Connect with us

Americas

Calls for Defunding, Dismantling or Abolishing the Police Miss the Mark on Police Reform

Protests have been occurring daily in New York City against racism and police violence, following the death of George Floyd. UN Photo/Evan Schneider

Published

on

Defund? Dismantle? Abolish? None of these? When it comes to police reform as a response to the unwarranted killing of George Floyd, we find these approaches to be misguided and based on an intense emotional cry for an end to racially motivated police use of deadly force. These proposed solutions are well-intentioned, as they seek to address a serious, torturous, inhumane and improper use of deadly force that should not go unpunished. The suggested punishments, however, reflect a rush to judgment. An accurate diagnosis of the problem is needed before an appropriate solution can be developed. To do otherwise could make a bad situation even worse. Rather than rushing to defund police departments, the root of the problem should be diagnosed first, followed by a discussion of alternative solutions that get to the heart of the problem. An important question to ask is: Where does the problem originate? Possible answers range from officer recruitment and training to police department organizational policies and police (sub) culture.

Another issue to consider when determining an appropriate punishment is who will be affected by that punishment? One or a handful of officers engaged in gross misbehavior? Or the entire contingent of officers of the police department, the majority of whom do not engage in such offensive conduct? Application of the punishment to all officers indiscriminately is neither fair nor right, and doing so would be akin to clearcutting a forest when only one or few trees were diseased and needed to be cut down. The entire forest should not be sacrificed in order to rid the forest of disease. This kind of approach will discourage those officers who are dedicated to performing their job duties properly and decently.

Even more troubling than the negative effects of a punishment that involves clearcutting the forest is a punishment that involves cutting police department budgets or defunding them entirely. When funds are cut or eliminated, society as a whole suffers. One of the basic needs of humans is “security”; however, ours is not a utopian society where everyone acts like an angel, and criminals and crimes do not exist. Budget cuts mean fewer officers to respond to calls for service, less routine patrol, the inability to update or acquire new technology, a potential overall reduction in security for neighborhoods and businesses, and the possibility of an increase in crime. Given the chaotic situation that would ensue, either the National Guard or the military would need to be called into service—an action that is unacceptable in a democracy. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 speaks to the abhorrence of military involvement in civilian affairs in the United States.

Our first impression of defunding is that it is not the money that makes officers behave inappropriately and inhumanely, though the exact cause needs to be researched. Rather than defunding or dismantling or abolishing police departments, the focus should be on how the funds in police department budgets are allocated. We recommend more funding to line items that can be expected to improve officer recruitment and training with the goal of preventing officers’ use of excessive, unnecessary, improper and aggressive force. For example, additional training on topics such as de-escalation techniques, ethics in the use of force, cultural awareness, advanced communications skills and handling situations that involve minority groups should be mandatory for both police academy cadets andsworn police officers as part of their in-service training. To provide such training, police department budgets should be increased where needed.

In sum, the problem of police brutality and the use of excessive force should be diagnosed with an eye toward the root cause and then effective solutions developed and implemented. For example, if the problem originates from the recruitment process, that process should be revised to ensure that police cadets will adhere to values and norms of a democratic society. If the problem arises because police officers are not provided with training that will help them de-escalate tense or volatile situations, and be sensitive to issues that may be unique to minority groups, police department leaders should ensure that such training is available and that cadets and sworn police officers are required to satisfactorily complete the coursework. If organizational policies are at the root of the problem, then policies that tolerate harsh police tactics or the use of excessive force should be revised or completely rewritten with an emphasis on zero tolerance for the excessive use of force and the adherence to democratic values. These changes may be met with resistance by some or be seen as too sweeping or woefully inadequate by others, but we argue that either doing more or doing less is not the appropriate path forward.

*Mr. Christopher Smith, who is currently a PhD student at SUNY Albany has also contributed to the piece.

Zakir Gul, Ph.D., is an associate professor in criminal justice at State University of New York (SUNY) in Plattsburgh, where he teaches courses such as terrorism, cyber-terrorism, homeland security and intelligence, transnational crime, and policing and society. Previously, he founded a graduate program on international security and served as the founding director. He also worked in several research centers on terrorism and intelligence, and served as the deputy editor-in-chief of a peer-reviewed journal on policing.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

How Bolivia’s 2019 coup exemplified millennia of global history

Published

on

Throughout thousands of years of human history, dictatorships have been the norm, not the exception, and all of them have been by the aristocracy, against the public. (Sometimes, the aristocrats are led by one person, a “monarch” or “Fuehrer” or etc.; but he or she then REPRESENTS the aristocracy, NOT the public.)

Aristocrats are the nation’s few super-rich; the public are everyone else.

Usually, the aristocracy ‘justifies’ its ‘superiority’ as being god-ordained, and they hire (donate to) some clergy to allege this in order to keep the public fighting for them and maybe dying for them, in their wars of conquest, against the aristocracies who control foreign lands. Another way to fool their publics is to declare that these conquests will ‘free’ those foreign publics by replacing their local aristocracy with the invading country’s aristocracy (a ‘better’ one; those others are instead being called “oligarchs”), and so creating an empire, which represents ‘us’ against the foreigners’ ‘them’, while also making those foreigners ‘free’ from their “oligarchs.” This is called ‘spreading democracy’.

Throughout thousands of years, aristocracies have operated this way, deceiving masses of people so as to create empires, which expand the local aristocracy’s thefts, from being merely thefts against their local public, to becoming thefts against an entire empire’s public (using those local “oligarchs” as their vassals).

Here is how this worked out recently in Bolivia:

On 11 November 2011, The U.S. White House issued this “Statement from President Donald J. Trump Regarding the Resignation of Bolivian President Evo Morales”:

The resignation yesterday of Bolivian President Evo Morales is a significant moment for democracy in the Western Hemisphere.  After nearly 14 years and his recent attempt to override the Bolivian constitution and the will of the people, Morales’s departure preserves democracy and paves the way for the Bolivian people to have their voices heard.  The United States applauds the Bolivian people for demanding freedom and the Bolivian military for abiding by its oath to protect not just a single person, but Bolivia’s constitution.  These events send a strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua that democracy and the will of the people will always prevail.  We are now one step closer to a completely democratic, prosperous, and free Western Hemisphere.

On 13 November 2019, the billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Fox ‘News’ headlined “Bolivia interim president declares ‘Bible has returned to the palace’ amid growing uncertainty”, and reported

A day after brandishing a giant leather-bound Bible and declaring herself Bolivia’s interim president, Jeanine Añez set to the task of trying to steady a nation divided by bloody political disputes and create the stability necessary to organize national elections.

The 52-year-old second-vice president of the Senate claimed the presidency on Tuesday following the ousting of socialist leader Evo Morales due to alleged election fraud and resignations from several high-ranking successors that left a power void in the country.

“The Bible has returned to the government palace,” Añez declared as part of an effort to separate herself from Morales, who had banned the Bible from the site after he reformed the constitution and recognized an Andean earth deity instead of the Roman Catholic Church.

Then, two days later, on November 15th, Anti-War dot com bannered “Finally Got Him: The Bolivian Coup”, and reported:

The U.S. says it wasn’t a coup.

Trump’s official statement “applauds” the Bolivian regime change for preserving democracy. Trump identifies the event as “a significant moment in democracy” because it stymied Bolivian President Evo Morales’ attempt “to override the Bolivian constitution and the will of the people. …”

But all three White House claims are false: Morales didn’t go against the constitution, he didn’t override the will of the people and it was a coup.

If it wasn’t a coup, why was Morales forced from office by the military? Why was he driven out of office in Bolivia and into asylum in Mexico for the sake of his safety, while a coup leader announced that the police and military were hunting Morales down and putting Bolivia into lockdown? Why as he fled and sought asylum was his house ransacked, his sister’s house set on fire, and the families of his cabinet ministers kidnapped and held hostage until the ministers resigned? Though reported in the mainstream media as abandoning Morales, Victor Borda resigned as president of the Bolivian congress and resigned his position as MP because his brother was kidnapped to force him to do so.

If it wasn’t a coup, why did the opposition assume power before the legislature voted on approving Morales’ resignation as the constitution demands? Why did Jeanine Añez declare herself interim president in the absence of the quorum that is legally required to make that decision after meeting with the military high command for over an hour? And why did the opposition force Morales out and assume power before Morales’ term in office would end in January?

If it wasn’t a coup, why did Morales’ opponent, Carlos Mesa, begin his claims of fraud before the voting began, before he could know there had been any fraud? Why did Mesa insist, according to Mark Weisbrot, that he would not accept the election results if Morales wins long before the votes were even counted?

And why, perhaps most damningly, did a cabal of coup plotters discuss between October 8th and 10th – days ahead of the October 20th election – a plan for social disturbance that would prevent Morales from staying in power, as revealed by leaked audio of their conversations

Then, on 24 July 2020, the Twitter site of an American centi-billionaire, Elon Musk, received a tweet from an “Armani” saying, “You know what wasnt in the best interest of people? the U.S. government organizing a coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia so you could obtain the lithium there.” Later that day, Musk replied:

“We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it.”

Why, then, was the Bible being presented, on 13 November 2019, as the coup’s justification?

Not enough suckers would have been fooled to support this fascist coup as having been a fascist coup — a coup by an aristocracy. It was actually even a racist-fascist coup, a “nazi” coup (a coup by a racist aristocracy), which aimed to steal from the native-Indian masses in Bolivia, for the benefit of the supremacist-White aristocracy there, who were subordinates, or vassals, of America’s own overwhelmingly White aristocracy, its billionaires, such as the racist-fascist Elon Musk. Fox ‘News’ had broadcast that biblical display to its own overwhelmingly White Christian audience so as to portray that theft against Bolivians as having been in service to their god and consequently ‘justifiable’. It’s simply the way that aristocracies have functioned, for thousands of years.

Then, on 14 July 2022, the “Declassified UK” investigative-news site headlined “EVO MORALES: ‘WE LAMENT THE ENGLISH WERE CELEBRATING THE SIGHT OF DEAD PEOPLE’”, and delivered from Matt Kennard a terrific, linked-to-sources, extensive interview with the U.S.-UK-Bolivian aristocracy-overthrown former Bolivian President, who explained, as Kennard’s summary at its front stated:

               • THE COUP: ‘The UK participated in it – all for lithium’

               • THE BRITISH: ‘Superiority is so important to them, the ability to dominate’

               • THE US: ‘Any relationship with them is always subject to conditions’

               • NEW MODEL: ‘We no longer submit to transnational corporations’

               • JULIAN ASSANGE: ‘The detention of our friend is an intimidation’

               • NATO: ‘We need a global campaign to eliminate it’

               • BOLIVIA: ‘We are putting anti-imperialism into practice’

Morales, while he had held power in Bolivia, had produced, for the Bolivian people, results that publics elsewhere could only dream of.

Of course, the U.S./UK regime will be trying to reconquer Bolivia.

History teaches lots of lessons, to whomever in the public is open-minded to it and who is lucky enough to become exposed to its truths (despite the aristocracy’s overwhelming censorship against those truths — which are historical truths).

Continue Reading

Americas

How Covert Talks Resurrected Joe Biden’s Programme and Stunned Washington

Published

on

Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

When news of President Joe Biden’s long-stalled domestic agenda broke out of Washington, it was the middle of the night in Saudi Arabia. Again.
The offender was well known. The enormous plan for the environment, taxes, and social safety net raised concerns from Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from West Virginia. The news was received with annoyance and outrage in Jeddah, where Biden was holding tense meetings with Saudi leaders, but not astonishment.

Fortunes have changed after 13 days, two Covid infections, and a few acrimonious arguments. Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stunned the majority of Washington on Wednesday when they revealed that they had reached an agreement on a version of Biden’s protracted climate, energy, and tax agenda after restarting their negotiations in secret four days after they had broken down.


Manchin was sure to underline that the bill’s previous name, Build Back Better, had been dropped. It is less than half the size of Biden’s original bill. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is anything but a done deal because Republicans are uniformly opposed and several Democrats in the Senate and House have not yet signed on.

But the accord gave ambitions that many Democrats had mostly set aside fresh life after appearing dormant for months. The President’s legislative prospects are improving after a bill to increase US computer chip manufacture was passed on Thursday.

On Wednesday, after mostly giving up on formal meetings with Manchin after witnessing the senator repeatedly thwart his agenda, Biden spoke to the senator, who is spending time alone in the West Virginia highlands with Covid. Since December, they had not made a formal call on the Democratic agenda.

A day later, when news of the unexpected events was being announced in the State Dining Room of the White House, Biden observed, “The job of the government may be slow, frustrating, and sometimes even aggravating.” “For those who don’t give up, the hours, days, and months of arduous work eventually pay off. It is accomplished. Life is altered.”


The agreement on taxes and climate change was nearly entirely negotiated in secrecy, so when it was revealed on Wednesday in the late afternoon, many people were caught off guard. Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota tweeted, “Holy shit.” “Stunned—in a good way, nonetheless.”

That mindset was a far cry from the Democratic Party’s attitude on July 14, when Manchin publicly undermined the energy and climate policies that had been the cornerstone of the Biden administration’s commitment to drastically cut carbon emissions.


The President’s domestic agenda suffered a setback two weeks ago, but the White House was hardly surprised given how frequently it had been dying during the previous year. By that time, senior administration officials had developed a highly dubious perspective on the discussions between Manchin and Schumer about restarting the President’s plans.


Biden had been largely exempted from the conversations, as he was quick to note himself.

When a reporter questioned whether Joe Manchin was negotiating in good faith on July 15 inside the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Jeddah, he responded, “I didn’t bargain with Joe Manchin.” 

“I don’t know.” Concerns were raised regarding the most recent inflation statistics by the Senate’s most conservative Democrat. According to a report on July 14, inflation reached a 40-year high in June, rising 9.1 percent over the previous year.

Manchin recalled the meeting he had with Schumer after the two had been in secret discussions about renewing Biden’s climate agenda for three months: “When that 9.1 came in, I said, ‘I can’t, I just can’t do it.'” At that point, Chuck became irate.

It wasn’t always a cool, collected conversation.
Manchin admitted that occasionally his temper gets the better of him and that certain people had “let the dogs out” on him because he allegedly walked away from the agreement.

But by the next week, the two senators had cooled things down. On July 18, Manchin asked Schumer if he was still furious as they passed one another in a hallway of the Capitol.

“This is ludicrous,” I responded,” Manchin spoken. “Check our calibration and see if there is anything we can do. To his credit, he responds, “OK.”

Manchin approached Schumer that day with an offer: “Can we work together and attempt to put together a bill?” Schumer said at a news conference on Thursday. But even then, the timetable was hazy.

Manchin had previously stated that he would wait until he saw the inflation data for August before taking any action on the climate until September. Manchin was told unequivocally by Schumer that a climate agreement needed to be completed before then. I told them, “We’re not waiting for September as long as we finish it in August,” Schumer said.

Despite Manchin’s initial opposition, Schumer persisted with proposals that the West Virginian could back. The aide claimed that the senator eventually returned and expressed his willingness to proceed with an August deadline.

He made a few promises and gave some concessions that helped win his support. Tax increases on Americans with high incomes, which were supported by Biden and other Democrats, were excluded from the final bill. And Manchin has made it clear that he would not have joined the effort unless Democratic leaders made a commitment to pass legislation dealing with energy infrastructure permitting, which might make it easier for a shale gas pipeline in West Virginia.


Meanwhile, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers privately contacted Manchin to explain that the agreement would not increase inflation but would instead be deflationary. Summers had already offered early inflation warnings last year, frequently to the chagrin of the Biden administration.

In a CNN interview, Summers refrained from commenting on his private chats but provided reassurance in response to concerns that the law might increase inflation. He added on “New Day” that the bill “fights inflation and has a whole series of collateral advantages as well.”


Summers wasn’t the only one working behind the scenes for Manchin.
Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat from Colorado, informed reporters that the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania was providing analysis of the tax and climate pact to him and his staff.

Hickenlooper told reporters, “We knew that (Manchin) trusted Wharton and that he’d utilized that for modeling before. “So we asked them to act out this. After doing that, we received modeling indicating that this is not at all inflationary, and we submitted that to Joe.” 

Hickenlooper claimed he was seeking to add to the chorus of voices persuading Manchin that the agreement will lower inflation. Similar arguments were being made by other senators, such as Chris Coons of Delaware, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, and Smith, according to Hickenlooper.

Hickenlooper said, “I was listening to whatever Joe indicated he had a problem with, and I was trying to fix it. I believed him when he said that inflation was the issue and that the rest could be resolved.


Senior officials at the White House were purposefully kept out of direct discussions despite being aware that important ones were taking place, according to administration aides. People close to Biden have been reluctant to involve him in yet another round of political battle for fear that talks would again break down.

In a radio appearance on Thursday, Manchin stated that “President Biden was not involved.” “I wasn’t going to let the President in because I didn’t think it was fair, and this situation very possibly could have been avoided. It had every chance of going wrong. I had to check to see if this was doable.”

It wasn’t until the very end of the deal that White House officials received a thorough reading of its contents. One insider told CNN that it was “extremely well-kept secret.” 

Biden and Manchin both contracted Covid over the past few days as the deal was coming together. Manchin was alone in his home state’s mountains while Biden worked from the White House.

By Wednesday, Manchin and Schumer had reached an understanding; they made the announcement just after the Senate passed the legislation pertaining to computer chips. Since Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had pledged to reject the microchip measure if Democrats introduced a package containing Biden’s agenda, several people considered the timing to be less than fortuitous.

According to Senate Republican Whip John Thune, “I think everyone got startled, definitely by claims that had been made by Democrats about this arrangement, and I believe there was some level of folks getting ambushed — not only on our side but on the Democrats’ side.”


You’ll have to speak with McConnell about that, he responded when asked if he handled the transaction well.

Democrats face what is likely still an uphill battle in gaining enough support for the package, even among members of their own party, despite their celebrations on Thursday. Schumer assured Democrats Thursday in a speech delivered behind closed doors that they were ready to enact measures they had been discussing for years.

The next 10 days will require us to stick together and put in long days and nights, he stated. “We must maintain focus and discipline in our messaging. It’ll be difficult.”

Continue Reading

Americas

How likely is a nuclear WW III, U.S.-China?

Published

on

Whereas U.S. voters don’t want the U.S. Government to go to World War Three against Russia over Ukraine, they do want it to go to WW III against China over Taiwan.

A poll in U.S., “Conducted 01/12/22 – 01/14/22”, by the Trafalgar Group, surveying “1081 Respondents” who were “Likely General Election Voters” found that 58.1% said “Yes,” and 41.9% said “No,” to “Do you believe the Biden Administration should use U.S. military assets to defend Taiwan if Taiwan is invaded by China?” Far lower percentages of Americans turned out to be supportive of going to war against Russia over Ukraine.

Nancy Pelosi, who leads Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, has made clear that she wants to visit Taiwan in August, to encourage Taiwan’s leaders to declare Taiwan’s independence from China, which is something that the U.S. Government has never publicly supported, and which, ever since the 28 February 1972 U.S.-China agreement called the “Shanghai Communique”, the U.S. Government publicly and formally opposed when it agreed with China to the promise and commitment that “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 Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.” 

The residents in Taiwan were long favorable to publicly acknowledging that Taiwan is a part of China, but the CIA and other U.S. Government agencies have worked for decades — notwithstanding the Shanghai Communique and others to the contrary of Taiwan’s independence — to reverse Taiwan’s being a part of China, and to instead encourage Taiwanese to fear and oppose (even demonizing) China’s Government. These U.S. Government war-mongering efforts have, by now, succeeded overwhelmingly among the residents of Taiwan.

Consequently, on 29 March 2005, Taiwan issued “The Official Position of the Republic of China (Taiwan) on the People’s Republic of China’s Anti-Secession (Anti-Separation) Law”, and publicly announced, to the world, that Taiwan rejects that Chinese law, because “the Law proclaims that ‘Taiwan is a part of China’.”

U.S. President Harry S. Truman had created the CIA in 1947 to perpetrate coups and other regime-changes so that the U.S. Government could take control of the world without necessarily using its armed forces for its conquests (doing it more by subversion, and by hiring mercenaries, and bribing generals). Their first coup was in 1948 Thailand (then called “Siam”) in order to establish a steady off-the-books funding stream for their bribes and “Special Operations” including future coups, and this first coup relied upon the fascist (or “Might makes right”) Guomindang (GMD) or Kuomintang (KMT) forces, who had fled from Mao’s victorious anti-Japanese forces in mainland China, onto China’s island of Formosa (whose Japanese rulers welcomed China’s fascists) and formed there the “Republic of China,” as an American protectorate. The KMT also had an army that had fled to Siam; and this army crucially assisted the CIA to overthrow and replace Siam’s Government in 1948 so as to establish the CIA’s funding stream from the international opium-traffic, which, at that time, was centered in Siam. Consequently, the CIA partnered with the KMT at the very start of the CIA. 

On 27 June 1950, Truman announced that the U.S. 7th Fleet would be protecting Taiwan, so that the U.S., which was clearly hostile to (America’s WW II ally) China, would be providing national-security protection to the people on Taiwan. That policy has been very successful toward conquering China, but only gradually, and it is now being brought to the boiling point.

If Taiwan makes any attempt to declare publicly that it is not a part of China, then China will invade it, in order to enforce what they have always consistently asserted about Taiwan (that it is a part of China). And, then, the U.S. Government will say that China’s invasion is not “a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves,” and will go to war against China, and will blame China’s Government, for this war that the U.S. Government has actually been preparing (setting up) for decades.

Starting only late in the 20th Century did the U.S. Government begin to press more firmly to break off Taiwan from China. Consequently, Taiwan’s National Chengchi University instituted in 1994 annual polling on a number of policy-options regarding the way forward regarding Taiwan’s status. At that time, the most popular option, supported by 38.5% of residents, was “Maintain status quo, decide at later date.” A different policy-option, “Maintain status quo, move toward independence,” was supported by only 8.0%. However, as-of June 2022, those two percentages have become virtually tied at around 28.5% for each, which are thus now tied as being the top two policy-choices. So, apparently, this could be the time to strike.

Perhaps Pelosi is hoping to move the needle a bit more America’s way by flying into Taiwan now, under a U.S. armada, and so provoking war against China, on the part both of Taiwan and America. It would bond Americans and Taiwanese to the same fate. And a U.S. military victory against China would do much for Democrats’ fortunes in this year’s off-elections. (By contrast, a U.S. defeat wouldn’t much change the two Parties’ political prospects, because neither Party could then be bragging about ‘our victory’.)

On July 29th, the Republican U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn headlined “Blackburn, Colleagues Introduce Legislation Authorizing Defense Lend-Lease With Taiwan” and announced:

U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.), and Representative Michelle Steel (R-Calif.) introduced the Taiwan Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act. This legislation will support the United States’ partnership with Taiwan by authorizing a defense lend or lease program with the Government of Taiwan. …

“Taiwan is our greatest partner in the Indo-Pacific region, and their continued sovereignty is essential to challenging the New Axis of Evil,” said Senator Blackburn. …

“The introduction of this bill comes just days after the people of Taiwan had to participate in more air raid drills in the event of an attack from the Chinese Communist Party. …

In this virtually 100% neoconservative (i.e., fascist-imperialist) Congress, it could pass overwhelmingly. Neoconservatism is practically unanimous there.

The U.S. Government has been gradually building toward this boiling-point, ever since at least 27 June 1950. Perhaps this will turn out to be the pay-off time, after all those decades of subversion, bribery, etc. It seems to be the right time, because the U.S. Government is now more determined than ever to establish China as being yet another colony, or ‘ally’, and nothing would reassert U.S. global hegemony more than breaking off a piece of China would. It’d be the strongest assertion yet, of the U.S. Government’s “rules-based international order,” in which the U.S. Government makes the international “rules,” instead of the U.N. making the international “laws.” That’s what is really the point of all this: extending America’s hegemony to encompass every nation, eliminate all “competition.” America’s Government has been preparing for such an opportunity, ever since, really, 25 July 1945. This could be the biggest pay-off, yet, from it, if it happens. But taking this path could also spark WW III. The U.S. public seem to accept that risk — not WW III to keep Ukraine, but WW III to win Taiwan. Americans have been skillfully primed for it.

Even America’s ‘progressives’ apparently accept the risk. They ‘debate’ it. There are idiots (and deceivers) of all ideological types.

As regards the island’s history, and the key historical question, of whether the allegation is true “that ‘Taiwan is a part of China’,” here’s a summary about this history: Taiwan (Formosa) was started when the Japanese Empire was forced to give up control over the Chinese island Formosa. Truman backed the fascist Guomindang (GMD) or Kuomintang (KMT) forces who had fled from Mao’s victorious anti-Japanese forces in mainland China, onto China’s island of Formosa and formed there the “Republic of China,” as being an American protectorate. It subsequently came to be called “Taiwan” (which even Japanese historians acknowledge to be a Chinese name for the island) but called itself officially the “Republic of China,’ and NOT the “Republic of Taiwan.” So; even by the official and self-chosen designation of “Republic of China,” anyone who denies that it is a part of China and is “Chinese,” is simply, and boldly, lying, because even the KMT (or GMD) said it was. The U.S. side (now replacing the Japanese side as the post-WW-II, fascist, overlords of Taiwan) had lost the civil war in China, but, ever since, the U.S. Government has been protecting the losing side in China’s civil war, who holed-up in what is actually China’s province of Formosa or Taiwan. If and when China finally takes back control of it, the place-name might revert to “Formosa,” or to “the Province of Formosa,” so as to signify that China, not Japan, won WW II. None of this fascism in post-WW-II Asia would have occurred, at all, if FDR instead of Truman had been America’s President after WW II. Truman was a fascist-imperialist, but FDR was intensely AGAINST both fascism and imperialism. Anti-communism was merely the excuse that the post-WW-II fascist imperialists gave, for their fascist imperialism (America’s coups, invasions, subversions, etc., to conquer the world), so as to fool their publics into believing they live in a ‘democracy’.

If there will be a WW III, it will be because of Truman’s reversal of FDR’s foreign policies, and NOT because of his continuing those policies (which he didn’t do — though many ‘historians’ say he did). The turning-point, away from FDR’s foreign policies, was on 25 July 1945. That’s what got this snowball rolling down this fascist-imperialist mountainside, of the world’s history, since then. It’s what caused Truman quickly to replace all of FDR’s foreign-policy team. Truman was the catastrophe — not the continuation. However, the U.S. Congress, at that time, was even worse. And it still is. FDR was the anomaly. And so was Lincoln, in his time. And so were the majority at the U.S. Constitutional Convention, who collectively wrote the anti-imperialist U.S. Constitution, which has since become just a piece of paper. The aristocratic flood which has followed after them could now wash away all they had achieved, and leave only an ocean of blood behind.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending