The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Coexistence or Cold War with China?
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States… does not challenge that position.”

Thus did President Nixon, in the Shanghai Communique of 1972, accept China’s territorial claim to the island of Taiwan.

In 1979, Jimmy Carter severed relations with Taiwan, recognized Beijing as the legitimate government and dissolved the U.S. mutual security treaty with the Republic of China on Taiwan.

We ceased to be obligated to go to war to defend Taiwan.

Fast-forward four decades to the first weekend of President Joe Biden’s administration. Saturday, China sent eight nuclear-capable bombers and four fighter planes into the air defense identification zone of Taiwan.

Sunday, Beijing sent 16 military aircraft into the same region.

Observing U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and visits by U.S. officials, China is issuing us a reminder: “You Americans are encouraging those on the island who seek independence. Not going to happen. Rather than let Taiwan go, we will fight. Taiwan is a part of China and is a red line for us.”

Beijing is said to be seeking a face-to-face meeting with Biden.

Why? Perhaps because incoming Secretary of State Antony Blinken in his confirmation hearings said that President Donald Trump “was right” to take a “tougher approach to China.”

Blinken also agreed with outgoing Secretary Mike Pompeo, who had called China’s treatment of its Uighur minority “genocide,” and added that our commitment to Taiwan is “something that we hold to very strongly.”

Under Xi Jinping, said Blinken, China seeks to “become the leading country in the world — the country that sets the norms, that sets the standards.” In short, China’s geostrategic goal is to replace the U.S.-created world order with a new world order of its own.

Before we proceed further down this road to collision, questions need to be answered.

To whom does Taiwan belong? If the answer is what it has been since 1972 — “Taiwan is a part of China” — then is not encouraging the 25 million Taiwanese to seek independence an “incitement to insurrection” from Beijing’s standpoint?

And if China uses force to compel Taiwan to repudiate any right to independence, are we prepared to fight a war with a nuclear-armed China over the island’s political status and orientation?

When Chinese Communists in 1950 conquered Tibet and began its ethnic and cultural cleansing of the region, what did we do?

Basically, nothing.

When China occupied and fortified rocks and reefs across the South China Sea what did we do?

Basically, nothing.

When China crushed the Hong Kong democracy protests we encouraged, and imposed a new national security law on the island’s 7 million people, what did we do?
Basically, nothing.

ORDER IT NOW

Now, Xi Jinping has bluntly told America that how China treats Tibetans, Uighurs, Christians and Falun Gong, all citizens of China, is no more the business of the United States than was our treatment of the indigenous peoples of North America the business of Imperial China.

China’s model of political and economic development has enjoyed success in this century as an alternative to the Western model of liberal democracy.

Beijing does not believe in untrammeled freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press. She does not believe in choosing leaders by the ballot box.

China is not an egalitarian society. She does not believe in the equality of all races, religions and ethnic groups. She does not celebrate diversity but fears it, seeing what ethnic diversity did to the Soviet Union, tearing it apart into 15 nations.

She does not believe in racial quotas for advancement, but in a meritocracy that rewards loyalty and performance. And Chinese student test scores are among the highest in the world.

While China steals intellectual property from U.S. factories in China, who moved the factories there to take advantage of cheap labor where a worker could be hired for $2 an hour?

Beijing says any attempt to impose our “universal values” on China would amount to interference in her internal affairs. And any attempt to sever from Beijing her jurisdiction over Taiwan or the Spratly or Paracel Islands in the South China Sea will be resisted by force.

Moreover, as none of the disputed rocks and reefs in the South and East China Seas involves any territory claimed by the U.S., and we have conceded for 50 years that Taiwan is “part of China,” why are we sending carrier battle groups into these seas and through the Taiwan Strait?

What are we threatening?

On Sunday, a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group, led by the USS Theodore Roosevelt sailed into the South China Sea on a “freedom of navigation” exercise, the first such operation under President Biden.

This was the same day that those Chinese bombers and fighters flew into Taiwan’s air identification zone. We need to talk.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2021 Creators.com.

 
The China/America Series
Hide 111 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. How long till the PLA liberates Taiwan? <5 years???

  2. anon[245] • Disclaimer says:

    If I recall the Kuomintang made the same claim. Taiwan is a part of China. The sticking point is that the Kuomintang is the government of China. Thus Nixon’s statement is more than a bit ambiguous and very much tongue in cheek:

    “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States… does not challenge that position.”

    These claims do really matter when considered as symbols of power or its lack. Will the US go to war over Taiwan? Probably never as such, however, this is an age begging for an imperial showdown over who is top dog. People who live by and for power will do all sorts of irrational things before admitting to having lost power.

    A war to prevent the loss of power will never be proclaimed. Yet power is the one thing always worth going to war over. The Uighurs are not a meaningful symbol of power nor are the Spratly or Paracel islands. But Taiwan is a symbol of American power and a demonstration ever since Chiang Kai Shek fled the Mainland that China does not have such power.

    Taiwan is the symbol for the gain and loss of power in Asia. If Taiwan is invaded it will be a claim that China now holds the power and America has lost it. This is the stuff not just dreams are made of but great wars too.

  3. Plainly Taiwan belongs to China and it is well past time for the US to state clearly that should China invade Taiwan, the US will do nothing. The US has zero interest in Taiwan.

    By way of contrast, the US has a tremendous interest in Chinese trade and its time to close the trade door with China. Chinese imports are gutting the US economy. Time to restore the trade rules crafted by the nation’s founders, in particular Alexander Hamilton. One of the reasons Southern Racists sought to overthrow the US government in 1861 was that the very high Morrill Tariff made it expensive for the Southern Slave economy to purchase cheap foreign goods. Those tariffs are what built the US economy that fought WWI and WWII. There should be zero US factories in China, zero US investment in China, and zero goods coming from China to the US.

    Finally the US should end its human rights hypocrisy. Until the US insists Saudi Arabia legalize Christianity and open itself to Christian missionaries, the US has zero business telling other nations how to behave internally–unless of course the US wants to have other nations telling the US how to behave.

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @follyofwar
    , @Thomasina
  4. In addition to the pronoun propaganda, notice how this one’s written NYT style, with Uncle Sam’s narrative near the beginning

    Fast-forward four decades to the first weekend of President Joe Biden’s administration. Saturday, China sent eight nuclear-capable bombers and four fighter planes into the air defense identification zone of Taiwan.

    Sunday, Beijing sent 16 military aircraft into the same region.

    and the inconvenient context buried at the end

    On Sunday, a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group, led by the USS Theodore Roosevelt sailed into the South China Sea on a “freedom of navigation” exercise, the first such operation under President Biden.

    This was the same day that those Chinese bombers and fighters flew into Taiwan’s air identification zone. We need to talk.

    Maybe “we” need to walk?

    Not a chance. Washington’s attempts to run as much of the world as possible and to destroy what it can’t continue notwithstanding the last, still reeking Most Important Election Ever. The dance is as smooth as it was while the disco ball turned from Red to Blue during the 2008-9 bailout of Wall Street.

    • Replies: @Realist
  5. Neal says:

    There are many potential hotspots for conflict between us and China but I feel that Taiwan shouldn’t be one of them.
    We should encourage Taiwan to grow up, be confident and be aggressive, and take on China head on.
    We should encourage Taiwan to go nuclear.
    If Taiwan can demonstrate that it has the capability of turning Shanghai and/or Beijing into rubble within 24 hours then Taiwan has nothing to fear.
    Does China want to play a game of chicken?
    This is the same game that North Korea is playing with us so Taiwan is more than capable of playing the same game with China.
    The North Koreans are poorer, less capable and yet able to blackmail everyone for their benefits because it’s all in the attitude. When you play a madman, everyone’s scared of you. Taiwan can play the same game.

    As for a Cold War with China, this is a tough war to win. Unlike our previous nemesis, not only is China wealthier, a powerful trading nation that’s well-integrated with the global community, but their leadership cadre is also much younger and smarter. They know how to play the game better and use their money to bribe many nations to their side (especially those in Southeast Asia) so winning this conflict might take more than 50 years. We have to get ready for the long game if conflict is unavoidable. In winning this game, allies are absolutely critical. The most critical being Germany.

    The German-Chinese relationship is too cozy. We need to break this up. This is due to historical reasons. There is no historical conflict between them and even during WW2, both the communists and the nationalists use German advisors for their armies. The Chinese would rather do business with the Germans than the Japanese or Koreans, Asian-solidarity or not. Their trading relationship goes a long way back. You could say that the Germans are the Chinese’s most favorite Europeans (culturally, even the icon Bruce Lee is a product of a Chinese-German union). They get special treatment from China and the Germans reciprocated. Look at all the things the Germans get the EU to do on behalf of China (the latest being the investment agreement). This got to stop. I bet the Germans would be reluctant to break their lucrative trading relationship with China.

    On its own home court in Asia, China is able to aggressively neutralized all potential rivals. It’s using North Korea against Japan and South Korea. Intimidate Taiwan. Buy off the Philippines and Vietnam. Vietnam potentially could be our ace against China but unfortunately it’s controlled by a bunch of communists. We can’t get closer with them because their leadership also fear a regime change from us. If China falls, they will instantly be next since there are only a few Communist countries left. As for India, well, there’s the huge barrier – the Himalaya.

    In any conflict, there will be a cost associated with it. If not managed well, it could cost us everything even if we ultimately “winning” the conflict. The last global superpower (Great Britain) went to war against its rival and now it’s no longer a global superpower. Its decline in global standing has yet to reach its nadir (maybe only after Scotland declares its own independent). Winning the last conflict with the Soviet Union brought us China. We allowed China to rise. We also let Germany, Japan, South Korea, in fact, the entire world take advantage of us. Everything in the name of winning the Cold War.

    Our goal should not be just winning the Cold War with China but winning the peace also.
    If winning the next Cold War with China cost us everything like Great Britain (poorer, divided nation / Civil War), then we need to explore, if possible, an alternative to a Cold War. I don’t know what that looks like or even if it’s possible. Conflict seems unavoidable.

  6. What are we threatening? China has been under relentless attack by the US and its allies every year since the USAF fire-bombed Wuhan in 1944, leaving 40,000 dead and the city in flames for three days and nights. Seven years later, the USAF launched a biowarfare attack on Northern China and Korea. And every few years since it has embargoed or physically attacked China and Chinese properties and companies.

    When China crushed the Hong Kong democracy protests we encouraged, and imposed a new national security law on the island’s 7 million people. As with similar uprisings (Tiananmen, for example) no-one was killed or injured in the ‘crushing’ of Hong Kong’s US-paid and trained useful idiots. Now the ex-Colony has the extradition legislation it promised but failed to implement 21 years ago.

    Beijing does not believe in untrammeled freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press. She does not believe in choosing leaders by the ballot box. Nor does the US believe in untrammeled freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press. What else is new?

    China is not an egalitarian society. China’s Gini of 38% and falling makes it more egalitarian than the US (41.2% and rising).

    She does not believe in the equality of all races, religions and ethnic groups. She does not celebrate diversity but fears it. China’s constitution goes further any in guaranteeing positive discrimination towards its 37 minorities–nine of whose written languages are on Chinese currency–even in criminal cases like mass murder.

    While China steals intellectual property from U.S. factories in China. Show us one case of significant IP theft by China or a Chinese company. Just one.

    • Agree: Supply and Demand
  7. China sent eight nuclear-capable bombers and four fighter planes into the air defense identification zone of Taiwan.

    Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone: ADIZ

    😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    How dare they fly their bombers over Fujian. Do they claim Zhejiang too? China so aggressive!

    • LOL: showmethereal
  8. @Neal

    What’s with the “we, us, our”?

    Are you an arms manufacturer? A warrior employed directly by Uncle Sam? Or just a standard, gullible American who thinks that Washington is moving gunboats and bombers around a real game board in your interest?

  9. Wyatt says:

    Trump should have given Taiwan a couple of nukes. MAD that shit up and tell the Chicoms to fuck off, the dog eating bastards.

    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @GreatSocialist
  10. Rahan says:

    When China crushed the Hong Kong democracy protests we encouraged

    Crushed?

    I seem to remember first Beijing giving the local protesters lots of rope to hang themselves and they did, behaving like BLM/Antifa as opposed to normal East Asians. Vandalism, looting, arson, attacks on normal citizens.

    And even after this the “crushing” took the shape of voting in a new law and doing discreet arrests, as opposed to what places like France, Holland or Belarus do–actually “crush” protesters with relentless violence.

    That’s not “crushed”. That’s “handled as competently as possible with the least casualties”.

  11. The obvious issue nobody is talking about for obvious reasons is China being a project by the jews for a new host nation for them and a model for other countries (as to how to maximize control and better serve them).

    The jews lured USA into World War 2 to protect the chinese, Kissinger opened commercial relations with it, Goldman-Sachs and others were behind their communist revolution, many staged crises (the current flu panic, 2008 crisis, nonsensical trade wars…) which benefitted China were planned by them, they invested heavily there, married their influential families, …

    It’s a domestic threat that conspires to implode the western nations to boost China and other countries, while keeping a totalitarian and parasitic grip on the region. A mutual enemy that nobody can mention.

    • Thanks: Trinity
  12. Realist says:
    @Greta Handel

    Maybe “we” need to walk?

    Oh yes, indeed.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  13. Realist says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Nor does the US believe in untrammeled freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press. What else is new?

    Show us one case of significant IP theft by China or a Chinese company. Just one.

    Correct on both points.

  14. Realist says:

    Beijing does not believe in untrammeled freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press. She does not believe in choosing leaders by the ballot box.

    China is not an egalitarian society. She does not believe in the equality of all races, religions and ethnic groups. She does not celebrate diversity but fears it, seeing what ethnic diversity did to the Soviet Union, tearing it apart into 15 nations.

    She does not believe in racial quotas for advancement, but in a meritocracy that rewards loyalty and performance. And Chinese student test scores are among the highest in the world.

    All these points are true…and that is why China will rise far above the United States. China has also seen what ethnic diversity did to the United States.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  15. @Harry Huntington

    Sigh! One has little knowledge of American history if he thinks that “Southern Racists sought to overthrow the US government in 1861.” No overthrow was planned. Rather, the Southern States, for largely economic reasons, just wanted to peaceably secede.

    And they were in the right. The “Free and Independent States,” per the Constitution, comprised a Voluntary Union. Secession was a Legal Act. At least that was true before the Tyrant Lincoln, who was himself a Racist, took over and started his War of Northern Aggression, leaving hundreds of thousands of dead Americans in its wake.

    Otherwise, I agree that the US should have no interest “saving” Taiwan (or Hong Kong) from China. After killing millions of Middle East Muslims, Washington has no business condemning China for its treatment of its Uighur minority. With this country rapidly crumbling under its illegitimately elected democrat president, the fumbling, stumbling Biden Admin. better tend to its own garden.

    • Agree: Exile, Liberty Mike, Rurik
    • Replies: @Technomad
  16. nsa says:

    Papist Paddy is wrong, as usual. Wiggers should be tortured worldwide, especially those annoying wiggers with wretched thump-thump sound systems in their cars. Torture is too lenient for wiggers…..they should be shot on sight.

  17. Rahan says:

    Beijing /…/ does not believe in choosing leaders by the ballot box.

    Sure she does.
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Elections_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
    And this method overlaps with the one Bret Stevens of Amerika.org is trying to invent to fix the USA.

    Both Stevens, and Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, combine hilarious anti-China derangement levels with regular attempts to save the USA by “new systems” which mirror how modern China functions, but they can’t be bothered to do the research and prefer to pretend it’s some sort of yellow peril USSR 0.2.

    China is not an egalitarian society. She does not believe in the equality of all races, religions and ethnic groups. She does not celebrate diversity but fears it, seeing what ethnic diversity did to the Soviet Union, tearing it apart into 15 nations.

    China, like Soviet Russia, introduced officially mandated equality between men and women, and between the different ethnic minorities way before the West. What the GloboHomo West is doing today is not “equality” but “submission” of ethnomasohistic titular ethnicities to imported minorities. That’s different.

    China has over a 100 million ethnic minority populace
    https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China
    In Russia too over 20% of the population are minorities (probably double this if you count non-citizen working immigrants from Central Asia)
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia

    Unlike with the Western overseas empires, Russia and China are former land empires, so their ethnic minorities are not “imported” from abroad, but rather “incorporated” during gradual expansion of the land territory.
    Thus Russia and China (and Turkey, and India, etc) have been “multicultural” since forever, unlike the West. And the mechanisms of how to combine perks with assimilation are old. For example China’s ethnic minorities were exempt from the one-child policy while it was applied.

    She does not believe in racial quotas for advancement, but in a meritocracy that rewards loyalty and performance. And Chinese student test scores are among the highest in the world.

    Just like Soviet Russia (and modern Russia), China does indeed apply quotas for the advancement of its ethnic minorities and of its women.

    (In fact this economics university in Moscow https://www.hse.ru/en/
    Has promised to only take in 10% heterosexual Slavic Russian males in 2021
    https://panorama.pub/news/vshe-ustanovila-90-proczentnuyu-kvotu

    This is not the traditional Russian or Chinese minority management, but rather extreme cargo-cultism vis a vis the current Western GloboHomo situation, but it serves to illustrate that very few place today are immune.)

    Unlike Taiwan (or Russia), mainland China is immune to SUCH levels of GloboHomo, but the more trad post-imperial quotas for minorities and communist quotas for women are very much present.

    So today’s mainland China may be a “meritocracy”, but with enforced equality. Multicultural land empires and communist countries both enforce various versions of equality, and China is both. Just not in the Western “stupid goyim must die out” sense, but in the more pragmatic “maintaining overall national cohesion” sense.

    In 2020 a specific southern Chinese province will no longer assign additional university exam points to the local ethnic minorities
    https://ekd.me/2020/09/novosti-kitaya-utro-voennoe-polozhenie-iz-za-dvux-zabolevshix-na-granice-s-myanmoj-i-otmena-dopolnitelnyx-ballov-dlya-nacmenshinstv-pri-postuplenii-v-vuzy/
    This is news, because in general this is still a thing. The Chinese ethnic minorities do indeed get assigned additional examination points. Just not to the extent of dissolving the very fabric of the larger society.

    Concerning freedom of belief; in the year of our lord 2021 there are more unrestricted Christians in China than in the USA. There’s more protestants alone than in any European country
    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-most-protestant-christians.html
    And these days they are far more likely to be harassed by the authorities in the USA than in China.

    None of the above is a criticism of the overall point of Mr. Buchanan’s delightful article, merely additional clarifications from a grateful reader.

    • Replies: @Rahan
    , @Ron Unz
  18. Rahan says:
    @Rahan

    In 2020 a specific southern Chinese province will no longer assign additional university exam points to the local ethnic minorities

    “As of 2022” that is.

  19. Jimmy1969 says:

    Pat is certainly correct about the high IQ and test scores of Asians. Also they are the most racist people on the planet, allowing almost no one but slaves as immigrants. One related fact that has always surprised me though, is this: The US and its liberal media and its antifa extremist cancel culture punks jump on any minute aspect of American white Christian privilege or if any of their members are perceived as the slightest bit discriminatory towards any minority group. But what about China and Japan? And what about Israel? Leaving Israel aside, as it is too obvious an arpatheid state, what about China and Japan: two hideously racist Countries. Why can we cancel an American professor for a minor thing like supporting IQ facts, or an American business person for a minor political correct infraction but we import trillions from Japan and China and there is never a whiff of an issue?

  20. @Neal

    Do you really think that China would stand back and allow Taiwan to go Nuclear? It would be like Israel allowing Iran to do the same. The large country of Iran, however, has a much better chance of succeeding in the long run than does the little island of Taiwan.

    • LOL: GomezAdddams
  21. Kouroi says:
    @Neal

    “We should encourage Taiwan to go nuclear.” You know that goes against the Non Proliferation Treaty, do you. And that the US is hounding down Iran under the premise that Iran is seeking (not that it has acquired) nuclear weapons. As for North Korea, it has been practically cordoned with sanctions.

    But I see what you have in mind. As long as Taiwan has nukes and delivery methods, but does not declare them, all is good. Same support as to Israel can be provided, because by the US laws, it is illegal to provide aid on any form to a country that has gone nuclear against the NPT. This is what Rules Based Order means in fact – who can get away with the established rules…

  22. Ron Unz says:
    @Rahan

    China has over a 100 million ethnic minority populace…Multicultural land empires and communist countries both enforce various versions of equality, and China is both. Just not in the Western “stupid goyim must die out” sense, but in the more pragmatic “maintaining overall national cohesion” sense.

    Actually, in my opinion here’s a reasonable American model for understanding China’s current “ethnic diversity.”

    Consider America in the late 1950s, but assuming that blacks didn’t exist.

    The country would have been almost 95% white, with the non-white groups such as Eskimos, Asians, and Hispanics mostly concentrated in outlying states such as Alaska, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Puerto Rico, often having colorful local customs sometimes promoted by the national media and certainly considered “Americans” but obviously not considered a political challenge to the 95% white majority.

    • Agree: Blinky Bill, Tor597
    • Replies: @Rahan
  23. SafeNow says:

    China’s latest cutters are flat-sided and suited for “shouldering” to push other ships out of the way. Other Chinese ships are being built with double hulls, like tankers. This predilection for ramming and shouldering is at odds with the notion that China is preparing for war. If the U.S. can spare an icebreaker, maybe that’s what should be deployed rather than a carrier group.

    • LOL: nokangaroos
  24. @Realist

    She does not believe in the equality of all races

    To fully savour that accusation, 100 years ago Japan wanted that passus included in the League of Nations charter, and the US vetoed it 😛

    • Thanks: Realist
  25. @Realist

    Oh yes, indeed.

    Of course.
    But the US will never peacefully vacate the First Island Chain (However pointless and however unwelcome they are) and China will, medium-term, settle for nothing less.

    The auspices are not good.

    • Agree: Realist
  26. Technomad says:
    @follyofwar

    If all the southern states had wanted was cheap foreign goods (getting around the tariffs that had been set up for good and sufficient reasons—being heavily dependent on foreign suppliers is a Bad Thing, particularly if there’s a measurable chance you’ll be at war again with the power that controls the oceans and can cut off foreign trade to you) they could easily have smuggled them in, in bulk. The North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland coastlines are a smuggler’s wet dream—lots and lots of lonely inlets, and lots of plantations with good wharves, some of them dating to pre-Revolutionary times.

    The South seceded because they were throwing a tantrum about Lincoln being elected. Ironically enough, if they’d sat tight Lincoln could have done very little to them—the POTUS had much less power then, and since the South voted as a bloc, they could block anything that came up in Congress.

    • Disagree: follyofwar, Liberty Mike
  27. USA1943 says:

    I actually believe a True Meritocracy is best even in the USA, let everyone compete fairly and let the best get the positions, if it winds up some races are over or under represented so what? It is not an absolute and there will be exceptions of people from groups underrepresented in all fields getting in, and with a true meritocracy it will be done fair and no one could complain, if someone wants a certain position and do not get it, just work harder, or just accept it is not in the cards, I don’t know why anyone would be against a True Meritocracy?

    • LOL: sher singh
  28. @Just a regular guy

    I also think 5 years or less.

    I was banking on a date before 2030, now I am 99% sure it will be before 2025. This prediction didn’t change even with the Asian pivot, it changed from the actions of the US govt towards China in the last 2 years. And it seems the Biden administration will continue the same policies.

    • Replies: @Escher
  29. Thomasina says:
    @Harry Huntington

    “There should be zero US factories in China, zero US investment in China, and zero goods coming from China to the US.”

    Agree, but I read not too long ago that 60% of all goods coming from China to the U.S. are from the U.S. multinational corporations operating out of China. 60%!

    China was U.S.-made.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  30. We have no vital national interest in Taiwan. If China wants to invade the place and have maybe tens of thousands of their soldiers die to do it we don’t need to get in their way.

    Pat makes some important points about equality. China maybe communist on its face but it is hyper capitalistic and imperial wanting a empire of its own like any people and civilization of note that come before it with the Chinese anything but egalitarian.

    We on the other hand , or I should say the West, are obsessed with racial equality making it the “be all end all” open ended never ending issue of our time agonizing over blacks not being social economic equals. To atone for that we are empowering blacks to destroy western civilization, this country, and more of our rights like free speech for their equality. Instead of trying to make blacks equal our government should be protecting us from them and our country from further damage by them by having more of their male population imprisoned for longer periods of time with Civil Rights done away with and freedom of association restored. The government is never going to do that. We may have to do that in our own country. Then we too can go forward with advancing western civilization instead of being stuck in the morass of racial equality which western civilization was never advanced on.

  31. China is not a peaceful, humanitarian, honest country. The sophmoric level of propaganda being disseminated by paid speech pro-China propagandists is total proof that the actions that China has taken against its own citizens and neighbors are nothing short of tyrannical and abusive crimes against humanity. The Chinese propaganda game is to divert any criticism against any of China’s policies and disputes with neighboring countries, including Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunnei, Tibet, India, Vietnam, and to say, well, look at what the United States has done. It is a two wrongs make a right failed ideology. They stretch all the way back to opium wars and Gulf of Tonklin, as a diversionary tactic and delay method of being held accountable for present disputes that they are currently having with every neighbor other than Mongolia, and maybe they are having disputes with Mongolia that I am unaware of. The Chinese are claiming property that they have no legal claim to.

    Obviously, the United States should not go to war against China. It is best to continue to counter the propaganda emanating from China and to expose the propagandists for the sophmoric half wits or corrupt individuals that they are. The I know you are but what am I, and I’m rubber you’re glue, anything you say bounces off of me and sticks on to you arguments are lauchable and ridiculous.

    Why are the nations in the BRI condemned to be under the tyranny of any country that imposes demands contrary to the will of the citizens of those sovereign nations?

    Andrea Iravani

    • Troll: d dan, Mulga Mumblebrain
    • Replies: @El Dato
    , @d dan
  32. bob sykes says:

    The whole point of the 1972 Shanghai Communique was to drive a wedge between the Soviet Union and China. Nixon and Kissinger believed that even as weak as China was then, any alliance between them and the USSR would result in America’s expulsion from Asia and Europe. So, of course, now we adopt policies that force China and (the now diminished) Russia into an alliance. How very stupid Nixon and Kissinger were, how very stupid.

    As to the First Island Chain, we have already been evicted. China is the largest trading partner of each of those countries, and of South Korea, Japan, Australia… Fourteen countries in the region just signed a free trade agreement with China (RCEP) which will further integrate their economies.

    Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia will not tolerate any kind of economic blockade of China, because that will wreck their economies, too. Nor will they permit the US to enforce the blockade, because that would mean war in their own countries, and the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands of their people and the destruction of their civilian and military infrastructure. The First Island Chain countries will ally themselves with China to prevent all that.

    Of course, the EU also recently signed a mutual investment treaty with China. As of now, all of our so-called allies, except Norway and Canada, have signed economic treaties with China, furthering economic cooperation with China. Both treaties exclude the US. How stupid are our Ruling Class not see the magnitude of these defeats, and the implied realignment of the World’s alliances?

  33. On a slightly different note, did anyone else catch idiot Biden’s speech today, after which he signed several more Executive Orders? Without getting into detail, no doubt much more will be written about it tomorrow, Biden must have used the fighting words “SYSTEMIC RACISM” at least a dozen times. If Biden’s latest EO’s are not a declaration of war against White America, I don’t know how much more it will take.

    • Agree: SafeNow, NightTrain
    • Replies: @USA1943
  34. @Jimmy1969

    “What about China and Japan: two hideously racist countries.”

    So, they are hideously racist for wanting to maintain their ethnic majorities? In that case, I wish that the former white majority of the US had been a little more racist too.

    Well, I guess we showed them. By installing idiot Biden in a coup against Trump, and by the ruling democrats welcoming the rest of the world to “Come On In” and partake of our Welfare State, that at least we’re not racist like those other hideously racist East Asian countries.

    • Agree: NightTrain, Tor597
    • Replies: @NightTrain
  35. @follyofwar

    So, they are hideously racist for wanting to maintain their ethnic majorities? In that case, I wish that the former white majority of the US had been a little more racist too.

    We can show the Chinese and Japanese how morally superior we are by transforming the country into a hybrid version of a South African and South American third world shithole.

  36. El Dato says:
    @Just a regular guy

    It would be very expensive.

    Time is on mainland China’s side.

    They will just wait it out and make work around this maritime “Bastogne”.

  37. El Dato says:
    @Jimmy1969

    Also they are the most racist people on the planet, allowing almost no one but slaves as immigrants

    Good for them. They will prosper and not decay into a soggy bowl of chocolate chips morning cereal with sugar on top watched over by a disney lion.

    hideously racist

    is also pre-think for “policies my democratic mom doesn’t approve of”.

    • Agree: Exile
  38. El Dato says:
    @No Friend Of The Devil

    Such invective and for what?

    Why are the nations in the BRI condemned to be under the tyranny of any country that imposes demands contrary to the will of the citizens of those sovereign nations?

    Because the US busted the Japanese co-prosperity sphere to smithereens then let old warlord Chiang flap in the revolutionary winds even though rump nationalist China occupied several 100’000 Japanes soldiers and the population paid with a few tens of million of dead people (and that was even before the cultural revolution).

    TOUGH!

  39. Svevlad says:
    @Just a regular guy

    I’ll stick my neck out and say 2 years or even quicker.

  40. @Jimmy1969

    I think you’re misreading Buchanan’s opinion. China isn’t marred down with issues like racial equality holding them back like we are. The reality is there is no such thing as equality of behavior and culture. Blacks and whites are not equal and never were equal when it comes to their collective ability to produce civilization and maintain it, civilized behavior, and create civilized environments. People and the nations they create are not equal either and should not be treated as equals.

  41. USA1943 says:
    @follyofwar

    Biden is White Himself and with the Media covering it up, Whites will not even be aware of it, not in significant numbers anyway, and Biden or whichever Democrat will get 40-45% of the White vote in 2024 as usual and most likely win again.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  42. @Neal

    If China gave nuclear weapons to Cuba and Cuba used them against the USA, would the USA nuke China? What about Venezuela or Iran?

    It’s easy to threaten nuclear war but there’s always the possibility of retaliation. Even France could kill a third of US citizens and reduce it for years to the economic importance of Mexico. China hasn’t bothered building a nuclear force that’s more than a fraction of the USA’s but they could match the USA easily. At present, they’re a weak nuclear power like France. Do you really want to force them to change that? [email protected]

  43. USA1943 says:
    @Donald A Thomson

    Yes of course we would nuke them if they nuked us or gave nukes for some other country to do the dirty war, I think even if we went to war with China, it would mostly be a ground war for a few years, no one would want to use them if the other side had the ability to retaliate with nukes, China is not stupid enough to get in a shooting war with the USA, as The USA is just too powerful if we go all out.
    on the other hand a MAJOR WAR is one of the few things that could unify the USA as happened right after the Pearl Harbor attack.

  44. d dan says:
    @No Friend Of The Devil

    There are so many dishonest statements in your comment, which you troll in other site also. I will only pick a few random ones to reply:

    “China is not a peaceful, … country.”

    How is China not peaceful? They already have the second most powerful military in the world, and yet the last time they were involved in a war was more than 4 decades ago. They are so restrained in their use of military in any of the disputes – not just in comparison with big powers (US, Russia, UK, France, India…) but also medium powers like Australia, Israel, Italy…

    “…disputes with neighboring countries, including Hong Kong, Taiwan, …, Tibet, …”

    LOL. So Hong Kong is a country by your standard – please tell me the name of any country that recognize Hong Kong to be a country. Same for Tibet – not a single one recognizes it to be a country. As for Taiwan – every single country in the world recognizes there is only one China – it is either PRC or ROC – not a single one recognizes both. So, no, none of these are independent countries.

    “they are currently having with every neighbor other than Mongolia…”

    So you don’t know how China already settled its land disputes with most of its neighbors? You are not aware that in most of the land settlements, China actually gave up more than 50% and sometimes up to 90% of its claims (just ask Russia). This was true even for many of China’s weakest neighbors (like Laos, Myanmar,, Nepal…)

    “maybe they are having disputes with Mongolia that I am unaware of.”

    No, they don’t. You know little but assert a lot. So I am not going to refute the rest of your nonsense.

  45. Chinaman says:

    When China crushed the Hong Kong democracy protests we encouraged, and imposed a new national security law on the island’s 7 million people, what did we do?
    Basically, nothing.

    When the Deep state committed the Capitol Massacre that Trump instigated and trampled on the human rights of Ashii Babbit, what did China do? Basically, popcorns.

  46. Your way is NOT working ——National Endowment for Democracy spent 890 million and wasted 20 years in Hong Kong. Reality is that Britain crushed trade union movement in Hong Kong 1967 so stop whining about democracy and human rights. Likewise when today the very same vandalism and hooliganism is happening in Portland –Seattle–Tacoma–Balimore – Chicago–Atlanta–St Louis –and then DC —the journalists ( propagandists ) are Stating this is Anarchy—terrible –horrible–mob rule etc. Double standard. Hate to be honest but China graduates 4 million engineeers per year and they must work somewhere doing somthing useful. USA graduates journalists and fake historians and political science wizards and it all at a TOP tuition. Not adding up any more —The USA is tanking and someone is rising —I only study STEM and stats and education levels —the true indicators.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  47. @GomezAdddams

    Not adding up any more —The USA is tanking and someone is rising —I only study STEM and stats and education levels —the true indicators.

    STEM –
    ’Murka is redefining mathematics so that it is yet another symbol of white oppression.

    Stats –
    The US throws ever larger sums at multifarious “education” programs, only to see test scores go lower and lower.

    Education –
    Many ’Murkans can no longer read their college textbooks because they read at the third grade level (as was the case seemingly with our former president, whose vocabulary was at that level).

    The Confucian Analects places education at the forefront of national strength. In farcical Amurika it has become a failed exercise in social engineering.

    • Agree: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @GomezAdddams
    , @Emslander
  48. @dDan,

    Are you a CCP member? Almost every time that I criticize China, you reply and have called me a troll multiple times.

    dDan, do you know what you sound like? You sound like an Israeli. Like an Israeli that just keeps pushing the limit and the line in land grabs all along. Come to think of it, China acts exactly like one gigantic over populated Israel!

    What could possibly go wrong with BRI?

    Andrea Iravani

    • Replies: @d dan
  49. antibeast says:
    @Thomasina

    Agree, but I read not too long ago that 60% of all goods coming from China to the U.S. are from the U.S. multinational corporations operating out of China. 60%!

    Correct. Some 60% of ‘Chinese exports’ to the USA are in fact US-branded products ‘made in China’ but exported to the USA. US multinationals neither own nor operate those Chinese factories but instead ‘outsource’ the manufacturing of their ‘American’ products to Asian contract manufacturers from HK, Singapore and Taiwan who own and operate those Chinese factories to churn out ‘American’ products for the US market. A good example is HK-based Li&Fung which is the largest contract manufacturer of consumer goods in the world.

    China was U.S.-made.

    Nope. The Chinese built up China by industrializing their economy while the USA ‘outsourced’ its manufacturing industries to the world which includes China. A good example is Nike which ‘outsourced’ almost 100% of its shoe production to Vietnam, Indonesia, China, etc. Nike used to produce most of its shoes in China but has since moved more than 70% of its shoe production to Vietnam and Indonesia.

  50. @SeekerofthePresence

    You are indeed correct and this is a shame. My friends and family are upset with this reality and witnessing this downward spiral — it really begins with self respect and a thirst for knowledge and making a contribution to society—and being responsilble.

    • Agree: SeekerofthePresence
  51. Rahan says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thanks for the comment, Mr. Unz.

    One wonders what was the then-convincing rationalization behind the 1965 immigration act.

    It will help the USA influence the third world more and thus win the Cold War?
    It will help make the USA into a world center of a meta-empire?
    It will help debunk communist claims that the USA is fascist?

    What were the lawmakers thinking when they agreed to this? What historical wave did they imagine they were riding?

    Did they not see how this tied with the other mid-1960s revolutions taking place, and if they did–what were they thinking the end game was?

    • Thanks: follyofwar
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  52. Emslander says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    Legalizing marijuana is also a big help. Whatever any nation, desiring to remain strong and healthy, should refrain from enacting as policy is what we have adopted in this country since about 1973.

  53. antibeast says:

    In the 1950s, the USA had almost 50% of the world’s GDP with a population that is 90% White Middle Class and White Working Class who had good paying jobs to raise stable families in the world’s largest industrialized economy. White Americans went to work during weekdays and spent their weekends with their White families in their White communities. They went to church to hear mass, sang in the choir, attended school picnics, took care of their children and spent their vacations with their family.

    The USA fought the old Cold War against the Soviet Union which went broke overspending on its weapons industries while Soviet citizens became demoralized by their declining standard of living.

    The USA today is only 60% White and would become less than 50% White in a few decades. Trumpism is the populist movement that seeks to preserve and defend the White majority in the USA which has been marginalizing and demonizing its White population for decades. That is the new Cold War that is tearing the USA apart today.

  54. Ron Unz says:
    @Rahan

    One wonders what was the then-convincing rationalization behind the 1965 immigration act.

    It will help the USA influence the third world more and thus win the Cold War?
    It will help make the USA into a world center of a meta-empire?
    It will help debunk communist claims that the USA is fascist?

    What were the lawmakers thinking when they agreed to this? What historical wave did they imagine they were riding?

    Thanks. However, I think you’ll be *enormously* shocked to discover that the actual provisions of the 1965 Immigration Act are almost entirely misunderstood on the Internet, with almost everyone considering getting it wrong. I discussed the facts at length towards the beginning of a long article of mine two years ago which you really might want to read, and to give you a taste, here are a couple of the short paragraphs:

    Given these undeniable statistics, I would guess that 99% of anti-immigration activists currently believe that the 1965 Immigration Act was responsible for opening our borders and thereby destroying white-majority America. Ann Coulter’s best-selling screed Adios America! is filled with ferocious attacks against the 1965 Act and Sen. Ted Kennedy on exactly these grounds.

    Unfortunately, all these individuals have the facts exactly backwards and upside-down. The 1965 Act didn’t OPEN America’s borders, instead it largely CLOSED America’s borders.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-building-a-wall-and-hispanic-crime/

    • Replies: @Rahan
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    , @Rurik
  55. @USA1943

    God, I didn’t know that Biden was White! Damn that media for covering it up. And damn those stupid Whites for not being aware of it!

  56. Rahan says:
    @Ron Unz

    Excellent, I’ll check it out tomorrow!

    Together with the current GameStop and AMC gamer autist stock meltdown thing that’s apparently taking place through Reddit and the chans.

    Promises to be an interesting morning.

  57. d dan says:
    @No Friend Of The Devil

    “Are you a CCP member?”

    No. And irrelevant troll question.

    “Almost every time that I criticize China,..”

    Try to get a few basic facts correct the next time you criticize China, eg. whether Hong Kong is a country.

    “you reply and have called me a troll multiple times.”

    Because you are always trolling.

    “You sound like an Israeli. “

    I am having trouble deciding whether this is a compliment or a criticism for me. Anyway, this is irrelevant again – you are still trolling.

    “Like an Israeli that just keeps pushing the limit and the line in land grabs all along.”

    I refuted that in my last reply. See, yet another example of trolling without answering to my point.

    “Come to think of it, China acts exactly like one gigantic over populated Israel!”

    Another meaningless statement. Is this true? What does it even mean? Exhibit 3 of trolling.

    “What could possibly go wrong with BRI?”

    Of course, many things could go wrong. Again, what is the point of the question. More trolling example.

    In summary: you are a big troll – an ignorant and stupid one. Stop trolling and maybe people will forget about you.

  58. Escher says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    Wait for a wave of Taiwanese immigration to wash over the west coast of America, sending house prices even higher.

  59. Beijing does not believe in untrammeled freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press. She does not believe in choosing leaders by the ballot box.

    These days it seems almost nowhere in the world they believe in that way of choosing leaders, ruefully.

    And the same goes for the freedom of the media, again ruefully. When no-one minds the same interests getting the property of all big, and not-so-big, media, what else does it point to but “nobody really cares”?

  60. Anon99 says:
    @Neal

    I noticed a subtle shift in Pat’s article. It seems he thinks China is the last bulwark against idiocracy. Do you not agree?

  61. SafeNow says:

    In organic synthesis (“org syn” – making new medicines), the innovative part is done in the US while the fastidious “benchwork” is done by PhD‘s and their staffs in China. Neither side can do what the other is doing. Interdependence in making electronic toys is one thing, but medicines, that’s more serious. US scientists can invent a brilliant 60-step process to theoretically make a new molecule, but they can’t actually build it. Hmm ..step 19 is failing… how about a little more heat, how about a little less heat; and so on, meticulously onward. So explained a friend. It sounds right. It’s hard to have that sort of interdependence if you are in a cold or hot war.

  62. @Ron Unz

    Do you foresee a high probability of there being a major war during the next 4 years of the Biden administration? Perhaps a war with Russia, China, or Iran?

    Thanks.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Doud
  63. Rurik says:
    @Ron Unz

    This is the (notoriously progressive/liberal) Wiki page on the Hart-Celler act:

    The law abolished the National Origins Formula, which had been the basis of U.S. immigration policy since the 1920s. The act removed de facto discrimination against Southern and Eastern Europeans, Asians, and other non-Northwestern European ethnic groups from American immigration policy.

    The National Origins Formula had been established in the 1920s to preserve American homogeneity by promoting immigration from Northwestern Europe. …

    … In opening entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than Northwestern European and Germanic groups, the Act significantly altered immigration demographics in the U.S.[1]

    President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 act into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ending preferences for white immigrants dating to the 18th century.[3]

    … following the passage of the law, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed,[24][25] altering the ethnic makeup of the U.S. with increased numbers of immigrants from Africa, the Americas, Asia, and the West Indies.[2] The 1965 act also imposed the first cap on total immigration from the Americas, marking the first time numerical limitations were placed on immigration from Latin American countries, including Mexico.[2][26]

    Before 1965, immigrants to the U.S. had mostly come from Europe; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada. However, in the years 1971–1991, immigrants from Hispanic and Latin American countries made up 47.9 percent of immigrants (with Mexico accounting for 23.7 percent) and immigrants from Asia 35.2 percent.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

    If I’m not mistaken, (and we both know I very well might be ; ), the point you were making in the article is based on the emboldened text, that spells out that Hart-Celler actually restricted Latin American immigration, rather than bolstering it.

    But the way I read it (between the lines, so to speak) is that by restricting it, but codifying it (non-white immigration), it opened the flood gates.

    I see it sort of like the White Paper of 1939, written by the British government to severely restrict Jewish immigration and land acquisition in Palestine. But also to legitimize it.

    The results for the Palestinians, are the same for white Americans. We’ve both now lost our countries. Nothing is going to bring them back. It’s a fait accompli in both cases, and not ironically, master-minded by the exact same people. (and for the exact same reason; a backdoor to unilateral domination and exploitation).

    IOW, by severely restricting non-white immigration, (or Jewish immigration into Palestine), it mollified the fears (at least nominally and effectively) of the Americans, (and Palestinians respectively) to their looming replacement and disenfranchisement, by declaring that while these new immigrants will be henceforth legal, they’ll also be restricted !, So not to worry. Famous last words, and all that.

    At least, that’s sort of how I perceive it, but alas, as you know, I’m hardly any kind of scholar.

    • Thanks: follyofwar
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  64. Ron Unz says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Do you foresee a high probability of there being a major war during the next 4 years of the Biden administration? Perhaps a war with Russia, China, or Iran?

    Well, Biden brought back all the Democratic Neocons, so maybe. But I really hope not…

  65. Ron Unz says:
    @Rurik

    If I’m not mistaken, (and we both know I very well might be ; ), the point you were making in the article is based on the emboldened text, that spells out that Hart-Celler actually restricted Latin American immigration, rather than bolstering it.

    But the way I read it (between the lines, so to speak) is that by restricting it, but codifying it (non-white immigration), it opened the flood gates.

    Well, I’m not exactly sure what “codifying” means in that context…

    If Hart-Celler hadn’t been passed in 1965, any Mexican or other Latin American or Haitian who paid something like $18 and waited a day or two could have legally immigrated to the US.

    How many each year would have done so? Three million? Five million? Seven million?

    Remember, illegals generally pay thousands of dollars to get smuggled across and it’s sometimes dangerous. Paying $18 is a lot cheaper.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  66. Doud says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    War with Russia no; Russia is not Iraq or Afhganistan; Russia could turn the USA into a parking lot and would probably defeat the US in conventional war in eastern Europe; besides the US has no real casus belli to go to war with Russia; they are the worlds second most powerful military; not China either; we are too dependent on them and they would probably win a war between us and them; Iran is the most likely but Iran is a huge nation the geographic size of Alaska with 83 million people; the US is not in any fiscal shape to go to war we have a 27 trillion $ debt and a divided nation headed by a frail suptagenarian; a war with any of the three would probably be the end of the USA.

    • Replies: @gT
  67. Rurik says:
    @Ron Unz

    “codifying” means in that context…

    legalizing

    who paid something like $18 and waited a day or two could have legally immigrated to the US.

    immigrated, but not, (at least as I understand it) given residency or citizenship.

    From what I understand, residency (or even citizenship) were and are considered highly coveted and complicated things to get, back then.

    Immigrants could come in with work or tourist visas, but were not allowed to stay. Or given U.S. passports.

    Now they’re given preferential treatment over their native born white, (especially male) fellow countrymen, in just about every metric, from jobs to university slots to promotions and of course media treatment. All while white Americans are excoriated as ‘supremacists’ (and now apparently ‘domestic terrorists’) if they even hint at not being enthusiastic about the demographic and cultural and legal trends.

    Which of course is old news here at your site.

    But I was just wondering, if by making Latin American immigration and citizenship easier (legal) for a restricted few, if it wasn’t a plan all along (the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent) to alter permanently the racial character of this dying and doomed nation.

    Is it even possible, that certain people with their own agenda, could actually have been that devious?!

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  68. Ron Unz says:
    @Rurik

    immigrated, but not, (at least as I understand it) given residency or citizenship.

    From what I understand, residency (or even citizenship) were and are considered highly coveted and complicated things to get, back then.

    Immigrants could come in with work or tourist visas, but were not allowed to stay. Or given U.S. passports.

    No, that’s absolutely 100% wrong…

    All the millions of annual legal immigrants from Mexico or the rest of Latin America would have been exactly on the same legal footing with any Irish, Italian, or English immigrants. Just like any other immigrants, they would have been able to apply for full citizenship after a few years.

    You and something like 99% of all the anti-immigrant types on the Internet have spent all these years being completely taken in by a ridiculous hoax, though originally an unintentional one. The problem is that all the individuals who so severely misled you have been just too embarrassed to admit they were mistaken.

    But I’m a little irritated that you’ve been hanging around my website for years now and apparently never bothered to read any of my articles on the subject. Since this whole discussion is off-topic to this thread, instead of continuing the exchange, maybe you should now actually read my article:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-building-a-wall-and-hispanic-crime/

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @follyofwar
  69. @Godfree Roberts

    The sheer venom of the lying in the false accusations leveled against China by the cane toad-human hybrids that infest the Thanatopolis DC sewer shews clearly the race hatred that lies behind it. God ordained that the White Man MUST lead the planet, and the Six Eyes of the Anglo-Saxon Chosen People and their adored Zionist Elders will do anything to ‘..bring China down’.

  70. @Wyatt

    And what happens if China sells some nukes to Venezuela? So that South America can use them to sterilize the filthy, virus-ridden shitholes of Mar-a-fuckhole and so on?

    America has become a filthy virus-ridden shithole, that was previously raping the world thru financial fraud and committing genocide on other countries all the time, raping their peoples and stealing their God-given freedom and resources.

    America has become the Nation of Satan, and it needs to be cleansed. No wonder GOD is punishing America, just like Sodom and Gomorrah were punished before, for their Idolatry and Blasphemy.

    Soreloser Trump, Fruitcake Marjorie Taylor Greene, reptilian Ted Cruz, sweaty little Marco Rubio, Fatass Pompeo, microcephalic Tom Cotton, all these were the servants of Satan.

  71. Xi and former Chinese dictators have resorted to these bravado and intimidation tactics everytime someone new enters into office. These are showmanship, intimidation tactics, and attempts to bully America into compliance, precisely as Israel has done. China has been having disputes with almost every neighboring country for decades that have never been resolved, while China continues land grabs, power grabs, increases human rights abuses, and do not be deceived, it is China’s goal to totally overthrow the United States government, and totally destroy the entire United States economy and dollar. Every move that China makes with ANY country that China is in negotions of any type with demands total and absolute conformity to Chinese interests at the expense of the citizens of the nations that China is in negotions with, or has reached agreements with, and the demands that China places on those countries, including the United States are for those countries to sacrifice their own self interests for the benefit of China, which they call win win. Trump was already sending weapons systems to Taiwan and freedom of navigation operations have taken place for many years. What is different is Xi threatening to militarily attack any ship for any reason in waters that are not in any way internationally or legally recognized to be Chinese territory, which would be 12 nautical miles from China’s border, and they have chased fishermen from neighboring countries out of international waters, claiming rocks extremely far away from China to be Chinese land. Everyone knows this, even China. The Biden administration should be polite, but firm in reminding China that they have exercised rights that they do not have. As far as Trump and Biden arming Taiwan, I really do not know what to think of it, because Taiwan is tiny and could never defend itself against China, on the otherhand Taiwan is threatened by China. Also, autonomous zones were set up for Tibet and Xin Jiang and China demands total control, so how can that be considered autonomus? Those were international agreements, the Hans want to take over Xin Jiang, and have moved in in large numbers and have abused the Uigyur Muslims, using the same tactics that Israelis use on Palestinians. It is a Han land grab for Xin Jiang and it is totally racist. There are many extremely active Chinese propagandists on The Saker, Unz Review, Global Research, and Strategic Culture Foundation, and there are bound to be many more that I am not aware of. They attempt to intimidate Americans into compliance with Chinese policies in the disinterests of Americans and nations in the BRI. Sputnik News cricicizes China, but American and Scottish propagandists on Sputnik Radio act as though they are being paid by the CCP. I am not exagerating. There is an enormous gap in China policy between Sputnik Radio and Sputnk News. It is hard to believe that the Radio Show hosts are even reading the news on the Sputnik Website! I think that Putin has become disenchanted with China, not hostile, but distanced. The relations appeared to have deteriorated to a degree. That is not a bad thing. China wants to rule the world unilaterally. They have made that totally clear. They talk about multi-polar, but they act like uni-polar. It appears that commenter @dDan is a CCP member because he is a single issue commenter, only commenting to people that dispute China’s paid speech propaganda.

    Andrea Iravani

    • Disagree: GomezAdddams
    • Replies: @antibeast
    , @gT
  72. Altai says:

    Why? Perhaps because incoming Secretary of State Antony Blinken in his confirmation hearings said that President Donald Trump “was right” to take a “tougher approach to China.”

    Blinken is a turbo-Zionist who has realised that the insane interventions needed to protect Israel from facing reality for it’s actions requires the US to be undisputed power in order to fulfill it’s new highest role as Israel’s golem.

    Sadly people like Blinken also really hate the working classes in America, in part because of their non-chosenness and thus have hollowed out the country and pushed mass migration, causing total political grid-lock as needed political realignments to make it’s Democracy function under these new conditions are impeded. In the process of industrial relocation, they have made China the future dominant power in material sciences and manufacture, which will eventually lead to it having the most powerful economy and military in the world as America sinks into an intractable sociopolitical mire like Brazil or Italy.

    Will China do much against Israel? Not likely, will they do much against Israel’s enemies? Not likely. And that is an intolerable state of affairs. The neocons don’t know how to make friends, only enemies. China may increasingly look unfavourably on the US and it’s destabilising interventions in the Middle East and it may have the influence to make it stop.

    Will prosperity eventually lead China down the same level of social decline from too much tolerence for foreigners causing mass migration? Maybe, Japan doesn’t seem to indicate that this is very likely. Future Blinkens won’t be able to migrate to China and influence it’s policy through upward mobility.

  73. Commenter d dan says that he is not a CCP member, but out of
    807 comments on this website, all but 25 comments were not about China, or did not include China in the comment. If d dan is not a CCP member, why is he doing this? He insiuates that he is an American citizen in one comment on Obama stating “our president.” So, is 
    @d dan a bot, or an overpaid and totally unnecessary U.S. counterinell psyop whose position should be eliminated for being a complete waste of tax payer funds? @d dan has even followed me on to The Saker website to troll me. It is imposdible to believe that any U.S. citizen would have such a tunnel vision focus on China, particularly when all of the comments are rabidly pro-China, and not a single one of his comments is critical of China in any way at all, except for one inadvertant admission of China’s hypocrisy and double standards, revealed here:

    [MORE]

    @d dan says:
    September 28, 2019 at 6:44 pm GMT
    @Anon
    “…china is for the chinese and not for the anglo saxons…”

    On the contrary, many foreigners are working and grow rich in China. For example, US corporations alone have make trillions out of China in the past few decades.

    https://www.unz.com/article/corruption-in-china/

    https://www.unz.com/comments/all/page/13/?commenterfilter=d%20dan

    Here is a summary of @d dan comments that are not specific to China. :

    One comment on Julian Assange.
    Three comments critical of MAGA.
    Two commemts regarding U.S. military pull out from Germany.
    Three comments on issues of race and white supremacy.
    One comment on Nobel prize LED blue lights.
    Two comments on IQ in relation to race.
    Two comments on U.S. troop evacuation from Iraq.
    Two comments on U.S. troop evacuation from Syria.
    Two comments on CIA activity.
    Three comments on U.S. social media and technlogy companies.
    Two comments on DACA.
    Three comments on forced racial revisionist policies.

    Thank you for this comment @d dan:
    https://www.unz.com/pescobar/the-julian-assange-trial-the-mask-of-empire-has-fallen/

    d dan says:
    September 19, 2020 at 4:37 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @m___
    “Difference in resources of the parties considered does efface the example as valid. Could be a Snowden option?”

    I hope some rich guys could donate enough money to bribe security guards to get Assange to escape, a.k.a. Carlos Ghosn’s style, preferably paste a “f – – k you” note in the prison cell before he leave.

    Andrea Iravani

    • Thanks: d dan
  74. antibeast says:
    @No Friend Of The Devil

    You must have watched too much gay porn while attending Harvard which makes your White Azz itch for some BBC. Before you jerk off here, make sure you turn off the lights.

  75. anon[901] • Disclaimer says:

    I prefer a complete decoupling: bring back all our manufacturing, repatriate all current or former Chinese citizens in the US, and stop issuing any and all visas to visitors from China, no more students, investors, researchers, workers or businessmen, not even tourists.

    In fact, do that with India as well.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  76. Rurik says:
    @Ron Unz

    discussion is off-topic

    I’ll try to make this quick

    But I’m a little irritated that you’ve been hanging around my website for years now and apparently never bothered to read any of my articles on the subject.

    I’ve been hanging around your website because (do to your efforts) it is – hand’s down- the best website on the Internet. Can you blame me?

    And I did read and post comments to the article at the time.

    Rurik:

    Immigrants could come in with work or tourist visas, but were not allowed to stay. Or given U.S. passports.

    Mr. Unz:

    No, that’s absolutely 100% wrong…

    All the millions of annual legal immigrants from Mexico or the rest of Latin America would have been exactly on the same legal footing with any Irish, Italian, or English immigrants. Just like any other immigrants, they would have been able to apply for full citizenship after a few years.

    this simply isn’t consistent with what I find concerning Latin American immigrants pre-Hart-Celler.

    From 1942 to 1964, the Bracero Program allowed millions of Mexican citizens to enter the United States temporarily to work on farms, railroads, and in factories.

    [my emphasis]

    https://www.thoughtco.com/the-bracero-program-4175798

    from what I’ve glimmered, pre-1965 America did not allow for unlimited immigration from Latin America or the Caribbean.

    Only a limited number were allowed in, and those were considered temporary workers, not future citizens.

    As Operation Wetback more or less demonstrated.

    If I’m mistaken in that, then you can be 100% assured that I will admit it, openly and profusely, as I’ve done in the past, when I’ve been shown to be in error.

    From the link:

    prompted many Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. illegally. By the time the program ended in 1964, the number of Mexican workers who had entered the U.S. illegally surpassed the nearly 5 million legally-processed braceros.

    If Latin Americans and Caribbeans were allowed t0 legally immigrate in unlimited numbers, (and then presumably to seek citizenship) then there would be no such thing as an illegal immigrant from Mexico pre-1965. But according to what I find, that wasn’t the case.

    Anyways, for what it’s worth.

    (Not to irritate our host ; )

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  77. Rurik says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    God ordained that the White Man MUST lead the planet,

    the White Man doesn’t lead anything today

    he’s a shadow of his former self, and vanishing into obscurity, as his nations are overrun, and his governments treat him like an enemy in the lands he was born in.

    But what of this imperative to ‘lead’.

    Did God ordain that Taiwan MUST always be ruled by China?

    Did God Himself ordain that China must always have sovereignty over the Spratly Islands? Or its Muslim minorities in the west?

    This isn’t about the (rapidly dying out) White Man, but rather The Unilateral power ruling the West and beyond. The Unilateral Power, by its very nature, does not like to share power. Anymore than China wants to share power with its neighbors or anyone else, over what it considers China’s sovereign territory.

    The China brouhaha is simply two powers; the Unilateral Power, (or Fed/ECB), vs. China, vying for hegemony and ascendancy in what they both consider their purviews.

    If you want to bring the ‘White Man’ into it, the only lands he rules today are in Russia and Eastern Europe, and I hardly see him wringing his hands over China’s ascendancy.

    The ‘White Man’ in the West, is nothing more than an emasculated and rapidly diminishing Janissary of ZOG (the Unilateral Power / Fed/ECB)

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  78. @Ron Unz

    Mr. Unz, I’m fairly new to your site and certainly don’t wish to irritate you. But it seems to me that Rurik’s argument is on solid ground. In fact, your fascinating observations on the 1965 Act are the first I’ve heard refuting the general consensus that Hart-Celler opened the floodgates to immigration from the Third World at the expense of Europeans. Fifty-five years after LBJ signed it into law, and with Euro-Americans soon to become a minority in the US, it seems to me that the proof is in the pudding.

    Nonetheless, I plan on reading your article in the near future. I always strive to be open minded. The discussion between you and Rurik was enlightening, and provided much food for thought.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Rurik
  79. Ron Unz says:
    @Rurik

    from what I’ve glimmered, pre-1965 America did not allow for unlimited immigration from Latin America or the Caribbean.

    Only a limited number were allowed in, and those were considered temporary workers, not future citizens.

    Well, your ignorant “glimmering” is 100% wrong. Commenters like you just browse around the Internet and social media, rant and rave about various things, but never seriously research a topic. It naturally irritates me that people don’t take my word for things I’ve carefully investigated, or have even bothered to read my various articles on the subject.

    As Operation Wetback more or less demonstrated….If Latin Americans and Caribbeans were allowed t0 legally immigrate in unlimited numbers, (and then presumably to seek citizenship) then there would be no such thing as an illegal immigrant from Mexico pre-1965. But according to what I find, that wasn’t the case.

    No, you’re 100% wrong, but you’ve highlighted one of the issues that has confused you and 99% of other immigration-activists on the Internet for decades.

    Although it was cheap and easy for unlimited numbers of Latin Americans to legally immigrate to the US during those decades (and then become citizens), the immigration laws anyway weren’t seriously enforced. So although Mexicans could pay $18 and permanently move to the US, lots of Mexicans who were poor or impatient didn’t even bother with the fee or the paperwork, and just crossed the border illegally.

    Usually, those illegals were fine since nobody cared. But every now and then, including during the 1930s and the 1950s, the government cracked down and rounded up and deported them in something like Operation Wetback.

    That’s the difference between “glimmering” and “knowing”…

    • Replies: @Rurik
  80. Ron Unz says:
    @follyofwar

    In fact, your fascinating observations on the 1965 Act are the first I’ve heard refuting the general consensus that Hart-Celler opened the floodgates to immigration from the Third World at the expense of Europeans. Fifty-five years after LBJ signed it into law, and with Euro-Americans soon to become a minority in the US, it seems to me that the proof is in the pudding.

    Sure, just like I said 99% of the information on the Internet is dead-flat-wrong on this subject.

    Just go ahead and read my article, or check into any solid academic source.

  81. Rurik says:
    @Ron Unz

    It naturally irritates me that people don’t take my word for things I’ve carefully investigated, or have even bothered to read my various articles on the subject.

    I have nothing but respect and admiration for your scholarship and erudition. And your articles are indeed masterpieces of research and investigation. I’ve read many of them (if not most!), and generally am in awe. Not only of your exhaustive research, but your integrity and intellectual fortitude in seeking out the truth.

    However, that said, when it comes to the issue of immigration, I do suspect that we enjoy a gaping chasm vis-a-vis our respective perspectives. Perhaps expeciallly as it seems that Latin American immigration (among others) into the U.S. has now permanently altered the political landscape towards the forces of bigger government, for the foreseeable future.

    Although it was cheap and easy for unlimited numbers of Latin Americans to legally immigrate to the US during those decades (and then become citizens),

    This is the sticking point for me, and I don’t recall your articles on the subject to fully flesh-out this issue. (pre-1965 immigration, its trends and legality).

    If you’re right, (and I agree you reliably are ; ), then by all means, I concede the issue, with gratitude and yet another edification here at your site for which I’m eternally indebted.

    I suppose the problem I have, is if “it was cheap and easy for unlimited numbers of Latin Americans to legally immigrate to the US during those decades (and then become citizens)..”

    Then why would the governments of Mexico and the U.S. bother with something like the Bracero program’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_program

    in order to facilitate the “temporary” movement of Mexicans across the border for the purposes of temporary, seasonal jobs?

    If they could have simply walked over the border, taken jobs or not, according to their whims, and then either decided to stay and become citizens, or go home, as the case may be.

    I vaguely remember reading an article by Pat Buchannan, many years ago, when he mentioned that offering Winston Churchill U.S. citizenship, was a high honor, not lightly offered to just anyone during those days. And it just seems to me rather curious that back in the fifties and sixties, that Mexicans and Latin Americans were able to get it so easily, by simply walking in, or even paying the $18.

    Now, all that said, I’m not trying to irritate you. Just trying to glimmer what my admittedly limited cognitive machinery is capable of absorbing. And, I do suspect, (not know, but suspect) that there are others lurking out there, that would also benefit from the – (exasperating as it may be)- indulgence of your knowledge on the issue.

    Thank you,

    (as Rurik braces for another onslaught of [perhaps justified] abuse ; )

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  82. Rurik says:
    @follyofwar

    The discussion between you and Rurik was enlightening, and provided much food for thought.

    Thanks follyofwar,

    It has happened before, when I’ve troubled our host to the edge of his patience, that he gets exasperated, and then hurls out knowledge that would otherwise be tucked away in that synaptic labyrinth, (along with some mild invective ; ) – assuming perhaps, that the (occasionally pedestrian) readers of his site are as astute as he and his academic peers are, but then we’re all the winners for it, except for the patience and blood pressure of our host.

    • Thanks: follyofwar
  83. Ron Unz says:
    @Rurik

    Then why would the governments of Mexico and the U.S. bother with something like the Bracero program’…in order to facilitate the “temporary” movement of Mexicans across the border for the purposes of temporary, seasonal jobs?

    That’s because Mexicans were extremely poor back then, especially farm laborers, and $18 was very serious money to them. That’s also why many of them came illegally. And anyway almost all of them were just interested in coming to work for a year or two and then going home again, so the $18 would have been wasted.

    Another factor was that there were American laws against recruiting foreign workers to come here. Mexicans could immigrate individually if they wanted, but it was illegal for an American to go down there and bring a group of them in. So farmers got the government to establish the Bracero program to do exactly that.

    And it’s obviously not your fault that you’ve been misled by the 99% of immigration-oriented websites that have had their facts entirely wrong for decades. What irritated me was that it seemed you hadn’t bothered reading any of my past own articles that set the matter straight.

    • Replies: @Anon
  84. Rurik says:

    it seemed you hadn’t bothered reading any of my past own articles that set the matter straight.

    I had, and the one you linked to in particular, but that doesn’t mean I always absorb it all.

    Thank you for expounding on the issue.

    I still think we’re on the opposing sides of the immigration issue, but not because either one of us is wrong or misguided, but simply because of our respective perspectives, as I personally am gloomy for an American future that I suspect will not bode well for people who look, sound and act like my extended relatives, who’re now going to be targeted (IMHO) by this government for characteristics they were born with. And I put that down to whites becoming a (resented and hated) minority.

    Nevertheless, thank you again for your patience and indulgence.

    • Agree: follyofwar
  85. Anon[223] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    My understanding on the demographic change narrative is not so much malicious intention or any push to make America minority white, but that White fertility fell very low in the 60s, and Black fertility remained fairly high until mass incarceration and welfare reform. So worries about that, combined with economic incentive from businesses, pushed Congress tried to renew European immigration, while ending the open borders policy with Mexico and Canada as a concession to the anti-immigration folks.

    Then, it ended up being not Whites, but Hispanics, Asians, and Arabs, and since those still tend to be fairly productive people, it had the desired effect of largely increasing the economy and stave off urban collapse. For all of America’s faults, it is a 21 trillion dollar economy, and that is a huge incentive for continuing immigration.

    However, I think the problem people have is that most immigration supporters these days often gloat about things like making Whites a minority(Biden is on video gloating that Whites will be a minority by 2040), and promoting horrible immigrant groups(Biden had made undoing the travel ban on the MiddleEast/Africa a cornerstone of his campaign until COVID and BLM), so they naturally assume that the Congress of the 1960s had malicious intentions.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  86. SafeNow says:

    “Well, Biden brought back all the Democratic Neocons, so maybe. But I really hope not…”
    – Ron Unz, responding to a question asking him his view on the probability of war with China, Russia or Iran

    I do worry about nuclear war ensuing from the political factor that Ron Unz mentioned, but incompetence/miscalculation/systems-error is also worth mentioning. There have been so many mess-ups lately, including in the military. With nuke safety, the proficiency standard is “perfect” execution. A Fauci “glitch” is tragic enough when it involves the pandemic; when nukes are involved….

    • Agree: SeekerofthePresence
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  87. Mr. Buchanan – you started out well – but then lost the plot. The Communists didn’t “invade” nor “annex” Tibet in 1950. All it did was bring the region back under the Chinese government as had been for centuries. The same government that Carter severed from in Taipei, Taiwan also claimed Tibet as part of their Republic of China. That same government in Taipei, Taiwan also claimed the islands of the South China Sea as a part of the Republic of China. US officials were involved in Japan relinquishing them to her in the Treaty of Taipei… Facts of history.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  88. @Neal

    Ummmmm – China fought battles against nuclear armed Soviet Union under threat of being bombed. China fought the US in Korea under threat of being bombed with atomic weapons. Why do you think they would be scared to fight “Taiwan” if it were nuclear armed????

    Aside from the silly notions you brought up – I just want to know how you answer that one.

  89. Ron Unz says:
    @Anon

    My understanding on the demographic change narrative is not so much malicious intention or any push to make America minority white, but that White fertility fell very low in the 60s, and Black fertility remained fairly high until mass incarceration and welfare reform. So worries about that, combined with economic incentive from businesses, pushed Congress tried to renew European immigration, while ending the open borders policy with Mexico and Canada as a concession to the anti-immigration folks.

    I tend to doubt that analysis. I don’t think that white fertility began sharply declining until the 1970s, and even then there was a huge MSM scare about overpopulation. In the early 1960s, nobody on either side of the political aisle paid much attention to immigration on way or the other, so the 1965 Act passed with huge bipartisan majorities but was mostly considered symbolic. Here’s a long comment I left on the subject in late 2019:

    The whole “1965 Immigration Act” nonsense is probably one of the biggest hoaxes pandemic in rightwing circles. Actually, it’s not really a “hoax” but just an honest mistake that somehow got into circulation decades ago and has proved very difficult to correct. The really amusing thing is that it was the 1965 Immigration Act that legally CLOSED our border with Mexico, so rightwingers should be endlessly praising Hart and Celler as America’s greatest national heroes. I discussed the facts in a long article earlier this year:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-building-a-wall-and-hispanic-crime/

    The whole history really isn’t very complicated. Asian immigration had been pretty much banned long before the 1920s, so the 1924 Act was aimed at sharply restricting Southern and Eastern Europeans, whose huge influx had become very worrisome to “Old Stock” (mostly Anglo-Saxon) Americans. Meanwhile, Southwestern business interests wanted to keep their supply of unlimited cheap labor, so Mexico and Latin America were entirely exempted from any 1924 restrictions.

    For decades afterward, Jews, Italians, Irish, and other European immigrant groups fumed at their 1924 political defeat at the hands of the Anglo-Saxons and ceaselessly worked to overturn the law and reopen European immigration. JFK was our first Irish president, and just before he ran, he’d published A Nation of Immigrants, praising immigration and (I think) suggesting that the 1924 law be repealed, which was one of the things his administration was working on when he was assassinated.

    Immigration was about as burning a political issue among 1960s rightwingers as transgenderism was among 1960s leftists…

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/elevating-excellent-commenters/#comment-3633304

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
  90. dfordoom says: • Website
    @SafeNow

    I do worry about nuclear war ensuing from the political factor that Ron Unz mentioned, but incompetence/miscalculation/systems-error is also worth mentioning.

    The scary thing about our elites is not that they’re vicious, greedy and corrupt. You expect that. The really scary thing about our elites is that they’re also idiots. They’re perfectly capable of bungling their way into a nuclear war.

    I don’t just mean our political elites. If you look at the corporate sector, the bureaucracy, the foreign policy establishment and the military you really are dealing with very stupid people. What makes them especially dangerous is that they have no idea that they’re stupid.

    • Agree: SeekerofthePresence
  91. antibeast says:
    @anon

    I prefer a complete decoupling: bring back all our manufacturing, repatriate all current or former Chinese citizens in the US, and stop issuing any and all visas to visitors from China, no more students, investors, researchers, workers or businessmen, not even tourists.

    With Trump withdrawing the USA out of the TPP but retaining the USA as part of the USMCA, regionalization of supply-chains will now see more ‘offshore’ manufacturing relocating from China and ‘reshoring’ to factories in Mexico to serve the US market. That implies that the US-China economic ‘decoupling’ which has been going on for the past ten years will now hasten the US-Mexico economic ‘integration’ across the whole US Southwest and Northern Mexico made possible by Trump’s new USMCA.

    As for Chinese tourists, students, immigrants, investors, entrepreneurs and companies, they won’t even bother with the USA.

    In fact, do that with India as well.

    What you’ll most likely see are millions of Indian workers going to the USA on H1-B visas to take over white-collar professional jobs which used to be the domain of native-born, college-educated White Americans while tens of millions of Mexican illegals will be legalized to become US citizens so they could turn into the next voting bloc of the US Democratic Party

    To paraphrase the old saying: hasta la vista, gringos!

  92. @Ron Unz

    Do you have any thoughts on the GameStop issue?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  93. @Rurik

    Rurik, it’s a matter of definition. I see the ‘White Man’ as Western, European, ‘Judeo-Christian’ (what a sad, sick, joke)ELITES, led, or driven on, by the Anglo-Saxon Five Eyes and their Elder Brothers in Israel and the worst members of the Judaic Diaspora. As far as I am concerned ‘White’ means Europeans, including ‘Hispanics’ and various northern Indians etc but that group can be sub-divided into Hispanics, Mediterraneans, Anglos, Aryans, Scandinavians, Slavs etc, etc, etc. Obsession with ‘race’, in my opinion, is just ‘Divide and Rule’ tactics and strategy bearing fruit. We’re all in this ie ecological collapse, rabid Western oligarch greed, demented global Imperial misrule, hideous inequality, poverty and misery, etc, together.

  94. Ron Unz says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Do you have any thoughts on the GameStop issue?

    Not really. But I’ve always thought that a strong stiff Tobin Tax, maybe running at 1%, would greatly reduce many of the negative aspects of all this Wall Street Casino-Capitalism.

    • Replies: @Anon
  95. @Donald A Thomson

    Only a ‘small’ ‘nuclear exchange’ would end human ‘civilization’ through a nuclear winter.

  96. @showmethereal

    China liberated Tibet in 1950 from medieval and brutal theocratic despotism, and introduced healthcare, education, literacy, electricity and female emancipation, while ending serfdom. How ‘tyrannical’.

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
    • Replies: @showmethereal
  97. gT says:
    @Doud

    The US can’t go to war no more. The core of its army are good old Southern White boys, and they are 100% Republican. So following Biden to war, especially after he stole the elections, is not going to happen. Biden can try his luck with his diversity recruits, but they have no cohesion so will break when the going gets tough.

    With the chair force and navy on the other hand Biden might get lucky, they are generally higher IQ democrats. So the best Biden can achieve is some bombings.

    And yes, the US has no money no more.

  98. gT says:
    @No Friend Of The Devil

    Yep, China wants to take over this planet. And they are attempting it via Soviet methods which the Soviets never really got around to implementing, with some refinements and modifications. Not very original.

    [MORE]

    “It was stated by Gregori T. Giko, Soviet Finance Minister, in a
    book recently published in the United States by him: “The five
    year plan is an important part in the offensive of the proletariat
    of the world against capitalism; it is a plan tending to undermine
    capitalistic stabilization; it is a great plan of world revolution.”
    The people of our country will never know the terrible price that
    is being paid by the Russian workers in order to make possible the
    successful culmination of this communist economic offensive.
    Laboring men in Russia are slaves, denied full rations and proper
    clothing in order that these commodities can be dumped on our
    shores in competition with American industry. Their strategy is
    based upon the knowledge that the greater the number of unemployed
    in America the more fertile the field for their propaganda.”
    – 1938 – Hidden Empire – William Pelley.pdf

    So in other words, dumping cheaper goods onto Western markets in order to undermine and bring own the West. So its Communists using Capitalist methods to bring down the Capitalists, and China learnt a lot from the Capitalist experiences of the Asian tigers and Japan. And now, while non-Communist Russia wants to live in peace with the USA, and just wants to persuade the USA not to get involved in other people’s affairs all the time, Communist China just wants to replace the USA. Communist China does not have a problem working her people to death or polluting her environment to death in order to bring down the USA. Peaceful co-existence with China will only happen after the USA is dead, and then China will turn her attention to other countries who don’t want to purchase her trinkets and / or supply her with raw materials.

    And yes, these CCP trolls are everywhere, and are encouraged by western website owners. Meanwhile in China free speech is not allowed, by either locals or foreigners, not that many foreigners would even want to learn Chinese and / or participate on Chinese websites. Any locals saying anything anti-CCP there get disappeared.

    I’ve never seen an anti-Chinese Chinese commentator anywhere, pro-Chinese pro-CCP Chinese commentators on the other hand are everywhere.

    Western website owners are such suckers.

    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @antibeast
    , @Deep Thought
  99. Anon[223] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    While a Tobin Tax is a good idea, I have think that indexing the corporate tax rate to social metrics in the United States, such as the crime rate as an example, would alleviate the social and economic problems that the country currently faces.
    The problem is that lots of our business people would like to solve our national problems, but a free rider problem becomes apparent, in that no one wants to be the first to do something. They would also like a smaller tax rate. Thus, indexing the corporate crime rate to social metrics in some way give the business community some incentive to improve this country, and lower their tax burden as a victory.

  100. @gT

    The US can’t go to war no more….

    And yes, the US has no money no more.

    Broke Down Country Song

  101. antibeast says:
    @gT

    So in other words, dumping cheaper goods onto Western markets in order to undermine and bring own the West. So its Communists using Capitalist methods to bring down the Capitalists, and China learnt a lot from the Capitalist experiences of the Asian tigers and Japan.

    Since the GFC 2008, China has restructured its economy away from export industries to focus on its domestic market. China is getting out of the ‘export processing’ trade, much of which has relocated to other lower-cost developing countries.

    • Replies: @gT
  102. dfordoom says: • Website
    @gT

    The US can’t go to war no more. The core of its army are good old Southern White boys, and they are 100% Republican.

    In the next few years conservatives will be purged from the military, and from police forces.

  103. @gT

    Yep, China wants to take over this planet. And they are attempting it via Soviet methods which the Soviets never really got around to implementing, with some refinements and modifications. Not very original.

    China wants to stop Amelika taking over this planet and make it into “one big reservation for the indigenous nations around the globe”. China is doing it in a way very different from that of the Soviet method, which failed miserably.

    [MORE]

    [Although some observers believe that the ongoing tensions between the US and China are just a power struggle, it is very naive to dismiss the fact that race plays a significant role in the former’s strategic approach toward the latter.

    “The idea is to knock out China as an economic rival, to ‘colonize’ China and make Chinese industry work for us. Racism and xenophobia is not the source of the problem – but a useful tool to demonize China,” Professor Alfred Maurice de Zayas, a former UN consultant, said during an interview this writer conducted for Asia Times in May.

    Although it may sound controversial to some US apologists, it was reported in April last year that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s team had been preparing a strategy for China based on an idea rooted in racial differences between the two countries.

    “This is a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology, and the United States hasn’t had that before,” Kiron Skinner, the former director of policy planning at the State Department, said in 2019 at a security forum in Washington.]

    [In fact, this approach should not come as a surprise, as the ongoing racial tensions in the US, started by the brutal killing of George Floyd by police officer Derek Chauvin, have exposed the true colors of the nation, which built its might on the back of slaves from Africa brought to a land formerly belonging to indigenous peoples who were now residing in reservations and had no real influence in the land taken from them.

    The white supremacist identity, which gave birth to the so-called “New World,” appears to be the US modus operandi not only in its internal dealings with non-Caucasian inhabitants (including Asian-Americans), but also external conduct toward countries like the Middle Kingdom.]

    [Failure to recognize this reality by China, or to think that the desire to destabilize the country is limited only to President Donald Trump’s administration, may be the beginning of the end of the only superpower that can prevent the US from turning rest of the world into one big reservation for the indigenous nations around the globe.]

    https://asiatimes.com/2020/07/china-needs-realism-not-wishful-thinking-on-us/

    • Replies: @gT
  104. gT says:
    @antibeast

    Nice try. China wants to reduce the role of international trade in its economy and strengthen its domestic economy, so external circulation and internal circulation if you wish. This is the Dual Circulation Policy of China’s 14’th Five Year plan, 2021 – 2025. (Notice the Five Year Plan as in the Hidden Empire pdf quoted above). China wants complete economic self reliance but not quite, because China also wants to tighten the dependence of the international industrial supply chain on China.

    So while China wants to be less dependent on the rest of the world, they also want the rest of the world more dependent on China. And the rest of the world isn’t going to be given much choice in this matter.

    best viewed in full screen mode, enjoy

    https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/china-is-terrified-of-economic-decoupling/

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
    , @antibeast
  105. @gT

    And that is WHY the “Five-eye race” is so terrified of the rise of China, a nation of a Non-Caucasian race!!!

    [MORE]

    [“Containment” in this context means obstructing China’s rise. The strategy is based on the theory that the US needs a weak China to continue its hegemony in Asia. It is to be accomplished by “establishing military, economic and diplomatic ties with countries adjacent to China’s borders, frustrating China’s own attempt at alliance building and economic partnerships, and the utilization of tariffs, sanctions and lawfare.”

    These are all clearly elements of the present US policy – and have been for some time. But for years, American foreign-policy officials and echoing pundits claimed the US was not trying to contain China and that it wanted China “to succeed and prosper.”

    This and similar sentiments were the consistent rhetoric of Barack Obama’s administration, including from Obama himself. Anyone having the temerity to suggest otherwise – including China itself – was berated by US officials and empathetic pundits.]

    [But to the contrary, the newly released document reveals that the US intent was to “devise and implement a defense strategy capable of … denying China sustained air and sea dominance inside the ‘first island chain’ in a conflict; defending the first island chain nations including Taiwan; and dominating all domains outside the first island chain.”

    In other words, the US intends to contain China in order to maintain its hegemony in the region, including, in particular, in the East China and South China Seas. This explains the more aggressive behavior there by the US in the Trump era.]

    [Even worse than the lies, the policy was apparently formulated based on cultural bias rather than objective logic. In May 2019, the State Department’s director of policy and planning at the time, Kiron Skinner, said US competition with China would be especially bitter because “it’s the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian.”

    She also said the US struggle with China was uniquely “a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology.”]

    [In her view, China was a “fundamental threat” and there was no hope for cooperation – only a “struggle for domination and thus survival.”…]

    [To many, this was just another episode of American duplicity, hypocrisy and inconsistency. Its future avowed foreign-policy positions will be considered in this light.]

    https://asiatimes.com/2021/01/us-reveals-true-intent-of-its-indo-pacific-policy/

    • Agree: showmethereal
  106. antibeast says:
    @gT

    This whole ‘meme’ of China somehow causing the ‘deindustrialization’ of the USA is complete nonsense given the fact that the vast majority of so-called ‘Chinese’ exports to the USA consists mostly of US goods manufactured in China but exported to the USA. Chinese contract factories custom-make but don’t legally own those US products. The fact that those so-called ‘Chinese’ exports such as Apple’s iPhones, HP and DELL PCs, Nike shoes, Levi’s jeans, Gap t-shirts, etc. are manufactured in China does not turn them into Chinese goods per se because they’re in fact US products legally owned and imported by US multinationals to the US market.

    But China is already getting out of this ‘outsourcing’ business as Chinese manufacturers have turned to designing, manufacturing and marketing their own Chinese branded-products to the Chinese market. Nike, for example, used to produce 90% of its shoes in China but have since relocated 70+% of its shoe production to Vietnam and Indonesia while retaining the rest in China to serve the domestic market where Chinese brands have been gaining market share against Western brands. After succeeding in their home market, Chinese manufacturers themselves have now gone global by establishing factories in developing countries to sell to export markets.

    Most developing countries lack the industrial infrastructure such as power and energy, roads and bridges, highways and railroads, airports and seaports, etc. that China has built over the last few decades to become the world’s leading manufacturing country. India, for example, lacks the industrial infrastructure to assume China’s prior role as the ‘factory of the world’. Ditto for most developing countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa. That’s the impetus behind China’s BRI which seeks to build the much-needed infrastructure to connect BRI countries to the globalized economy.

    That’s what China means by its ‘dual-circulation’ economic strategy: 1). Chinese manufacturers serving the Chinese domestic market, and 2). Chinese manufacturers relocating their factories to lower-cost developing countries to serve export markets. At home, the rising costs of labor have forced Chinese manufacturers to consolidate, automate and integrate their production lines with robots, IoT, AI, Cloud Computing, etc. to serve the domestic market while relocating labor-intensive factories to lower-cost developing countries to serve export markets.

  107. gT says:
    @Deep Thought

    Dude, those guys at the AsiaTimes must be smoking some really weird weed.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  108. @gT

    The 5-eyers must have taken radioactive substance for medicine. Otherwise, they would have 2 eyes like the rest of us! ;-D

  109. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Yes indeed. Though I’m shocked that even on this site – people are fooled into thinking Tibet was some fairy tale kingdom where everyone just picked flowers and smiled all day – until the evil Chinese took them over. It’s beyond laughable. Hollywood really fools people.

  110. Chech out USA car manufacturers –closing 3 plants –can not source semi conductors made in China. MAGA is a farce—like the great wall USA/Mexico—- covid is just like the flu—drain the swamp – –Palestinians should be removed from their historic homeland— pardoning criminals —Debt sky high-Proud boys declared terrorist organization in Canada —450,000 knocking on heaven’s door—containers stacked with export grains stacked up in Western port cities —-Portland and Seattle having democracy Rule riots —police being defunded —-where the HELL is that damned miracle–anyone ???

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?