Tag: politics

The split personality of the government in Taipei

MONDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2022

On 10 October 1911, a series of uprisings started that, over the course of the next few months, led to the fall of the Qing Dynasty and the birth of the Republic of China. After a decade of violence and political tug-of-war, the Chinese Nationalist Party led by Chiang Kai-shek ended up in control of the republican government.

The island of Formosa is about 200 kilometres from the Chinese coast. The island was ruled by Qing China between 1683 and 1895, when it was ceded to Japan. A few weeks after Japan’s surrender in 1945, officials from the Republic of China stepped of a boat in the north of Taiwan with a United Nations mandate to administer the island until a final peace treaty was signed with Japan.

In his authoritative report of the period, Formosa Betrayed, George H. Kerr narrates that the officials of the Chinese republic saw Taiwan (or the island of Formosa) as a warehouse full of luxuries that needed to be plundered as quickly as possible. Factories were dismantled and shipped to Shanghai. Furniture, ornaments, bicycles, money, jewellery, and anything else that looked like it might have value was looted and robbed either by government officials, or by soldiers brought in to terrorise the local population.

By early 1949, it was clear that the republican government, then based in Chengdu in southwestern China, was going to lose the civil war against Mao Zedong’s Communists. Between January and December 1949, most of the republican politicians and institutions, a lot of cultural treasures as well as financial resources under the control of the Republic of China were moved to the island of Formosa.

The six million inhabitants of Taiwan were not consulted about this takeover of their island by the Nationalists. For the next four decades, the population’s complaints about everything from the denial of human rights to the corrupt expropriation of property were brutally silenced.

By the early 1990s, enough of the Civil War era politicians had died out, and supporters of the idea that the government in Taipei would eventually retake power in Mainland China became fewer and fewer. In 1996, the first Taiwan-born person was chosen as president of … the “Republic of China”, because calling it what it really was – the Republic of Taiwan, was a controversy that would send the missiles flying across the Strait of Taiwan.

On 10 October 2022, several hundred thousand people in Taiwan actively celebrated the anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China (millions, of course, enjoyed the holiday without attaching any political value to it). The president of the “Republic of China”, Tsai Ing-wen, also solemnly celebrated the day with a speech. Although she referred to Taiwan as the “Republic of China”, most of the speech was about the island of Taiwan.

In a speech on 4 August 2022 in response to live-fire drills by the Chinese navy and army around Taiwan, she referred to the threat to “our nation’s sovereignty”. The question remains: What nation was she talking about? Taiwan? China? If she was talking about the island of Taiwan with surrounding smaller islands under Taipei’s administration, and the 24 million Taiwanese (and other long-term residents), then why at all celebrate the founding of the Republic of China – which for all practical purposes is a decayed relic of Chinese history? I understand that the government in Beijing threatens to go to war the moment Taipei officially declares independence, but is that reason enough to still solemnly party on October 10th every year?

It is clear that to be able to distinguish between the official independence of Taiwan and de facto independence requires a lesson in political doublespeak. But that the government in Taipei still uses the flag of the losers of the Chinese Civil War, the flag of the looters of Taiwan and the oppressors of freedom and human dignity, and still after seven decades actively celebrates the founding of a state that has long ceased to exist, is sometimes difficult to grasp.

Flag of the Republic of China, 1912-1928, before it was replaced by the government of Chiang Kai-Shek with the flag below
The flag of the Republic of China, 1928-1949, after which it served as the flag of the ROC on Taiwan

* * *

The dream of independence of millions of Taiwanese (not all, but a large proportion of the adult population) is understandable. Even in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Taiwan was only an afterthought for the Qing government in Beijing. Then for fifty years the island was part of Japan, and for the last seventy years, it has been ruled separately from Mainland China. Generations of Taiwanese have been born and have lived their entire adult lives with the daily reality that the island is governed separately from China.

On the other hand, I also understand the argument of Greater China supporters, who consider the majority of the population of Taiwan to be part of the same ethnic family as the majority of the population of Mainland China. Language and cultural roots are also shared. Thousands of families in Taiwan have relatives in China whom they visit regularly.

I also understand that the government of the People’s Republic of China has an argument for reunification. They see themselves as the inheritors of Chinese history, with the responsibility to the ancestors and descendants of the Chinese population to make whole what had been broken by the end of the Qing Era.

Whether the People’s Republic can make a legitimate argument about jurisdiction over Taiwan requires a deep dive into the murky waters of treaties signed after World War II between Japan and America, and between Japan and the Republic of China. It was, for example, not spelled out specifically who Taiwan belonged to after Japan had ceded control over the islands.

Arguments aside, what sometimes irritates is the split personality of the government in Taipei. I appreciate the thorny problem that if independence is officially declared, the government in Beijing will have little choice but to carry out its decades-long threats. The Taipei government nevertheless walks a fine line. Passports are issued these days with “Taiwan” in large Roman letters, and “Republic of China” only in Chinese characters. Statements are made about Taiwan’s independence, but under the name “Republic of China”. Says President Tsai Ying-wen in an interview with the BBC after she was elected in 2020: “We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state. We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China (Taiwan).”

Taiwan passport

If Taiwan were truly independent, would the president not refer to her country as the Republic of Taiwan? And how much does it matter that Taiwan is officially only recognised as independent by fourteen countries and doesn’t have a seat at the United Nations? Most countries do maintain diplomatic offices in Taipei, but none are official embassies, in deference to the People’s Republic of China that considers Taiwan a province of China.

The fact of the matter is, there are three actors in this play: The group advocating for Taiwanese independence, who make pretty strong arguments; the government in Beijing (and supporters of reunification in Taiwan), which also makes points that cannot be dismissed out of hand; and then there’s the government in Taipei which officially upholds the One China policy, but also makes no claim to being the legitimate government of Greater China, and – at least for the last two or three years – also claims that Taiwan is independent, but under the banner of the Republic of China. Can anyone be blamed for being confused?

* * *

What do I see as a more honest situation than the current shuffle closer to the abyss? I reckon: A cooler relationship with America – an unreliable “friend” at the best of times; a warmer relationship with Beijing – albeit with a government dominated by a political party that was not appointed by the Chinese people and cannot be removed by the Chinese people except with extreme violence; and increasingly less emphasis on the symbols of, and less reference to, the obsolete relic of history, the Republic of China.

Naive and unrealistic? I guess so.

———————-

A few useful links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_Undetermined_Status_of_Taiwan: “In 1950 […] United States President Harry S. Truman said that […] ‘the determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.’ This statement of Truman is generally regarded as the origin of the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan. In 1951, Japan concluded the Treaty of San Francisco with the Allied Powers. It renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan and the Pescadores without explicitly stating the sovereignty status of the two territories.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco: “President Ma expressed that the Treaty of Taipei has voided the Treaty of Shimonoseki”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Taipei: “Article 4: It is recognized that all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941, between China and Japan have become null and void as a consequence of the war.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement: “The governments of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) oppose Taiwanese independence since they believe that Taiwan and mainland China comprise two portions of a single country’s territory. For the ROC, such a move would be considered a violation of its constitution.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan: Specifically look at the “Arguments for the Republic of China and/or People’s Republic of China sovereignty claims” and “Arguments for Taiwanese self-sovereignty claims and its legal status”

———————-

The birth of the Republic of China is celebrated on October 10th, and 1911 is seen as the first year of the Republican Era. Yet the Republic of China was not actually founded on 10 October 1911. A quick timeline:

1894-1895: War between China and Japan

1899-1901: The Boxer Rebellion

14 November 1908: Emperor Guangxu dies; one day later his aunt, the powerful Empress Dowager and Regent Cixi, dies (the suspicion is strong that she had her nephew poisoned)

2 December 1908: Aisin-Gioro Puyi, the two-year-old son of the Manchu Prince Chun, is crowned as the Xuantong Emperor, the last of the Qing Empire

10 October 1911: The Wuchang Uprising leads to a series of uprisings across China

November 1911: fourteen of fifteen provinces in China reject the Qing government

1 January 1912: The Republic of China is established

12 February 1912: Empress Dowager Longyu signs the abdication decree on behalf of the now six-year-old Puyi. This ended more than 2,000 years of imperial rule in China.

Empress Dowager and Regent Cixi; the Xuantong Emperor, better known as Puyi; Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek

______________________

The evil of Apartheid in practice

MONDAY, 1 AUGUST 2022

Was the South African government policy known as Apartheid evil, as many people think it was?

The idea of separate development, that Zulus have their own territory that has historical value for them, with their own government that makes decisions on matters that are important to Zulus, or that solves problems in ways that are consistent with the values with which most Zulus identify, with Zulu cultural organizations and schools and universities, and then the same for Xhosas and Sothos and so on, is either a workable idea, or not realistic considering the realities of the South African economy and wider society.

But is it an evil idea? I reckon, no.

The evil entered the story with how the policy was carried out in practice, the way in which the National Party government reacted to resistance to their policy, and the deeply biased thinking that served as the foundation of the ideology.

The policies implemented by the government eventually included the forced removal of communities from neighbourhoods where people of different races had lived together for decades; the requirement of identification documents that only black adults had to carry on their person, without which they could be arrested; laws that prohibited black people from entering urban areas unless they could prove they were employed in the area; a ban on marriages between members of different population groups; a restriction on where black entrepreneurs could open businesses; and the segregation of public areas and facilities, public transport, as well as schools and universities, with the result that black South Africans generally experienced a significantly lower quality of life than white South Africans.

How did the government respond to opposition to their policies? They responded with lethal force against protests, jailed the leaders of the resistance, and banned civil rights organisations.

The most nefarious of the Apartheid government’s deeds, however, was to apply a type of psychology and a type of philosophy that told the adult black population: You are less of a person because you are black. You are worth less than the white man and woman on the other side of town who are just as old as you, just as smart (or stupid) as you, who also love their children. You’re worth less than the white people – because you’re black. Education in schools also made it clear to black children that their futures were not as engineers and dentists and architects, but primarily as labourers and servants of white people. Hendrik Verwoerd, Minister of Native Affairs from 1954 to 1958 and later Prime Minister of South Africa, said about the education of black children: “[There is] no place for the Bantu in European society above the level of certain forms of labour. What is the use of teaching mathematics to the Bantu child if it cannot be used in practice?”

Not only were black children neglected in their formal education, adult black men and women were also systematically reminded of their second-class status in South African society. Young white police constables could stop middle-aged black men and women in the street and demand to see their “papers”. Black children were given Afrikaans or English names that were easier for white people to pronounce, and if the adult black worker did not have an Afrikaans or English name, he or she was given one. White men had to be addressed as “Boss”, even if the black man or woman did not work for the white man. Until as recently as the late nineteen-eighties, black men and women were not allowed to use public transportation intended for whites or were only allowed to use third-class seats.

Steve Biko, circa 1970s (Source: Unknown, copyright is owned by the Steve Biko Foundation)

All these measures were applied to entrench the idea that the white person was the master and the black person the servant. When black intellectuals like Steve Biko from the sixties onwards wanted to promote the idea of Black Pride, when they wanted to popularise the idea that an adult black man and woman should raise their heads and insist on dignified treatment – that they should indeed believe that they were the equal of their so-called white masters, these leaders were brutally oppressed. Steve Biko himself was first intimidated, then arrested, and finally assaulted so badly that he succumbed to his injuries. His offense? A radical message to both white and black: “[As] a prelude whites must be made to realise that they are only human, not superior. Same with Blacks. They must be made to realise that they are also human, not inferior.” And: “The first step therefore is to make the black man come to himself; to pump back life into his empty shell; to infuse him with pride and dignity, to remind him of his complicity in the crime of allowing himself to be misused and therefore letting evil reign supreme in the country of his birth.”

It is at this point – where you want to crush the spirit of someone because he disagrees with your political policies, to want to break his will so that he will never again think of rising against you, that any reasonable person should realise he had crossed over to the Dark Side: Welcome to the Land of Lucifer.

______________________

If I were Russian (in February 2022)

[23/06/22: Jacques Baud, a former member of the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service and former NATO adviser and analyst, pointed out in an informative article three reasons why Russia launched its military action against Ukraine in February 2022. Reason one: The encroachment of NATO to Russian borders and the threat it poses to Russia. Reason two: The refusal of the government of Ukraine to implement the Minsk II Treaty, mediated by France and Germany in 2015. The treaty would have given the south-eastern parts of Ukraine some autonomy in a federal system within Ukraine and entrenched the language rights of the Russian-speaking inhabitants of these areas. Reason three: The aggressive military attacks launched by the government in Kiev against the population of the Donbas (in south-eastern Ukraine) since 2014. The majority of this population was opposed to the coup carried out in Kiev in 2014 – a coup encouraged and supported by the US government. Most of the inhabitants in these parts of Ukraine have close ethnic, cultural, historical, and linguistic ties with the Russian population on the other side of the border. These attacks on urban centres in the Donbas increased significantly in February 2022 – shortly before the Russian military operation, with fatal consequences for ordinary civilians. However, the following note from May only focuses on how I believe many Russians are seeing NATO’s encroachment.]

THURSDAY, 25 MAY 2022

I understand why Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

I don’t know if Vladimir Putin, or the Russian Foreign Minister, or perhaps the Russian representative to the United Nations put it exactly this way, but here’s how I think many Russians could have explained the situation:

“In the last hundred years or so we have been invaded three times from the west. The last time, in 1941, we underestimated the threat. It cost us the destruction of 70,000 villages, and more than 1,700 larger towns. Forty percent of our housing was destroyed or damaged. Twenty-five million Soviet citizens were left homeless. More than 26 million people lost their lives, of which 14 million came from the Russian Soviet Republic alone. We lost almost all the wealth we had built up during industrialisation in the 1930s. Our economy shrank by 20% between 1941 and 1945 and did not recover to pre-war levels until the 1960s.

“It will not happen again that we underestimate a military threat from the west.

“NATO was established in 1949 to oppose the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Since 1991, this threat has ceased to exist. NATO has, however, continued to expand its membership and its military capacity. The expansion of NATO closer and closer to Russia since 1999 makes it clear that Russia – as the primary successor state of the Soviet Union – is the target. Russia no longer sees NATO as a defensive alliance. Actions in the former Yugoslavia and Libya make it clear that NATO sees it as its right to pursue an aggressive policy towards any target that does not enjoy their protection.

“Russia cannot afford to be caught off guard again. We see NATO’s growing proximity to our most populous urban centres as an existential threat. A military alliance with nuclear weapons in their arsenal is antagonistic towards your motherland. For what reason would you ignore or underestimate such a threat? We will not wait to be attacked again, and then try to defend ourselves. If a red line is crossed, we attack first. That is the only way we can expect to continue to exist as a nation.”

* * *

Scott Ritter says the following on Consortium News: “[If] the U.S. cannot understand how the accumulation of military power encompassed in a military alliance which views Russia as a singular, existential threat to its members’ security is seen by Russia as threatening, then there is no comprehension of how the events of June 22, 1941 have shaped the present-day Russian psyche, [and] why Russia will never again allow such a situation to occur […]”

* * *

I think people have a choice. Learn some basic facts about the history of Russia before the revolutions of 1917. Learn about the area that is now Ukraine – especially the difference between the western and eastern parts. Learn about the way Crimea was incorporated into the Soviet Republic of Ukraine in 1954. Learn about the price the Soviet Union (with Russia as the primary republic) paid to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II, and learn about the brutal plans that Nazi Germany had with the inhabitants of Russia and other Soviet Republics. Learn some basic facts – or learn nothing and understand nothing.

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Minsk_II,_February_2015

* * *

Egor Kholmogorov writes in an article on Russia Today on 27 May 2022: “Russians living in Russia, as well as those living in Ukraine, cannot understand why Ukrainian land should be used by NATO. In Russia, Ukraine’s possible accession to the US-led military bloc is not construed as a free choice made by the country in its own security interests, but as a means for the West to build advance bases for launching a direct attack on Moscow.”

Saturday, 25 June 2022

Interesting point about the reliability of Jacques Baud, the Swiss analyst I referred to at the beginning of this piece. In an interview with The Postil Magazine, the following question is asked, with Baud’s answer:

“[The Postil Magazine]: You have written two insightful articles about the current conflict in the Ukraine […]. Was there a particular event or an instance which led you to formulate this much-needed perspective?

[Jacques Baud]: As a strategic intelligence officer, I always advocated providing to the political or military decision-makers the most accurate and the most objective intelligence. This is the kind of job where you need to keep you prejudice and your feelings to yourself, in order to come up with an intelligence that reflects as much as possible the reality on the ground rather than your own emotions or beliefs. I also assume that in a modern democratic State decision must be fact-based. This is the difference with autocratic political systems where decision-making is ideology-based (such as in the Marxist States) or religion-based (such as in the French pre-revolutionary monarchy).”

Of course, the most deceptive liar in the history of intelligence can also give such an answer, and then proceed with an inaccurate, subjective analysis of a situation. You simply have to look at the totality of such a person’s work and form your own opinion.

Monday, 29 August 2022

After finishing this piece, I read a book titled, Moscow Calling: Memoirs of a Foreign Correspondent, by Angus Roxburgh. In the chapter, “The Fear of War,” the author confirms many of the sentiments and opinions already expressed in this piece.

The author states that it took him decades, and personal meetings with numerous Russians, before he understood the huge difference between the British perception of war and that of the Russians: “Brought up in a country where Second World War on the home front means Dad’s Army, our senses were – and are – truly numb to the reality of total war. The battles of the eastern front were the most devastating in all human history. Between 1941 and 1944 the Germans occupied or destroyed major Soviet cities: Kiev, Minsk, Smolensk, Stalingrad. Almost half of the entire population of the USSR experienced occupation by Nazi forces. In Leningrad, which was besieged and bombarded for 900 days, a million civilians – a third of its population – starved to death.”

Roxburgh also confirms death tolls during World War II: Britain had 67,000 civilian deaths, and the continental US no civilian deaths, compared to the Soviet Union’s 16 million deaths. Furthermore, Britain had 380,000 military deaths, America 400,000, and the Soviet Union 10 million.

According to the author, many Western “experts” believe that Russia only became obsessed with NATO expansion with the arrival of Vladimir Putin. He points out, however, that Yeltsin and Gorbachev were equally baffled by the alliance’s decision to expand into Eastern Europe. He reckons that Putin has become a handy excuse to justify a policy that started long before anyone had heard of Putin.

Roxburgh concludes the chapter by referring to his earlier belief in Gorbachev’s vision of a common European home at the end of the Cold War. By 1995, however, he was on the border between the part of Russia that houses Kaliningrad, and Poland. The border was in the process of being fortified. He quotes his report for a TV news program: “Seen from here, NATO’s expansion sends all the wrong signals. It tells the Russians they’re still not really accepted by the West. It tells them they’re still seen as the enemy. No matter how sweetly NATO tries to sugar the pill, Russia’s going to feel once again like a pariah in Europe.”

______________________

Some rough thoughts on the WEF, US Imperialists and Critical Social Justice

WEDNESDAY, 23 MARCH 2022

According to some people on social media, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is an evil organisation bent on world domination.

Other people call this doom and gloom a textbook conspiracy theory and point to good work the WEF is doing in areas like health and science.

Here’s what we know: The WEF was formed in 1971 by Klaus Schwab. The objectives of the organisation are no secret. Its own website states the following:

The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. […] The Forum strives in all its efforts to demonstrate entrepreneurship in the global public interest while upholding the highest standards of governance. Moral and intellectual integrity is at the heart of everything it does. […] We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.

In an article titled, “How do we do our work?”, the WEF explains that they hold four annual meetings: a meeting in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, that aims to shape global, regional and industry agendas at the beginning of each calendar year; a meeting in the People’s Republic of China on innovation, science and technology; a meeting in the United Arab Emirates that brings together experts in the knowledge community to share their insights on major challenges facing the world; and a meeting that aims to shape industry agendas and explore how industries can shift from managing change to pioneering change.

The WEF’s founder has also authored two books: The Fourth Industrial Revolution, published in 2016, and Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution, published in 2018. The objectives of his organisation are again spelled out in the two publications.

At least they can’t be accused of being secretive about their goals.

It is also true that they have a program for young and promising leaders in politics, business, and other sectors of society: the Forum of Young Global Leaders, for leaders under 40, started in 2004, and the Global Shapers Community for potential leaders between 20 and 30, started in 2011. The aims of these forums are to train potential leaders of the future in the objectives of the organisation. Leaders who have been part of the program include high-profile US Democrats (Peter Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard) and Republicans (Tom Cotton and Daniel Crenshaw); the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Chrystia Freeland; the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern; Emmanuel Macron, the President of France; the Prime Ministers of Belgium and Finland; the Crown Prince of Norway; several other members of European cabinets; several high-profile politicians in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Then there are Elon Musk; Mark Zuckerberg; co-founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel; the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales; co-founder and CEO of YouTube, Chad Hurley; and other influential members of media, arts, culture, sports, and sciences in countries over the world.

According to Wikipedia:

The [WEF] suggests that a globalised world is best managed by a self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments, and civil society organizations, which it expresses through initiatives like the “Great Reset” and the “Global Redesign”. It sees periods of global instability – such as the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic – as windows of opportunity to intensify its programmatic efforts. […] The World Economic Forum and its annual meeting in Davos have received criticism over the years. Challenges raised about the conference and the WEF include: the organization’s corporate capture of global and democratic institutions, and institutional whitewashing initiatives; the public cost of security, the organization’s tax-exempt status, unclear decision processes and membership criteria, a lack of financial transparency, and the environmental footprint of its annual meetings. As a reaction to criticism within Swiss society, the Swiss federal government decided in February 2021 to reduce its annual contributions to the WEF.

So, are they evil and bent on world domination? Call it a conspiracy theory if you will, but it certainly raises eyebrows if a “self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments, and civil society organizations” decide on their own what the best way is to manage a “globalised world”. [Counterpoint: Why shouldn’t people who are already in positions of power and responsibility get together to learn from each other and optimise their efforts? This is not saying their efforts are noble, but it’s surely not outlandish that these specific people would come together and talk politics.]

To make it more interesting, some people also mention the Open Society Foundations of George Soros, and his veritable army of Non-Governmental Organisations that operate in 37 countries. Stated aims: advancing justice, education, public health, and independent media. However, there are people who have accused some NGOs of serving Western interests rather than those of local communities since the end of the Cold War. One example: “The NGO Invasion of the Arab World”.

It could be argued that the WEF’s aim is in a way similar to that of the Bolsheviks after the revolutions of 1917 in the old Russian Empire. The plan was for an elite to rule absolutely over the masses in the name of a noble cause. In the case of the Bolsheviks the cause was “The proletariat and the landless peasant”. In the case of the WEF their mandate to rule would be no less a noble goal than “The Continued Survival of Humanity on Planet Earth”. Of course, when you are acting in the name of such a lofty goal, when you are acting for the good of humanity, what type of dissent can be reasonable and legitimate? Is there any hope that heterodox thought, and protest in any form will not be crushed?

The WEF is, however, not the only group with plans that might look to some like world domination. There are people who can be described as on the “old” left of the political spectrum (Consortium News, The Grayzone) who make solid arguments about US ambitions to remain the number one power in a unipolar world (one example: “The Target is China”), where the resources and national concerns of other countries are subject to American needs (again, an example: “Super Imperialism: The economic strategy of American empire with economist Michael Hudson”). This is a world where countries that are recalcitrant or less than enthusiastic to play supporting roles to the US’ sole dominant power are punished, or isolated until they redeem themselves.

How do the people of the WEF/Open Society – mostly Europeans and/or non-Americans – see their aims play out on a planet where one powerful country sees itself as fulfilling a God-given mandate to be Undisputed Rulers of the World?

Another question is what effect Critical Race Theory is going to have on American society in the next decade or two.

In case you’ve been too busy to notice: Critical Race Theory emerged from academic obscurity in the last quarter of the previous century to dominance in especially the English-speaking academic, political, corporate, educational and entertainment worlds. Some thinkers, notably John McWhorter, make a good argument that Critical Race Theory/Critical Social Justice qualifies as a religion. What does he mean by this? A review of McWhorter’s book, Woke Racism, sums it up nicely:

McWhorter’s case rests on identified similarities between wokeness—disciples of which he calls the “Elect” – and religion. The Elect have internally inconsistent views, which require dogmatic commitment to hold. They have “superstition,” which is to say questions they deem it impolite to ask or try to answer. They have “clergy,” in the form of woke influencers like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. They have “original sin” in the sense that being born white confers an irremovable moral stain. They evangelize. They have an eschatology, a belief in a coming “racial reckoning” when America will own up to its racial sins and be purified. And of course they “ban the heretic” wherever possible.

If there’s doubt that the adherents of this ideology act and speak with the certainty and sense of moral superiority reminiscent of fundamentalist religious disciples, consider the following cases: “Why America Needs College Football — Part 2”, “Good-bye, Theresa. Hello, Boris?” (scroll down to the sub-heading, “New York City’s Illiberal Education Department”), and “Evergreen State and the Battle for Modernity Part 2: True Believers, Fence Sitters, and Group Conformity”. And some video footage: “Yale University Students Protest Halloween Costume Email” and “Campus Argument Goes Viral As Evergreen State Is Caught In Racial Turmoil”.

What long-term effect will this ideology have on American society? Will its foundations be hollowed out? Will conflict and differences of opinion become too much for the union that has held since the end of the Civil War in 1865 to remain standing? Does Critical Race Theory serve the goals of the WEF/Open Society? Will a revolt against the new religion favour the imperialist goals of the US political establishment?

______________________

Is it possible for a fundamentally bad idea to receive broad support?

TUESDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2021

I saw this satirical headline on Twitter: “Parents who think that their children don’t belong to the State are dangerous, explained.”

Of course, most people won’t accept this idea (right?) and the headline itself is from a non-existing website with satirical headlines. Yet, if an article like this were to appear on mainstream media like CNN or BBC, I bet at least 20% of readers would support the idea.

Imagine being the editor of the online media that publishes such an article. The person truly believes in the concept that children belong to the state. They are committed to pushing this idea.

Now imagine this editor is not alone. Hundreds of other editors, journalists, reporters, and presenters at high-profile media outlets agree with them.

Imagine thousands of academics also support the idea. So do TV and movie stars, and other celebrities – once it has been convincingly framed as “progressive”.

Parents who believe they have a right to educate and raise their children as they see fit, and that their rights supersede any claim the state has over their offspring, are presented in hundreds of TV shows, talk shows, academic journals and newspaper and magazine articles as “traditional”, “unbearably conservative”, “radical” and even “fundamentalist”. Because the idea that children belong to the state is being presented as cool and progressive, teenagers increasingly show their support to the idea, and in timeless fashion influence their younger siblings to do the same.

And yet, is the idea good? (Remember: the state claiming your kids is just a useful example.)

Is it possible for a fundamentally bad idea to receive broad support amongst those with the most powerful voices and with access to millions of minds through social media and educational spaces? And how many millions of readers and viewers would support such an idea simply because of its favourable framing?

______________________

Media and other voices creating a narrative

______________________