');
The Unz Review •ï¿½An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
�
�TeasersHua Bin Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library •ï¿½B
Show 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

There is an arms race going on among the major powers to develop hypersonic missile technology (missiles flying above Mach 5 speed – 6,400 kilometres per hour).

Russia’s recent test use of the Oreshnik hypersonic missile in Ukraine was observed with awe. The US has also tested its first hypersonic missile – the Dark Eagle, a surface-to-surface intermediate range boost-glide weapon.

China leads the world in the development and deployment of hypersonic weapon systems, first deploying the DF-17 in 2017.

Subsequently, China has fielded more submarine-fired, ground-based, and air-launched hypersonic missiles such as DF-21D, DF-26B, DF-27, DF-31, CJ-100, and YJ-21.

Each features different range and speed. They are also designed for different target types – ground target, maritime targets, or surface-to-air defence. Some of these missiles sport nicknames like carrier-killers and Guam Express.

China has just upped its game again. A new hypersonic air-to-air missile was recently unveiled by the China Airborne Missile Academy (CAMA), a division of the Aviation Industry of China and the main developer and supplier of air-to-air missiles to the Chinese air force.

This is a game-changing breakthrough. Current hypersonic missiles are primarily designed to go after ground targets or slow-moving naval targets (China is the only country known to have deployed hypersonic missiles against naval targets such as carriers).

For a long time, the ability to create air-to-air missiles with such a high speed was considered little more than a pipe dream. The higher a missile’s speed, the more difficult it is to make a turn, especially when aiming at an aircraft that is moving much faster than ground vehicles or ships.

The main technical challenge for hypersonic air-to-air missile is heat management. At speed over Mach 5, air-to-air missiles experience extreme aerodynamic thermal environments, and the missile needs to constantly adjust its flight attitude when tracking a target, which leads to changes in surface temperature over time at different parts.

The entire missile needed to be able to withstand prolonged exposure to temperatures exceeding 1,200 degrees Celsius (2,192 degrees Fahrenheit). This meant that not only the front, but other parts of the missile, including the engine, needed to be equipped with comprehensive and efficient thermal protection systems.

In the face of extreme heat flow impacts, air-to-air missiles may suffer thermal damage, structural deformation and even destruction. The missile’s internal electronics may be disrupted.

How to effectively simulate this complex and transient aerodynamic thermal environment on the ground has become one of the key issues to ensure the safe service of the thermal protection system.

To find suitable thermal insulation materials for air-to-air missiles, Chinese scientists at CASA have used extreme testing methods, including burning samples with oxyacetylene flames, used for welding metals, lasers, and high-temperature plasmas. The plasma flames could reach 16,000 degrees Celsius, according to the project team.

Details of the final evaluations of full-scale missile prototypes were given in a peer-reviewed paper published in Chinese-language journal Equipment Environmental Engineering last month. These evaluations were conducted in an arc-heated wind tunnel.

“By heating the gas with an electric arc, [this type of tunnel] can generate hot air flows reaching thousands to tens of thousands of degrees Celsius,†the project team, led by senior CAMA scientists Cheng Gong and Huang Yimin, wrote in the paper.

The arc-heated wind tunnel can operate continuously for an hour or more, but due to its enormous power consumption, it is “super expensive†to run, Cheng and Huang said. As a result, it is mainly used for the most challenging space missions, such as simulating the landing of Tianwen-1 spacecraft on Mars.

Based on the technical break-through, the new Chinese hypersonic air-to-air missile (yet to be named) has undergone extreme heat-resistance testing and is able to meet the stringent performance requirements of the PLA Air Force.

The missile is believed to have an ultra long range of 1,000 kilometres or more, which can be travelled in 8 minutes at Mach 5.

This is the first official confirmation of the existence of this mysterious weapon, which could pose an unprecedented threat to US military aircraft, including the F-22, F-35 stealth fighters and B-21 stealth bomber.

In a simulated air combat exercise conducted in 2023, scientists with the Northwestern Polytechnical University armed a Chinese J-16 (a 4.5 generation fighter) with this long-range missile that was able to climb to the edge of the atmosphere and come down to an aircraft at hypervelocity.

This has been seen by some military experts as one of the countermeasures being prepared by China in response to the potential threat posed by America’s B-21.

The detection range of mainstream airborne missile warning systems is less than 10km (6.2 miles), which would mean that from the time the alarm sounded to the missile’s arrival, pilots would have less than four seconds to react.

In the US military, neither the B-21 nor widely used large air platforms such as warning aircraft and tankers can reach the speed of sound. Even the powerful F-22 can only accelerate to about Mach 2, making an escape unlikely.

The introduction of this weapon has serious implications for global air combat strategies, especially for the U.S. military and its allies. The U.S. B-21 Raider new stealth bomber, with its stealth capabilities and long-range strike capabilities, represents the cutting edge of American air power, but the threat of hypersonic weapons could force a reconsideration of how such aircraft are deployed in contested airspace.

The B-21 was designed with the assumption that adversaries would rely on traditional anti-air threats, such as surface-to-air missiles and fighter jets. The hypersonic missile, however, could engage even the most advanced stealth bombers at ranges far beyond the capabilities of conventional interception systems, making them vulnerable in ways previously unimagined.

The development of air-to-air hypersonic missiles represents a new frontier in aerial warfare. These weapons offer far greater ranges and speeds than traditional air-to-air missiles, which are typically limited by their reliance on radar guidance and the necessity of in-flight updates from the launching platform.

A hypersonic air-to-air missile, due to its sheer speed, could engage targets with little to no warning and without relying on extensive data links to ensure its accuracy. This dramatically changes the nature of air combat, as enemy aircraft—especially slower-moving tankers, bombers, and early warning platforms—will have limited options for evasion.

The strategic implications of this technology are profound. Air forces must now rethink their defence strategies in the face of such advanced missile technology.

The challenge is not only technological but also economic. Hypersonic systems, due to their complex engineering and high operating costs (such as the expense of running advanced wind tunnels), represent a significant investment.

As the hypersonic arms race continues, China’s lead will force its adversaries to make huge investments in defensive measures.

Bankrupting your enemy is part of Sun Tzu’s Art of War.

�
•ï¿½Category: Foreign Policy, Science •ï¿½Tags: American Military, China, China/America, Hypersonic, Technology�

The US government likes to say that it is in confrontation with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rather than against the Chinese people. The US Congress often takes pains to label its anti-China legislations as anti-CCP.

The controlled media also follows this politically correct approach to describe the US-China competition.

I often wonder why. I further wonder –

  • Do the Americans really understand what communism is?
  • Is China really ruled as a communist country?
  • Indeed, does it matter to the US what kind of political system China has?
  • Is the new cold war between US and China really over ideology?

The answer to each is no and I suspect every thinking man knows the answers at an intuitive level.

But it is fun to answer each of these questions to expose the hypocrisy the US regime uses to hide its real agenda and gaslight the indoctrinated population of its own and the collective west.

What is communism?

Wikipedia defines communism as the following –

– A sociopolitical, philosophical and economic ideology centered around public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange that allocates product to everyone in society based on need (sounds a bit idealistic and impractical but not particularly evil)

– A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the nation state (Wikipedia seems to contradict itself right off the bat – communism advocates public ownership of “means of production†rather than banning private property, a huge distinction that escapes the editors of Wikipedia)

– Communist parties are generally described as radical left or far-left (interestingly the US distaste with political radicalism seems exclusively focused on the far-left variety rather than the far-right one – Benjamin Netanyahu, Giorgia Meloni, Victor Orban, Yoon Suk Yeol are all regularly described as far right by the mainstream media in the west but they are all counted as good friends of the US regime)

– Communists are intolerant of other systems of government, preach the universality of the ideology, and advocate worldwide revolutions to spread its ideology (a striking similarity with western neoliberalism, wink wink)

Overall communism does not sound like an evil cult as far as isms go. The radical far right such as Hitler’s Nazism with its corporate totalitarianism was far more destructive to the world. But many elements of the Nazi ideology have been fully embraced by the capitalists of the west.

I digress and let’s go back to the topic at hand.

Is China a Communist country?

China cannot be more different from the model “communist†country the USSR.

– China does have public ownership of most critical means of production (e.g. land, infrastructure, utilities, education system, healthcare system, banking, etc.).

But private ownership co-exist – including all above critical means of production. According to the World Bank, the private sector in China (including foreign owned businesses) contribute 60% of GDP, 80% urban employment and 90% of new jobs.

– Private ownership is hardly banned in China. China has the second highest number of billionaires after the US. China has one of the world’s highest home ownership (~93%). Private savings in China is greater than the US. The Chinese own more cars than the Americans.

Telsa owns its China giga-factory 100% which produces over 50% of its global production. Apple, VW, BMW, GM, Starbucks, P&G, HSBC Bank, PriceWaterhouse all have massive operations in China and count China as one of their largest markets globally.

Some of the most successful Chinese businesses are privately owned including Huawei, BYD, CATL, DJI, Alibaba, Tencent, ByteDance.

– China puts national sovereignty as one of its most important foreign policy pillars. It discourages immigration or outside influences to dilute its civilization and nation state. China celebrates its civilizational uniqueness. China hardly has a communist globalist worldview.

– China has no interest and no record to influence other countries’ government systems or domestic policies. It has a firm non-interference policy as the basis of state-to-state relationship. It has no treaty alliances with any foreign state. It doesn’t have or export a universalist ideology or “value†system like the USSR or the US for that matter. There is no Communist Internationale and no satellite states.

China wants to change the US or any other country as much as it wants to have a root canal.

If you read the CCP mission statement, the aspirations are simple enough –

  • Improve the standard of living for the Chinese people
  • Defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country
  • Modernization of the economy and science and technology
  • Rejuvenation of the Chinese civilization and restoration of the Chinese nation to its rightful historical position as a rich and powerful country

These are all internally focused goals. Nowhere to be found are aspirations to spread worldwide communist revolutions or abolish private ownership or roll back capitalism.

I encourage anyone to name a country in the world which honestly believes it is a potential ideological victim of the CCP.

When you compare the definition of communism with the governance and economic realities in China, you realize that to label China as “Communist China†is akin to label the Habsburg monarchy the “Holy Roman Empire†– famously known as neither holy nor Roman.

China is as communistic as Federal Express is federal.

Does it matter what system of government China has?

If the US regime is against communist, it certainly has not exhibited the same level of hostility towards other communist countries such as Vietnam, which it is actively courting in the hope of getting Vietnam to align with the US to confront China.

Historically the US regime has been very comfortable partnering with all sorts of “undesirable†nondemocratic governments from the Arab sheikdoms to Latin American and Asian military dictatorships to European and Middle Eastern terrorist organizations –

– In post WWII Germany, the US regime put Reinhard Gehlen, a former Nazi SS officer and mass murderer, as the first president of West Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND); two former Nazis, Walter Scheel and Heinrich Lubke, served as West German Presidents during US occupation.

– In post war Japan, the US undermined the popular local communist party and allied with the Yakuza mafia to put the mob affiliated Liberal Democratic Party in power, which has been running Japan essentially as a one-party state to this day.

– In Korea, the US installed the local collaborators of the Japanese colonizers immediately after WWII to run the South Korean government. It then supported the military dictator Park Chung Hee. The military dictatorship lasted decades and violently oppressed unions and students – the country enjoys its own Wikipedia entry called List of Massacres in South Korea. All this occurred during US military occupation and was tacitly approved by the American overlord.

– In the Chinese renegade province of Taiwan, the US regime supported the military rule and martial law imposed by Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo until 1987. The US regime would not mind a bit to have a North Korea-like family dynasty in Taiwan as long as it remains a client state.

�

China continues to push the boundaries of hypersonic technology. The latest test of the MD-19 – an aircraft dropped from a TB-001 drone and a high altitude balloon in two separate tests, capable of reaching hypersonic speeds and then landing horizontally on a runway – is yet another breakthrough in military aerial technology.

The MD-19 was shown being air-launched from a Tengden TB-001, a medium-altitude long-endurance [MALE] combat drone developed by Sichuan Tengden.

Another video showed the MD-19 being released from near-orbital altitude using a high-altitude balloon.

This suggests the platform is being tested under varied conditions to assess its performance across different launch platforms and different phases of flight.

The test flights highlight China’s increasing ability to combine unmanned platforms with hypersonic technology, offering greater operational flexibility and reducing energy costs.

The exact timing of these tests remains unclear, though some reports suggest they may have started as early as 2020.

The MD-19 sports the logos of the Institute of Mechanics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (IMCAS). It is a member of the same family of hypersonic aircrafts first displayed in the 2022 Zhuhai Airshow. At the Zhuhai show, a model named MD-22 was displayed.

MD-19 has been developed by the same team behind the MD-22 that includes IMCAS, as well as the Guangdong Aerodynamic Research Academy (GARA).

MD-22 has a wedge-shaped main fuselage, delta wings, and twin canted vertical tails with retractable tricycle landing gear. The MD-22 design has been stated to be close to 11 meters long, wingspan of 4.5 meters, an empty weight of one ton, a maximum take-off weight of four tons, a peak speed of Mach 7, and a maximum range of 8,000 kilometers.

What makes the MD-19 truly noteworthy, however, is its ability to land horizontally on a conventional runway after completing its mission. This capability – a world first for a hypersonic aircraft configuration – could represent a major step forward in reusability and operational efficiency.

Most hypersonic platforms are single-use – they either burn up in the atmosphere or are destroyed on impact. The MD-19 rewrites that playbook. After being launched into the air and achieving hypersonic speeds, it has the ability to slow down, stabilize, and land on a conventional runway. This isn’t just an innovation – it’s a massive logistical advantage.

– First, the ability to reuse such an aircraft dramatically reduces costs and allows for frequent testing or operational missions.

– Second, horizontal landing means rapid turnaround and preparation for the next flight, which would be critical in real combat scenarios.

– Third, it’s a clear demonstration of technological capabilities that few nations can match.

The ability of drones to fly at hypersonic speeds and land horizontally would revolutionize a range of military and strategic capabilities, from rapid deployment to enhanced survivability in contested airspace.

The development of such technologies could reshape the way advanced systems are deployed in both military and commercial applications.

The TB-001 drone’s role as a carrier also adds a layer of tactical versatility. Acting as a launch platform, the TB-001 can deploy the MD-19 deep into contested airspace while maintaining a lower profile, reducing the risk of early detection and interception.

This combination of stealth and strategic reach could make it an ideal delivery system for future hypersonic weapons or reconnaissance missions.

Tengden’s TB-001 is a well-established design, versions of which are in operational service with the PLA. Though the TB-001 has been shown with various weapons loaded on pylons under its wings in the past, this appears to be the first time it has been seen launching another uncrewed platform in flight.

Another very interesting development – at the 2024 Zhuhai Airshow, GARA displayed a concept for an unpowered hypersonic boost-glide weapon called the GDF-600 designed to be loaded with various submunitions.

Launching payloads of any kind from a platform traveling at hypersonic speed presents significant technological challenges because of the physical and thermal stresses involved, particularly during separation. The MD-series vehicles could be useful for proving out such a capability.

An MD-series platform used to demonstrate how a high-altitude hypersonic air vehicle could perform missions like kinetic strike or intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), would be a clear stepping stone to an operational capability. Even smaller, shorter-range variations could be used in a similar role as the WZ-8 or even as missiles.

In summary, China’s military aerial technology development is nothing short of breath-taking. As these weapon systems are operationalized and deployed, China will define the future of air wars.

�
•ï¿½Category: Foreign Policy •ï¿½Tags: American Military, China/America, South China Sea�

The Australia-based think tank ASPI recently published its 2024 Critical Technology Tracker, an annual analysis of leading scientific and research innovations in future critical technologies across the world.

The report tracks 64 technologies in 8 meta categories ranging from AI, space, defence, quantum, biotech, material science and telecommunications.

It focuses on high impact research, defined as the top 10% most highly cited papers, as a leading indicator of a country’s research performance and potential future S&T capabilities.

I have been following the comparative science and technology development in China and the US for years.

The Belfer Center at Harvard Kennedy School published a research paper titled The Great Tech Rivalry: China vs. the US in 2021. It was led by Professor Graham Allison, famous for his book Destined for War about the “Thucydides’ Trap†between the two countries.

While the paper was very insightful and highlighted the performance of the two countries in fields ranging from AI, 5G, quantum science, semiconductors, biotech to green energy. It was a one-off effort and cannot provide a trendline of the rivalry over time.

It was also limited to only a comparison between China and the US without any data about other countries.

This is why I have followed ASPI’s annual reports with great interest for several years now. The ongoing research tracks data that date back to 2003. And it keeps its tracking at a granular specific technology level in 8 meta-categories of critical tech. Its coverage is global.

I believe the China-US competition fundamentally will be centered on science and technology, which is the foundational capability for both countries’ long-term economic and military strength.

Mr. Wang Huning is the 4th highest ranked Chinese official and widely acknowledged as the brain trust for the Chinese leadership in the last 3 decades. He was a professor of Political Science at Fudan University in early 1990s and wrote the famous book America Against America in an analysis of American society after spending 6 months as a visiting scholar in the US in 1988-89.

In his seminal book, Mr. Wang pointed out “to surpass the US, you must surpass them in science and technologyâ€. The rest of the book is very incisive as well and I highly recommend.

His thinking has greatly influenced the Chinese government’s strategy to invest heavily in R&D for long-term economic development. The official lingo of “new quality productive force†captures the concept of leveraging S&T to promote innovation in Chinese economy.

Here I’ll summarize some of the key findings of the ASPI Critical Technology Tracker report for 2024 –

– The report covers 8 key tech categories

o Advanced Information and Communication Technologies

o Advanced Materials and Manufacturing

o AI Technologies

o Biotech, Gene Technologies and Vaccines

o Defence, Space, Robotics and Transportation

o Energy and Environment

o Quantum Technologies

o Sensing, Timing and Navigation

�

– Within each, specific technologies are tracked. Altogether there are 64 technologies tracked. A few examples –

o Optical communication, undersea wireless communication, high performance computing, mesh and infrastructure independent networks are specific technologies covered in Advanced Information and Communication Tech

o Data analytics, machine learning, AI algorithms and hardware accelerators, natural language processing, adversarial AI are covered in the AI Technologies category

o Aircraft engine, hypersonic detection and tracking, drones/swarming/collaborative robots, space launch systems are covered within Defence, Space, Robotics and Transport category

o Composite materials, coatings, high-spec machining process, nanoscale materials and manufacturing, advanced explosives and energy materials are covered in the Advanced Materials category

China currently leads in 57 of the 64 technologies in the 5 year period between 2019 and 2023. US leads in 7. There has been a stunning shift of research leadership over the past two decades from the US to China.

o China led 52 of the 64 technologies in the 5 year period between 2018 and 2022 in the 2023 report; it took the lead in 5 more technologies one year later

o US led in 60 of the 64 technologies between 2003 and 2007

o China led in only 3 of the 64 technologies between 2003 and 2007

The leadership competition for these critical technologies is basically between China and the US. Europe and rest of Asia (Korea, Japan, India, Singapore) play a secondary role. In most fields, the lead China and US have over the rest of the world is massive.

�

China leads in all technologies in 3 meta categories – Advanced Information and Communication, Advanced Materials and Manufacturing, Energy and Environment.

�

The US leads in several technologies within the other 5 meta categories. The total 7 technologies the US leads are –

o Natural language processing with AI category

o Gen editing, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy, and vaccines and medical countermeasures in Biotech, Gene and Vaccines category

o Small satellites in Defence, Space, Robotics and Transportation category

o Quantum computing in Quantum category. The other Quantum technologies tracked are post-quantum cryptography, quantum communication, and quantum sensors. China leads in these.

o Atomic clocks in the Sensing, Timing and Navigation category

– Very interestingly, ASPI also tracks a special category of technologies called Unique AUKUS Technologies since ASPI is Australian and Australia is part of the AUKUS group.

o China leads in all three technologies in this category: autonomous underwater vehicles, electronic warfare, and air-independent propulsion technology. Obviously these are all in the military domain.

�

Apart from tracking which country leads in the high-impact research in those critical technologies, ASPI also attempts to measure the risk of countries holding a monopoly in research.

The analysis is based on the share of high-impact research outputs and the number of leading institutions the dominant country has.

The result of the monopoly risk analysis is –

China is the lead country in everyone one of the technologies classified as “high risk†– meaning China is the only country globally with a “monopoly†in high impact research of any technologies; US may have a lead in certain technologies but does not pose a monopoly risk

24 of the 64 technologies are at high risk of Chinese monopoly – meaning Chinese scientists and Chinese institutions are doing an overwhelming share (over 75%) of high impact research in these fields.

Such high monopoly risk fields include many with defence applications such as radar, advanced aircraft engines, drones/swarming/collaborative robots and satellite positioning and navigation.

ASPI also identifies the institutions that are leading such research work in each country. Here is the result –

�
•ï¿½Category: Foreign Policy, Science •ï¿½Tags: China/America, Technology�

There are many interesting arguments about which elite university in the US has done the most damage to the country – some claim Harvard business school have produced the greediest CEOs who have ruined the country’s industrial capitalism; some say Yale is the cradle of deep state actors filled with its Skull and Bones members.

I think University of Chicago is a strong contender for the race. At least on two fronts, Chicago has done irreparable damages to the US.

– On the economic front, the Chicago school of economics led by Milton Friedman came into prominence after Reagan’s election. This rebranded Austrian school of economics is chiefly responsible for the financialization of the US economy.

This school of economic thinking goes directly against the classic economics of Adam Smith, David Richardo and John Stuart Mill.

It promotes a fundamentalist free market concept, featuring privatization, deregulation, and formation of trusts.

The resultant financialization of the economy directly led to deindustrialization and a crumbling of manufacturing and the real production and consumption economy.

It gave birth to popular business practices such as asset-light strategy, offshoring and outsourcing which have hollowed out the productive economy.

The current US economic system is a rentier oligarchic system where financial parasites feed on the real economy and will eventually subsume it.

This economic system has led to unprecedented wealth gap and societal polarization.

– On the political front, long time University of Chicago political scientist Leo Strauss was the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism ideology.

The ideology promotes hegemonic imperial designs based on militarism, racial supremacy, and fervent Zionism. The neocons have adopted an Israel-first expansionist foreign policy coupled with aggressive military postures across the world.

The neocons are directly responsible for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. These wars have cost taxpayers over $7 trillion, estimated by Brown University’s Watson School.

Interestingly Leo Strauss studied in Germany under Carl Schmitt, the chief Nazi legal scholar and political theorist.

Strauss’ students at the University of Chicago include some of the most renowned neocons such as Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Samuel Huntington who invented the Clash of Civilization concept to justify the hawkish US military expansionism.

The hardline neocon support of Israeli genocide in Gaza and Lebanon has destroyed US reputation, making a mockery of its hypocritical advocacy of human rights and freedom.

Interestingly, both Milton Friedman and Leo Strauss are Jewish. Most of the neoliberal free market economists and neoconservative foreign policy makers are also Jewish.

These include Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Paul Krugman, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Paul Bremer, Douglas Feith, Madeleine Albright, Robert Kagan, Irving Kristol, Victoria Nuland.

Collectively, these Jewish economic and foreign policy makers have done great damage to the world.

The intellectual takeover of the University of Chicago by the Jews is a reflection of the Jewish takeover of the US. This takeover is leading to the bankruptcy of the US economic and political systems.

The parasites have won and will consume the host.

�
•ï¿½Category: Economics, Ideology •ï¿½Tags: Chicago School, Jews, Neoliberalism�

It seems a good time to continue exploring the Zionist conspiracy as Syria fell unexpectedly last week to terrorist rebels. Israel seems to have scored a major victory.

After all, it has been a long-term Israeli ambition to balkanize its major opponents in the region. Since the 1980s, the Israeli military strategist Oded Yinon articulated a strategy to balkanize the entire middle east into ethnic mini-states that will fight amongst each other and incapable of resisting Israel collectively.

The Yinon Plan was the original blueprint for regional changes planned by George W Bush after 911 that General Wesley Clark, ex-NATO commander, revealed in a TV interview. He stated as far back as late 2001, the Pentagon already drafted an attack matrix to take out 7 countries in 5 years in the middle east – Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Somali, Sudan, and Iran. All are enemies of Israel.

Although it is taking longer than the original 5 year plan, Israel has successfully maneuvered the US to destabilize 6 of the seven with Syria being the most recent. Iran is the lone state standing in the way of Zionist victory in the middle east.

We can trace back the Zionist strategy to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. We’ll only focus on Protocol 5 for this part.

– “For a time perhaps we might be successfully dealt with by a coalition of the goyim: but from this danger we are secured by the discord existing among them whose roots are so deeply seated that they can never be plucked up. We have set one against another the personal and national reckonings of the goyim, religious and race hatreds, which we have fostered into a huge growth.†The present day Israeli exploitation of the Sunni, Shiia divide and the conflicts among the Arabs, Kurds, and the Turks is a clear example of this strategy.

– “Per me reges regnant – it is through me that Kings reign. It was said by the prophets that we were chosen by God Himself to rule over the whole earth. God has endowed us with genius that we may be equal to our task…All the wheels of the machinery of all States go by the force of the engine, which is in our hands, and that engine is – Gold. The science of political economy invented by our learned elders has been giving to royal prestige to capital. Capital, if it is to cooperate untrammelled, must be free to establish a monopoly of industry and trade: this is already being put in execution by an unseen hand in all quarters of the world. This freedom will give political force to those engaged in industry, and that will help to oppress the peopleâ€. This explains the Zionist strategy to pollute politics through money and control other nation states as their puppets through capital, which is largely in jewish hands in the west today. I wonder how US policy makers would make of this Zionist protocol😊

– “The principal object of our directorate consists in this: to debilitate the public mind by criticism to lead it away from serious reflections calculated to arouse resistance to distract the forces of the mind towards a sham fight of empty eloquenceâ€. Can anyone describe as eloquently about western politics today as the elders of Zion of yesteryear? More to come…

– “In all ages the peoples of the world have accepted words for deeds, for they are content with a show and rarely pause to note, in the public arena, whether promises are followed by performance. Therefore we shall establish show institutions which will give eloquent proof of their benefit to progressâ€. Who can doubt the present day US presidential electoral process as the “biggest show on earthâ€? The elders of Zion have certainly delivered.

– “In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make the goyim lose their heads in the labyrinth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters politicalâ€. Again the elders of Zion have succeeded spectacularly here. Today’s media in the west, mostly under Jewish control, is filled with so much noise, falsehood and disinformation that the population is literally dizzy and ready to embrace demagogues like Trump (a hardened bought-and-paid-for Zionist) who will be their messiah.

– “To multiply to such an extent national failings, habits, passions, conditions of civil life, that it will be impossible for anyone to know where he is in the resulting chaos, so that the people in consequence will fail to understand each other. This measure will also serve to sow discord in all parties, to dislocate all collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us, and to discourage any kind of personal initiative which might in any degree hinder our affair.†Here is the old Machiavellian divide and conquer tactic. I am not sure jews invented it but they are quite adept at using it. How much of the social polarization and political disfunction in the west is a result of Jewish media and academic spinnings?

– “By all these means we shall so wear down the goyim that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a nature that by its position will enable us without any violence gradually to absorb all the state forces of the world and to form a super government…of such colossal dimensions that it cannot fail to subdue all nations of the worldâ€. This is the ultimate Zionist goal of global domination. The jews are using the US as a proxy to execute the vision as Israel or the jews are not strong enough to attempt this on their own. But they certainly believe Zionism will be the hidden force behind the King – PER ME REGES REGNANT.

This protocol sounds like it’s taken from a page written by anti-NIO (new international order), anti-globalist, anti-WEF (world economic forum) conspiracy theorists. You might be disturbed but discount it.

Regardless, we have at least managed to trace its origin to a 19th century Zionist pamphlet.

�
•ï¿½Category: History, Ideology •ï¿½Tags: Anti-Semitism, Conspiracy Theories, Gaza, Israel/Palestine, Jews�

It is hardly an exaggeration to say a military conflict is a high probability event between China and the US in the coming decade. There are flash points in the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea and the East China Sea.

Rhetoric from the American officialdom and media clearly signals the US plans to militarily confront China and stop its economic, trade, and technological developments. Its fleets of ships and airplanes are constantly circling Chinese shore. It is mobilizing its lackeys in the region to fight on its side.

Mutual hostility is at the point for war to break out.

This won’t be a WWI type of sleepwalking into a war. Everyone knows a showdown is coming.

How ready are China and the US in the coming war? What outcome should we expect in such a confrontation absent a nuclear exchange where everyone loses and life on earth is over?

I think there are at least 5 areas to investigate in comparing the two countries’ preparedness for war and predicting the likely outcome –

1. Capacity to sustain a high intensity warfare

· The Ukraine war and the Middle Eastern conflicts have shown that modern wars between peer belligerents will be long, bloody, expensive, and above all, highly dependent on war production and logistics.

· China has a 3 to 1 advantage versus the US in overall industrial capacity and an unquantifiable advantage in surge capacity. China’s share of global manufacturing output is 35% vs. 12% for the US. China has idle or mothballed capacity for almost all major industrial products from steel to electronics to vehicles to ship building to drones.

· Such capacity advantage applies to the defense industry.

· Much of Chinese industrial capacity is state-owned and can be easily mobilized for defense production. All major defense firms are state owned and produce for purpose, rather than profit.

· China’s cost, speed, and scale advantages in industrial production are not in dispute while the US suffers from well-documented cost and production schedule issues in its military industrial complex.

· It’s safe to say China enjoys the same pole position in its capacity to sustain a long war as the US enjoyed in WWII. China has an overwhelming industrial superiority that the US has never experienced with any adversaries in its history.

2. Geography and military posture

· The war will be fought in China’s shores or near abroad – possibly Japan and the Philippines. Much of the action will happen in a radius that can be covered by Chinese intermediate range missiles and land-based bombers and fighters.

· The nearest US territory will be Guam, 4,800 kilometers away. The US does have military bases in Japan, Korea and the Philippines. But these countries will take the risk of being bombarded by China if they allow these bases to be used against China. It’s unclear how they will choose despite the hawkish rhetoric expressed in their pledge of allegiance to the US. One can talk tough now but act quite differently when facing certain destruction.

· In essence, the war will be one between a landed fortress and an expeditionary air and maritime force. For most of the history of war, ships lose to fortress.

3. Military doctrines and capabilities

· The US military has never stopped fighting after WWII. There are a number of embedded assumptions in its military doctrines from that experience:

i. Technically inferior enemies with weapons like IED

ii. Uncontested battle field

iii. Low intensity warfare where you can evacuate wounded and safely retreat

iv. Safe sanctuaries in rear bases where resupplies are unthreatened

v. Immunity from counter attacks, especially US homeland

vi. Quantitative and qualitative superiority in weaponry and training

vii. Intelligence asymmetry from ISR platforms, space-based assets, and signal intelligence

viii. Politically weak opponents with low morale and lack of general support from the population

· None of these US military assumptions apply in a war with China and will be a liability rather than asset. The muscle memory of the US military will be deadly to itself in the coming war.

· Chinese military doctrines have been honed for the last 70+ years around territorial defense and Taiwan reunification. The explicit mission of the PLA is to ensure the success of a war in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea.

· The specific war doctrine for these scenarios is called Anti Access Area Denial (A2AD). The essence is to deny enemy access to the theater of war and inflict unacceptable losses for any intervention.

· The A2AD system is composed of –

i. A large arsenal of cruise and ballistic missiles, many with hypersonic capabilities

ii. Space-based intelligence and munition guidance assets

iii. Manned and unmanned air, ship and submarine assets

iv. Networked warfare focused on Informationization and intelligentization

v. In short, a high tech system of systems war fighting technologies and capabilities

· These assets bear no resemblance of anything the US military has fought against before.

· China also brings to the battle no presumptions about the enemy and their capabilities since the Chinese military has been peaceful for over 40 years. Despite the lack of experience, the upside is such a military will adapt to changing war environment more rapidly and adjust its strategies and tactics under the circumstances. There is no bad habits or assumptions to unlearn.

4. Will to fight

· One often overlooked aspect of war is the will to fight. It comes down to why the military is putting their lives on the line. In a peer to peer situation, the party that can endure the most pain for the longest will prevail.

· China is fighting for its territorial integrity and its national pride. It has the collective will of the population firmly behind it. The US is fighting to maintain its hegemonic rule in an imperialist adventure. The pain threshold of its society is much lower. Put it bluntly, China is much more casualty tolerant than the US will ever be in a war at China’s door step.

· Cost of failure calculation differs completely. For the Chinese, losing a war is an existential threat. No government can hope to retain its legitimacy if it backs down from a war when the barbarians are at the gate. For the US, it’s just a chess board move in the “great gameâ€. Losing a war in Taiwan or SCS is a setback but doesn’t represent an existential problem.

· The late Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew summarized the stakes well – “China will fight a second time, a third time until it wins when it comes to Taiwan and will never give upâ€. Can the US say that about its commitment?

5. Track record

· I have always found it puzzling how track record is a big part of evaluating the potential fit and likely success of a job candidate while the pundits seldom even mention it when talking about wars

· The US has a very spotty track record in wars after WWII despite having a military budget that dwarfs the rest of the world. It practically lost every war except the 1991 first gulf war against Iraq.

· Interestingly, China was the first country that broke the US string of military successes when China pushed the US back from the Yalu River to the 38th Parallel and fought the US and its allies to a standstill in the Korean peninsular in the early 1950s. McArthur was forced to resign from the defeat.

· China did that when it had to send a poorly equipped peasant army after 4 years’ bloody civil war. China’s GDP in that time was less than 5% of the US, which was at the pinnacle of its military and economic power after WWII.

�
•ï¿½Category: Foreign Policy •ï¿½Tags: American Military, China, China/America, South China Sea, Taiwan�

The swift fall of Syria raises an uncomfortable question – has the Russian intelligence been asleep at the wheel as the protector of the Syrian state? Why hasn’t Russia reacted more strongly to push back the advances by the terrorists?

When Iran was attacked by Israel in the most recent exchange in October, Russia clearly also failed to provide Iran with adequate air defense or retaliatory strike capabilities despite their security partnership.

Similarly, why hasn’t Putin reacted more forcefully when Ukraine and the west crossed his red line of using long-range cruise missiles to attack Russia proper?

He did launch an experimental conventional hypersonic weapon, the Oreshnik. But he didn’t destroy any high profile targets or send a message that the west paid much attention to. In fact, the Ukrainians have launched more ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles into Russia in the wake of the Oreshnik strike.

This is the same passiveness that defined the beginning of the special military operation in Feb 2022. Too small a force was amassed (less than 190,000 men) and nothing like the American shock-and-awe strike on Iraq was launched. The whole thing felt like a half-hearted attempt to intimidate Ukraine to the negotiation table. The Russians clearly were not ready to fight a real war.

When the US destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline, the Russians were not even forceful enough to condemn it after Sy Hersh published his expose. Is the Russian GRU completely useless or too fearful to offend the US?

In his recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Lavrov, Putin’s foreign minister, went out of his way to say Russia is not at war with the US and the west when Putin himself said if the US allowed Ukraine to attack Russian territory with ATACMS, NATO would be at war with Russia. Why was Lavrov backing down now?

While I admire Putin for his cool demeanor and rational logical thinking, he is certainly not proactive or realistic about the world he lives in, and thus lacks the decisive leadership that the head of a threatened country needs.

He and Lavrov are overly legalistic in their interpretation of events around them and seem to want to win an argumentative victory in the world opinion court. However, even the lame duck octogenarian POTUS has had no hesitation to raise the stakes and unshackle the inner beast of the empire.

Disturbingly, Putin seems to fall short of standing up to the US and the west in the escalation cycle – this doesn’t bode well for the world as the US has shown repeatedly there is no red line it’s not willing to cross until there is real pushback.

Is Putin up to dealing with an existential threat? And Xi must learn from these lessons.

�

United Healthcare is in the news these days after its CEO was killed by a gunman in New York. The words Delay, Deny, and Depose were inscribed on the bullet casing.

Clearly the killing was motivated by a grievance against the company and the industry in general.

United Healthcare stands out as a particularly vicious player in one of the most despised industries in the US. It has an industry leading claim denial rate of 32%. It uses AI to process most claims and has an astounding 90% error rate (I wonder what they used to train such an AI system – a database of anti-social psychopath precedents:).

The company has no doubt ruined countless lives and families. One commentator on YouTube pointed out, hilariously, that this is a killing with millions of potential suspects. 77,000 smile and celebration emojis were posted on United Healthcare’s Facebook page announcing the death of its CEO before the page was taken down. And the sentiment expressed about the incident has been overwhelmingly sympathetic to the killer.

It seems the only people paying respect to the dead are the politicians who have received political donations from the healthcare industry.

What does this incident say about the state of healthcare business in the US, the largest industry representing 18% GDP? What does it say about the general state of the shareholder capitalism and corpocracy in the country?

This calls in mind the recent scandal involving Boeing and the quality problems with its aircrafts. Can consumers have faith in businesses that put profit ahead of safety and the welfare of its customers?

The list of such corporate malfeasance is long and varied. Many once household names suffer massive negative public image problem and a collapse of consumer trust.

One fundamental reason behind this zero-sum game played by corporations against their own customers is the drive for profit, all under the philosophy of so called shareholder value maximization.

This goes hand-in-hand with the fundamentalist neoliberal free market dictates advocated by the University of Chicago school of economics led by Milton Friedman since the 1980s.

– Deregulation – instead of government providing oversight on businesses so that they adhere to basic rules of consumer protection and product safety, the government delegates such oversight to the businesses they are supposed to regulate. A case in point is Boeing, who issues its own airworthiness certification on behalf of FAA. Similarly, most healthcare legislations are written by lobbyists working for healthcare insurers and big pharm on the Capitol.

– Privatization – according to the same free-market economic philosophies, governments in the west have pursued aggressive privatization of public services and infrastructure with disastrous results – higher prices, poorer services, job losses. The US government has privatized basic state functions such as prison system and war fighting (e.g. Blackwater mercenaries). The UK government privatized Thames Water, the water utility for greater London, which has led to increased water prices, poorer water quality, lack of maintenance and a variety of other issues for its 13 million customers.

Exasperating the situation, private equity is running rampant buying up low-cost housing, nursing homes, medical practices, etc. The highly leveraged buyouts and takeovers have directly contributed to increasing cost of living and reduced services in affected businesses. These malpractices are well documented in Brendan Ballou’s book Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America.

– Profit obsession – as stock price becomes the sole criteria to evaluate business performance, executives are focused on cost cutting, outsourcing, and financial engineering (loading up debt or share buybacks) to improve the bottom line.

One good example of this profit obsession that will really hurt the country at some point is the military industrial complex in the US. As the defence industry is privately owned in the US, companies are effectively organized as a cartel with 5 top defence contractors taking up 90% market share. There is little motivation to compete on costs as profit is guaranteed in a cost plus procurement system.

These defence companies produce overengineered systems that are extremely expensive and take a long time to produce. The military industrial complex has become, in effect, a money laundering scheme to enrich the companies and the politicians at the expense of taxpayers.

As a result, despite having a military budget bigger than the next 10 countries combined, the US cannot even produce enough ammunition for its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, barely the high intensity war it needs to fight with China or Russia directly.

This profit obsession has also led to the kind of management practices as with the railway operators. They have reduced the number of workers per train, increased the railcar length and weight, cut back on maintenance and safety measures and implemented so-called precision scheduled railroading (basically maximizing the hours worked by the staff).

The direct result is repeated rail accidents like the derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The US reports 10,000 railway accidents per year, which makes it the worst performing rail safety country in the world behind India.

– Weak leadership – the profit focus of US shareholder capitalism has directly led to the rise of professional managers with background as bean counters rather than engineers or technologists, who barely understand the products of their own companies.

As the goals of businesses have increasingly become purely financial, financial engineers are becoming CEOs rather than real engineers. This is what happened to once iconic companies like GE, Intel, and Boeing which all have such financially-oriented CEOs preceding their decline. This phenomenon is well documented in David Gelles’ book The Man Who Broke Capitalism – How Jack Welch Gutted the Heartland and Crushed the Soul of Corporate America.

The killing of the United Healthcare CEO is a tragic consequence of shareholder capitalism taken to the extreme. The result of unhinged financialized capitalism as practiced in the US today will eventually lead to violent revolutions by its population as the interests of the elites are diagonally opposite the mass.

Hopefully that day will soon come.

�
•ï¿½Category: Economics •ï¿½Tags: Healthcare, Inequality�

In the last 3 years since the Russia special military operation started in Ukraine, little Britain seems to have a new lease on life in European politics and military posture.

It has taken an extremely hawkish stance against Russia – Boris Johnson personally sabotaged the April 2022 peace negotiation between Russia and Ukraine; it has provided the most arms aid to Ukraine of all European countries; it is the first to approve long-range strike into Russia territory; it actively talks about sending troops into the conflict.

What is going on? What is behind the belligerence of a smallish country that cannot back up its tough words with hard power?

Russia can easily wipe little Britain off the map. Why is it seemingly desperate to prod Russia to do exactly that?

A look at the country seems to indicate there can be no rational basis for such reckless agitation:

– Little Britain is a small island country with less than 50 million population excluding Scotland and Northern Ireland, which don’t really belong with the chauvinistic English.

– Its economy has been stagnant for two decades; it keeps dropping from year to year on the league table of largest economies in the world and will soon fall behind Indonesia and Brazil, probably Mexico in the coming decade.

– The country has the dubious honor of having the worst performing European economy after its reckless Brexit and it has yet to bounce back to 2008 income level.

– The country is bankrupt according to its own finance minister. It can no longer afford luxuries such as the national health system. A quarter of its population need to choose between heating their homes and food. A million children live below poverty line.

– Its full embrace of fundamentalist free market ideologies since Thatcher has deindustrialized the country and the tenacles of City of London has taken over its public utilities, education, and health systems.

– Little Britain’s primary source of income today is money laundering for American arms dealers, Russian oligarchs, Middle Eastern sheiks, African dictators, and Latin American drug lords. Britain is now widely known as a third-world country attached to the City of London with its ill-gotten riches. (refer to the book Treasure Islands by Nicholas Shaxson)

– The country has a military force that cannot fill one 80,000-person football stadium. Its aircraft carriers have no aircrafts on them and break down as regularly as a 1970s VW Beatles.

– It has no friends in Europe; its main support network is the 5-eye Anglosphere that composes of one hegemon, which Britain kowtows to, and 3 minor inconsequential nobodies.

– Most people in the world, from Asia to the Middle East to Africa, harbor bitter memories of its brutal colonial transgressions in the past 200 years. Little Britain is widely despised and hated.

The days of empire are long gone for the Brits and will never come back. Its glory in the 19th century was a historical aberration that has been permanently rectified.

What explains the viciousness of little Britain and its diabolic elites?

I don’t pretend to know enough about the origin of the British venom or the psych of its ruling elites. But history shows it is certainly one of the most malicious and poisonous actors in world history.

The British is the maritime equivalent of the land-based nomad bandits such as Genghis Khan’s mongols or the Khzaria jews in central Asia. Violence and criminality seem hard-wired into its DNA.

Here is a select list of its crimes in the last 3 centuries:

– Little Britain fought the Chinese Qing dynasty so that it could force opium on China. The Opium War is named after a criminal act – a country waging a war to force illegal drugs on its trading partner so to balance its deficit. And the opium came from India, a country it brutally colonized and genocided.

– It burned down the Old Summer Palace in Beijing after looting it for months and setting fire to what they couldn’t steal away.

– Little Britain invaded Scotland and Ireland and starved one third of the population of these independent countries. The movie Braveheart provided a vivid example of the wantonness and viciousness of the lowly brits.

– It massacred native Americans in the millions and brought plague to the pristine continent to make way for the Virginia company in Jamestown.

– Little Britain instigated the US Civil War between the north and the south. London was preparing to send the British Navy to aid the Confederate Army until the Russians stepped in and saved the Union. The Russian fleet spent the winter of 1868 in New York and San Francisco to fend off the British.

– Little Britain killed 3-400 million Indians during its colonial rule there. It stole as much as $34 trillion worth of wealth according to scholarly research (refer to the Inglorious Empire: what the British did to India by Shashi Tharoor)

– On its way out, it didn’t forget to leave time bombs by partitioning India and Pakistan with Kashmir’s status in dispute. The tension between the two south Asia neighbors directly traces back to British manipulation.

– It did the same thing to draw the arbitrary McMahon Line between China and India without participation of either country. This illegal demarcation line is at the roots of China India border dispute to this day.

– Little Britain gave Palestinian land to the jews in a private transaction between Arthur Balfour and Walter Rothchild. The brits had no right to give to the jews something that didn’t belong to them. Ever since, little Britain has been a fervent supporter of militant Zionism and has been complicit with the ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Palestine for the last 75 years.

– It is one of the most brutal colonizers in Africa, killing as many as half a million Kenyans during the Mau Mau rebellion. Its massacres in Kenya are so numerous that Wikipedia has an entire catalogue dedicated to them called “British Massacres in Kenyaâ€.

– Even today, little Britain illegally occupies the Malvinas Island off Argentina and the Chagos Archipelago that belongs to Mauritius.

– Little Britain boasts of the world’s largest thieves’ museum “the British museum†where there is nothing worth seeing that was not stolen from somewhere else.

– Shamelessly, they made the stolen ancient Greek sculptures from Athens Parthenon as the center piece of this thieves’ museum. To add insult to injury, it has taken to name the sculptures the “Elgin Marbles†after the thief Thomas Bruce, the earle of Elgin, who stole it from the Ottoman Empire.

– Little Britain has produced some of the worst human turds as the spokesmen for the empire such as Niall Ferguson and Pierce Morgan, who are nothing but scums that use seemingly honorable rhetoric to spin the empire’s misdeeds.

With its sordid history of gangster colonialism, little Britain today positions itself as a defender of human rights, freedom, democracy and what’s good under the sun. Of course, side by side with its once colonial property and current protector the US.

It has enthusiastically joined US crusades and adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria as a loyal lackey in the fake “war on terrorâ€.

It is the most belligerent actor in agitating to fight the Russians to the last Ukrainians.

How do we understand the behavior of little Britain? Is it the head of snake that whispers into the ears of the hegemon to create mayhem? Or is it a hapless lackey that does the bidding of its master – the US and the jews running that country?

I suspect in the minds of its ruling elite, the little brits probably think they are the puppet master pulling the strings.

�
•ï¿½Category: Foreign Policy, History •ï¿½Tags: Britain, NATO, Russia, Ukraine�
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World