America’s Government does not represent the American people, the 332 million of us, but instead represents only the richest 1% of the richest 1% — the richest one-ten-thousandth — of the U.S. population, and especially represents America’s richest under-one-thousand U.S. billionaires — without whose support NO political candidate is able to win the Presidential nomination of either of America’s two political Parties, the Democratic or Republican Party, America’s two-Party one-regime, actual billionaires-controlled anti-democratic dictatorship, of, by, and for, America’s super-rich. It needs to be overthrown in order for there to be any realistic chance for restoration of the largely democratic Government that had ruled under the U.S. Constitution until 25 July 1945 — after which time, that Constitution became just so much parchment and ink, and America’s hyper-imperialistic two post-WW-II Presidents, first Truman and then Eisenhower, established the American Government’s first “standing army” (or permanent-warfare state, or military-industrial-complex-ruled) anti-U.S.-Constitutional global police-state.
In other words: America’s dictatorship needs to be overthrown in order for the U.S. Government to MAYBE become ruled, again, (at least to a significant extent) by and for the American people — instead of by and for America’s billionaires (as it now is).
On March 21, Craig Murray, the former whistleblowing anti-corruption UK Ambassador who befriended Julian Assange and picked up and carried to him from Washington DC the thumb-drive copy of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s computer hard drive that the DNC claimed had been instead hacked by Russia (thus turning Democratic-Party voters rabidly against Russia on the basis of the DNC’s lies — which continue to poison most of those voters’ minds regarding Russia), headlined “Why Would China Be An Enemy?”, and he wrote:
I am completely at a loss as to why the UK should seek to join in with the US in considering China an enemy, and in looking to build up military forces in the Pacific to oppose China.
In what sense are Chinese interests opposed to British interests? I am not sure when I last bought something which wasn’t manufactured in China. To my astonishment that even applies to our second hand Volvo, and it also applies to this laptop.
I have stated this before but it is worth restating:
I cannot readily think of any example in history, of a state which achieved the level of economic dominance China has now achieved, that did not seek to use its economic muscle to finance military acquisition of territory to increase its economic resources.
In that respect China is vastly more pacific than the United States, United Kingdom, France, Spain or any other formerly prominent power.
Ask yourself this simple question. How many overseas military bases does the USA have? And how many overseas military bases does China have?
The last military aggression by China was its takeover of Tibet in 1951 and 1959. Since that date, we have seen the United States invade with massive destruction Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
The United States has also been involved in sponsoring numerous military coups, including military support to the overthrow of literally dozens of governments, many of them democratically elected. It has destroyed numerous countries by proxy, Libya being the most recent example.
China has simply no record, for over 60 years, of attacking and invading other countries. …
In what does its “assertiveness” consist that makes it necessary to view it as a military enemy? China has constructed some military bases by artificially extending small islands. That is perfectly legal behaviour. The territory is Chinese.
As the United States has numerous bases in the region on other people’s territory, I truly struggle to see where the objection lies to Chinese bases on Chinese territory.
China has made claims which are controversial for maritime jurisdiction around these artificial islands – and I would argue wrong under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. But they are no more controversial than a great many other UNCLOS claims, for example the UK’s behaviour over Rockall.
China has made, for example, no attempt to militarily enforce a 200 mile exclusive economic zone arising from its artificial islands, whatever it has said. Its claim to a 12 mile territorial sea is I think valid.
Similarly, the United States has objected to pronouncements from China that appear contrary to UNCLOS on passage through straits, but again this is no different from a variety of such disputes worldwide. The United States and others have repeatedly asserted, and practised, their right of free passage, and met no military resistance from China.
So is that it? Is that what Chinese “aggression” amounts to, some UNCLOS disputes?
Aah, we are told, but what about Taiwan?
To which the only reply is, what about Taiwan? Taiwan is a part of China which separated off under the nationalist government after the Civil War. Taiwan does not claim not to be Chinese territory.
In fact – and this is far too little understood in the West because our media does not tell you – the government of Taiwan still claims to be the legitimate government of all of China.
The government of Taiwan supports reunification just as much as the government of China, the only difference being who would be in charge.
The dispute with Taiwan is therefore an unresolved Chinese civil war, not an independent state menaced by China. As a civil war the entire world away from us, it is very hard to understand why we have an interest in supporting one side rather than the other. …
Repeatedly, open-ended polling-questions asking the residents in countries around the world to name which nation is posing the #1 threat to peace in the world have produced, by overwhelming margins, the United States as being that, NOT any of that Government’s targets to be regime-changed: Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea — not ANY of them.
In the case specifically regarding the U.S. and UK as-yet-undeclared war to conquer China (starting by breaking off a piece of it, Taiwan), the U.S. regime (and its allies) are going after and hoping to conquer the world’s #1 manufacturing nation, which has become China, which is allied with Russia, Iran, and many other anti-imperialist nations; and, so, the U.S. regime’s initiative here would mean WW III, and possible termination of all life on this planet. For what? For the benefit of whom?
In America, the billionaires of the two Parties disagree as to which country to target the first. On March 6th, Gallup reported that, “Democrats are most likely to cite Russia as the nation’s greatest enemy, with 53% doing so. … Since reports of alleged Russian influence on U.S. elections became a focus during the Trump administration, Democrats have been consistently more likely than Republicans to cite Russia as the U.S.’s greatest enemy. … On the other hand, the vast majority of Republicans, 76%, cite China as the nation’s greatest adversary.” Each Party’s billionaires controls the beliefs of the vast majority of its voters; the partisan differences are between the billionaires, not the public. The billionaires don’t represent their public; their public represent their billionaires.
The more desperate that America’s billionaires become to hold onto and even expand their dominance over all other nations, the more essential it is for the U.S. regime to become defeated. If this cannot be done peacefully (i.e., via diplomatic means), then the entire world will suffer. Such defeat of the U.S. regime can be done ONLY by means of other nations’ Governments turning now increasingly against the U.S. Government, because the grip that America’s billionaires have upon the voting-preferences of the American public cannot be broken, it will continue (unless and until that increasing international isolation of the U.S. regime becomes so obvious as to be no longer possible to hide effectively from the U.S. public). That diplomatic effort needs to be the way forward. There is no alternative — except WW III.