in the '70s, on the heels of the Cultural Revolution, wars with India and Vietnam, China being dirt-poor, etc. But China is a grownup country now. Maybe it's time to treat them like one.

    The war with Vietnam is a short war that is meant to accomplish several goals. The first is to show China’s resolve in trying to get Vietnam to retreat from Cambodia (Cambodia was invaded by Vietnam at that time). The second is to demonstrate the Soviet Union’s impotency in defending Vietnam (just a few months before the war, the Soviet Union and Vietnam signed a mutual defense pact.). Relations between Vietnam and China has gone sour and Vietnam has been lobbing bombs across the border to China prior to the war. After the war the border between Vietnam and China became tranquil again. The Americans at that time were none too happy to see Vietnam get a beating from China.

    The war with India is a good example in showing India’s territorial aggressiveness (you have never heard that one do you?) towards its neighbors of which China is but one.

    http://gregoryclark.net/redif.html
    http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/podcasts/renewed-tension-indiachina-border-whos-blame

  237. @anon
    This

    And you don't bloviate to Pakistan you look forward to fixing their problems

    What is the purpose of these calls?

    He may be playing 5-D chess as a great disrupter. The election was all about who is a more credible changemaker. He may be strategizing about turning established policy upside down and see what happens. Taiwan, Pakistan, Russia, North Korea on nice side and China, India, NATO allies, Japan, South Korea, Mexico on naughty side? Who knows, you have to break a few eggs to make omelette.

  238. @Anonymous Nephew
    "They can send agents to spy on us, but we can recruit Chinese college grads with stateside degrees to burrow deep inside their government in a way that no Chinese grad will ever be able to penetrate the US government."

    That's a very optimistic take. I get the impression Chinese students overseas are viscerally pro-China in a way that US students (either at home or overseas) aren't. When the Chinese leadership last visited London thousands of Chinese students turned out to cheer them (and also to drown out the Free Tibet protesters). If Trump visited the UK, American students would be booing him alongside the UK left.

    Remember students in the West are implicitly taught to denigrate their own heritage (even STEM students - see New Scientist or The Lancet) where Chinese students are taught from childhood to celebrate it. While I hope your view is right, I'm not too sure.

    FOB Chinese people’s politically incorrect views can sometimes get them into trouble with American Social Justice Warriors, like the video of the FOB Chinese female student on a college campus who was booed for saying she has experienced way more racism from Blacks than from Whites.

    An American born Chinaman would never in a million years admit to experiencing more racism from Blacks than from Whites.

    You’ve described precisely why Chinese students stateside might be susceptible to recruitment. They’ve been fed a steady diet of Communist propaganda about about how all minorities in the US are perennially under the white man’s boot. Then they arrive on these shores and discover that it was all a lie; the average white person they encounter hasn’t a racist bone in his body, whereas a significant number of blacks are hostile, and on the whole, the black student body is clearly the sub-standard product of racial quotas.

    They start wondering what else the Communist Party hasn’t been straight about. Then they run across photos from the Tiananmen Square massacre, putting the lie to the paternalistic, benevolent image that the Party projects. The further discovery of information about the death tolls of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution and Mao’s serial pedophilic habits further lowers the image of the Communist Party in their eyes.

    Once a target is susceptible, there are many angles for an agent runner to work, some in combination. Chinese patriotism in helping to control, and perhaps rid the country of, the cancerous tumor that runs China today. An American bolthole in the event of impending discovery and a land in which their children can grow up in liberty. Money. Big stacks of it, for the right information. A chance to move their extended families abroad without the usual decade-long wait.

  239. @bomag

    My definition of isolationist includes being strong enough to talk to whomever we damn well please, without worrying about offending someone else.
     
    But strength also means knowing the rules, and not needlessly alienating someone who could do us a favor in the future.

    Don’t expect any favors from China.

  240. @reiner Tor
    You are correct, of course. A lot of our words are Turkish in origin, dating mostly to the first millennium AD, though a number of lone words are from the Ottoman occupation of (a good third of) Hungary.

    Now some nuttier elements on the far right go way beyond what can be established based on these linguistic findings.

    BTW I'd have little problem if it turned out we are related (genetically or otherwise) to Turks, who are at least a strong military power. Of course it might be better to be related to Italians (and French and other Latins) like the Romanians, or to Germans, or to Slavs, but our language is what it is, and it seems to be distantly related to Finnish and Estonian. With the many loan words from Turkish (and from Slavic languages and German and Latin etc.), but no close relations toany other language. Genetically, of course, we are Central Europeans related to our neighbors.

    I have that book about the Hungarian origin of Sumerian, I bought it on a lark in Yorktown in NYC 30 years ago. The bookstore and the Hungarians are long gone.

    Of course, claiming Sumerian is a major plum and everyone wants it, because then one can claim Mohenjo Daro and Indus Valley Civilization. That is why Dravidians also claim it.

    There are IIRC something like 14 languages in the Finno-Ugric group, including Finnish, Estonian (very close to Finnish), Mordvin, Mari, etc. etc. and Hungarian. I think the validity of that group is beyond dispute.

    The reason for the larger “Uralic-Altaic” family is because the grammar of the Turkic languages (another 15 or so, including Turkish, Azeri, Mongol, etc. etc.) is similar to the Finno Ugrics. I studied this many years ago. The number of Turkish loan words in Hungarian is not the reason for the classification. What it really means is that it suggests that, a long time ago the Turkic and Finno Ugric languages had a common ancestor. (Since Indo-European is usually carried back about 6 thousand years ago that would mean probably before that.) Given geographical proximity and nomadic lifestyle I don’t think that’s so hard to believe.

    That’s also why you will sometimes encounter attempts to add Japanese or Korean to the mix. But again, long long time ago. This ties into the school of thought that holds that _all_ languages go back to a common ancestor. It’s pretty far fetched but seems to be a respectable school of thought.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    You left out Uralic, which is a level higher than Finno-Ugric, and whose existence is also not in doubt. Uralic is sometimes proposed to be lumped together with Indo-European, which is another possibility, and not totally unlikely either. But anything above Uralic is essentially hot air, there's no evidence, just like there's no evidence for anything above Indo-European.
  241. @Reg Cæsar
    Don't forget Evan McMuffin!

    There were always few holes in Hegelian dialectics:

    Reagan was a Prez, Bush Sr. was Veep, Bush Sr. was Ambassador in China,Trump is a Prez ,Pence is Veep , Huntsman was Ambassador in China, Pence will be Prez, Huntsman will be Veep, Somebody will always be Ambassador in China…

    It’s complicated.

  242. @Opinionator
    Seems reasonable. Thanks for the explanation.

    I disagree, however, that Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan can reasonably be seen as "humiliations."

    I disagree, however, that Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan can reasonably be seen as “humiliations.”

    They were seized by Britain, Portugal, and Japan respectively during the Nineteenth Century. The status of Hong Kong and Macau were resolved to China’s satisfaction by legal means. Taiwan, as the remaining territory not to be repatriated, remains a sore spot (even though China historically had only a tenuous interest in Taiwan and never established any real civil authority there).

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The Chinese proposed that Taiwan could keep even its separate armed forces and full autonomy under some proposed reunification, but the Taiwanese rejected it anyway. I don't think any better proposal is coming from the Chinese soon...
    , @anon
    Taiwan was seized from the Dutch by Ming loyalists in the seventeenth century. After changing hands again a few times, it was returned to China in 1945. It is currently governed by Chinese, just not the PRC.
    If the Dutch don't complain about it, why should the Chinese?
    Not to mention the native Formosans.
  243. @SPMoore8
    I have that book about the Hungarian origin of Sumerian, I bought it on a lark in Yorktown in NYC 30 years ago. The bookstore and the Hungarians are long gone.

    Of course, claiming Sumerian is a major plum and everyone wants it, because then one can claim Mohenjo Daro and Indus Valley Civilization. That is why Dravidians also claim it.

    There are IIRC something like 14 languages in the Finno-Ugric group, including Finnish, Estonian (very close to Finnish), Mordvin, Mari, etc. etc. and Hungarian. I think the validity of that group is beyond dispute.

    The reason for the larger "Uralic-Altaic" family is because the grammar of the Turkic languages (another 15 or so, including Turkish, Azeri, Mongol, etc. etc.) is similar to the Finno Ugrics. I studied this many years ago. The number of Turkish loan words in Hungarian is not the reason for the classification. What it really means is that it suggests that, a long time ago the Turkic and Finno Ugric languages had a common ancestor. (Since Indo-European is usually carried back about 6 thousand years ago that would mean probably before that.) Given geographical proximity and nomadic lifestyle I don't think that's so hard to believe.

    That's also why you will sometimes encounter attempts to add Japanese or Korean to the mix. But again, long long time ago. This ties into the school of thought that holds that _all_ languages go back to a common ancestor. It's pretty far fetched but seems to be a respectable school of thought.

    You left out Uralic, which is a level higher than Finno-Ugric, and whose existence is also not in doubt. Uralic is sometimes proposed to be lumped together with Indo-European, which is another possibility, and not totally unlikely either. But anything above Uralic is essentially hot air, there’s no evidence, just like there’s no evidence for anything above Indo-European.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  244. @Thirdeye

    I disagree, however, that Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan can reasonably be seen as “humiliations.”
     
    They were seized by Britain, Portugal, and Japan respectively during the Nineteenth Century. The status of Hong Kong and Macau were resolved to China's satisfaction by legal means. Taiwan, as the remaining territory not to be repatriated, remains a sore spot (even though China historically had only a tenuous interest in Taiwan and never established any real civil authority there).

    The Chinese proposed that Taiwan could keep even its separate armed forces and full autonomy under some proposed reunification, but the Taiwanese rejected it anyway. I don’t think any better proposal is coming from the Chinese soon…

  245. @Thirdeye

    I disagree, however, that Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan can reasonably be seen as “humiliations.”
     
    They were seized by Britain, Portugal, and Japan respectively during the Nineteenth Century. The status of Hong Kong and Macau were resolved to China's satisfaction by legal means. Taiwan, as the remaining territory not to be repatriated, remains a sore spot (even though China historically had only a tenuous interest in Taiwan and never established any real civil authority there).

    Taiwan was seized from the Dutch by Ming loyalists in the seventeenth century. After changing hands again a few times, it was returned to China in 1945. It is currently governed by Chinese, just not the PRC.
    If the Dutch don’t complain about it, why should the Chinese?
    Not to mention the native Formosans.

  246. @TheBoom
    If there is any underlying strategy to Trump's action my guess it is to establish himself as an alpha dog in the mix after Obama having been treated dismissively when he arrived on his last visit and the US for decades now being subservient to China on trade deals and currency manipulation.

    Seems to me that taking Tsai's call sends a very clear message that Trump will negotiate with China in a very Trumpian way and business as usual will not be followed.

    Dilbert has an analysis on how this is Trump’s negotiation ploy:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153990140846/trump-and-the-taiwan-call

    • Replies: @TheBoom
    Adams agrees with me. Good move. The faux panic over this is both a sign of how rigged the media is against Trump and the tradition of our negotiating away our advantage in trade deals. Reality is that we have the advantage. China needs us more than we need them. We have leverage but have been walking on egg shells.
  247. @DB Cooper
    "He decided to attack India and successfully annexed 14,000 square miles of Indian territory."

    Nonsense. It was Indian's expansionist policy that precipitate the 1962 war between India and China. And it is India that is still occupying a piece of Chinese territory. In 1951 India invaded and annexed South Tibet and occupy it to this day. South Tibet includes Tawang, birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama and home to a four hundred years old Tibetan monastery. Since then India has been ruling South Tibet with an iron hand, including a law that allows the state to detain or kill anyone with impunity. The law is called AFSPA (Armed Force Special Power Act) and is imposed on area India deemed 'disturbed', such as South Tibet and Kashmir. In case you couldn't find South Tibet on a map, the place was renamed to the so called 'Arunachal Pradesh' by India in 1987. The 1962 war was prompted by Nehru's 'forward policy' that have the Indian army created posts deeper and deeper (north of the McMahon line) into Chinese territory.

    Arunachal Pradesh was inherited by India from the British. Just saying.

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
    "Arunachal Pradesh was inherited by India from the British. Just saying."

    Nope. When India was created in 1947, South Tibet was still part of China. South Tibet (so called Arunachal Pradesh) was invaded and annexed by India in 1951, four years after India's creation. India renamed the area to 'Arunachal Pradesh' in 1987, thinking by giving it a Sanskrit sounding name it will fool the world that this is part of India.

    Today South Tibet, along with Kashmir are two United Nation's recognized disputed territorities in India.
  248. @donut
    as always Sailer :

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    I’d like to hereby recognize the excellent moderation here, which used to be called KOMMENT KONTROL a lot, but since the Overton window shifted Steve also shifted to the right a little, and so there are less complaints. If Svigor can figure out how to put his point across the rest of us should be able to.

    Maybe be less of a douche, and donate occasionally?

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @donut
    Oh , I'm sorry really , no joke . I am more grateful for the comments of mine that Sailer doesn't let pass than for the ones he does . The man is more than tolerant and has a sense of humor ( although at who's expense I'm not sure ) . And as for the Overton window , it will never shift enough in my life time for me to see even a little ray of reflected sunlight . I would honest to god like to donate but being retired and on a slim pension I am as broke as the Ten Commandments , and consequently in order to donate I would have to give up smoking and drinking which I refuse to do as I see continuing to indulge in those two vices as a political statement and a form of resistance to the states unrelenting efforts to bend me to it's will . As an added benefit I will probably die sooner than most of you and so spare you , the tax payers , the wasteful expense of my maintenance and myself the Hellish experience of dying a slow death laying in my own filth for hours on end while the otherwise unemployable shuck and jive . So If I choose to be a douche I will do so and trust in our host's good taste (chuckle chuckle chuckle ) .
  249. The Chicoms aren’t going to start a nuclear war over a phone call. And it’s a good thing for the POTUS to let them know it’s none of their business who he talks to — even if you’re an isolationist (and I tend that way myself), because small demonstrations that you don’t take shιτ build up a good cumulative effect across the board.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk, Federalist
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The Chicoms aren’t going to start a nuclear war over a phone call.
     
    The worry is that things get lost in translation. That's why diplomatic speak tends to be very subtle and careful. What's "just a phone call" to us might be something else to them. We don't know. I mean the entire reason we're even having this discussion is that things aren't "just phone calls."
    , @Randal

    And it’s a good thing for the POTUS to let them know it’s none of their business who he talks to — even if you’re an isolationist (and I tend that way myself), because small demonstrations that you don’t take shιτ build up a good cumulative effect across the board.
     
    No, it makes no sense to argue this from an "isolationist" perspective. If you want an isolationist policy you should not be paying costs to prevent Taiwan from being reintegrated into China. It's not as though the situation there isn't the direct result of US interventionism in the first place - if the US had not intervened then the victorious side in the Chinese civil war would have finally defeated the losing side in the island province to which it had retreated, back in the 1950s.

    As for posturing about "not taking shit", that's an approach that can be useful in some cases but costly in others. In this case, unless you think for some ideological or other reason that a confrontation between China and the US will be a good thing, there seems no good reason at all to change the status quo. As Sailer implied above, it ain't broke so why try to fix it?
  250. @Dave Pinsen
    How about Henry Kissinger?

    https://twitter.com/nfergus/status/804765130286305280

    Prof John Mearsheimer has pointed out that of all the prominent ‘realist’ school thinkers Kissinger was the only one to support the Vietnam incursion AND the Iraq invasion.

    What is the point of sounding ‘wise’ and ‘sensible’ if you get the really big things wrong?

    Personally I am suspicious of people who parade their wisdom regarding China if this means merely reshuffling the old cliches about the Middle Kingdom (no matter how deftly) but missing the brute reality staring one in the face.

    • Replies: @Randal

    Prof John Mearsheimer has pointed out that of all the prominent ‘realist’ school thinkers Kissinger was the only one to support the Vietnam incursion AND the Iraq invasion.

    What is the point of sounding ‘wise’ and ‘sensible’ if you get the really big things wrong?
     
    It's a fair point, but on the other hand Kissinger did get the Yugoslav war right:

    “The rejection of long-range strategy explains how it was possible to slide into the Kosovo conflict without adequate consideration of its implications ... The transformation of the NATO alliance from a defensive military grouping to an institution prepared to impose its values by force ... undercut repeated American and allied assurances that Russia had nothing to fear from NATO expansion.”

    .............

    “The tribulations of Yugoslavia ... emphasized Russia's decline and have generated a hostility towards America and the West that may produce a nationalist and socialist Russia - akin to the European Fascism of the 1930s.”
  251. @Wedford
    Arunachal Pradesh was inherited by India from the British. Just saying.

    “Arunachal Pradesh was inherited by India from the British. Just saying.”

    Nope. When India was created in 1947, South Tibet was still part of China. South Tibet (so called Arunachal Pradesh) was invaded and annexed by India in 1951, four years after India’s creation. India renamed the area to ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ in 1987, thinking by giving it a Sanskrit sounding name it will fool the world that this is part of India.

    Today South Tibet, along with Kashmir are two United Nation’s recognized disputed territorities in India.

  252. @Buck Turgidson
    We are the world's most powerful and influential nation, but we have been led for a long time by pathetically weak pussies who acted like they had inferiority complexes and were scared of offending anyone. We are sitting on a full house, but our past leaders acted as if they had been dealt a pair of 3s. Trump is going to do a 180 on this. I submit that obama, bush, and clinton were combinations of out-of-their-depth/globalist/lightweight/horrible negotiators/too worried about offending others/not ready for prime time. Donald Trump is ready for prime time. I really really hope that Trump initiates major immigration reform that represents the people's interests (e.g, moratorium) and does not follow idiots like obama and merkel et al. who envision themselves as leaders of the world (not their own countries). Donald should join forces with Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, Viktor Orban, hopefully Marine le Pen, and ram home the reality of a new nationalist paradigm, and let the third worlders know that the welcome mat is gone, and that they are staying home.

    I agree with you fully, that nationalism is the way we must go.

    The current vote in Italy is another indication that populism, a probable booster of nationalism, continues its momemtum against everything the Powers That Be shout through their megaphone.

  253. @Buck Turgidson
    B.I. -- Your dad sounds like my kind of guy.

    He died this September…

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    I am sorry for your loss and even more so because he was a patriot. I know what a chasm that loss leaves behind. And no, you will never 'get over it.' But you won't need to.
  254. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew
    The Chicoms aren't going to start a nuclear war over a phone call. And it's a good thing for the POTUS to let them know it's none of their business who he talks to — even if you're an isolationist (and I tend that way myself), because small demonstrations that you don't take shιτ build up a good cumulative effect across the board.

    The Chicoms aren’t going to start a nuclear war over a phone call.

    The worry is that things get lost in translation. That’s why diplomatic speak tends to be very subtle and careful. What’s “just a phone call” to us might be something else to them. We don’t know. I mean the entire reason we’re even having this discussion is that things aren’t “just phone calls.”

  255. @üeljaŋ
    Suggestions of contact between Turkic and Hungarian languages are on an entirely different plane from hypotheses of common origin of Hungarian and Sumerian or Hungarian and Japanese. Unlike the latter hypotheses, traces of linguistic contact between Turkic and Hungarian are numerous and undeniable, rather like, say, the proliferation of French-derived words in the English language since 1066 CE. Of course, such shared words do not prove anything about a common origin of the Turkic and Hungarian languages or their speakers; they merely prove that ancient speakers of Turkic and Hungarian languages have had cultural interactions with one another.

    Nice handle, (moon). I hope you continue to use it.

  256. @bored identity
    He died this September...

    I am sorry for your loss and even more so because he was a patriot. I know what a chasm that loss leaves behind. And no, you will never ‘get over it.’ But you won’t need to.

  257. Thanks for kind words.

    I guess we should go back now to our regular programming…

  258. @Anonym
    I'd like to hereby recognize the excellent moderation here, which used to be called KOMMENT KONTROL a lot, but since the Overton window shifted Steve also shifted to the right a little, and so there are less complaints. If Svigor can figure out how to put his point across the rest of us should be able to.

    Maybe be less of a douche, and donate occasionally?

    Oh , I’m sorry really , no joke . I am more grateful for the comments of mine that Sailer doesn’t let pass than for the ones he does . The man is more than tolerant and has a sense of humor ( although at who’s expense I’m not sure ) . And as for the Overton window , it will never shift enough in my life time for me to see even a little ray of reflected sunlight . I would honest to god like to donate but being retired and on a slim pension I am as broke as the Ten Commandments , and consequently in order to donate I would have to give up smoking and drinking which I refuse to do as I see continuing to indulge in those two vices as a political statement and a form of resistance to the states unrelenting efforts to bend me to it’s will . As an added benefit I will probably die sooner than most of you and so spare you , the tax payers , the wasteful expense of my maintenance and myself the Hellish experience of dying a slow death laying in my own filth for hours on end while the otherwise unemployable shuck and jive . So If I choose to be a douche I will do so and trust in our host’s good taste (chuckle chuckle chuckle ) .

  259. @üeljaŋ
    Suggestions of contact between Turkic and Hungarian languages are on an entirely different plane from hypotheses of common origin of Hungarian and Sumerian or Hungarian and Japanese. Unlike the latter hypotheses, traces of linguistic contact between Turkic and Hungarian are numerous and undeniable, rather like, say, the proliferation of French-derived words in the English language since 1066 CE. Of course, such shared words do not prove anything about a common origin of the Turkic and Hungarian languages or their speakers; they merely prove that ancient speakers of Turkic and Hungarian languages have had cultural interactions with one another.

    I used to hear that Turkish was related to Japanese and Korean. My parents used to have some Turkish neighbors, and they commented on some of the similarities between the Turkish language and my mother’s native Korean. Nowadays though, most linguists have revised their views, considering Japanese and Korean to be isolates rather than part of the broader Altaic family as Turkish is.

    As far as Hungarian and Turkish being related, this goes back to the much more archaic view in linguistics of their being one large “Ural-Altaic” family. Uralic and Altaic are now considered completely separate groups. To my recollection, the Uralic languages consist of Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, and some isolated languages spoken in Northern Russia.

  260. Seems like the Hansbara are out in force on this thread Steve. Maybe you’ve been identified as a Person of Influence? I wonder if they are paid or if they do it for free.

  261. @epebble
    Dilbert has an analysis on how this is Trump's negotiation ploy:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153990140846/trump-and-the-taiwan-call

    Adams agrees with me. Good move. The faux panic over this is both a sign of how rigged the media is against Trump and the tradition of our negotiating away our advantage in trade deals. Reality is that we have the advantage. China needs us more than we need them. We have leverage but have been walking on egg shells.

  262. @International Jew
    The Chicoms aren't going to start a nuclear war over a phone call. And it's a good thing for the POTUS to let them know it's none of their business who he talks to — even if you're an isolationist (and I tend that way myself), because small demonstrations that you don't take shιτ build up a good cumulative effect across the board.

    And it’s a good thing for the POTUS to let them know it’s none of their business who he talks to — even if you’re an isolationist (and I tend that way myself), because small demonstrations that you don’t take shιτ build up a good cumulative effect across the board.

    No, it makes no sense to argue this from an “isolationist” perspective. If you want an isolationist policy you should not be paying costs to prevent Taiwan from being reintegrated into China. It’s not as though the situation there isn’t the direct result of US interventionism in the first place – if the US had not intervened then the victorious side in the Chinese civil war would have finally defeated the losing side in the island province to which it had retreated, back in the 1950s.

    As for posturing about “not taking shit”, that’s an approach that can be useful in some cases but costly in others. In this case, unless you think for some ideological or other reason that a confrontation between China and the US will be a good thing, there seems no good reason at all to change the status quo. As Sailer implied above, it ain’t broke so why try to fix it?

    • Replies: @International Jew
    I agree with you by and large, but that phone call seems not out of line with where John Quincy Adams drew the line:

    "She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
  263. anon • Disclaimer says:

    I will probably die sooner than most of you and so spare you , the tax payers , the wasteful expense of my maintenance and myself the Hellish experience of dying a slow death laying in my own filth for hours on end while the otherwise unemployable shuck and jive .

    I continue to maintain that one can accurately guess how clean and orderly a poster’s bedroom is via the quality of his/her posts.

  264. @Bill B.
    Prof John Mearsheimer has pointed out that of all the prominent 'realist' school thinkers Kissinger was the only one to support the Vietnam incursion AND the Iraq invasion.

    What is the point of sounding 'wise' and 'sensible' if you get the really big things wrong?

    Personally I am suspicious of people who parade their wisdom regarding China if this means merely reshuffling the old cliches about the Middle Kingdom (no matter how deftly) but missing the brute reality staring one in the face.

    Prof John Mearsheimer has pointed out that of all the prominent ‘realist’ school thinkers Kissinger was the only one to support the Vietnam incursion AND the Iraq invasion.

    What is the point of sounding ‘wise’ and ‘sensible’ if you get the really big things wrong?

    It’s a fair point, but on the other hand Kissinger did get the Yugoslav war right:

    “The rejection of long-range strategy explains how it was possible to slide into the Kosovo conflict without adequate consideration of its implications … The transformation of the NATO alliance from a defensive military grouping to an institution prepared to impose its values by force … undercut repeated American and allied assurances that Russia had nothing to fear from NATO expansion.”

    ………….

    “The tribulations of Yugoslavia … emphasized Russia’s decline and have generated a hostility towards America and the West that may produce a nationalist and socialist Russia – akin to the European Fascism of the 1930s.”

  265. @Randal

    And it’s a good thing for the POTUS to let them know it’s none of their business who he talks to — even if you’re an isolationist (and I tend that way myself), because small demonstrations that you don’t take shιτ build up a good cumulative effect across the board.
     
    No, it makes no sense to argue this from an "isolationist" perspective. If you want an isolationist policy you should not be paying costs to prevent Taiwan from being reintegrated into China. It's not as though the situation there isn't the direct result of US interventionism in the first place - if the US had not intervened then the victorious side in the Chinese civil war would have finally defeated the losing side in the island province to which it had retreated, back in the 1950s.

    As for posturing about "not taking shit", that's an approach that can be useful in some cases but costly in others. In this case, unless you think for some ideological or other reason that a confrontation between China and the US will be a good thing, there seems no good reason at all to change the status quo. As Sailer implied above, it ain't broke so why try to fix it?

    I agree with you by and large, but that phone call seems not out of line with where John Quincy Adams drew the line:

    “She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

    • Replies: @Randal
    I can certainly see where you are coming from, but it could only work if the US were not already the "champion and vindicator" of Taiwan's independence from China. As it is, the effect of Trump's call is to increase the existing US commitment to intervention on behalf of Taiwan.

    Understandably, the Chinese don't like it.
  266. @International Jew
    I agree with you by and large, but that phone call seems not out of line with where John Quincy Adams drew the line:

    "She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

    I can certainly see where you are coming from, but it could only work if the US were not already the “champion and vindicator” of Taiwan’s independence from China. As it is, the effect of Trump’s call is to increase the existing US commitment to intervention on behalf of Taiwan.

    Understandably, the Chinese don’t like it.

    • Replies: @anon
    What I'm really hoping is that Trump is using a hard-on-Taiwan (on not against here, obviously) stance, knowing that the Chinese have no plans to actually invade, so that he can go softer on SCS issues in general, especially with regard to las islas Filipinas. As you said, since we are already more or less committed to defending Taiwan, and the Chinese know this, nothing has actually changed.

    I prefer optimism in matters about which I can't do anything.
  267. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Randal
    I can certainly see where you are coming from, but it could only work if the US were not already the "champion and vindicator" of Taiwan's independence from China. As it is, the effect of Trump's call is to increase the existing US commitment to intervention on behalf of Taiwan.

    Understandably, the Chinese don't like it.

    What I’m really hoping is that Trump is using a hard-on-Taiwan (on not against here, obviously) stance, knowing that the Chinese have no plans to actually invade, so that he can go softer on SCS issues in general, especially with regard to las islas Filipinas. As you said, since we are already more or less committed to defending Taiwan, and the Chinese know this, nothing has actually changed.

    I prefer optimism in matters about which I can’t do anything.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    You've worked some funny penile metaphors into that.
  268. Chinese territorial boundaries through the ages are available at this Wikipedia link.

  269. @anon
    What I'm really hoping is that Trump is using a hard-on-Taiwan (on not against here, obviously) stance, knowing that the Chinese have no plans to actually invade, so that he can go softer on SCS issues in general, especially with regard to las islas Filipinas. As you said, since we are already more or less committed to defending Taiwan, and the Chinese know this, nothing has actually changed.

    I prefer optimism in matters about which I can't do anything.

    You’ve worked some funny penile metaphors into that.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS